neistridlar

Members
  • Content Count

    758
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

691 Excellent

3 Followers

About neistridlar

  • Rank
    Submariner

Profile Information

  • Location Array

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. With regards to classes, I think the original classes (pre hoppers) is mostly fine. Those that bother me the most are jumbo and sea plane, and to some extent supersonic. The issue I have is the openness. With enormous variations in speed, size and range, it is very difficult to compare and judge. For supersonic I'd put a roof on passenger capacity of say 64. Prohibit supersonic jumbos (and any other category). Also limit seaplane to say 40 seats. As for sub categories, I don't particularly like it. I think it's good enough as has been done previously, with judges giving a comment on what that particular plane might be useful for.
  2. I do like this Idea. Maybe er vold divide the ckasses into tiers. Say turboprop/small regional is tier 1, medium regional and dra plane tier 2, and jumbo and supersonic tier 3. You would have to have at least one plane "approved" before they could move on to the next tier. Agreed. Only thing is I'm not sure the mk1 needs the price increase as well. IIRC it wil end up as the heaviest pr. Seat, which means the kppms will suffer, especially for long range aircrafts, as the fuel/mass fraction gets quite high on those. Might need to build a few "benchmark"-aircraft by those rules, just to test it out.
  3. Yup, we definitively need something like this. Though believe it or not the current queue would only loose 1 or 2 planes with a 6 plane limit (just from looking over it quickly). Though there have certainly been points in time where it would have cut down the queue more. By my count there is ~50 unique contestants in the queue currently, with ~110 submissions between them. I feel like a limit of 3 might be necessary to keep things manageable. This does sound intriguing. However, I do fear that it will be too complicated for a lot of forum users to comply with the rules, judging by how many miss things with the current rule set.
  4. The thrust for all airbreathing engines depends on the mach number. There is a curve in the config that defines the relationship. In general APP engines have very high thurst at low speed, taper off as speed increases, then drop off sharply when the engine reaches its intended top speed. The thrust falloff is to simulate thrust lapse, that is as you increase your speed through the air, the jet exhaust/propwash has less of a speed difference compared to the surrounding air. This causes reduced thrust and efficiency IRL. Some has a little lower static thrust to simulate stalled out props, or spool up time for turbines I think.
  5. The ReStock guys are very skilled artist putting in a lot of hours every day to make it happen, sure they do it for free, but it is still an enormous amount of work. The guys at Squad are making their living from this, so time is money. So they really need to consider how much time to put in vs. how much that time is going to pay in form of new sales. The ReStock guys already got their bills payed from their jobs, so they don't necessarily have that consideration. This long into the games lifespan I'm quite frankly amazed that Squad is still finding it worthwhile to continue development. Anyhow, I think the revamped cargo-bays are a good improvement over the old ones.
  6. Maybe you should post a picture of the parts in question, demonstrating the issue.
  7. 1) Except, KSP1 reduces the forces on each face that is node-attached to another part, 2) Offsetting a part does not change the size of the aerodynamic forces on the part 3) We can rotate nose-cones 180° and avoid the leading-face drag in favor of the much lower trailing-face drag. 4) Except, any part inside a closed container feels zero aerodynamic forces, These would all go away if they ditched the drag cube system, and in stead adopted a voxel based system similar to what FAR uses. The drag cube system is good enough for very simple rockets and planes, but there is so much that does not work in an intuitive and realistic way due to it's limitations. Say for instance you built a cargobay out of wing sections or structural panels, put it in line with your fuselage, and blended it all nicely together. Well, all you are achieving is to create massive amounts of drag, while you would expect such a contraption to create very little drag. Switching over to a voxel based system would make this work as expected, and open up for much more interesting and kerbal designs. 