neistridlar

Members
  • Content Count

    744
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

686 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. 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.
  2. The reballance of the parts were to make them perform closer to their real counterparts. Both in TWR for the rocket as a whole, and scale thrust for the engines. That is why some engines got much weaker, while some got a little stronger. Due to the BFR largely being under development and thus not having much public information available, I just made sure it could do what they claim, while trying to not make the parts too OP compared to stock.
  3. I do not recognize this at all. Most og them don't even reach 200m/s in my experience. @blackheart612 you might want to have a look at the kitty turboprop. If you have e rediculus amount of them you can reach 270m/s IIRC, but normally it only goes ~150m/s. If anything I think the civilian turbofans should have their "cuttoff" stretched to match 0.85-0.9, as they now will not even run above mach 0.7, eventhough most jetliners cruise between mach 0.7 and mach 0.85. What I would propose is they keep their current curve up to mach 0.6ish, but taper off more slowly, so that you can reach the higher speeds with good designs.
  4. These parts are balanced towards a 2.7x kerbin, but will work just fine for 2.5x kerbin, just with a slight increase in lifting capacity.
  5. Yup. Just to prove the point I sent a rocket on such an escape trajectory and let it run on max time-warp for a day or so: It's barely slowing down at all now, just keeps going away.
  6. So, is there any new code involved here, or is it just using the landing gear code? Either way looks like very useful parts.
  7. I was getting about 17.5 with my design, so you have a lot of potential for improvement right there.
  8. Wow, that is a really neat design! with 220m/s you should be able to glide my plane to the airfield. Maybe all that is needed is to swap out the fuselage for a cone in stead, and possibly add a couple degrees of angle of incidence to the wings you can make it. What L/D are you getting?
  9. Fuel cells are also an option. All off mine have been fuel cell powered, and they probably have hours of endurance on just a little bit of fuel.
  10. Decided to try out a trebuchet today. After a couple hours of tweaking and fine tuning, I'm starting to get close to the island: As you can see I reach 176m/s. I need to get to ~200m/s to reach the island, and I seem to have hit a bit of a brick wall at this point. Just small changes causes things to break.
  11. I'm confident you could cut that in half, or maybe even more by adding one or more "waves". That's about as fast as my first attempts. I'm sure you can eek out some more by tweaking the design. Specifically lightening up the legs might help a lot.
  12. Have you tried splitting the hinges over two KALs? Also wow, that is just way to many joints.
  13. It is indeed possible. Here is an other variation. It is just barely climbing.