Svm420
-
Posts
2,002 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Svm420
-
-
I have always wondered. Could we get rid of the -5 to 0 of the G gauge? It doesn't actually function that way. Negative gees still read on the positive side. Also the throttle above 100
Just a personal peeve of mine.
-
What made you go for RPM as opposed to MAS? I thought RPM was being phased out for the new and improved MAS.
-
On 11/13/2013 at 12:15 AM, stupid_chris said:
My focus is on RealChute 2, which is coming Soon™
Is this still true?
-
Does this require anything on the docking port side of things, as in does it need special ports, or can it be used on existing docking port parts?
-
1 hour ago, Kerman Exploder said:
Sounds like a great idea. Equipment probably make more sense than MaterialKit since SandCastle is a WBI mod and should minimize the chance of any unexpected incompatibility. I'll play around with that idea. https://github.com/0xE1E10/RationalResources/tree/sandcastle I just want to make my spacecrafts are reasonably compatible with what you have in mind for future RR before I launch them on year long journeys. I'll do some field testing to shake out the bugs before sending a PR.
Yeah the lack of MetallicOre on ice makes sense. I like the Equipment idea. Hauling it to the planet makes more sense than magical Ore. :-)
For logistics, I like the conveyor belts idea. But it's probably too much part count for the KSP 1 engine. I'm currently at 20 fps even without large bases. There's an automatic supply line in WBI. https://github.com/Angel-125/WildBlueCore/blob/main/ReleaseFolder/GameData/WildBlueIndustries/00WildBlueCore/Parts/FuelTank/autoSupplier/autoSupplier.cfg https://github.com/Angel-125/WildBlueCore/blob/main/source/WildBlueCore/PartModules/Resources/ModuleSupplyLine.cs It seems to just periodically top up your tank out of thin air based on how long your supply trip took. It doesn't actually remove the resource from the source tank so the producers can be easily double booked and it no longer consume EC or produce heat since the producer is now permanently full. That really break immersion for me.
I think BonVoyage makes a lot more sense. https://github.com/jarosm/KSP-BonVoyage/wiki/ It just respawns your ship at the destination later based on EC cost, dark time, and physical distance. Resources are actually removed from the producer. You can make a supply route by planting flags at the 2 endpoints to be dedicated parking for your truck. You could use the WBI fuel pump if you don't want to hook up the tank to your truck manually. But it could still get tedious if there's a lot of supply routes. This would be my ideal supply line if I can fully automated the resource pick up/drop off and make it happen periodically on its own.
I don't like the long production chains in MKS but their supply line is much better thought out. https://github.com/UmbraSpaceIndustries/MKS/wiki/Functions-(Logistics) Basically you park a rover between 2 tanks and resources now flow between them just like the WBI fuel pump but over longer distances.
The pipeline mass driver in Pathfinder does remove source resource if I'm understanding it correctly. https://github.com/Angel-125/Pathfinder/blob/master/GameData/WildBlueIndustries/Pathfinder/Parts/BoxedParts/Pipeline2.cfg https://github.com/Angel-125/Pathfinder/blob/master/Pathfinder/ResourceDistribution/WBIPipeEndpoint.cs I might try that later.
Are you aware of the simple logistic mod. It may offer features you are looking for.
-
@MOARdV I am getting weird numbers when I use IAS for airspeed. They are quite a bit higher than what I get when I use the IAS readout in the FAR GUI. I think your formula for calculating IAS may be wrong. It at least appears different than the calculation FAR uses. It appears FAR takes the sqroot of density * pressure ratio, and you take srfspeed * Sqroot of density * pressure ratio. If you would please take a look. Happy to test any changes.
-
On 6/4/2019 at 1:00 AM, Svm420 said:
I have a request. Would you add a Q readout on the Data+Stability page of the analysis AKA pg 2. I can post the request to github if that's preferred if this could be added. Maybe static pressure too? I don't know that I need it, but just another idea. Thank you
On 6/4/2019 at 3:00 AM, dkavolis said:Sure, I'm rebuilding the UI at the moment but it's going to be a while. I'll be able to add a lot more stuff to the UI once it's done.
@dkavolis Would you still consider this request? Thanks!
