klond

Members
  • Content Count

    456
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,472 Excellent

About klond

  • Rank
    make all the things

Profile Information

  • Location Array

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Don't worry about the why. Keep doin you so I can keep admiring these beauties. Looks like a lot of work. I can't tell from here if tweakscale is involved, but I like that the car and the kerbal are proportional. Impressive.
  2. As a fellow blimp builder, I love it. Nice and big and fully functional.
  3. IDK! 'Will find out soon. We'll still go through with it anyways, just for the pics.
  4. 'Been away for a few weeks. Had thyroid surgery but I'm all healed up now. @Castille7 and I are plugging away on a floating oil rig / drillship. 'Wanna see if we can figure out how to get ore off the ocean bottom. Meanwhile I think he's still cranking on the next (5th?) installment of his construction site series.
  5. He/it looks pretty cool in the getting-up transition - almost like he's ready to sprint at the starting gun.
  6. Thank you. I was wondering what the heck I was doing wrong. That's too bad cuz I like their 2400 degree max temp.
  7. Going off of all the info and photos in this thread, plus a few hours of testing, I want to share some info. I built a lil drone plane. The body is made of intake ramps. At one point I had over 200 drains and 27 intakes. I still had trouble getting over the mach hump. Frustrating. So I copied boomchacle's plane in a smaller version. I think I remember seeing a chart where the shock cone intakes were the best at high-speed AND high-altitude by far. I hit 2900m/s before the core overheated but it took awhile to get to that speed by skimming the top of the atmosphere, bouncing between 34 and 38000m. I read Pds314's new posts, looked up overclocking as it relates to KSP (using controllers to go above or below the operating parameters of parts), and set out for testing with my new-found information. Also shoutout to Pds314 as he's been innovating since before I got involved here. I thought maybe since he said we can go negative and suck in air, maybe we can suck in fuel and/or ore too. Sure can! (this is 100% cheating BTW). I think draining ore gives more thrust than air (I would think so, cuz we're ejecting more mass). I put 8 drains on negative ore, and ONE on positive. So only ONE drain for thrust. So by manipulating a controller you can get it to produce wild curves (add a point, force a long straight line, then drag it around) that go above and below the max limits of the item in question (see pic below). The maximum/minimum points on the curves seen below are well off the scale, at 25% and 75% respectively, which gives me a maximum for me of about 911 drain units instead of just 20! I tied the controller position to the main throttle so I could achieve/tweak this positioning myself. I added a second controller to re-enable draining every 0.1 seconds as they shut off automatically constantly (thanks again, Pds314). When it's enabled it fills the ore tanks, then nearly instantly drains it, but it repeats this multiple times a second. Essentially infinte fuel anytime if used for ore/fuel . 'Had to add a heat shield here to prevent explosions. Also, look at this awesome plume when using intake air at 900-some units output instead of 20 (I'm zoomed way out here, looking at a plane similar to the first picture up above). These screenshot are for informational purposes and not meant to be competitive. I hope others can use this info to best the current air-drain record, with or without controller manipulation.
  8. We should do this while we can (1.9.0) cuz I got a feeling this will feature/bug will be buttoned-up quick.
  9. Yes! I forgot about this. On early blimp versions I had upwards of 100 large reaction wheels to turn the blimp while being supported in the air by k-drives. This extra part count hurt me at the time and I ended up using sideways k-drives and jet engines to turn instead. Something def. going on there.
  10. Thanks for posting. I'm not sure I'm ready for a discussion this deep right now but I want to share what I have. Although I have little evidence to back up my claims. On the subject of mass effects on legs @Bubbadevlin I think was the person to point out to me/us a year or two ago when he made a big leg-powered fan VTOL that leg forces are indeed in direct relation to craft mass. The answer at the time was to separate the propeller/turbine from the main craft (as one would do on a turboprop), but put the legs on the spinning part so that the main craft could be edited without effecting leg performance since getting power sometimes meant running the legs right up against their boom limit. Warning: rambling I have had problems with K-drives the last few patches, mostly with my blimp. When I ascend to 200ish meter above the KSC I lose the gentle push the k-drives give and the they go hyper and out-of-control. I'm assuming this is the force that is wanted by others, but not for me and a gentle blimp. The blimp still works at low altitutes, but this has me shy away from any further k-drive stuff for now. Multiple k-drive in action pointing in different directions don't act as I would expect. If I put 3 pointing forward and 3 pointing up, I should go forward and up, but weirdness takes over. I can't explain it better than that. More testing needed. I was not able to replicate the 8.4 second wheel stress you mentioned at the runway. Must not count in the low-level-effects zone. Tru dat. But you can hang other stuff from the craft that will be pulled by gravity, by stock hinge or unpowered robotics parts. That's how the blimp stays upright. The whole thing hangs from the top of it's center of mass. Don't tell anyone tho That's all I can think of for now. Good stuff man.
  11. Yeah the KerbalX page had the the little taste of video I was craving. You can lean these bad boys over pretty far.
  12. DC9-like regional jet. 6.662t minus some fuel. 282*(~6.5\2) = 916.5