Jump to content

RedPandaz

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    327

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by RedPandaz

    [1.3.1 <= KSP <= 1.12.5] KAX - Kerbal Aircraft Expansion KAX — Under Lisias' Management — v2.8.1.0 [2021-0824]

    in KSP1 Mod Releases

    Posted

    On 3/26/2021 at 12:42 AM, Lisias said:

    A 2.5 PAX cabin never existed before, at least on KAX and Firespitter.

    The FS2CF part is not exactly new, by the way, nether the KAX ones - the "medFuselage" parts were incorporated on KAX on 2.2.1 (2014), while the FS1 Bomber parts entered service on Firespitter on the same year. So I think we have a misunderstanding here - what's not exactly a surprise, as things are somewhat messy nowadays. :D 

    Since I'm pretty sure you had used a 2.5m crew cabin before, I searched on my personal museum of aviation add'ons looking for crewed 2.5m fuselages, and found one on Airplane Plus and another one in Neist Airline Parts.

      Reveal hidden contents

    On a side note, the APP's engines are way overpowered, some prop engines are more powerful than stock jet ones - don't use them if you want a balanced gameplay.

    Give a peek on this thread, there more hints on airplanes add'ons there (including links for the ones I mentioned above):

     

    Oh it was probably Airplane Plus then, that one sound familiar

    DJA 1946 BDAc AI Dogfight Tournament

    in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas

    Posted · Edited by RedPandaz

    On 6/7/2019 at 5:02 PM, aleksey444 said:

    I scanned the previous BAD-T IV, III, and II threads, and compiled a list of everybody who posted in them, excepting those I already noticed posting in the current thread. I assumed that if you posted in the BAD-T threads, you have an interest in such competitions, and therefore might wish to participate in this one.

    Some people haven’t logged in in months or years, but many are active. My hope is that if your name is mentioned in this thread, you will receive a notification and decide to join in. The more the merrier!

    So, I would like to invite the following people to join in this fight:

    @53miner53, @Adam Kerman, @adamgerd, @Aerolfos, @Alioth81, @alp3r, @Arvolder, @Astrofox, @Azimech, @BahamutoD, @Bananders, @blackheart612, @Bob_Saget54, @Bottle Rocketeer 500, @Brice04, @Combatsmithen, @crashsolo36, @DIMASARM, @DoctorDavinci, @Doke, @Draconiator, @dundun92, @dundun93, @Dwerto, @Eidahlil, @ferram4, @g00bd0g, @Gnoyze, @gridghost, @Ironsights, @JagerVonSmith, @Jeb, The Lonely Kerbonaut, @Joseph Kerman, @KamikazeF0X, @keptin, @Kronos1174, @KSP Bros KS, @luftein, @MarvinCZ, @Matuchkin, @MightyDarkStar, @Murican_Jeb, @NKL, @Noir, @OmegaForce, @OrbitalBuzzsaw, @Orenstix, @pyrosheep, @RedPandaz, @SasquatchM, @Sidestrafe2462, @SpannerMonkey(smce), @sturmhauke, @TangerineSedge, @Temeter, @tetryds, @The Fedora Astronaut, @The Optimist, @theonegalen, @TheSealBrigade, @TheSpaceManiac, @Van Disaster, @Vanamonde, @Vexnium, @Vigelius, @Wjolcz, @Wolf123.

    If I’ve not mentioned you, I apologize. Going through three threads was a tedious task, as was typing everybody’s name here. If you see this, please join in.

    I want to hear your lamentations over losing, instead of lamentations over missing the competition. Let’s swamp @SuicidalInsanity with so may submissions that he will be running battles for the next few months! :D

    Come and fight with us!

    Is this still going on?

     

    Edit: It seems to be

    [1.2-1.7] Blender (2.83+) .mu import/export addon

    in KSP1 Tools and Applications

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, taniwha said:

    I meant ALL the steps, from the very beginning. It might be a good idea to start again with a completely fresh install of blender.

