EpicSpaceTroll139

Members
  • Content count

    902
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1438 Excellent

About EpicSpaceTroll139

  • Rank
    Space Toaster programmer

Profile Information

  • Location 'Merica
  • Interests Aerospace Engineering, Science, Insanity

Recent Profile Visitors

3898 profile views
  1. @_Rade I can confirm that autostruts do affect rotor/prop performance, at least in some cases. I've been working on that fenestron rotor I showed earlier, and I had both rigid attachment and autostrut on the blades to keep them from over-expanding. I noticed that I didn't need the autostruts, and when I removed them, the rotor spun up by an additional 100deg/sec or so. When I put them back on it slowed back down again. Rigid attachment did too. Edit: Update on that fenestron rotor. I'm currently getting about 26kN from this 15 bladed rotor with one Juno blower. I was getting 19.1kN with a 10 bladed setup earlier. I'm going to do testing with different numbers of blades, as well as experiment with slightly different pitch angles, though I think I've got the latter pretty close to the optimum. Unfortunately the rpm is currently limited to some degree by rigid attachment, which is required to keep the rotor from over-expanding and coming in contact with the blower. I will also add a second blower, because even if it is efficient compared to other tail rotors I've made, 26kN is rather pitiful for a device this large. Edit 2: Unfortunately it would seem the most effective blades are also the ugliest. Edit 3: I've made a fantastically efficient tale rotor of this type and I'm testing it on Azi's Selene heli. It is able to provide adequate antitorque with one Juno blower limited to 75% on the maximum main rotor power setting. I might try changing making a few more changes though. I'd like to decrease the susceptibility to over speed (stay above 90% blower power for more than a few seconds and the outer blades hit the duct*), and if at all possible I want to add a system to vary the output via yaw control in a manner similar to the relatively weak rotor I showed a month or two back. *Interestingly the inner blades are able to keep up enough antitorque by spinning at 50rad/sec to keep the heli flying for a short period of time, but they then develop a "whirl" oscillation which feeds back on itself until the rotor assembly is ejected)
  2. Perhaps of note here is that in one of the updates, the way "physics-less" parts work changed. I forget which. A physicless part can add mass and drag to a craft now, it just gets applied to the closest parent part in the tree that has physics. So if you add a 0.005t RCS thruster with physics setting of 1 to a 0.5t tank, the tank will now weigh 0.505t, and be slightly draggier. It gets weird when you attach an RCS thruster to an RCS thruster to a stack separator and detach it. You now get a craft that acts as if all the mass is in one RCS thruster. I noticed this when making linkages in my attempts to make a working rotor head.
  3. Seems like this could result in problems if the blades wiggle a bit though, because unless the attachment point is at the COM, a wobble off the regular axis is going to cause them to try to flip around so the COM is on the outside. While the joints might be strong enough to prevent divergence, if the more than one blade ends up with the COM shifted in a given direction, you could get some violent rattling. Also there's the more annoying problem that this affects crafts globally, not just a particular plane. So now you might have contracting propellers (!) on one plane, normal ones on another, and oddly behaving ailerons on yet another.
  4. Interesting. I was aware that autostruts on rotors decreased performance, but I was not aware the same applied with rigid attachment. I will have to look into that. I might be able to improve the performance of some of my helis.
  5. I myself never have seen the supposed advantage of expanding props, and especially turbine blades. People say that that the expansion of the turbine blades provides better torque at higher rpm. But why not just have a non-expanding turbine of the larger size which provides that good torque at lower rpm? Similar on the props, though I can understand it more on props, because usually the lower rpm will probably occur at low speeds, which includes takeoff/landing when you might want a smaller prop for clearance.
  6. Been working on this thing: It might be a bit heavier than just an antitorque jet, but it looks cool. I probably won't finish it until next week since I need to study for final exams.
  7. @_Rade You could probably get them to stop stretching away from the hub by editing their mass to be much lower instead of making them physics-less.
  8. Explain This

    I believe this sums it up: (Note: I do not own the above image)
  9. [1.3.1] Sonic Realism

