• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

40 Excellent

About Gavin786

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Just want to say what an amazing mod this is. I dont know how anyone can design atmospheric aircraft without this, the curves show so many things about the flight envelope it would be such a pain(and inconsistent) to find out by trial-and-error. Maybe it is just that people dont understand this mod and why its useful? That their aircraft can maybe perform a lot better/differently if they use a different ascent profile, what the ceiling will be, what the top speed will be. Basially this mod shows : HOW AN AIRCRAFT AUGHT TO BE FLOWN TO GET THE MOST OUT OF IT. If folks understood that, I would bet it would be a massively more popular mod. And there are many ways to fly, and most people are guessing or never reaching their aircraft's potential. Use this mod, then you will with 100% consistency. Amazing, critical information. For me this is a mission-critical mod, and I sincerely thank you for creating and updating it. Gavin786
  2. Totally dont agree with this. I think companies that focus on 1 product only make a much better job of it than companies with a bigger portfolio. I play Elite and I loathe how FDev treats the game, money I spend on cosmetics I am sure now just gets used to fund their other developments. Compare and contrast to Eve Online and CCL(?) who make it, its their only IP and total focus, how much better the attitude/interaction is there. I think KSP2 is likely gonna be a big cock-up, not as good, and that is why they are still doing KSP1, certainly says the publisher does not have much faith in them that they are still spending money on KSP1.
  3. Fair enough, even if you are right, they need money to keep the lights on and keep ppl paid. Even if its a crappy DLC, I think long-term players who love the game will be happy to pay, just to keep that happening. Doest need to be amazing, PPL understand I think, and do want SQUAD to keep interested/working on KSP. I would say just the amazing improvements to the game with the free updates in the last year are worth £15 or whatever the DLC will be worth, you need to understand that is also what you are paying for, even though you get it for free, its not free to create all these updates.
  4. Next Paid DLC? Anything coming this year? Would really like to support continued development of KSP1, even after KSP2, I dont see it replacing KSP1, given all the mod support, etc, and just my spider-sense about the world of programming, got the feeling the reach exceeds the grasp with what they want to do with KSP2. So any word on this? Was around this time last year that breaking ground came out. Cheers for anyone who chimes in. Would defo support SQUAD with anything they want to bring out, even if its submarines or floating airships or whatever, does not need to be as major as breaking ground. Gavin786
  5. Lisias also made a good point, and I should add it to my chime-in. KSP version should be the same for all participants so the craft are behaving the same way/same rules, cant have a craft winning competition on 1.7 and not working on 1.8. Incidentally a lot of 1.7 craft I built broke on 1.8 robotic system. I found that "lock on power loss" is a big culprit and should be set from default of True to False. Gavin786
  6. This sounds like a great competition and a good test of aircraft building skills. Based upon what I have read so far I have a few points regarding competition rules etc. Maybe it is too late in the day for this as entries have already been made, but comments are : 1. Proof should be a video of circumnavigation and save scumming aught not be allowed. Pictures alone are not sufficient, cheaters are unfortunately common, though in the (generally genuinely wonderful) KSP community they are less common, they may still exist, and question will always be in people's mind otherwise. 2. As a suggestion : A waypoint at opposite end of Kerbin should be passed within 1km, this is proof of circumnaviagation and deviation from a great circle just adds time then. Otherwise small deviations from equator can remove seconds(minutes?) from time. 2.1 Deviation could vary from the 1km if it is agreed due to the difficult of controlling hypersonic craft. Maybe 10km? Did the maths, its not going to make any meaningful difference a few degrees above or below equator, especially for aircraft travelling at hypersonic speed, UNLESS the competition comes down to seconds(which I doubt). About 5 degrees from equator should make about 10s difference or so at hypersonic speeds. HOWEVER: Variation beyond this gives a steep difference(3770 * ( 1.0 - cos( abs(latitude) ) ) ). 3. Are there no standard rules for competitions like these? I would just assume save scumming/deviation from stock parts would be part of a standard set of rules ? 4. Deviation from stock by tweakscale(or other mods that alter the fundamental properties of parts) aught not be allowed. Resizing a part alters the drag cube and makes a big difference, to the point it is an unfair advantage over pure stock. Should be stock parts only with cosmetics being only allowed (part altering) mods. 4.1 I have never explored tweakscale myself, so if the crafts it creates are "pure stock" which I define as a craft file that can be loaded/run and works the same fundamental way in a pure stock ksp, then I may revisit my ideas on this point 4. I dont know the mod. Seems like this is something that aught not be allowed though. 5. This is about the aircraft not the pilot so autopilots such as kOS/Mechjeb etc should be encouraged as they allow a repeatable flight profile. This is an "optional" of course but it is nice to load/learn from others' designs. I have recently learned the best players of this game make flight manuals for all their "completed" craft, would be nice to submit manual/flight instructions as part of craft submission(optional only just a nice thing/idea). Maybe I am just getting carried away as usual. My 2 cents. I am considering entering this competition. Gavin786
  7. So I see that KSP1 is still being very actively maintained with new features/improvements coming out all the time. Which is amazing. However it also begs the question: Why? Is KSP1 still going to be a thing/actively developed even after KSP2 is released, that is they are both undergoing development and sale simultaneously? Second question about KSP2 if anyone knows is that are models designed in KSP1 going to be compatible with KSP2? That would be a big barrier, and is for me currently, as I am thinking what is the point if KSP2 is right around the corner and my designs wont work anymore. Thank you all! Gavin786
  8. 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
  9. 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!
  10. 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 : Dual block : I have already explained how to create gimbaled engine blocks in a previous post. Gavin786
  11. 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.
  12. 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) ?
  13. 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
  14. 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.