    My recommended steps:

    • Install blender.
    • Go to your blender addons directory, for me this is  ~/.config/blender/2.80/scripts/addons but I use Linux and blender 2.80. I have no idea where it is on other OSes.
    • Using git, clone the repository
      • for blender 2.79: 
    
git clone -b blender2.79 https://github.com/taniwha/io_object_mu.git
    • for blender 2.80: 
    
git clone https://github.com/taniwha/io_object_mu.git
    • In blender's user preferences, you should be able to find and enable the addon in the addons page.

    Seriously, the zip files generated by github seem to cause more problems than they solve.

    Well, no, the folder is there, as "io_object_mu", but it just doesn't appear on the addons page

    [1.2-1.7] Blender (2.83+) .mu import/export addon

    in KSP1 Tools and Applications

    Posted

    9 hours ago, taniwha said:

    @RedPandaz: make sure you're using the correct branch for your blender: master for 2.80 (recent build) or lbender2.79 for 2.79. Beyond that, I will need to see what errors you are getting.

    @Gapone: "clone the repository" is how you download the code using git or a graphical git client. It makes a local copy of the repository (in this case, the directory structure on github) including all revision history. Once you've cloned a repository, updating is done by pulling from the repository.

    Either way, you will need to click on the big green "clone or download" button, which gives a git command line to clone, or you can download the zip using the provided link. cloning is better because of the ease of updating, but you do need git.

    Beware that if you use blender 2.79, you will need to first select the blender2.79 branch before downloading the zip (if cloning, you can use git to switch between branches easily).

    can I DM you the error messages?

     

    Kerbal Express Airlines - Regional Jet Challenge (Reboot Continued)

    in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas

    Posted

    16 hours ago, neistridlar said:

     

     

    Test Pilot Review: @RedPandaz's The Delta Flight division of RedPandaz Exploration Technologies Delta Impulse (-S)

     9vfnfdU.png

     
    Figures as Tested: Delta Impulse

    • Price: :funds:16,056,000
    • Fuel: 400 kallons
    • Cruising speed: 270m/s
    • Cruising altitude: 6000m
    • Fuel burn rate: 0.060 kal/s
    • Range: 1,800km

    Figures as Tested: Delta Impulse-S

    • Price: 22,043,000
    • Fuel: 400 kallons
    • Cruising speed: 200m/s
    • Cruising altitude: 5000m
    • Fuel burn rate: 0.073 kal/s
    • Range: 1,100km

     
    Review Notes:
    Oh no, not another of those fighter looking planes. That is what our test pilots said out loud when they first saw these two planes. And with its forward swept anhedral wings it certainly looks agressive. During take off the pilots noted that the engine seemed to be starved of air, and the initial acceleration was surprisingly slow, gradually picking up as the plane gathered speed. Our engineers were somewhat puzzled by the choice of intake geometry, using an intake optimized for supersonic flight seemed a little out of place on a plane intended for subsonic operations, and recommended other options be investigated.
     
    The somewhat unusual landing gear configuration of these aircraft, being a sort of odd hybrid of taildragger and tricycle, with the low, far back main gear and tall nose gear had caused some concerns for the take off stability. Some had speculated that the main gear would lift off first, leaving only the nose gear on the ground before liftoff, like a wheelbarrow. Not exactly the thing you would want to drive down a runway at umpteen miles per hour. Luckily the designers of this aircraft seemed to know what they were doing, and the Delta Impulse simply lifted off at 40m/s, without any input from the pilot. The Delta Impulse-S needed a little convincing with the elevators to get off the ground though, but still an easy takeoff. Though there were some complaints from the passengers that the suspension bottomed out in the process, giving them a good and proper jolt. Now despite the impressively low lift off speed, the aircraft still used a fair bit of runway reaching that speed, which made the takeoff distance about average.
     
