Arugela

Members
  • Content Count

    929
  • Joined

Community Reputation

200 Excellent

About Arugela

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

2,747 profile views
  1. Mines old. I'm just bored. My game goes at 5 seconds per second before stuttering and then stutters are 1-1.2 seconds something per second. It's pretty slow. Actually takes me 2 hours or so to fly to orbit. So, if we ever get super planets. I'm prepared! 8) The extra parts is from the back wings being partially taken off. One is a modified normal version. Normally it's straight wings. The slanted wings might fly worse but the parts count problem can effect performance. So, I don't know if it's game performance or plane performance atm. Have to wait for improvements or if they ever go over the game and remove more garbage collection stutter. Old engines have something wrong that comes out in high parts count. Goes away now if you turn them off.
  2. Use the one in the OP. I changed the folder location and it messed it up. The aero test one has the stuff for it.(Edit: NVM, Fixed) I think the misalignment was from the lack of local/absolute. I some of it the same. But the COL is still up and back. For the first craft I managed to get the wings symetrical. It had to do with useing abolute vs local. Still don't know which is which because I can't tell if the button means it's local or changed to local... Craft: https://www.dropbox.com/s/n6c18eevhf2y0z8/KB-52 1_8_1_2686 x108 8_5.craft?dl=0 <- Normal flyable version/configuration. adjusted wings in flyable configuration. COL up and back. https://www.dropbox.com/s/m7eli5kmscnpj3n/KB-52 1_8_1_2686 x108 8_5 test.craft?dl=0 <- Aerotest version. The one the pics are taken from.
  3. Yea, that solved the unevenness part(I think, possibly not in some cases though.). But it still needs numbers to be able to see exactly where it is. With small adjustments it's almost impossible without visual references to even out wings in odd circumstances. In my case I have to over align to get a visual reference. Which means I can't figure out if two separate wings are really angles the same way in two different spots.
  4. Without snap it is impossible to get the same angle on multiple parts. We need to be able to see values to start with on all 3 axis and then have the ability to manually change them with actual values. This would solve a lot of building problems and help people both learn the game and make more interesting things. Almost everything in the game needs this done to it.
  5. I removed the flaps and it does not seem to be the issue. It move it forward a hair but not very far. Edit: I wonder if it's the COL not being the same potentially in delta wings. I've read that if you reverse them it's more towards to front or back. Maybe angling them does something weird. But it's still should be close enough to straight to not move it I would think. Unless the difference in snap being off make it move up a little. I think it's from the uneven nature of not using snap. I changed the wings with snap on and it's angles the COL backwards and moves it forwards, but it keeps it center mid line with the COM. That may be the problem. Still not sure why it angles it. I would think it would still recenter itself since they are exactly opposite. Pic in the pic section.
  6. Pics up. https://imgur.com/a/jwUaiZ1 Craft file: https://www.dropbox.com/s/n6c18eevhf2y0z8/KB-52 1_8_1_2686 x108 8_5.craft?dl=0 Craft engines are adjusted to put COM on COL. Some of the plane won't make sense. It's adjusted for demonstration purposes. To adjust the COM use adjust on the MK3 to MK2 adapter between the two large cargo bays just in front of the MK2 inline cockpit. it's a large mass of engines I moved to control the COM to the COL. They normally stack on the wings.
  7. I have a tri wing design. If I have one wing perfectly center, one above a rotated down slightly, and another below rotated up the same amount It does not recenter the COL. I'm doing a spaceplane SSTO. I tried to make the top wing tilt up a little and the bottom wing tilt down the same amount. This makes the back of the wings touch slightly. The problem is it's not keeping the COL centered back on the COM like it was previously. Before I was flying with it all perfectly inline. If I make both go up or down in the same direction the COL stays inline for the most part. But if you make them symetrical in the opposite directions it does not. I'm not too worried about forward and backwards motion. The problem is the COL moves up or down from the COM center position. I would think moving both symetrically in opposite directions would recenter it. I know it's moving in a circle slightly. I would think this would create an equalibrium though. I guess I could just make it slant up or down and be done with it but I was hoping to do this. The other problem may be that the wing is not perfectly symmetrical back to front though. The back is slightly cut off but it's centered on the plane at the widest point so the engines don't burn it up. It's like a double(Back and front) delta wing with the back not completely there. I think this could be part of the problem cut I can't figure out why it does not balance out when both are done evenly. The other problem is that I have to do with without the octegon things set that adjust it for you evenly. I have to use the circle settings to make finer adjustments and the game does not have the ability to see exactly what this is set to or a way to make sure this is even. I think I got it even but it's too far off and seems to go up too much to make sense. I'll get some pics in a bit if needed. I normally have this set with all wings perfectly level. This works ok. But I was hoping to slant them to get a wing setup for all situations. I have a tri wing so why not angle one center, one up, and one down slightly. I was hoping to