swjr-swis

Members
  • Content count

    1,681
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,748 Excellent

7 Followers

About swjr-swis

  • Rank
    Self-proclaimed Groomer of the Orbits

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/members/156316-swjr-swis

Profile Information

  • Interests KSP

Recent Profile Visitors

7,817 profile views
  1. swjr-swis

    Making a custom flag, help

    https://www.getpaint.net/ You don't really need much more.
  2. Thank you. It's not about the place on the leaderboard - I don't want people to lose interest in participating in challenges, there's all sorts of things to learn from the entries made. I hope you will consider updating it when @sevenperforce gets the 9-terrier vertical solution working with a kerbal. Plus someone may still come up with a no-part-shedding SSTO version. There's still life in the original challenge.
  3. Yeah, good luck with getting any entries for that. Please re-read the challenge posting rules, take a look around to how other challenges are run, and decide whether you are actually willing to do the work that is expected from a challenge poster. It's rather disrespectful of all the time and effort entrants spent to just completely ignore them and not acknowledge when they post successful entries. Now you basically invalidate ALL good entries made so far by completely changing the challenge objective, even while there are still people working on new entries. It now just looks like we've all been posting nonsense for the first two weeks of the challenge. If you're bored with your challenge and want to move on to a different one, mention that you're closing it in the OP and post a new thread. I tell you though, don't expect much interest - no one likes to waste their time when they figure out the OP is not really interested.
  4. Don't change too much, it's already almost there. Maybe just drain some of that excess LFO from the last tank; that should be pretty close to the extra mass of command seat and kerbal.
  5. The challenge objective is to get a Kerbal to orbit though. You still have 5 units of LFO left in orbit - that might be just enough to get the job done.
  6. swjr-swis

    What's kerbal money called?

    It could've been, but it ended up being a highly contested choice between "Bills" and "Coins", and they put it to a vote, splitting the KSC right through the middle on the issue: Half of them (everyone in the Administration Building, Mission Control, R&D, and the Runway personnel) felt Bills was the obvious choice - rectangular and flat, administratively neat, efficient storing. The other half (Launchpad personnel, Tracking Station, VAB, SPH and Tower) felt that it absolutely needed to be Coins - stackable, rounded, more payload, and flippable to decide who gets to test the next contraption. The vote ended in a deadlock, so to keep the peace it was decided to join the two in the name.
  7. swjr-swis

    What's kerbal money called?

    Maybe 'Billcoins' is appropriate, in honour of the (not-so-anonymous?) kerbal geek that redirected every spare cycle of the KSC mainframe into blockchain code to fund the space program.
  8. swjr-swis

    Force fairings to be larger

    Actually, it can be done in the craft file too, if you just want to make this change once for that one craft. Search for the following in the craft file: XSECTION { h = 0 r = 0.625 } XSECTION { h = 0.598072052 r = 0.625 } XSECTION { h = 1.24200153 r = 0.523973823 } The fairing part in the craft file will have an 'XSECTION' per (height) segment of the fairing. h is the start of the segment counting from the top of the fairing base, and r is the radius, both in meters. The first XSECTION is effectively where the fairing touches the base, and should always retain the standard values. Keep in mind that the fairing code will try to 'soften' abrupt changes in diameter, which may cause some of the segment edges to be wider/narrower than the exact number chosen.
  9. swjr-swis

    Force fairings to be larger

    Well... you have now. Full imgur album: https://imgur.com/a/OEaCRFo Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/McTailfins
  10. I had a nagging suspicion that it should be possible to do a very lean horizontal take-off - all I needed was to get the orbital stage of my rocket entry up to 120 m/s and 1km high, or better. So I stripped the rocket booster stage, rotated it to horizontal, and made it into a spaceplane. It ends up being a similar staging concept to that of @vyznev, except I'm a bit more ruthless in staging off stuff I no longer need. This allowed me to stick with just three Terriers, needing a lot less wing too. The end result is the Terrier2LKO-2b, a 10.1t 3-Terrier craft that starts as a spaceplane and takes off from the runway, and then sheds parts while transforming into a rocket in a gravity turn. 100+km LKO can be reached, and the orbital stage can safely bring the kerbal back to the surface again. Full imgur album: https://imgur.com/a/UfQAM3W Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/Terrier2LKO-2b Btw @DAL59, are you going to update the leaderboard with everyone's entries?
  11. swjr-swis

