The-Grim-Sleeper

Members
  • Content Count

    66
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About The-Grim-Sleeper

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I've been poking around in the .cfg's of the new helicopter and propeller parts, and their 'when moving'-aerodynamic properties are derived from using some new ModuleControlSurface properties: liftCurve, liftMachCurce, dragCurve and dragMachCurve. And the parts still have maximum_drag, minimum_drag and angularDrag. Using ModuleManager to set all that to zero and inserting some random FAR properties is straightforward enough. FAR diligently calculates Voxels for the parts, and from what I understand of FAR (next to nothing so please teach me where I am wrong), it handles the lift and drag based on speed and the shape based on those 'FAR properties , without needing any 'precalulated curves' to work. So it might be possible to make these new parts fully FAR compliant without requiring an extensive expansion... provided I can decipher how those 'FAR properties' apply so a set of control surfaces that are more or less 2by4 shaped. What am I missing that makes this problem way out of my league? And if it isn't, would somebody be interested in a dirty hack-job to make FAR-helicopter blades and FAR-propellers? And if it is, would anybody be interested in me trying to make a dirty hack-job anyway? Update: well it turns out that just setting the Stock ModuleControlSurface properties to zero also removes the deploy options. So I am going to need somebody to help me. ...Or just accept that these parts have stock physics.
  2. I think this will be the bar to reach really. KSP is a fun enough game and all, but to me it's fame is that it thought me the rocket equation, orbital mechanics and just-enough-aerodynamics in a fun and playful way. There are plenty of space games that run on 'fake physics'; I play KSP for the real deal (in a forgiving setting). I want learn something new from KSP2, and 'teaching General Relativity to kids' would be it. Also, yes, linux compatible would be a need for me.
  3. As far as I know, yes, you are missing something. What that something is, I can't really tell you, because I have the EXACT same problem. Past posts on this thread suggested I need more wing. 'Enough wing to not stall when flying at 50m/s or less.' 'FAR makes wings produce much less lift at low speeds, so you need so much wing that the aircraft stops looking like an aircraft.' I have not yet gotten around to succeeding at doing that. If you need more help, you are 'supposed to ask on the craft-repo-thread', but it has been a bit quiet as of late. https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/109098-official-far-craft-repository/
  4. 'Iguas' on the FAR-continued main thread asked about helicopters, and I'd like to share my .craft files as a starting point... But I have never actually shared files before. So... how do I do that? Anyway, my experience thus-far: I was able to get quite far with Brikoleur copter tutorial (linked below), with a few key differences: he recommends using 'Control Surfaces' for the blades. This got me problems. I had great success using 'Structural Wing Type C' (the very skinny tri-angle wing) mounted on a 'Rotation Servo F-12' for pitch control, 4 of them on a 'EM-64 Heavy Rotor'. Speaking of angle control, I found them to be very delicate, very sensitive. It is still way better to use angle contol rather then Engine Torque for your up-down controls, but you need to adjust the Servo change speed to quite low to make the craft flyable. In my 2 craft, the magic angle seems to be about 13 degrees and change speed less then 30 degrees per second. Below that you don't get good thrust, above that and the drag on the blades will kill your RPM. The old Werner K. addage still holds: not going up? Add MOAR thrust. I needed 4 EM-64 to get an empty Mk3-style craft to go up at all.
  5. Yes I have, but it was a challenge to be sure. I am not on my Game-puter atm, hit me on the FAR-craft thread for the craft files. A link to the topic and my findings (craft files to come soon) https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/109098-official-far-craft-repository/&do=findComment&comment=3639872
  6. Tried the 1.5 version of the mod posted here on 1.7.3 and it mostly works, and the things that don't work might be because I'm a bit obtuse: - I tried changing the color of the Holo Visor "Eyepatch" during EVA using part commander, but I could not find the part in the part-list. I don't have firespitter installed. (The fuel gauge seems to be working, wasn't able to properly deplete enough fuel to see changes) - Equipping the Omni-Tool Blue and trying to bolt a part to a vessel (a Holo Visor) gave me the 'tool needed' error message. Are these issues worth looking into?
  7. I guess I am in a similar position as @Bla Bla when it comes to aircraft design, and need some pointer. Question for the day: Where do I place flaps? I've seen the set_Flaps and how_much_deflection options in the part-context menu and I've seen (and understand to some extent) the numbers and the 'flaps'-button on the FAR 'Stability Derivatives' screen. I know that flaps are to 'increase lift at the cost of increased drag' which in that SD-screen means 'make more negative Zu and way more negative Xu'. But where do I actually place those flaps and why should I decide that they are flaps and not just 'pitch controls with extra buttons that ultimately just limit their functionality'?
  8. Progress update: Well the E42 just seems like a pain in to land with, but I am getting better: cockpit can sometimes survive the crash. Going to practice with another craft though. Other improvements include: not landing on a full tank of liquid fuel and not playing the game at 23:30 at night. Could you explain what these terms mean and what they are for? KER is good. Nuff said. In place of 'Atmospheric Autopilot - fly-by-wire', I've used 'MouseAimFlight' by tetryds, but I am feeling the updates-crunch. I've noticed that NavUtilities gets problems when you use quicksave. Is that a familiar issue? I've tried MechJebs tools for this, and they sorda work (auto altitude hold, auto heading hold, auto-speed hold), but again only if you don't use quicksave. But they haven't help me land at all, as the get very wonky when precision is needed. MechJeb2 aircraft lander will just plow into the ground, Game over. I tried 'kramax' with the E42 and using only the defaults, hand-off landing and only the cockpit survived. I tried another round, this time with the Gull and landing it on the island runway. More plane survived, but it was merely a good landing, far from a great one. I am very happy using auto-pilots for landing though, I will continue to test them till I find one I like.
