• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

103 Excellent

About DrMarlboro

  • Rank
    Bottle Rocketeer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I played for about 600 hours before I left to duna. I didn't go any farther until after 1100 hours, and at 2000 (I realise that most players dont play that long before reaching milestones) hours I still don't frequently go to the outer planets. The game is based around design, and design takes time. The average player spends more time building, launching, and reverting than actually flying missions. Most players aren't going to put over 100 hours into a game so it makes sense that few ever reach, or go past, duna.
  2. Drop the .craft files here and I'm sure a few of us will have a go at them. I'd be more than happy to do so for you. I need something to keep me busy at the moment anyway.
  3. talking... Talking... TALKING... TALKING. Joking aside, While scotts videos be very amusing, and I always check in to see what he's up to, I sometimes feel as if I am listening to that old guy on the corner who talks to everyone about everything without taking a breath and forgets where he is and so starts talking some more.. haha.
  4. No not really. The problem is that it would basically be useless after reentry. They work more like a high speed/high altitude parachute with some ablator on the underside than a heat shield, and I think the one nasa tested (HIAD I believe is what it's called) was only for use on planets with thinner atmospheres like mars. I could be wrong in that aspect, but as far as heat shields go they are single use.
  5. The argument can really go either way because all craft are viable. Well.... except maybe trying to lift 100 tons with ion engines. Pros: Really fun/rewarding to build, Saves a little money early on, and you can make small tourist shuttles with really limited science nodes, and they are reusable so once you build one that works you know it is always going to work. Cons: Can be very difficult to build especially for a new player, and for most, their range is limited to LKO. Also you can lift more with a simpler craft that took less time to build since real world rules such as the economy, and availability are nonexistent. You also have to take the time to deorbit and land it which can be a hassle/annoying for the less than patient players, and also tends to increase difficulty when building it since it will come back 30-50tons lighter than it went up. Either way, the real question is what you prefer, or are willing to do in terms of building/time.
  6. I should be home late today and I will post a top down pic of it. It was just a plane I cobbled together with the first plane tech node in my new career. It is basically just 2 swept wings with the crap gizmo'd out of them to create some sort of high eliptical wing. As a private pilot and an aerospace engineering major, I am well aware of the many, many, types of landing gear. The reason I didn't include bicycle, single main, quad, multi-bogie (not that we have the power to make this since the second you use a gear higher than medium it is by definition a multi-bogie set up), and so on is this was geared towards early flight in career where you likely won't be building planes that can benefit from these types of gear (or even have the parts to do so). But what the heck. I can add them in this evening when I edit the main to change the name to tricycle since it's such a foreign name to everyone here. =) and it will give me something to do.
  7. Sounds a little hot to me, but both the cpu and gpu are rated for around 100c max temp. Should be fine, but you could always (and maybe should) invest in one of those cooling stands for notebooks. Hear they work wonders. Edit: although... even though the chips themselves are fine, the motherboard they are integrated with may be less temp resistant. What notebook do you have?
  8. How steep is your descent? A good rule is to only let your periapsis drop to about 30km, which will get you slow enough to not explode before hitting the lower parts of the atmo.
  9. At least from my playing with the LY-01/LY-10 gear, it seems to be a problem with the traction control. If I have traction on, then it will skitter/skate across the ground, increasing in speed if I increase control, and will stop if I turn it off. The problem there is with it off you slide all over the place now. I'm wondering if legs (since they are wheels now) behave in the same way, and have this traction control coded into them. And I don't know a thing about reading code so until someone who can chimes in I'll have to keep guessing. Still no clue why wheels/legs clip through the ground sometimes though.
  10. It may be a regional thing. But yes, nosewheel and tricycle are interchangeable and I have heard them. I've had teachers refer to them as both, but at least for me, Nosewheel is the commonly used term around here. And tailwheel/conventional seem to be interchangeable (once again, seems to be dependent on location). And i believe the configuration you are referring to is called single main gear like the U-2 dragon lady which is directly under the CoM. Bicycle gear is farther ahead of the CoM like in the Martin XB-51.
  11. The info here doesn't only apply on the runway. It also helps when choosing a place to land away from KSC. With a tail dragger you will have more choices for landing spots, and is something i've taken advantage of many times.
  12. After reading one of many threads on how the t1 runways is too hard to use, and since there are many threads that talk about plane design but leave out the importance of gear layout and it's affects on take off and landing, I decided that I would Rectify that here. So first, lets talk about the differences between tailwheel and nosewheel aircraft. First,we have Nosewheel: Nosewheel aircraft are easier to steer on the ground due to the pivot point being ahead of the main gear and CoM causing the plane to resist the turn causing what is known as understeer. The downside to this, is that the plane will have a lower angle of attack and require more speed to take off, as well as making the plane less stable on rough landing sites which can cause the front wheel to break, or allow the craft to roll to one side. This type of undercarriage layout is perfect for smooth surfaces like the T2 runway and above, but can be (and is) devastating on the rough T1 runway and doesn't bode well for landing elsewhere on Kerbin. Next, we have Tailwheel aircraft: Tailwheel aircraft (or taildraggers) are known for their performance on less than stellar landing conditions. Having the main gear ahead of the CoM makes the plane more stable on uneven surfaces, and having the single wheel to the back of the plane lessens the impact of bumps and imperfections on the runway. It also allows for lower take off speeds due to the high angle of attack making it perfect for the T1 runway. The draw back of this is that since the pivot point is behind the CoM it causes severe (and harder to control) oversteer, making this undercarriage layout less suited to landing on high traffic runways where Nosewheel would be prefered. One benefit (but unrelated to ksp) to Tailwheel is that it allows more clearance for a propeller. All of this is why you will see African, Alaskan, Australian, etc. bush pilots flying Tailwheel aircraft. And this type of thinking still applies in KSP. Another issue with landing i've seen is that people try to land with the front wheel first, or on all at the same time. This is a bad habbit and is going to cause lots of frustration on the T1 runway. Always make sure that you are tough down with your main gear first. This is will require lower speeds and higher AoA on Nosewheel planes, but a shallower AoA on Tailwheel. Getting this down is important, and unfortunately I am not fast enough to grab the screenshot on touchdown, so I may edit this with a short video later on. I also highly recommend removing the traction control as it can cause the gear to lockup and flip the plane when using the LY-01 gear. If you are still having trouble taking off/landing another good alternative Is going to an Inverted Gullwing design with the LY-10 gear. This will get you more ground clearance, a wider main gear layout, and you will have sturdier gear. And inverted gullwings look amazing. All in all I hope this helps some of you who may struggle with early planes, and make you love the dirt runway as I do. It's probably the last thing i upgrade.
  13. I have no problems with the T1 runway. Embrace the high ground clearance taildragger within you! Here is one of mine just after landing. There's a reason tailwheel aircraft exist, and it is specifically because they perform better on rough landing strips (or, if you are a bush pilot, no strip at all but any suitable piece of relatively flat land). nose wheel aircraft are prone to snap the front wheel in similar landing conditions. I really don't mean to sound like a jerk here, but i think the T1 runway works just fine, and should stay the way it is. It only takes a little understanding of how landing gear works. Edit: you also want as much distance as your craft allows between the main gear and the tailwheel to account for elevation changes.
  14. I wouldnt say that I'm addicted but I have put like 2000 hours into the game. Even though I still play alot of other games, this one is the only one where I can literally do whatever I want. Literally whatever I want. Like just today, I made a pby-5 replica, and then build a massive mining rig, took my speed boat out for a spin, and landed a few things on the moon after making a few new additions to my station Paradox.