    Fastest Juno-powered aircraft

    Juno engine power curve, it's not surprising. It's worth the risk dipping as low to the surface as you can if you are just a few decimals away from reaching the next full m/s. The 5 m difference could help, but you would definitely need to switch to fine controls (why are you not using that?), and disengage SAS entirely and fly on trim (I can't tell from your screenshots if you do or not). It also helps to lower your elevator authority to 10% or less, to make your pitch control more gradual and accurate. Not that curious either: there's an equilibrium point where the aerodynamic forces, gravity, and remaining engine thrust balance out, allowing the plane to keep cruising without loss of airspeed. You can briefly dip above that, but this is basically done by exchanging airspeed for altitude, which makes airspeed and lift drop below the balance point, until you inevitably lose the gained altitude again. I think you are partly drawing the wrong conclusions. The role of gravity in maximizing your craft top speed is almost negligible compared to the aerodynamic forces (drag!). I do agree you could do with a lot less Junos though, and still get more speed out of that frame. I did a quick rebuild in 1.3.1 to test: You could do even better by entirely removing the two Mk1 LF tanks - they are just adding superfluous mass and drag to the craft, as even just the 200 LF in the intake is enough to reach any place on Kerbin within an hour. The above craft are simple WYSIWYG stock rebuilds based on your screenshots, with offset adjustments on snap to move CoM/CoL where I wanted. No real fine tuning was done, leaving potential for better numbers by either fine tuning, adding extra Junos, or replacing parts for better alternatives (pre-cooler comes to mind). Any other 'tricks' used to achieve the results (elevon deployment, flight method, etc) are visible in the screenshots. Use to your advantage. I would feel inclined to disagree.
  12. swjr-swis

    Fastest Juno-powered aircraft

    Technically third, since @Klapaucius entered two different eligible Mk2 planes, in separate posts. That draggy open node in the back is killing all that excess thrust - it's like flying with a giant deployed airbrake. Remember my Dodo from a few pages back? It doesn't take all that many Junos to push a streamlined Mk3 craft close to Mach 2 and beyond. The added weight of the extra parts is well worth it: Mk2 planes can be quite fast with a minimum of Junos too: Make it so the fuselage angle of attack nears zero (and thus body drag), and you'll slice through the air on a minimum of thrust, even when using the notoriously draggy mk3/mk2 parts.
  13. swjr-swis

    KerbalX.com - Craft & Mission Sharing

    The text box widget seems to present text in the same way basic HTML does: it completely condenses all whitespace, which includes CRLF and empty lines. The way I have been working around this is by placing a line with just a single period by itself. The period is almost invisible, and you get nicely separated paragraphs. Cave at: the single period does have some strange interaction when directly preceding or following a bullet list: it will prevent the list from showing as bullet points, skip the paragraph (and line, sometimes) separation, or both. Extra workaround in that case: add an extra empty line between the single period line and the bullet list.
  14. swjr-swis

    Fastest Juno-powered aircraft

    I can't load your plane in 1.3.1, and the pics you have posted don't show it well enough to rebuild, so I can offer only limited help, but I can see a number of things that would help improve that plane: You can cut a good amount of drag by minimizing the number of intakes. The single DSI I see on the tail section is plenty by itself to feed up to 25 Junos, which means you could remove the radial ones and replace (most of?) the small circular ones by small nosecones. You say wings are overrated and cut down on them, but having enough wing to keep the plane 'afloat' helps in maintaining a small angle of attack, and thus, minimizing body drag. I can't tell from the pics how many basic fins you use, but it it's just the visible ones, that is not enough for the mass of that plane. Body drag is very likely setting the speed limit of your plane at the moment. Switch the landing gear for the smallest retractable gear. Yes, they are marginally heavier, but once retracted they are a lot less draggy in flight, which quickly overrides any downside from the tiny extra mass. As an added bonus, they are much stronger for landing on.
  15. I'm not sure why you feel we're in disagreement: your explanation rather proves my main point that stock has a restricted number of action groups to use, which makes them a precious resource that require careful weighing of what we want to use them for. Yes, there are a few more than the 10 'custom' action groups, but like your explanation shows, the functions tend to be necessary and so we often end up adding to their function, not simply using them free-form for entirely unrelated things. In the end, what the OP suggests doesn't seem to add anything to already existing stock functionality: roll/yaw/pitch are already assigned to individual keys in a slightly more functional way than they would be if the keys only worked as toggles like the action groups. This is why I ask some clarification. I fly only with keyboard and mouse too. I am a bit confused by the above explanation, especially because you use the default brake key as an example. The brake key is precisely the only 'action group' key that does not work like an action group: it is not a toggle, it only 'works' while you keep it pressed. Which is exactly how the default keys assigned to roll/yaw/pitch work already. This I would love having, although I would simply ask for a toggle button on the PAW of engines -all engines- where we could select 'Act as RCS'. If the game allowed this, we could build RCS with the power to match the size of our craft/station, or to use for VTOL like you explain. But this is an essentially different thing than what this OP is asking.