  9. You mean the 'NavUtilities continued' mod, by user Ser? Yes, I have that. I've seen those acronyms in the mod, but I don't know what they mean, or how to use them to land. Most I've been using it to line up my approach in the lateral directions I'll look into that. How would you say it compares to MechJebs2's aircraft autopilot tools?
  10. I have found the brake button, yes. Vanilla stock aircraft don't have spoilers (or none that work anyway). I am trying to land at the Space Center Runway, with a heading of 270 degrees (so from the sea toward the mountains). I've tried landings with the 'E42 (Stock)' (the fighter-like craft) and am reducing my ambitions to the 'Gull (Stock)', the stock water-landing aircraft (although it sure as hell doesn't survive any ACTUAL water landings). I really don't want to install parts packs and tweak-scale on top at this time. So the KS-120 will have to wait for now.
  11. Thank you for the response @Bottle Rocketeer 500 I've had a look at the guide, but think you overestimate my skill level. The guide seems very, uhm 'Draw the rest of the owl' in terms of detailing information. It also completely fails to address any of the problems I have, like rolling off the far end of the runway, wheel bounce, the craft bucking and jostling as you hit the breaks, how you can use mod to make things easier instead of harder, etc.
  12. I've picked up the game again since some time, with Ferram Aerospace Reseach (continued) this time, but I can't land any aircraft anywhere. I can't even reliably touch the Lvl3 runway when making an approach with the E42 (the fighter-like craft). I've installed 'NavUtilities continued', which has helped me line up neatly, for a fill-length fly-over the runway, but I don't fully grasp all the information that it is trying to give me. If I manage to let the back-wheels touch the ground before any other part of the plane does, the bounce still crashes the plane. I've realized that my landing technique (in the base game) is basically 'quicksave, stall out and hope the pilot survives, reload, repeat, get frustrated, and then work around it (chutes, cheats, VTOL)'. I tried letting MechJeb (2) 'autoland aircraft' handle this, and well, that doesn't work atm. So I seem to have a big fundemantal gap in my knowledge and skill in landing aircraft. A quick googling has yielded me mostly very limey youtube videos, none of which relate to FAR and all of them seem out of date. The forum posts I've found are mostly 1-off tips to 'watch for things' and me trying to do so just ends in more pancaking. Does anybody know a good, preferably step-by-step guide on how to (properly) land an aircraft in KSP, ideally one that also works with FAR installed? Mod-recommendations and all?
  13. This. Just this, really. The best answer and the simplest answer.
  14. The lack of uses for rotary parts in 'specifically career mode' is not a fault of the rotors; it is a fault of career mode! Career mode features plenty is dumb pointless stuff, that exists only to facilitate weird and unusual craft, or to fix problems in career mode. Eg, Kerbin-based survey missions are dull, tedious and "have no place in this 'space-game'", but are necessary to net you some easy contracts at the start of a game. Likewise, "test this part, while going at speed X and altitude Y" are also odd, especially when concerning things like 'decoupler on launchpad', 'landing gear in orbit of the Mun' etc. These are simply an extension of existing sane missions, applied to funny part-criteria combinations. Career-mode could just as easily feature a contract 'expose a Kerbal to at least X many G-force'. which can be completed using some wonky Super-Jet plane. OR you could use the rotary parts to make a G-force training rig! (and yes, the physics of the game allow G-force to affect individual parts, and their crew). 'Build station'-missions could feature a DLC-only 'needs a gravity ring' requirement. So rotary parts could have great uses in 'specifically career mode' sometime soon. As for more immediate applications, I would like to point to reality; sure, the stock game provides easy access to jet engines and rocket engines, right of the bat and these can do "anything a propeller can" and "go fasta", but in reality rotary engine craft see a fair share of use, for many reasons. Jet engines can go faster, but propellers produce the same amount of thrust at slower speeds and of a greater range of low speeds. This is great for VTOL craft, even in KSP. Propellers are also more fuel efficient. A Jet will guzzle up a lot of fuel when going fast, and when you don't need to go fast, but DO need to pull hard (for say a sky-crane) jets are just useless. And you can re-charge your batteries in-flight with solar panels, RTGs, fuel-cells and yes, jet engine alternators. Also, cranes and other ground utility vehicles (and in case of using BD-armory, Tanks) get good use out of turret-mounted systems, is is specifically the domain of rotors. Try building a refueling truck. Then again, if you don't really enjoy being an engineer, and just "Wanna Go Fast & Far", none of that really matters to you either. KSP might not even be the game you really want to playing right now. Try a racing game instead. Or 'Asteroids', the original space simulation!
  15. Hey Meithan, how are you doing? I've been using the Optimal Engine Web-app since patch 1.3.1 and using the provided tools to keep in tune with the updates. But I've started to run into problems with new engines are being added (via DLC and also some mods). I have created a pull -request with the new globals.js and engine_charts.html, and locally, that seems to work fine. But I am not very confidant in my work, it was less 'a fully understood alteration' and more a 'change random things and hope it works' kind of update. But there it is: https://github.com/meithan/engine_charts/pull/1/files Edit: and so I've found a snag: The new engines will use the same colors as the old engines. If you load the example, you can see it neatly with the Nerv and the Wolfhound.