• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About ElMenduko

  • Rank
    Bottle Rocketeer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. [quote name='AlphaAsh']Lovely. Thank you. [COLOR=silver][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] It's a temporary hack. I'll look to getting this implemented soon. Probably when I get bored with Fallout 4 early next week :D[/QUOTE] GOOD! So that means you tested it and it works; and you can use it to bring my favorite mod to 1.0.5? NICE! By the way, from what I've seen in the mod files (and KerbinSide statics) it seems you have some pretty ambitious goals, with all those building types, the employing kerbal things and the hangars... How many of these features work, and what do you ultimately are going to do with that? Anyways, great mod, I'm glad amankd found a way to solve the colliders issues PS: I think you'll get bored pretty fast, which is good for us hehe. You find the power armor early in the game (and the nuke launcher too)
  2. What do you mean they don't work? I've made a jet biplane work, but it had its engine on the back. What's difficult to make is a traditional biplane, with a front-mounted propeller engine. Balancing the CoL and CoM is difficult because most engines weigh a lot (even for propeller monoplanes, sometimes the wings almost have to touch the propeller to balance it properly). By the way, is there any way to see where the Center of Drag is?
  3. I just realized... OP, is Kerbal Joint Reinforcement allowed? I didn't use it because the rules said "no mods", and that's why most of my designs crashed... a lot... But if it is allowed I could do better (and have less wheels go totally crazy) [quote name='herbal space program'][FONT=Arial][COLOR=#000000]Well done! Based on El Menduko’s post, I was about to conclude that the drag issue would doom the all-Sepratron approach, but apparently not. The only way I could see making it go faster would be to figure out a way to get an extra kick from the Launch Escape System, but based on my early attempts I think getting that to work would be a massive PITA.[/COLOR][/FONT] [/QUOTE] The thing with the drag is, once the serpatrons ran out of fuel they acted as parachutes, and they slowed you down a lot. However, tewpie managed to get them burning till the end. The Launch Escape System creates sideways thrust too, and WILL take anything it is connected to out of the way. It's designed to do that after all. In the runway this has terrible consequences. [quote name='Friethjoph']hmmm... What if... We take a Mk2 cockpit, Mk2 comouter core, then an empty Mk2 cargo bay, prop on wheels and fill the cargo bay with seperatrons?That would reduce drag (for they are not in the airtream) but add weight... with enough seperatrons it might work out though, and if the rear wheels are a bit higher than the front onse, it could stabilize the machine to stay on the track via downward lift.[/QUOTE] I tried going bigger bit-by-bit too, and I concluded that smaller was better (using 1.25m parts). Maybe 0.625m parts COULD do better if we used tweakscale, but that's not allowed here. Regarding downforce, if you create a bit too much the front wheels freak out and the thing crashes. [quote name='tewpie']Pure sepratron design 1208.6 m/s, Mach 3.3 [URL]http://imgur.com/a/a1cR9[/URL] 850% of terminal velocity :sticktongue:[/QUOTE] Well done, gentleman! I see you managed to keep them burning till the end, how much did you have to tweak thrust limiter?
  4. [quote name='herbal space program'][COLOR=windowtext][FONT=Arial][FONT=Arial][SIZE=3]I’m wondering why folks are even bothering with the Vector engines. It seems like all Sepratrons, with a mean TWR of 31 vs. the Vector’s 21 with even a T100 tank, would be the way to go. [/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT][/COLOR] [/QUOTE] [SIZE=2]I tested with serpatrons only, but I couldn't do any better (tried with octagonal struts, and putting them inside structural fuselages for better aerodynamics) One of the main reasons is the vector's gimbal. At these speeds aerodynamics sometimes become a little crazy (body lift). Also, the center of thrust is misaligned (because of the wheels), and the wheels generate a little bit of friction: the end result is that anything without gimbals either took off, or outright crashed into the concrete. I tried more methods for compensating, but not even a crazy number of small reaction wheels could prevent the thing from going crazy. I also tried spoilers (lifting surfaces used to create downforce) and elevons, but it didn't work either. I even tried downwards-facing serpatrons (with a little bit of success, but still not worth it) Also, the vector has a much better TWR than the serpatron (not counting fuel), and it is easy to put one of them inline. In fact, you could reach 900-920m/s with one vector and no serpatrons. In the end, serpatrons are just boosters, they boost the Vector. I had to adjust their thrust limiter carefully, because using a lot of them generates a lot of drag, and if they run out of fuel before the finish line they might even slow you down 50m/s according to some tests. [COLOR=#0D0E00][FONT=Arial][QUOTE] I dunno, the Octo2 probe core, a small battery, the smallest reaction wheel unit, four wheels, and a bunch of octagonal struts really does not weigh very much. The leaders here basically festooned their Vectors with hundreds of Sepratrons to improve performance. I say get rid of the Vector entirely! Finally, a use for the little thing![/QUOTE][/FONT][/COLOR][QUOTE][COLOR=#0D0E00][FONT=Times New Roman] ... [/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=#0D0E00][FONT=Arial]Of course, I think the record here stems mostly from the frantic gimballing of the Vector near the ground creating Kraken forces, as I believe doing the math tells you that that you shouldn’t end up going that fast even in a vacuum. That consideration probably trumps the legitimate physics. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] I think octagonal struts have high drag compared to the other parts I used, not even counting the sheer amount of serpatrons. Yes, I basically added lots of boosters to my original vector design. "Add more boosters!". I tried lots of other possibilities before that, even one involving mk3 parts and cargo bays, one involving 260 surface attached vectors on big tanks, and none worked better than the first one. I already recognized I detected some Kraken forces that gave me +/- 140m/s between tests. I blame the serpatrons for that, not the vector. Actually, the vector was the only thing that could stabilize my rolling fireball (but it still crashed 90% of the time due to the Kraken, and the speed was very inconsistent) Kerbal engineer told me that I could've reached a way higher speed in a vaccuum. When going faster than mach 2 ASL, with lots of radially attached draggy things, that's what slows you down the most. Actually, the Kraken forces were not THAT great (but I haven't been able to come near my own record in subsequent tests, nor I have been able to make a Kraken drive out of it... yet...) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [B]TL;DR[/B]: * The vector's gimball greatly helped stabilize the thing (to prevent it from taking off or crashing) * I saved up weight by not using a reaction wheel * Struts might have been draggy (and they can't fit liquid fuel inside them) * A (not draggy) structural fuselage full of serpatrons was extremely unstable, and it couldn't beat the original design * A Mk3 cargo bay full of vectors and/or serpatrons wasn't any better * Surface-attaching lots of vectors wasn't better * Empty serpatrons at mach 2+ generate A LOT of drag[/SIZE]
  5. [quote name='Friethjoph']My tests using a quad coupler of the new spaceplane engines all detonate at passing 300 m/s, even if they could deliver an acceleration of 140 m/s²... Well, it IS ridiculous... Couldn't there be some kind of rails or sleds be allowed to make it less hard to stay on the runway? Well, we technically COULD create rails from H-Bar, but it would involce several rovers to place those, and they have to be re-placed for each test and they have to be placed perfectly...[/QUOTE] Oh, I tried with many things to appease the kraken, but none worked well enough... Actually, I could imagine a rail made from H-bars would create a lot of problems. In the end though, I might have created a hybrid kraken drive... Now if I can get this to work in a vaccuum... Also, there's no need for quadcouplers, you can surface attach the Vector engines (and the aerosìkes too!)
  6. When trying to edit a post in a cell phone they get deleted! So, after 2 accidental deletions here you go A crazy 1143.2m/s! This hasn't ended, rcgothic! Link: [URL]http://m.imgur.com/a/XBelj[/URL] (embedding isn't working for some reason) It was very difficult to get this screenshot because: * It goes so fast that you can't get it perfect * I had to tweak ALL the serpratrons' thrust limiter to prevent the most of the diminishing returns. Still I didn't get it perfect, ran out of solid fuel just before the screenshot * It would get attacked by the kraken and explode 90% of the time * The speed varied a bit between succesful tests However, after further testing I realized that it was so unstable that it invoked the kraken. And it was kraken phantom forces that caused the speed to change between tests. (And the rapid unplanned dissassemblies) It must have been the accidental weak kraken drive that gave me some 140m/s extra speed. That means this is a hybrid car, and it helps the environment! (a little bit, if you ignore the srb exhaust) I also did a few experiments with bigger things, and with lots of space shuttle engines. Those bordered insanity, and were way worse than this one
  7. [quote name='tewpie']Same as my original design, with a twist and better screenshots ;) [URL]http://imgur.com/a/5jnC7[/URL] [s]916.4[/s] 939.0 m/s[/QUOTE] Oh I didn't know you could start at that point, where the concrete itself starts. I started where the craft spawned. [quote name='RCgothic']Smashed it. 1010.5 m/s [URL]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v723/rcgothic/2015-11-16_00004_zpskcsmgbwz.jpg[/URL] [URL]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v723/rcgothic/2015-11-16_00003_zpsrdw98ebt.jpg[/URL] That's a crash into the final light, so it's exactly at the end of the runway.[/QUOTE] So we're going multi-engine, huh? Okay, okay! Also, your run had 2 extra meters. One from the distance of the light to the concrete, the other one because you went diagonally (I assume): sqrt((2500m^2)+(70m^2))=2500,98m --------------------------------------------------------- [B]That's it, gentlemen! This is war![/B]​
  8. What about my rocket? It somehow returned Valentina in one piece, and it didn't jettison anything, so I guess it's SSTO, right?
  9. [quote name='MajorGosnell']Elmenduko leads the race.[/QUOTE] Yay! Bashing my F1 key was worth it! I was worried UnionPacific might have broken my record, but then I saw it wasn't a screenshot. To be honest, the only way I could think of that someone could break my record is by using exactly 1 less unit of fuel, which is really hard to do. If you put 0.1 less fuel than needed, I think drag would slow you down greatly.
  10. You said we could use tweakscale, so I used a vector! (I also made a custom command pod, using an external command seat on its own feeled... cheaty...) This was real funny to build. The landing part is particularly... interesting... Here you go! [imgur]6FAGt[/imgur] Facts: * SSTO, nothing is jettisoned * Gets a little bit more than 0.5t of "snacks" (Monopropellant, as I don't have the snacks mod) * Only 0.625 PARTS. That's right, not only engines. * It felt a little... unchallenging... to just put 8000 spark engines on cubic struts, so I used ONE engine! * That custom pod is very comfortable, deserves extra score. It also protects the Kerbal inside from heat! * It LANDS! At least the Kerbal is alive...
  11. YES! YES! After more than half an hour of tweaking I did it! 906.5m/s (Mach 2.51) I started with a thing similar to tewpie's (because the space shuttle engine is the best TWR... Heck, it's the best for everything!). I tried different nosecones and tail booms, but I concluded a fairing was the best option. Then I decided that instead of using an RGU I could reduce weight by putting an OKTO 2 inside the fairing. The hardest part was getting the perfect screenshot, and fine-tuning the fuel. I only wasted 1 unit of fuel! EDIT: Having trouble embedding the album. How do I do it? Here's the link: http://imgur.com/a/6Ci76 EDIT 2: Fixed!