get more lift on level flight. Or get better lift in an all around sense because of the lack of lift potentially when prograde. Edit: This is all on top of the fact that not using snap ensures the items are not symetrical perfectly. My wings are all copy pasts so they are identical. Nothing is different. Pics: https://imgur.com/a/jwUaiZ1 Craft: https://www.dropbox.com/s/n6c18eevhf2y0z8/KB-52 1_8_1_2686 x108 8_5.craft?dl=0 <- Normal flyable version/configuration. adjusted wings in flyable configuration. COL up and back. https://www.dropbox.com/s/m7eli5kmscnpj3n/KB-52 1_8_1_2686 x108 8_5 test.craft?dl=0 <- Aerotest version. The one the pics are taken from. Craft engines are adjusted to put COM on COL. Some of the plane won't make sense. It's adjusted for demonstration purposes. To adjust the COM use adjust on the MK3 to MK2 adapter between the two large cargo bays just in front of the MK2 inline cockpit. it's a large mass of engines I moved to control the COM to the COL. They normally stack on the wings.
  8. Well, if they did fix the reaction wheels, maybe they would make better thrusters. Or just use those proportions and make big ones! And better thrusters.
  9. My current use and reason for this is stuff that needs to be in cargo bays because they are high speed parts going at speeds with as close to burning up as possible. It's also about parts count. So, I need something with few parts and electric is also nice as it's renewable in flight. I'll take reaction wheels with more electricity per force use. I don't know why you can't have bigger ones that are more waisteful either. That is not unrealistic engineering wise. I have to get parts count down if possible. I already have large solar panels for mining. I could open up my utility bays in the case of my current ship and just use them. But less parts is preferable. Unfortenately most of the ways to become efficient are a matter of more parts count. I wish they would make everything more realistic and add real engineering solutions. Maybe let us build our own parts. Even go hypothetical, as in stuff we can build but haven't based on general engineering knowledge and let us put it all together. It would still be severely shorthanded regardless. But the more the better. Starting with the premise of building and even modding parts would be fun. We could take apart and upgrade the existing parts for instance. They might just need things to cement single parts like welder or something. BTW, in what way are current ones overpowered. Too electrically efficient? If it's raw power I don't see the issue. You can always upscale something in real life. We're not dealing with real life earth payload restriction or wahtever is the limiting factor potentially on earth. I'm assuming it's weight and whatnot. Or some other tertiary restriction from whatever their payload design or electrical designs were. If the ISS was bigger I would imagine they would have bigger reaction wheels. Plus I use my stuff on an SSTO which only needs to rotate for low gravity and stuff. So, I actually need good power and small parts count. It's not unreasonable to build them for large things like inline 3.75 and whatnot is it?
  10. Either way. we need a suite of option fitting real world examples or a way to produce parts that are produced in the real world with minimal in game abilities to change geometry and other things to fit existing parts. 8)
  11. That would be find if they didn't make all mono stuff blow up to easily. Maybe if they stopped making it impossible to go fast and turn. Or put in the mono nozzles in all the parts that hold mono and act like or had real life counters that had nozzles in those and other places. Then we wouldn't have to use the radial parts as standard. Look at the MK3 vs the real shuttle. It had lots of nozzles. some to pull away from the orange tank separation. The game, like usual, is completely underdeveloped. And in ways that should take no work or effect performance and should be easy to do and implement.
  12. Are you sitting in it?!
  13. I have a 688 - 750 part to orbit cargo plane. The bigger issue is the stutter on top of this. Without stutter it would be 1-5. 5 seconds per second on an old phenom 1100t. With stutter it's at least an extra 5 second. Stutter happens each second for 1 second each. Before 1.8 for 688 parts it was 2 seconds for tripple the delay. Without the stutter this game would have been much more playable this whole time. The stutter is connected to engines parts coding. It goes away if you turn all engines off. And air mode doesn't have an effect in space. But on the ground both closed and air breathing modes stutter with even one engine on and 0% throttle. This is amplified by the number of engines with only one engine one and the rest off. There is a base coding problem or something not resolved yet. High parts count bring this out very fast. Still not sure if anyone else get this. Is it related to hardware or software. I put up a bug thing on it but nobody has responded to help figure it out. I'm assuming these issues can be resolved in KSP1 potentially. If it's not resolved in KSP1 first I have a feeling it will be in KSP2.
  14. I don't think the problem is it's resetting so much as it's not applying them. If I go into the setting and hit apply they are there and are applied. I think it's just applying some defaults for some reason or something. My settings still exist. Although by the size of some objects it is applying a few settings but not all of them. You can tell by changing the UI settings a bit. I think the generalized settings for all UI sizes are applied but not some of the individual ones.
  15. I was about to note this in a post. I thought when I first saw it it was from some change to the Kerbal Base to add military camo as part of the version release. Finally got curious enough about it to look into it.