-
I know it's has been discussed before, but jet engines lose too much thrust from high ambient temp. From some preliminary research it seems many modern commercial engines are flat rated to 30*C. Which makes sense when you consider these engines have to operate in conditions ranging from Alaska to Dubai. Currently in game I am getting around 75% of the rated thrust on the runway at KSC. While the ambient temp is above 30*C, it's around 35*C, it shouldn't have that drastic of a reduction if it's meant to reflect reality. While I have been unable to locate anything stating military jet engines are rated the same; I would assume they to have some flat rating to the thrust output so they can operate in whatever condition the war theater might be in. Regardless I doubt the 25% reduction in rated performance is accurate in all but the most extreme conditions. This research paper shows that even without flat rating the loss in power resulting from a deltaT of 30*C is not more than 15%. Which starting at 15*C ISA would be 45*C; Hotter than KSC.
All that is to ask can I do something from the config side to reduce power loss, or does this require a change in the assumptions of the underlying simulation? While I can just up thrust numbers to get rated thrust on the ground this will result in less realism in all other conditions. Thanks!
Edit: Found another paper discussing the effects of ambient temperature on gas turbine engines. Of note there is Figure 13 displaying overall power output for an engine. That displays a loss of around 12% with a change in ambient temp of 280K to 300K
-
Off topic but, I know you showed a demo of heat distortion for jet engines. Did anything ever come of that?
-
@flywlyx Would you be able to update the source code on github with the latest version. Thanks!
-
4 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:
But that's only a problem with RSS?
It would be a problem anytime kopernicus is used to change the homeworld from kerbin
-
10 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:
Any idea why he closed the issue, it seems the problem is still there
No idea I wondered that myself. I compiled the mod locally with the changes mentioned and it does indeed fix the issue. The only hiccup, as mentioned in the github issues, is it put the games default waypoint for KSC in the sun.
-
8 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:
Can you post an example,please
Seems like the issue is discussed here.
-
On 2/5/2020 at 7:32 AM, erilun06 said:
The page you requested does not exist
-
First. Nertea with another must have
-
7 hours ago, Beetlecat said:
An experimental one was started by @BahamutoD (I think?) that incorporated some visual distortion in rocket/jet exhaust. I don't think anything was released.
Here. Nope no release. Maybe someone else skilled in shaders could make it happen.
-
Do you think FAR could model/simulate boundary layer control to replicate blown flaps, or is that too complicated to model?
-
Trying to make config for the NK-12. For some reason when using a gear ratio of 0.094, or 1:10.6, it causes the engine to constantly flip from nominal to starter on not functioning properly. In this state throttle has no effect on engine output it has those same outputs 1-100% Any idea whats going on?
Spoiler
click for other pic
Spoiler@MODULE[ModuleEngines*] { @name=ModuleEnginesAJEPropeller %IspMultiplier = 1 %useOxygen = true // %compression = 13.1 // %engineType = Turbine minRPM = 2000 maxRPM = 9250 power = 14795 gearratio = 0.094 BSFC = 8.47E-8 ramAir = 1 exhaustThrust = 2.78 meredithEffect = 0.002 boost0 = 0 rated0 = 0 boost1 = 0 rated1 = 0 switchAlt = -1 turbo = false wastegateMP = 52.5 propName = HS6501A-0x4 %propDiam = 5.6 //8-bladed %CtTweak = 2 %CpTweak = 2 } -
44 minutes ago, Strait_Raider said:
I'm struggling to achieve any decent amount of lift in FAR... I've got two craft in the air (see below), but only barely. The light aircraft lifts off neutrally at about 50 m/s and the twin-engine barely takes off with pitch applied at just under 60 m/s. Once in the air they climb... sort of. The engines seem to have more than enough power, despite their low top speed. They can hold either aircraft at 50-60 m/s in level flight or at pretty significant angles of attack. The wings are stock. Both craft stop climbing at just under 2500m, although they're still going about 55 m/s.
Both look like they need about 10 degrees more angle of incidence to fly level, I'm working on that now. The small plane already has some angle of incidence in the picture below. While this will make them better behaved, they still won't be able to carry anything. They're both at minimal fuel loads (about 15 minutes endurance), and won't take off with any more added. Other parts are about as light as they can be while still holding together and overall they are lighter than real-world counterparts. The wing areas are already very large for both craft, but the only solution currently seems to be to make them even larger.
