Jump to content

OHara

Members
  • Content Count

    924
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

812 Excellent

3 Followers

About OHara

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. The Breaking Ground propellers allow a way to make perpetual motion machines (bug tracker link) by offsetting the propeller blades to be closer to the rotation axis. If we limit the props to their default placement, though, turboprops have similar fuel efficiency to jets --- they just get that efficiency at lower speeds. My unimaginatively-named 'single engine propeller' plane on KerbalX launching at 2.292 t with 1.2 units (6kg) of fuel can reach the island runway. 0.52 units per tonne. As per the contest rules, I wheelbarrowed on landing and rolled into the ditch.
  2. I thought what you had was perfect MM syntax. Given the existence of a function ApplySASServiceLevelAdjustments in the class docs, and another adjuster in Making History docs, and the current bug where all probes get SAS level 3, I think SASServiceLevel in the part configuration is changed in some complicated way after KSP starts. (You could confirm by editing a part configuration file directly, to see if it has any effect.)
  3. Well, decelerating from 3m/s to zero, over the 1-metre distance that the stut seems to compress, is an acceleration (3m/s)² / 2 / (1m) = 4.5m/s² about half a 'G'. So decelerating the 15t calls for 15×4.5 = 68kN of force, provided by whichever landing legs can participate. (If an elephant weighs 6t, that is 6t×9.8m/s² = 60kN on earth. So if you want to measure in elephants, the landing force would be about 1.2 elephant, no?) Four of the LT-2 struts does seem sufficient to land 15t on the Mun, though, and would usually work in KSP.
  4. The idea that you need a line of sight, or chain of such lines, to transmit research seems to fit well with KSP. I never use KSP1's CommNet, though, because some details are too complicated for me to remember: only certain antennas are 'relay antennas', the rules about partial control and pilots on craft with a relay, the range of an array of antennae on a craft, . . . It is disappointing that CommNet did not come with a method to store the research at the KSC, like the maps we gradually build with the ScanSat mod. In fact, the data-flow direction with KerbNet seems backwards: we n
  5. They do play to simulate acceleration due to long burns of the engines, for far away craft not in the player's focus. If I remember correctly, this was discussed in the long and interesting podcast (link) six months ago -- as well as the idea of simulating to different 'levels of detail' (LOD) relevant to your second question.
  6. Landing legs and wheels, specifically the suspension, do not work very well for KSP. Some explanation of the reasons is here: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/184798-are-we-sill-pretending-the-wheelslegs-arent-broken/&do=findComment&comment=3607517 Landing gear can break from being be 'overstressed', and while that may have worked in KSP 1.0, with version 1.1 the new Unity game-engine with hidden automatic adjustments made use of wheels frustrating. In your specific case, I suspect that the automatic adjustment of the spring strength makes the spri
  7. It may have been only your title "Improving a spaceplane" that made people think of the classic spaceplane problem. Local exploration vehicles are usually separate from the interplanetary craft. I think NASA has an aircraft on Mars, for example, but it was carried there in some other craft. In KSP, I think, a lot of the fun is the designing of craft that work in different situations. So even if there is very little to see on Laythe, players find it rewarding to design a submarine and a craft to send it there --- and spend much less time exploring with the sub than they spent designing
  8. It has the desired effect in version 1.7.3. In version 1.11, Squad fixed the bug that is the topic of this thread. The patch should still let you change the rules and open parachutes inside closed fairings, as the docs have not changed, but you'll have to test in the version you use.
  9. At the risk of confusing things, maybe you noticed the option "Invert Direction" on the rotors. This does let you make rotors in a symmetric pair rotate in opposite directions, leaving the rotors linked by symmetry. The rotor labelled 'clockwise' and 'inverted' actually rotates anti-clockwise. However, there is no similar 'invert' option on the propeller blades, so I see no practical use for inverting one rotor when using them with propellers. The simplest way I have found is to build one fan assembly (with the propeller blades in 4-way or 8-way symmetry around the rotor) and th
  10. There are not any control surfaces acting as elevators. The ones on the top can only turn on their horizontal hinges, so they don't deflect the water flow to make any steering. You need elevators placed like the fins on a whale's tail, or the like the front fins of a fish. The 'remote guidance unit' on the back is rear-facing, so rudder-steering will be backwards. The rudders might be fighting the reaction wheels, causing no steering overall. You can turn the 'remote guidance unit' forwards, or use its 'ControlPoint: Reversed' option to make the rudders steer properly. The pro
  11. Maybe, if you can say your in-game settings on the frame-rate, and any limit set in your graphics driver, that might help people know whether this mode will help them (maybe). There's a similar report on the bug-tracker (link) of faster/slower loading depending on the frame-rate limit ---but that report concerned the in-game setting--- with some people seeing an effect, other seeing none.
  12. Aerodynamics has not changed for a few years. I agree that @BenKerman could make a better spaceplane than the Nifty Plane in that book, but even the Nifty Plane can get to Mach 5 easily. If there is something inside that cargo bay, it is easy to accidentally connect the rear portion of the plane to those contents, rather than to the back wall of the cargo bay. One unfortunate aspect of KSP is that it figures drag based on what is connected to what, ignoring how parts are offset relative to one another, so connecting to the cargo will make KSP think the front plate of the Mk2 fuel tank i
  13. I would have thought that craft would be stable on reentry. The heavy fuel is near the heat shield, and those big wings would tend to swing downwind as you want. The nav-ball is pointing retrograde (probably because the command pod will be pointed forward for the return journey) . SAS doesn't know that you are flying backwards, so won't know to tilt the elevons appropriately. So SAS would be commanding those big elevons in the wrong direction, and that might be enough to flip in Eve's atmosphere. If those elevons are always used when flying backwards (relative to the command pod)
  14. Yes it is normal, and Yes you can fix it. The standard advice for beginners is to put the CoL behind the CoM, because that is an easy way to check that the wing just a bit behind the centre of mass. That advice does result in a plane that is nose-heavy, as you noticed. Gravity is pulling down at a point forward of the wing's lift. So in flight, beginners have to command pitch-up all the time or use SAS. If you like, you can rotate the front elevons during assembly, so the plane is trimmed as you like. Trimming to neutral pitch moves the CoL indicator forward to match the
  15. . . . and the disk of the rotor blade gives passive yaw stability as well. This works with the chair as well, flying very carefully using slow changes in trim, and letting it fly at whatever odd angle works best. I wonder if I can make it to the island and back on the charge in that battery. (Helicopters with fore and aft rotors have enough degrees of freedom to control the craft, if we vary the rotor rpm, but there are awkward interactions between controls and I found them very tricky and unpleasant to fly.) It looks no current entrant has been overtaken within the past 2
×
×
  • Create New...