    Once in the air both planes handled very similarly. Our pilots noted that the roll rate was just barely adequate for normal flight. Not to surprising, seeing as all of the control surfaces are mounted so close to the fuselage. It did not help that all control surfaces were set to respond to everything, so the roll authority had to share with the pitch authority. Our engineers suggest that that a dedicated pair of ailerons be placed near the wing tips for extra roll authority. Now partially thanks to the thrust vectoring on the engine, the aircraft had enough yaw and pitch control for at least 3 aircraft at once. The aircraft are easily able to flip themselves 180 degrees in the air both in pitch and yaw. The pilots reported having flashbacks from certain other fighter looking planes. Though were happy to report that the air frame was sufficiently stable to recover quickly on its own, without much pilot intervention.
     
    At low speeds however the combination of weak roll authority and somewhat weak yaw stability proved to be very dangerous to pilots trained in aircraft with dihedral. As turns were performed near stall speed the aircraft quickly took on a large amount of sideslip, the already anemic ailerons became practically ineffective, and so did the elevator. Our pilots being used to a strong roll yaw coupling instinctively stepped on the rudders to supplement the ailerons, and roll out of the turn. The aircraft does however have practically no roll yaw coupling at all, and so the maneuver proved ineffective, and just worsened the situation, with the aircraft continuing to sideslip towards the ground. In the last possible moment, they decided if this was not working, maybe they should try the opposite, and yaw towards the ground in stead. Much to their relief, this procedure proved very effective, as it canceled out the sideslip, and made the elevators effective again. The test pilots concluded that significant conversion training would be required for pilots used to flying aircraft with strong roll yaw coupling. 
     
    Despite all the flaws, the aircraft proved to be very easy to fly, as long as it was kept within typical passenger jet operation limits. And even during the violent maneuvering the wings stayed reassuringly straight, and did not really seem to mind pulling 15Gs at all. We believe this is due to the lower semi wing bracing the upper wing in a very rigid triangle shape.
     
    Landing the aircraft offered a bit of a surprise for our pilots though. They approached the runway on a shallow glide slope at 100m/s as usual, but even after cutting the throttle, the aircraft just seemed to float on and on down the runway. Having glided the entire length of the runway at KSC they finally set it down just at the end having reached 30m/s. That is impressively low, and consequently the stopping distance was hardly anything at all.
     
    With such low landing speeds it should come as no surprise that the Delta Impulse is quite capable of safe ditching in water. With the air starved engine it was found to be completely unable to take of again. It probably did not help that the air consisted mostly of water. The Impulse-S however, being a seaplane design handled beautifully on the water. Nice and steady, no nose diving tendencies, no tipping over, and with both engines and intakes well clear of the water. Take off performance was even better than on land, lifting off at only 35m/s!. 
     
    As for cruising, our pilots reported that the aircraft handled well both with and without the autopilot, though the strong pitch authority and slow reactions of the engines did make it somewhat difficult to maintain a steady cruise. The aircraft cruises with slight nose up attitudes, it is should not be detrimental, though we recommend that RET do research the effects of increasing the angle of incidence on their wings for increased fuel efficiency. 
     
    With that short and sweet description of the flight characteristics out of the way, let’s get on with the passenger comfort. Well. The passengers were not impressed at all with the maneuverability of the aircraft, and reported that it was quite challenging aiming at the sick bags with the plane alternating between 15G turns, flat spins, stalls and recoveries, all within the span of a few seconds. Some also reported having lost a few centimeters of height during the flight. During the calmer parts of the flight though, they did manage to report some vibrations with a bit of noise in the back. Not unlike many other planes in these categories. 
     
    As for the economics. The brochure said it was intended to be a better cheaper alternative to the TSG SP-32-1 "Arrow". Well, it is cheaper, but not by much. And considering the Delta Impulse family only carries 24 passengers the “Arrow” is actually cheaper per seat with its 32 passenger capacity.The fuel economy and maintenance is better though, with only 25 parts for the Delta Impulse, and 39 for the Delta Impulse-S, which is good for a seaplane like this. On fuel economy there is almost no difference between the Impulse and the “Arrow” as well, though both have decent fuel economy, both being better than average. In the end it turns out the Delta Impulse accomplished what it set out to do, just barely.
     
