Kordolius

Speaking of references, the last panel - with the escaping cruise misssile - reminded me of a daredevil technique fighter pilots used against WW2 V1 missiles : They took patrol formation with the missile, inserted a wing under V1 one, and started a roll manoeuver : that destabilized the V1 who then lost gyroscopic guidance. ... Maybe one of Kuzzter's Kerbal with be that crazy (even if jeb is actually in the Jool area) ... I hope to see that, even with photoshop use. Here is a link : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-1_flying_bomb#/media/File:Spitfire_Tipping_V-1_Flying_Bomb.jpg Best (sorta-)Webcomic I followed for ages. Keep it up, Kuzzter ! Cheers !

And I wonder il that baby Kraken will then become the Deus ex Machina that causes Kermulan fall... Great story, great comic ! Un "connoisseur" de France

I would also suggest Peter F. Hamilton Commonwealth series, and perhaps David Weber's Honor Harrington too.

Thanks for your words, I'm worried by that too, and that's the reason I started to build some synthesis info to see what kind of "good idea" it was. Well basically, I considered (first approach) that nozzles are 0.5t each, and I determined engine mass by substracting that mass to their equivalent (so 1t for Wheesley-eqv, 1.3t for Whiplash-eqv, 1.4 (whoops, should have been 1.5) for rapier-eqv As for mis-matching, here are a few calcs : Basic engine, adv nozzle : +10% thrust (88 / 80), same consumption level, more heat produced (47 / 39) compared to Wheesley Adv engine, basic nozzle : +47% thrust (118/80), more consumption, more heat produced (49 / 39) compared to Wheesley, but -10% thrust and -30% heat if you compare to Whiplash. So no hidden peak advantage, and, if you consider that these parts could be unlocked on different science nodes, a smoother progression in jet propulsion power for science and career modes. No interest for sandbox, I agree. That a very good point, and one I am considering actually. But, with all the new parts and evolution from 1.0.5 release, I think I'll first play a bit - heh - then again have a look at .cfg files, and probably start a new topic to present my ideas. I probably should try to hack a mod for testing, but I lack experience in KSP modding (that could be corrected) and time to do it (will get better at beginning of December).

