Andras
-
Posts
356 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Andras
-
-
20-25* nose up in the atmo seems to be a sweet spot. Kept the vertical speed down to 5m/s.
As a pilot, I find it funny that when you nose up from a stable glide path, you both increase speed AND gain altitude. A normal plane would lose speed while gaining altitude in an unpowered glide.
-
Have you enabled thrust vectoring on the main engines? If so, reduce the gymbol angle to 2* at most.
-
.... so anyway.
Yeah, 0.7, neat stuff bro!
...
See picture of Avenger I, and note the frankly terrifying see-through SAS joints.
The booster-less A-I is actually unstable outside atmospheric stabilization pressures, because 1 nanoSAS on capsule nose, 1 SAS on lander pedestal (inside fairing), 3 2m sas and 2 3m SAS don\'t cut it unless the gymballing engines are running. If I use 3/4 3m SAS, that\'s where the rocket tears itself apart during mid-atmosphere wobble phase, thanks to pronounced junction flex + having all that SAS force in one spot.Amusingly, I\'ve had a 4x3m SAS stack in testing Avenger-x rockets bend all the way to 90 degrees without structural failure ...
...
Hey, it say Wobbly right on the thread title, Truth in advertising!
(Uh, Tib, yeah, might want to look at that!)
-
I have a texture originally for the 1.75m long tank that is supposed to replicate the Titan III booster paint job. Also a texture for the short 1.75m tank that is also based on the Titan paint. Feel free to use or not. The big one is a little fuzzy in the game, so it might need to be cleaned up.
-
I\'ll work on it over the weekend.
re the 1.75m SRB, I was going to mention something like that. I turned them down to 650 for 90 secs.
Also I recommend moving all the RCS tanks to category=1 (Command and Control) so they are in the same location as the RCS thrusters
-
I have an idea to consider. Make the small LFR a strong RCS thruster with only one direction of thrust. Then turn the old Yawmaster into a giant RCS tank. With 4 RCS units and a big base thruster it would easily handle Munar maneuvering and Kerbin return. I\'m going to try it out over the weekend.
Also, consider whipping up some 2m/3m x 0.5m plates for large SAS units. 2m and 3m rockets can use some help, and the 1.75m one isn\'t always usable.
-
I\'VE BEEN (dammit) flying test shots.
What I like so far:
Quad- mass 8, 3200 thrust, 160 burn, vectorable
(It\'s a 4x800 innit?)
Omni- mass 4.5 thrust 1800, 120 burn, vectorable
(many small motors not as efficient?)
2nd stage Burns out before orbit is established
No changes to your fuel tanks
I\'m trying to balance an Apollo clone built of out of these parts in the pack
3m large tank and Quad
3m short tank and Omni w short 3m decoupler
2m short tank and a twin bertha
1m lander and Kerbin return
I have a 3mx1m RCS tank above each 3m stage, and 5 rings of four RCS thrusters
I\'d like a regular SAS unit texture matching the restyled Yawmaster bits. I hate hate hate ASAS units. The constant thrust vectoring and RCS usage makes me bananas and my rockets bendy.
Test 1 was 100% throttle, Test 2 @ 2/3rds, I didn\'t run test 2 out to the Mun
-
Too late for me now, but I\'ll check it tomorrow. I\'d like to request a bottom attach node for the 3m Omni Bertha in the official release. I added one at -0.38 and it seems to work with the short 3m shroud decoupler (-0.5 might be better). That lets us use it as a second stage engine instead of the huge quads (kuads? lol).
-
I think we/you could easily knock the numbers on the 3m tanks back to 12000/8000, mainly to keep the weight numbers in check, and so we don\'t need ridiculously high numbers on the 1st stage engines. The dry weight of the tanks needs to go up, to at least 10% of the loaded weight, and I\'d prefer it to be a little higher. Just put a line in the description of them using a lower density fuel or increasing structure requirements as tanks get bigger, these guys are Kerbals, not German rocket scientists.
The 2m tanks could go to 2250/4500 or 2500/5000.
The long 1.75m tank is the joker, it\'s going to have a lot of capacity no matter what is done to it. At the same time you want to have a reason to use 2m tanks over the 1.75 tanks, arbitrarily set the long 1.75=the long 2m, and the mid sized 1.75= short 2m? shortest 1.75= half that?
ETA- I see your post you ninja you. I did ok with a 3m tank that weighed 60 with 15000 fuel.
-
Stack up 4 tanks next to the 3m large tank in the VAB and they are the same height, but that\'s still only 18,000 fuel, not sure how I got 33,000.
The 2m long and 2m short together are the same height also, so that\'s what, about 2650/5300 respectively? I guessed 2500/5000
3m short that same height as the 2m long, so 12,000?
The 3m quad had good results with a thrust of 2,000, burn of 100, dry mass of 10.
We really need a 3m \'second stage\' motor that\'s not as big as the quad. I suppose the 1m adapter plates will do.