    The Verdict:
    The turboprop marked is very crowded, and the competition is stiff, but with its good range and high top cruising speed we think there might be a place for a Dlata Impulse on long thin routes. As a trial we will be leasing a pair, to see how the conversion training goes. If RET can offer an improved version with better roll rate and generally less sensitive pitch and roll we would like to order a few more. As for the Delta Impulse-S, despite its handling shortcomings in the air we do believe it to be a good long lasting seaplane, and will be buying two, with options for 6 more if the handling issues can be sorted out.
     

    Ok, I can work on a Delta Impulse B, should fix the problems. It was *incredibly* maneuverable before I took off the control surfaces off to reduce cost. Not sure about limiting control surfaces, I don't do that on any of my planes so far because I'm not quite sure how it would help and what would lack. Offering to subcontract the dev out with another manufacturer. Will also stretch the fuselage, might switch out the Panther for a rapier, will test

    16 hours ago, neistridlar said:

     

     

    Test Pilot Review: @RedPandaz's The Delta Flight division of RedPandaz Exploration Technologies Delta Impulse (-S)

     9vfnfdU.png

     
    Figures as Tested: Delta Impulse

    • Price: :funds:16,056,000
    • Fuel: 400 kallons
    • Cruising speed: 270m/s
    • Cruising altitude: 6000m
    • Fuel burn rate: 0.060 kal/s
    • Range: 1,800km

    Figures as Tested: Delta Impulse-S

    • Price: 22,043,000
    • Fuel: 400 kallons
    • Cruising speed: 200m/s
    • Cruising altitude: 5000m
    • Fuel burn rate: 0.073 kal/s
    • Range: 1,100km

     
    Review Notes:
    Oh no, not another of those fighter looking planes. That is what our test pilots said out loud when they first saw these two planes. And with its forward swept anhedral wings it certainly looks agressive. During take off the pilots noted that the engine seemed to be starved of air, and the initial acceleration was surprisingly slow, gradually picking up as the plane gathered speed. Our engineers were somewhat puzzled by the choice of intake geometry, using an intake optimized for supersonic flight seemed a little out of place on a plane intended for subsonic operations, and recommended other options be investigated.
     
    The somewhat unusual landing gear configuration of these aircraft, being a sort of odd hybrid of taildragger and tricycle, with the low, far back main gear and tall nose gear had caused some concerns for the take off stability. Some had speculated that the main gear would lift off first, leaving only the nose gear on the ground before liftoff, like a wheelbarrow. Not exactly the thing you would want to drive down a runway at umpteen miles per hour. Luckily the designers of this aircraft seemed to know what they were doing, and the Delta Impulse simply lifted off at 40m/s, without any input from the pilot. The Delta Impulse-S needed a little convincing with the elevators to get off the ground though, but still an easy takeoff. Though there were some complaints from the passengers that the suspension bottomed out in the process, giving them a good and proper jolt. Now despite the impressively low lift off speed, the aircraft still used a fair bit of runway reaching that speed, which made the takeoff distance about average.
     
    Once in the air both planes handled very similarly. Our pilots noted that the roll rate was just barely adequate for normal flight. Not to surprising, seeing as all of the control surfaces are mounted so close to the fuselage. It did not help that all control surfaces were set to respond to everything, so the roll authority had to share with the pitch authority. Our engineers suggest that that a dedicated pair of ailerons be placed near the wing tips for extra roll authority. Now partially thanks to the thrust vectoring on the engine, the aircraft had enough yaw and pitch control for at least 3 aircraft at once. The aircraft are easily able to flip themselves 180 degrees in the air both in pitch and yaw. The pilots reported having flashbacks from certain other fighter looking planes. Though were happy to report that the air frame was sufficiently stable to recover quickly on its own, without much pilot intervention.
     