Hi Folks, Trying to be constructive, I gave some thoughts at how the system I proposed page 1 could be implemented. You'll find hereafter a few tables I made by parsing though .cfg files. The initial idea is to replace the current system (intakes + jet engines with masked compressor/turbine/whatyacallit) with a Three part system : Intakes ==> Engine ==> Nozzles First, actual Intakes : [TABLE=class: grid, width: 500] [TR] [TD]Intakes [/TD] [TD]Size [/TD] [TD]Uses [/TD] [TD]area [/TD] [TD]produces [/TD] [TD]amount [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Structural [/TD] [TD]1.25[/TD] [TD]Atm press[/TD] [TD]0.006[/TD] [TD]IntakeAir[/TD] [TD]0.6[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Circular [/TD] [TD]1.25[/TD] [TD]Atm press[/TD] [TD]0.0085[/TD] [TD]IntakeAir[/TD] [TD]0.85[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Shock cone [/TD] [TD]1.25[/TD] [TD]Atm press[/TD] [TD]0.009[/TD] [TD]IntakeAir[/TD] [TD]0.9[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Ramjet [/TD] [TD]1.25[/TD] [TD]Atm press[/TD] [TD]0.006[/TD] [TD]IntakeAir[/TD] [TD]0.6[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] And... I wouldn't change them a bit. Now, Actual Jet engines : [TABLE=class: grid, width: 500] [TR] [TD]Jet Engines [/TD] [TD]Size [/TD] [TD]uses [/TD] [TD]ratio [/TD] [TD]uses [/TD] [TD]ratio [/TD] [TD]produces [/TD] [TD]amount [/TD] [TD]produces [/TD] [TD]amount [/TD] [TD]mass [/TD] [TD]Gimbal Rge [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Basic (Wheesley) [/TD] [TD]1.25[/TD] [TD]LF[/TD] [TD]1[/TD] [TD]IntakeAir[/TD] [TD]11[/TD] [TD]Thrust[/TD] [TD]80[/TD] [TD]Heat[/TD] [TD]40[/TD] [TD]1.5 t[/TD] [TD]1[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Turbo (Whiplash) [/TD] [TD]1.25[/TD] [TD]LF[/TD] [TD]1[/TD] [TD]IntakeAir[/TD] [TD]7[/TD] [TD]Thrust[/TD] [TD]130[/TD] [TD]Heat[/TD] [TD]75[/TD] [TD]1.8 t[/TD] [TD]1[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]RAPIER (Airbreathing) [/TD] [TD]1.25[/TD] [TD]LF[/TD] [TD]1[/TD] [TD]IntakeAir[/TD] [TD]6[/TD] [TD]Thrust[/TD] [TD]105[/TD] [TD]Heat[/TD] [TD]60[/TD] [TD]2 t[/TD] [TD]3[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]RAPIER (Closed) [/TD] [TD]1.25[/TD] [TD]LF[/TD] [TD]0.9[/TD] [TD]Oxydizer[/TD] [TD]1.1[/TD] [TD]Thrust[/TD] [TD]180[/TD] [TD]Heat[/TD] [TD]133[/TD] [TD]2 t[/TD] [TD]3[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] My input is to create and intermediary system, which I will call here "Engine", that uses Air (or oxydizer) and LF to produce a new "Exhaust" Ressource (Puns possible and intended ^^) [TABLE=class: grid, width: 500] [TR] [TD]Engine [/TD] [TD]Size [/TD] [TD]uses [/TD] [TD]ratio [/TD] [TD]uses [/TD] [TD]ratio [/TD] [TD]produces [/TD] [TD]amount [/TD] [TD]produces [/TD] [TD]amount [/TD] [TD]mass [/TD] [TD]Notes [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]basic standard [/TD] [TD]1.25[/TD] [TD]LF[/TD] [TD]1[/TD] [TD]IntakeAir[/TD] [TD]11[/TD] [TD]Exhaust[/TD] [TD]80[/TD] [TD]Heat[/TD] [TD]15[/TD] [TD]1.0 t[/TD] [TD]size ref : 1.25 structural fuselage [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]advanced standard [/TD] [TD]1.25[/TD] [TD]LF[/TD] [TD]1[/TD] [TD]IntakeAir[/TD] [TD]7[/TD] [TD]Exhaust[/TD] [TD]118[/TD] [TD]Heat[/TD] [TD]25[/TD] [TD]1.3 t[/TD] [TD]size ref : 1.25 structural fuselage [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Dual-cycle Airbreathing [/TD] [TD]1.25[/TD] [TD]LF[/TD] [TD]1[/TD] [TD]IntakeAir[/TD] [TD]6[/TD] [TD]Exhaust[/TD] [TD]95[/TD] [TD]Heat[/TD] [TD]20[/TD] [TD]1.4 t[/TD] [TD]size ref : 1.25 structural fuselage [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Dual-cycle ClosedCycle [/TD] [TD]1.25[/TD] [TD]LF[/TD] [TD]0.9[/TD] [TD]Oxydizer[/TD] [TD]1.1[/TD] [TD]Exhaust[/TD] [TD]160[/TD] [TD]Heat[/TD] [TD]60[/TD] [TD]1.4 t[/TD] [TD]size ref : 1.25 structural fuselage [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] and complete with Nozzle Parts : [TABLE=class: grid, width: 500] [TR] [TD]Nozzles [/TD] [TD]size [/TD] [TD]uses [/TD] [TD]amount [/TD] [TD]produces[/TD] [TD]amount [/TD] [TD]produces[/TD] [TD]amount [/TD] [TD]gimbal rge [/TD] [TD]mass [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Basic [/TD] [TD]1.25[/TD] [TD]Exhaust[/TD] [TD]1[/TD] [TD]Thrust[/TD] [TD]1[/TD] [TD]Heat[/TD] [TD]0.3[/TD] [TD]1[/TD] [TD]0.5 t[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Advanced [/TD] [TD]1.25[/TD] [TD]Exhaust[/TD] [TD]1[/TD] [TD]Thrust[/TD] [TD]1.1[/TD] [TD]Heat[/TD] [TD]0.4[/TD] [TD]3[/TD] [TD]0.5 t[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] So, if we combine : [TABLE=class: grid, width: 500] [TR] [TD]Engine [/TD] [TD]Nozzle [/TD] [TD]LF used [/TD] [TD]Intake used [/TD] [TD]Thrust [/TD] [TD]Heat [/TD] [TD]Notes [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]basic [/TD] [TD]Basic [/TD] [TD]1[/TD] [TD]11[/TD] [TD]=80*1/1 80 [/TD] [TD]=15+0.3x80 39 [/TD] [TD]which is equivalent to the Wheesley engine [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]advanced [/TD] [TD]advanced [/TD] [TD]1[/TD] [TD]7[/TD] [TD]=118*1.1/1 130 [/TD] [TD=align: center]=25+0.4*118 72[/TD] [TD]which is equivalent to the Whiplash engine[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]dual cycle airbreathing [/TD] [TD]advanced [/TD] [TD]1[/TD] [TD]6[/TD] [TD]=95*1.1/1 104 [/TD] [TD=align: center]=20+0.4*95 58[/TD] [TD]which is equivalent to the RAPIER engine in airbreathing mode[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] And then, you get a lot more flexibilty with all the combinations, and the possibility for career mode to unlock the new parts on different science nodes. And, we can extrapolate new parts, for instance : [TABLE=class: grid, width: 500] [TR] [TD]Engine [/TD] [TD]Size [/TD] [TD]uses [/TD] [TD]ratio [/TD] [TD]uses [/TD] [TD]ratio [/TD] [TD]produces [/TD] [TD]amount [/TD] [TD]produces [/TD] [TD]amount [/TD] [TD]mass [/TD] [TD]Notes [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Radial .625 engine [/TD] [TD]Radial[/TD] [TD]LF[/TD] [TD]TDB[/TD] [TD]Atm Press[/TD] [TD]TBD[/TD] [TD]Thrust[/TD] [TD]TBD[/TD] [TD]Heat[/TD] [TD]TBD[/TD] [TD]TDB[/TD] [TD]There you have the new 1.0.5 .625 engine[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]High Efficiency, large [/TD] [TD]2.5[/TD] [TD]LF[/TD] [TD]1[/TD] [TD]IntakeAir[/TD] [TD]12[/TD] [TD]Exhaust[/TD] [TD]240[/TD] [TD]Heat[/TD] [TD]15[/TD] [TD]3.5 t[/TD] [TD]Think about an airliner engine ?[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] with new intakes for 2.5 m size ? Or these : [TABLE=class: grid, width: 500] [TR] [TD]Nozzles [/TD] [TD]size [/TD] [TD]uses [/TD] [TD]amount [/TD] [TD]produces[/TD] [TD]amount [/TD] [TD]produces[/TD] [TD]amount [/TD] [TD]gimbal rge [/TD] [TD]mass [/TD] [TD]Notes [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Radial [/TD] [TD]radial[/TD] [TD]Exhaust[/TD] [TD]1[/TD] [TD]Thrust[/TD] [TD]1[/TD] [TD]Heat[/TD] [TD]0.3[/TD] [TD]1[/TD] [TD]0.4 t[/TD] [TD]radial mounted, for VTOL [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Turboprop[/TD] [TD]1.25[/TD] [TD]Exhaust[/TD] [TD]1[/TD] [TD]Thrust[/TD] [TD]0.9[/TD] [TD]Heat[/TD] [TD]0.25[/TD] [TD]0[/TD] [TD]0.5 t[/TD] [TD]hey, why not ?[/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Vectored [/TD] [TD]1.25[/TD] [TD]Exhaust[/TD] [TD]1[/TD] [TD]Thrust[/TD] [TD]1.1 [/TD] [TD]Heat [/TD] [TD]0.45[/TD] [TD]10[/TD] [TD]0.6 t[/TD] [TD]large gimbal [/TD] [/TR] [TR] [TD]Generator [/TD] [TD]1.25 [/TD] [TD]Exhaust [/TD] [TD]1 [/TD] [TD]Electricity [/TD] [TD]TBD [/TD] [TD]Heat [/TD] [TD]0.3 [/TD] [TD]0 [/TD] [TD]0.4 t [/TD] [TD]Idea from Stoney3K a few posts ago [/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] and so on... I'm sure there are more possibilities I overlooked. Best to ya all, Kord