Looking forward to what you come up with.
-
ONE ISSUE IS THAT OF VOLUME. THE (sorry, had it on precision mode!) large 3m tank would have a volume equivalent of about 33000 fuel. That\'s bananas though, weighing about 150 using strict ratios.
fuel/volume though is easy to rationalize, different fuels, etc
Another is net weight, how important do you/we consider the dry mass of the tank to reduce the fuel count? The stock LFT looses 10% to dry mass, and it has an efficiency of 222.22 fuel per of net weight
Say a 3m tank needs 30% of it\'s fuel mass for support, and a 2m tank needs 20% (1m tanks 10%). That would help reduce the both the fuel counts, and the lifting capacity of the motors. It also helps slow down the high acceleration when the tank begins to run dry.
Forex, a 15000 count 3m tank has a fuel mass of 67.5, and a dry wt of 20.25, for a total wt of 87.75
To work that backwards, a gross wt 60 tank 3m in dia, could have a dry wt of 13.8, and a net fuel mass of 46.2, or 10,266 fuel.
BRB, have another test flight to run.
-
I just had a successful launch with the numbers I put up earlier. In fact it out performed the 0.3 numbers (meco @ 48km/900ms) so I\'m backing the 3m quad down to 2250 thrust and will give it another shot. The \'problem\' with high thrust and high weight, is that when the fuel is burned off, the TWR gets pretty huge and it accelerates hard for the last 10% or so.
ETA- ok, so the drop to 2250 worked great for the 1st stage (33km/670ms), but using the same engine for second stage had too much thrust and it took me to the Munar orbit insertion burn. Thrust vectoring is also a must at these weights. I\'ll try 2000 after dinner.
-
I\'m not too sure about the increased fuel consumption. The old 3mQuad just barely lifts a long tank, another 3m quad, a short tank, and then a 2m stage and a 1m lander* for a kpollo clone, see pics. MECO is at 32km, under 500m/s
A 10%-25% increase, maybe, but jumping from 75 to 266 is bananas, imo. That would just push people into using plates with 1m motors.
The big fuel tanks have too much fuel for the weight though, 15000 fuel would be 60kg, not 28, using stock LFT ratios. Make that sucker weigh 60, make the 3m quad thrust 2500 and burn 100, and you won\'t have to worry about 1m clusters because they can\'t lift it. I don\'t know if that much weight will work under 0.12 though. I had to edit my modified Saturn values (stage 1 tank 8100fuel/45k)(Stage 1 engine thrusts 1800, burns 90) to make it work.
* The \'rcs unit\' is actually an edited fuel tank w 325 fuel, the \'escape rocket\' is an extra SAS unit to help stabilize when maneuvering in Munar landings
-
Would it be possible to turn them into extra powerful but single direction RCS jets?
-
I copied an escape tower and turned it into an SAS to help stabilize the module when it\'s down to the Munar landing stage.
-
Here\'s a few.
-
I use rcs to kill horizontal velocity. Once you get orientated properly, you can go straight down
RCS is not necessary though, you can use the main thruster to kill horizontal velocity. Just tip it in the same direction as the RVV on the ball.
People, please stop complaining about the 1/10 scale. It\'s been brought up enough times already. It works at 1x scale so just edit the cfgs until Deus posts values he\'s comfortable with.
-
Deus, I set the gymbal range to 1* max for the rockets, and may have cranked up the SAS values for the command pod slightly, I don\'t recall exactly. The ASAS works nicely by itself, but makes the G meter read way high.
-
I found the model flies just fine when scaled to normal values.
The screen shot has values that I fine tuned after some test flights.
Proof of landing and return with modified values. When landing on the Mun, I almost forgot the descent tank, and kicked it off so low I actually landed partially on it. The angle from setting one landing leg set on the tank kicked me off to the side.
-
I just cranked the numbers up to \'normal\' scales and it worked fine with my iMac.
-
-
Luckiest Munar insertion ever, came straight in from directly \'aft\' of the Mun, just rode the rocket down, no orbit at all.
-
Had a survivable incident on Munar Landing
Came down on a steeply sloped section and the \'uphill\' wing broke off, but the craft was balanced on the two downhill wings and the motor. Was able to lift off and return to Kerbin.
-
My contribution to the advancement of Kerbal Science. The Black spec above and to the right of the nose probe is the descent engine after it crashed into the Mun.
The booster-less A-I is actually unstable outside atmospheric stabilization pressures, because 1 nanoSAS on capsule nose, 1 SAS on lander pedestal (inside fairing), 3 2m sas and 2 3m SAS don\'t cut it unless the gymballing engines are running. If I use 3/4 3m SAS, that\'s where the rocket tears itself apart during mid-atmosphere wobble phase, thanks to pronounced junction flex + having all that SAS force in one spot.
[v0.1]Space Shuttle Vanguard
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted
Put two tail-fins on the sides so they are below the level of the wings. It\'ll blow up every time it hits the ground.