Gavin786

Members
  • Content Count

    55
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

36 Excellent

About Gavin786

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. So I had some pretty strong opinions saying this type of feature was not needed, that pilot skill etc etc could compensate for it. After having created quite a lot of aircraft now especially with new breaking ground features I just want to say - I was wrong. Having some kind of feature where the motion vectors of the craft could be fed to user-programmable software system that can then control the actuators would be super useful and essential to make some designs flyable. Especially on my dual car there are loads of things that it just cant do that it would be able to if i could program the actuators in response to vector/input. And I am sat wishing just such a feature or mod that this thread talks about does in fact exist. Anyway, just saying having some proper fly-by-wire in stock would be wonderful, if not a mod would def be great. A lot more craft types could be made and existing ones could fly more stably or have different performance characteristics. And player skill and craft knowledge can never compensate for a lot of situations where a fly-by-wire system would be needed. So I have rethought things and changed my mind by 180 degrees from above, only fair to OP and others I say so. Gavin786
  2. Amazing Update, and so many features, long, long overdue. We had to use mods Precise Editor and Editor Extensions Deluxe to do these things which aught to have been in stock for a very long time(break symmetry + enter numeric values). Thank you, SQUAD, great update!
  3. Welcome Humans, Today I present 2 jet-powered hovercars which are controlled with gimballed engines. First uses a single engine block set. Second uses dual. Both use jets with gimballed blocks and have a unique(so far as I am aware) flying profile. There is a difference between the single and dual models in how vertical thrust is regulated. In single engine one we have to lower the TWR which is dangerous because bringing it back up again is slow process in a jet engine. We tried to solve this problem in dual engine version by vectoring the engines so they dont need to be spooled down. Would be great the day SQUAD finally gives us some scripting or fine-grained control over things, highly anticipated. Would be of massive benefit on this vehicle. I have created some videos and some screen shots. If any human knows an easy way to make videos appear smaller in size on these posts or side-by-side etc a PM would be appreciated. Single Engine Block : Dual Engine Block : and the downloads may be found at : Single block : https://kerbalx.com/gavin786/HoverCarSingle-export Dual block : https://kerbalx.com/gavin786/HoverCarDual2-export I have already explained how to create gimbaled engine blocks in a previous post. Gavin786
  4. I already amended the above and did a video to test it out. Well within the margin of error and not a big change as one would expect so I assume you are correct.
  5. I amended the above post with a test I did and result is a mixed bag, def not as big a difference as I had hoped. Question really becomes : does it genuinely not matter WHERE on a ship a reaction wheel is but it will act the same way, even if placed in really weird places it just doesnt matter(unlike RCS) ?
  6. Engine gimbals are bound to the translation axis that are normally used for RCS. I used the U/D and L/R in this case as its bound to the analog stick on my flight controls but you can bind in your own designs to as you like. To bind a rotator to an axis there is a menu option on the top left 'action groups' and there are a number of options(added for breaking ground) to bind axes to the robotic controls. First thing I did when I started KSP was rebind all the controls so I have no idea what the "proper" control scheme is. I would hazard a guess that it is the IJKL. As far as returning to center goes, it is totally NOT obvious and I did even a video about this but there is an option there(very tiny) just under the bound control to change mode between relative and absolute. Grab yourself a magnifying glass and see if you can find it . Try changing to absolute and see if that helps. Gavin786
  7. I am not sure about it as I said I need to run the numbers and test it out. Its subjective experience right now. I maybe aught not to have advertised it so strongly until I fully did the experiments. I did compare it by putting the same number of wheels at the center of the ship and there was a difference but this could be due to weight distribution rather than increased torq. Initially I place RCS(vernier) at the ends of the nacelles and that for sure 100% made a difference. It is a natural assumption that the reaction wheels obey the same laws of physics but if they dont then well... I recently made a air vehicle based upon a similar principal and I didnt get nearly as much of a torq advantage as I thought by replacing 1 large reaction wheel in the center by small ones on the thrusters.
  8. Welcome Humans, Here I explain the secrets of how to construct gimbaled engines and maneuvering nacelles, which allow high performance in large craft. Here is an example of an otherwise unremarkable large craft with Gimbaled engines and Stabilizer/Maneuvering nacelles : 1. Gimbaled Engines These allow landing without RCS of any kind. In practice the gimbaled engines worked far better than I initially expected they would. They are superb for arresting horizontal velocity during descent and make RCS un-necessary, for a ship of this size it means no vernier engines and thence no oxidizer needed. I suspect that even with engines that possess their own gimbals disabling them and using something like this will have many use cases. Whole engine assembly is free to move on its own axis. There are 2 rotators at the back attached to the fuselage. The rotator connected directly to the fuselage controls the movement of the engine block as a whole and can rotate it though any angle. The rotator connected to next to that is part of the gimbal mechanism and is for the U/D(Y) translation. At the end furthest from the fuselage there is an octagonal strut. This is connected to the main body of the fuselage with 6 struts. This gives essential structural support to the whole assembly. Connected to this octagonal strut is another rotator. This has no motor and is free to rotate. It's function is part to impart stability to the assembly. The nuclear engines are connected to each other in the U/D(Y) translation axis with fixed struts as they will always maintain their relative position. Hinged struts connect the engines in the L/R(X) translation axis. This again is for stability of the assembly and to ensure the engines always retain their relative position. Otherwise each engine is connected to the assembly with a rotator which moves it in this axis. 2. Stabiliser Nacelles Example below of flying this ship 160t, handles like a