    At low speeds however the combination of weak roll authority and somewhat weak yaw stability proved to be very dangerous to pilots trained in aircraft with dihedral. As turns were performed near stall speed the aircraft quickly took on a large amount of sideslip, the already anemic ailerons became practically ineffective, and so did the elevator. Our pilots being used to a strong roll yaw coupling instinctively stepped on the rudders to supplement the ailerons, and roll out of the turn. The aircraft does however have practically no roll yaw coupling at all, and so the maneuver proved ineffective, and just worsened the situation, with the aircraft continuing to sideslip towards the ground. In the last possible moment, they decided if this was not working, maybe they should try the opposite, and yaw towards the ground in stead. Much to their relief, this procedure proved very effective, as it canceled out the sideslip, and made the elevators effective again. The test pilots concluded that significant conversion training would be required for pilots used to flying aircraft with strong roll yaw coupling. 
     
    Despite all the flaws, the aircraft proved to be very easy to fly, as long as it was kept within typical passenger jet operation limits. And even during the violent maneuvering the wings stayed reassuringly straight, and did not really seem to mind pulling 15Gs at all. We believe this is due to the lower semi wing bracing the upper wing in a very rigid triangle shape.
     
    Landing the aircraft offered a bit of a surprise for our pilots though. They approached the runway on a shallow glide slope at 100m/s as usual, but even after cutting the throttle, the aircraft just seemed to float on and on down the runway. Having glided the entire length of the runway at KSC they finally set it down just at the end having reached 30m/s. That is impressively low, and consequently the stopping distance was hardly anything at all.
     
    With such low landing speeds it should come as no surprise that the Delta Impulse is quite capable of safe ditching in water. With the air starved engine it was found to be completely unable to take of again. It probably did not help that the air consisted mostly of water. The Impulse-S however, being a seaplane design handled beautifully on the water. Nice and steady, no nose diving tendencies, no tipping over, and with both engines and intakes well clear of the water. Take off performance was even better than on land, lifting off at only 35m/s!. 
     
    As for cruising, our pilots reported that the aircraft handled well both with and without the autopilot, though the strong pitch authority and slow reactions of the engines did make it somewhat difficult to maintain a steady cruise. The aircraft cruises with slight nose up attitudes, it is should not be detrimental, though we recommend that RET do research the effects of increasing the angle of incidence on their wings for increased fuel efficiency. 
     
    With that short and sweet description of the flight characteristics out of the way, let’s get on with the passenger comfort. Well. The passengers were not impressed at all with the maneuverability of the aircraft, and reported that it was quite challenging aiming at the sick bags with the plane alternating between 15G turns, flat spins, stalls and recoveries, all within the span of a few seconds. Some also reported having lost a few centimeters of height during the flight. During the calmer parts of the flight though, they did manage to report some vibrations with a bit of noise in the back. Not unlike many other planes in these categories. 
     
    As for the economics. The brochure said it was intended to be a better cheaper alternative to the TSG SP-32-1 "Arrow". Well, it is cheaper, but not by much. And considering the Delta Impulse family only carries 24 passengers the “Arrow” is actually cheaper per seat with its 32 passenger capacity.The fuel economy and maintenance is better though, with only 25 parts for the Delta Impulse, and 39 for the Delta Impulse-S, which is good for a seaplane like this. On fuel economy there is almost no difference between the Impulse and the “Arrow” as well, though both have decent fuel economy, both being better than average. In the end it turns out the Delta Impulse accomplished what it set out to do, just barely.
     
    The Verdict:
    The turboprop marked is very crowded, and the competition is stiff, but with its good range and high top cruising speed we think there might be a place for a Dlata Impulse on long thin routes. As a trial we will be leasing a pair, to see how the conversion training goes. If RET can offer an improved version with better roll rate and generally less sensitive pitch and roll we would like to order a few more. As for the Delta Impulse-S, despite its handling shortcomings in the air we do believe it to be a good long lasting seaplane, and will be buying two, with options for 6 more if the handling issues can be sorted out.
     

    So I take it the Impulse S was a success? Still, might make an S-B model. Potenial Subcontractors wanted

×
×
  • Create New...