    I have to second @awang on the not hearing engine sounds thing. However I got this problem with the default branch and without AMR. I need to check to make sure it's not other mods, determine the precise conditions to recreate, get logs, etc., but what's going on right now is that I have an aircraft going subsonic in the Kerbin atmosphere, and I don't hear the engines (rapiers). When I start going supersonic and use flyby camera, in front I hear nothing (as is proper), and as it passes, I hear this rumble a split second before hearing a suprisingly faint crack of what I think is the sonic boom, then the rumble continues on for a long time. I believe the rumble is supposed to be the sound of the aircraft engines, but it sounds a little odd. It would seem that for some reason the sound of the aircraft is arriving a smidge before the actual shock. As I get to hypersonic speeds, I can hear the sound of air rushing over the aircraft even when my camera is well ahead of the craft. Again, I need to do testing to determine that the problem isn't with any of the other mods I have (I doubt it but you never know), and then post reproduction steps and logs. Like the mod though!
  10. What did you do in KSP today?

    @TheMadKraken2297 Wow. How many kerbals does that carry? It reminds me of my 1600(+4) kerbalYumbo Yet 6000. Anyways, I launched probably the most ghetto Realism Overhaul suborbital craft ever. The capsule consisted of a Bell X1 cockpit with four Aerobee sounding rocket parachute packages attached. Attitude control for the capsule was nitrogen thrusters. A Redstone stage provided the main propulsion to send the whole thing suborbital, and since I didn't have any heat shields, a quad set of Aerobee sustainer engines fired to slow the thing down to about 1500m/s before it reentered the atmosphere. Jeb almost blacked out during reentry, but there was a computer script to open the parachutes if had done so. Got some good science though! Probably won't launch something ridiculous like this for a while.
  11. Make The Mohole more realistic

    But... but half the fun of the Mohole is its weirdness and glitching out Kerbals wedged at the bottom! FYI the whole reason the Mohole is there is because there was a glitch/artifact* from the terrain generation that resulted in the super sharp and deep pit at the pole. Squad saw that people had fun messing around in it, so when they added biomes they gave it an official name in-game. *If you look for them, there are similar (but perhaps less dramatic) features at the poles of other planets and moons in-game. On Kerbin there are seems that come together in a + sign (a bit hard to see, but not impossible) at the North pole (probably south too), which will cause many a Kerbal who steps there to go sideways and go poof. If I recall, both the Mun and Ike have pyramids at their north poles. Standing on them has similar results, though usually it's just the standing sideways. I don't know about the other bodies but I'd wager they have similar terrain glitches too
  12. My mother passed away ... so I made her a star

    I'm sorry for your loss. What a pretty remembrance item for your mom. May the little star live on like her spirit.
  13. @michal.don The STS-5-8 says that the station requires 4 modules, a service module with SAS, RCS, and propulsion, a habitation module, and 2 science modules. Is it alright if I, say, put the RCS and other fuel in one module, SAS on the habitation module, and the station-keeping engines on one of the science modules? I'd still have 4 modules (actually my current design includes 5 + docked subcomponents) and include all the required functions, but the system would be distributed around the station.
  14. Recovering landed stages

    I don't know if you've done stock helis before or just ones using mod props and rotors, but here are some tips for the stock helis: On the single main rotor heli: Assuming you're controlling from the command seat, basic control inputs are like with a regular plane: pitch ws, yaw ad, roll = qe, however there are some additional quirks due to the spinning rotor. The rotor acts like a gyroscope, shifting some of the control force counterclockwise in this case (when viewing from above). As a result, you have to combine your controls to shift the force back where you want them. Ex: to pitch up, you of course want to do regular pitch up input, but also add a little bit of roll left input to counteract the gyro torque. Also in forward flight, the advancing blade produces more lift than the retreating blade (because the advancing blade has a higher airspeed). Once again gyroscopic effects modify this, resulting for this helicopter in the thing wanting to pitch up and roll left as forward speed increases. You'll want to counteract this with your controls. SAS can deal with it to some extent, but it can get confused sometimes. For other single main rotor helis, the modification of controls will be mirrored if the rotor spins in the other direction. On the tandem rotor one: The two rotors cancel out each other's gyroscopic control effects, so the only thing you have to watch for on them is the pitch-up at higher speed. It might be good for a new stock heli pilot, and usually can fly faster too.
  15. Haha I've done that before! Should have thought to mention it. @HolidayTheLeek Nice work. I didn't get a turboprop to fly that well on my first time. I'll try to take a look at that when I have the opportunity.