Well, I was thinking about the Sea Harrier vectoring nozzle, which rotates more than 90° see picture : I concede that it's not exactly a gimbal. Maybe I used the wrong term here, but that was the thing I had in mind when suggesting that idea. - - - Updated - - - Agree with you on that point. That's why I think that having a turbine as a separate - and mandatory - part could be a more interesting solution than adding it to the existing nozzles.

As a VTOL builder, and sometimes user of nosecone or tail-connectors mounted engine nozzles, the adding of a turbine as an extension of the nozzle will cause some (too much in my opinion) constraints in plane design for a pure visual modification. A more interesting approach, IMHO, would be to add turbines as an additional - necessary - part to get airbreathing thrust, requiring some modification to actual intake and nozzle parts. An air breathing engine needing : an intake + a turbine + a nozzle Intakes could then evolve with tech level into drag reduction and increased efficiency (increase air qty) Turbines could evolve with tech level to increase in efficiency (More thrust at the cost of more air needs, less fuel consumption, possibility to use inboard oxydizing) Nozzle could finally evolve with tech level into efficiency increase and versatility (More Thrust, allowing radial mount, and why not allowing large gimbal rate (up to 90°) and/or vector thrust that could be used for VTOL/advanced designs). Well, thats a lot of change, I know... Still, one can dream.

I'm using this mod for atmospheric effects (clouds) but find that the cloud layer speed is far too fast on Kerbin. (relative speed of ~300 m.s-1 at 5km altitude - didn't bother to calculate angular speed relative to kerbin). Is it standard, or do I have a problem ? Is there a way to tune it ? Thanks for your inputs.

Well, I mainly use it as a test platform in order to understand how aerodynamics + FAR mod words, under 6000 m alt, so I've felt no need for more wings at the moment. It's also quite overpowered... but i've found it useful to get back control when things get out of hand. And that happens every flight. I see. I suppose I will set it by default to a value comparable with the main wing incidence, for roll / pitch / spoilers controls. I will look further into that. How do you position them onto your craft ? Well, I intend to find out, one way or another. Thanks a lot for your input.

Hi there. I'm actually experimenting with a simple plane, trying to define a procedure for getting a stable subsonic / transsonic / supersonic design. I bump on some of the settings, and did not find any documentation about their effect. Could someone explain them to me ? Pic of my plane : I'm not sure about those parameters : Authority - I take it as a global "Power setting" for the control. More authority, more efficient ? Whats if I change Ctrl Dlct instead same effect ? differences ? Mass-Strength ratio - diminishing it reduces part resistance and part mass linearly ? I dont understand those : AoA% BrakeRudder Help greatly appreciated, this is FAR from simple ^^ Kord

@sal_vager : No problems, have some experience in moderating forums and guessed right. Thanks for clarification ! @ Shark : I had something like that in mind when designing a science rover that can fit in a Mk2 bay. Not with this plane, though, I'm still struggling with subsonic stability, and my first (really for fun) attempt at an SSTO craft finished ... well ... badly. Lots of things to learn before tackling this goal seriously.

Thanks, added the pictures. Err.... The initial post disappeared. Probably temporary pending moderator validation. ... I hope so ...