7) Skin drag, from faces of a part parallel to the airflow, use the same shape factor Cd as they would have when facing the airflow. This combined with the way drag cubes are calculated makes parts with flatish sides, such as Mk2 and Mk3, and many other profiles invented by the community a lot more draggy than they should be. The reason being that the Cd for a flat surface facing straight into the air-stream is very high, but a flat surface parallel to the airflow should not create much more drag than an equivalent rounded or slanted surface, both of which gets lower Cd. In fact with the current drag cube system you can get a squareish profile to generate a lot less drag over all if you rotate it on edge, so that it is pointy in stead of flat from the sides, before the drag cube is generated. After that you can rotate it back, so it is essentially identical to one that did not have it's drag cubes generated while sitting flat. That is just stupid as far as I'm concerned. 6) The forces on wings as a function of angle-of-attack give a very soft stall 9) The lift on wings as a function of mach number, is higher at low speed, lower lift at high speed I think these should be kept. It makes aircraft design more forgiving. It is hard enough for most players already, and most of the basic principles of plane design still applies. Also, changing this I think is what will alienate most players. Forcing the full complexity of FAR onto everyone is probably not going to be a good Idea.
  8. I agree with all of the above. I would definitely advise going for more of a self judging system if possible, like most other challenges. I wonder if the challenge would work with a similar format to the K-prize. So have different tiers of achievements, that could easily be determined just from screenshots. At least that would put minimal workload on the judging side of things.
  9. I have a friend who has played KSP, but really doesn't have the imagination to make up stories and missions for him self. Thus, once he had done the most obvious stuff in the game, that was it for him. For people like that I think a story-driven game-mode could bring a lot to the game. That said, like most people here, I don't think the traditional movie like story mode, where you are basically just an other character in the movie would be good for the game. What I would propose is to essentially reuse the multiplayer system to have competing space agencies driving the story, and tying the flavor-text of the missions to the storyline. This still leaves the player to do what they want, but gives them direction and ideas for things to do.
  10. I found it suite easy after I found how to make the most out of the aero in the game. There are a few little things that are easy to do. Make sure that the main wing is at a 2-3 degree angle of incidence. Then make the wings such a size that the fuselage is as close to level as you can, preferably within 0.2 degrees. Also make sure you have nose-/tail-cone of some sort. And make sure you use nodes as much as possible to attach things. And make the plane long and thin, rather than wide and stubby. There is a window you can access under physics/aero. Check the two first boxes. AeroGUI tells you a lot of different things, but the most important are the mach number. Avoid the range from 0.8-1.6, you will find that you burn much more fuel in that regime. The AoA readout is also very useful. Make sure the plane flies as close to 0deg AoA as possible during cruise. Last one to take note of is the L/D. Don't put too much emphasis on this number, but you can use it to compare different variations on the same design. Also you can right click parts and see how much drag each part is producing, which can be helpful in choosing which parts to use. Lastly, don't bring more engine power than you need. Excess engines create excess mass and drag. I probably forgot lots of things, but those should get you going. I do have a few of mine on kerbalX which you can study if you like. Not all of them are good, but they all work.
  11. I think the more realistic version would be, you sell the science. Then spend the money to research new stuff. As for the science collection side of things, I would like to see a system where you can not max out the science for a biome. Say for instance there would be a 500m radius around where the science was taken would be marked as used after 1 sample. That should give more purpose to rovers, while avoiding extreme tedium.
  12. What if the small SOIs in this example were big enough that they actually encapsulate the barycenter. That would avoid the naked singularity issue, and replace it with the low gravity at the SOI edge.
  13. Parts stays the same, surface gravity stays the same, but planets and orbits are scaled. So, a rocket that can go to the moon and back in stock scale, is just about the right size to reach orbit in 2.5x scale.
  14. Yeah, KSP aero does not allow them to work like in IRL. IRL they help the airflow "stick" to the upper surface of the wing at higher angle of attack, allowing them to generate more lift at low speeds. But in KSP wing parts does not interact with each other aerodynamically, so they really don't help much in slow flight at all.