I tried flaps on the smaller aircraft, but they didn't seem to impact takeoff speed or climb rate, just slightly dinged the top speed. Does anyone have any tips for increasing lift in these lower-speed designs?
Lower your wing load. If you are familiar with FAR go to the second page of the FAR analysis and check reference area. That how much area you have generating lift. Then divide mass in Kg by the area in m2. For reference here is some standard aircraft wing loads. The Cessna 172 has a wing load of ~70Kg/m2 so aim for that if you want good low speed characteristics. Right now I see you craft has a mass of ~5900kg so you'd need an area of ~85m2, 9mx9m, or ~68mx1.25m for the width of the wings you have there.
Crafts in KSP are notoriously heavy because of Kerbal/KSPs reduced scale. In stock they buff lift for the area you use so that crafts look Kerbal sized. FAR is designed where real area = real lift force. They are by design different. It takes adjustment, but can be rewarding if you appreciate the realism and depth compared to stock.
-
On 6/15/2019 at 2:42 PM, Drew Kerman said:
My response would probably make more sense if I add that LGG and I already had this conversation about the trim axis. It works super fine this way but if he wants to change it I wouldn't mind. Although, with expanded null zones it's a lot easier to not accidentally move my trim if I bump my knob. If it's tied directly to the axis any accidental movement will also upset the trim
Well after a about an hour coded the behavior myself
Much happier with it this way. Now pushing reset trim doesn't set it to zero if the knob is too far from 0, but the precise and absolute adjustment was worth it to me.
-
On 3/31/2017 at 11:13 AM, Enceos said:
I tried tinkering with the part while I had time, but couldn't fix this mirroring issue. I'll devote time to fixing this when I can.
Sorry to necro, but did you ever fix the broken mirror symmetry. Its funny I just started to use these parts again, and ran into the same issue only to find I forgot I already posted about it
-
On 6/15/2019 at 2:27 AM, kcs123 said:
Most probable cause of issue you have already detected by yourself. Maybe to play around with angle on both, wingtip angle and on tail. Main issue with any replica attempt is that you can get a good look of craft, but you can't get exact mass distribution and mass amount with KSP parts. So, you might need to sway away slightly from real life craft in terms how it look, or you may need to alter part config files to get exact weight distribution as real life craft.
I use RealFuel and lead ballast for weight and match listed specs for the plane. I use wing configs from RO so no unrealistically strong or heavy wings. I know though I can't match the exact airfoils used. For the COM/COL placement I go off any statements regarding craft handing. Not finding anything stating its unstable or even neutral and requires SAS, so I assume the COM is slightly ahead of COL giving positive static stability in the real thing. Individually parts may be more or less than the real life section, but overall its very close. It's hardest to get the fuselage the exact dimensions without using ugly Pparts. So maybe body lift/drag added stability that i'm lacking, or the airfoils. Those are the hardest things to account for. I just don't want to stray far from the replica look. It's the first time I've had a plane have this issue, but proves FAR is a decent simulation when you run in to issues that RL has had to deal with. I tried shortening the elevators slightly and lengthening the outer main wing and it reduced the number 4 fold but its still has the instability. It does get stable above 1.4M and it reverses and rolls left in the high transonic region. Weird thing is if I add exaggerated dihedral to the main wing it still doesn't resolve the issue. Surprises me how strong the instability is, and how it changes in flight. Just gotta find the right comprise i guess.
-
Love the mod! I don't know how this mod isn't more popular. Apparently people like to hear the same few songs over and over. Don't invite them to a party
My favorite tune so far is the summer coffee while building. Something about that song I really like. Anyway great work Thanks!
-
6 minutes ago, Drew Kerman said:
Use the Trim buttons. They work properly now and adjust the trim in miniscule increments. So you use the axis to make large adjustments and the trim buttons for small ones. Works perfect
I know the buttons work
. The trim axis doesn't work as I'd expect it to so I am asking @linuxgurugamer if changing it is possible. Thanks.
Just a personal peeve of mine.
[1.12.x] End your parts list nightmare - Introducing The Janitor's Closet
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted
I have a request. I would like to be able to right click the toolbar icon to quickly open or close the mod filter window. Would be a nice QOL feature. Thanks.