fighter, and definitely a lot better than Imperial Cutter in Elite. *** Please watch video below on Reaction Wheel Performance where it has been tested - reaction wheel placement may not have such a big effect as it seems -- more testing is needed at this time -- it may be weight distribution and structural stability that gives the feel of higher performance than extended reaction wheels *** Experiments and Advice seems to show that reaction wheel placement does not work as one would expect and it does not matter where on the craft reaction wheels are placed. Results below are likely due to the weight balance of the craft/vs testing reaction wheels in center and not due to reaction wheel placement. I have demonstrated in below video. Other purpose of these stabilisers is to allow the craft to land by supporting the main body and preventing roll over as well as distributing weight. In this instance they may also be retracted for placement in the initial launch faring. For those who know, will and dare to do so the craft may be downloaded : https://kerbalx.com/gavin786/Excursion3-export Gavin786 Testing of Reaction Wheel Placement I decided to make a test of Reaction Wheel placement. Results are mixed bag. For this model there was only a 10%(Well within margin of error) difference in 360 deg turn time. Again it did seem the 2nd model was massively more stable than first where I couldnt line it up easily at all.
  9. Well put your money where your mouth is. What is your solution to problem of building landers without being able to readily test them ? Next guy who is building the bridge you are about to drive across - lets hope he didn't have the same design philosophy.
  10. Mods are not allowed on the console version of this game. I do not know how it is possible to get even past the most basic level of design and flight without some essential features which are not in stock. Most glaring one is the ability to test a craft by moving it directly to any orbit or position. Let us take for example a lander for Mun. Without this mod, every time the designer wishes to test an iteration of the design, it has to be packed onto a rocket, then flown to Mun, then deployed and tested. Does this not drive one nuts ? Quality craft just cant be created with this method of having to fly to Mun every time. Small refinements cant be readily made and tested, every time there is a full commitment to flying out there be it sandbox or career mode it matters not, it must be a terrible ball ache for those who are not members of the PC Master Race. Not being able to test a craft in the proper environment it was designed to operate in is a huge handicap. What about in-flight information, quickly see one's apoapsis and periapsis, the time to both, how much deltav a manouver node will use, horizontal and vertical velocities, and a myriad of other essential information all need Kerbal Engineer(or some other tool). Learning to land on Mun is not so easy on its own and certainly took me a few tries just to learn the skill, even though I split the manouver into 3 parts and was able to independently learn each one, suicide/landing burn, surface landing, and takeoff/reorbit. And that is AFTER I had to redesign the craft a few times so it could even land, not to mention the phase next of optimising performance.. Essential tools like Kerbal Engineer, calculations of TWR on various bodies. Thankfully DeltaV is stock now. Any type of precise adjustments to manouever nodes or parts in editor needs a 3rd party tool. RCS build aid, another great tool if you actually want your ship to be controllable on RCS. I have a system whereby I categorize mods. "White" mods are what I restrict myself to. White mods are informational or assist in the use of core functionality. They never do anything that would not allow a craft to fly and have full function in stock. Nor do they fundamentally alter gameplay by providing functions to automatically perform any flight operations which must be done manually in stock. Temporary parts or functions which allow testing of vehicles before they are deployed such as the move anywhere and NRAP test weights are included in my category as long as the line of not using these when in career mode on any deployed vehicle is adhered to(they are for design and testing purposes only). So I am discussing here mods which only augment core functionality/assist stock ship design, tools that by any sensible thinking really AUGHT to be in the stock game. I just dont know how people can build, test and fly without these things. Obviously there are exceptions and certain specific craft and categories can be built and deployed out of the box and there are certain exceptional people also who have internalized into their subconscious a lot of what is needed to build these things and can do it with pure intuition, but some people just need to see the numbers. Gavin786
  11. Now I finally got the breaking ground parts to work(by disabling autostruts) I was able to build a really nice gimbol for this ship which dispenses with the need for RCS on planet landing. It works beautifully.
  12. * HAVE NOW SOLVED THIS BUG(above, locking bug) It is caused by : AUTOSTRUTS Disable autostruts on any parts which are having this behavour. Its is a VERY frustrating bug as none of your designs will work right if you autostrut them! Gavin786 Try removing autostruts from the offending parts. I had exact same problem and it has solved it.
  13. * HAVE NOW SOLVED THIS BUG It is caused by : AUTOSTRUTS Disable autostruts on any parts which are having this behavour. Its is a VERY frustrating bug as none of your designs will work right if you autostrut them! Gavin786
  14. OK, I have not yet tested on the model above but I did get it working(and a much better version) with rotators. There were the same kind of problems and I have rooted out what it is : AUTOSTRUTS IF you are having any kind of problems with parts just not working as they should it would be my first suggestion is to switch autostruts off in your model, then enable part-by-part as needed. I use(as many ppl) Editor Extensions Redux and its just a matter of habit switching on rigid and struts for every part. HAVING PROBLEMS WITH BREAKING GROUND? CHECK THE AUTOSTRUTS! As ppl no doubt can tell I am actually really pleased with this discovery as up till now I have been bashing my head and not being able to create more than simple designs and even then having them not work correctly. For the above 32 passenger ship that can land on planets, I have now made a full gimbol system that allows me to fully dispense with RCS : * Just tested and got rid of autostruts in design in the video. Everything seems to be working perfect now!
  15. I actually just found the control. It is on the Custom1 axis itself. It is a tiny graphical checkbox below the control. Very easy to miss! Thank you KerikBalm. I have been looking for a way to do this for days. Even made a video asking for help. That is going to be super useful in my builds. Gavin786