A new player, based in Normandy, France. I planned to subscribe to this forum while I buyed this great game a month and a half ago. And then... Whoa ! Already 230 hr played !? Well, I'm late, but here I am. First of all, I want to thank Squad Team for their work and praise them for making this game. I'm born the very year Apollo 11 mission set foot on the moon, and as a child, and then a young adult, I've always been fascinated by space exploration. This game reactivated the virus. Badly. Note : : Will publish pictures of my craft later, as I cannot access them at the moment. Edit : Images added My experiences, sofar, are (in a science game context) : - Trying to build an orbiter, and managing, after many tries, to satellize and de-orbit Jebediah Kerman. Even managed not to forget to set a parachute onto the command module. Then same ol' Jeb took a trip to the Mün for a flyby, and got back alive to tell his story. - Played a bit with a basic plane to collect Science on Kerbin biomes. Many crahes later, I managed to learn landing... errr... devise a correct landing procedure, and landed a plane on Kerbin polar caps. A few kerbals where hurt, but the first thing I try to add to my designs is an escape system. Actually, the only thing I thing I master now in this game is safety systems design. Well, Call me softhearted, but I really don't like loosing a kerbal. Even in a science game. Then I found that I wanted some difficulty, and added a few mods to my game, notably FAR, KJR. - Tried to optimize my basic plane (FAR). Still not satisfied with the result - many control issues, and I bump on control settings questions (will post about it on questions forum). But, I've catched - with a lot of help gathered from these forums - how to set CoM / CoL, use spoilers (now I can land ! Well, it looks less like a crash), and use the FAR stability tabs to validate my designs. Basic Science and Test Plane, in flight : - I then got enough of plane problems, and sended Valentina Kerbal to the Mun, then Bill Kerman to Minmus. Apollo-style design (wanted to learn docking procedures). Learned the art of docking, and before that the art of RCS systems fine tuning. Thanks a lot to the guy who created the ingame tutorial. In the same time, I mastered dV calculations (Have made my own spreadsheet, then discovered KER mod. Well, that validated my spreadsheet, and now I use KER. Great Mod!) Minmus Mission on launchpad (A bit overdid it with dV ^^ ): - After that, I started to plan a future unmanned mission to Duna, so I began building a small rover, for science and for fun. The idea behind it is to stack it inside a 2.5m structure (service bay or fairing). So was born the C.R.A.B., a 6 wheel multipurpose science Rover (Pictures later). Tested it thouroughly on kerbin (it also fits in a Mk2 bay). C.R.A.B. Rover Jeb piloting - Once the rover was tested, with still Duna (and, why not, Eve / Moho) as a long term goal, I designed a payload including a scan sat, a skycrane, and fairing encased C.R.A.B rover behind a thermal shield. Then I successfully tested the package by deploying Scan Sats and Rover to Mun, Minmus. Moaaar Science ! And the opportunity to play with ore ressource scanning... and that idea that a refueling base on the Mün or Minmus could be a great idea for later. Duna I.0 payload : - That was enough a refreshment to motivate me to tackle plane design again, and I set my first ambitious goal : building a functional VTOL science plane. With the small plane experience, I quickly converged to a Mk2 based design, incorporating the C.R.A.B. as a science platform. After a lot of cras... err... pilot problems, I finally found a way to manage a procedure for transition between horizontal phase and vertical hovering (with or without landing) using vernor engine and SAS to help the craft to remain stable through this transition. That was by far the main hurdle I had to jump. VTOL Science Hopper: Zoom on the C.R.A.B. Bay : - Actually, I'm flying a Big mission on the Mun, Apollo style, with a 2.5m lander and 2 Kerbals on it. The launch was great, and the ship in en route for the Mün. The lander has a full science service bay, and I plan to deploy a C.R.A.B. rover from another 2.5m Service bay to explore around with a science specialist aboard. I already identified an interesting (good Ore%) zone near a Mün canyon. I expect a tricky landing. Edit : Landed !!! The next planned steps are : - Send Duna I.0 mission to deploy scanning sat and CRAB rover around the red planet (waiting for a good transfer window at the moment) - Explore Kerbin with my VTOL plane, with a desert mission and a south pole landing. - Experiment with mining on the Mun (canyon landing site or another).