randomness5555

Members
  • Content Count

    271
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About randomness5555

  • Rank
    Vehicle Designer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I've spotted it a few times but ironically not scince I found out how rare it is supposed to be.
  2. Like a lot of people have said, I'd be ok with it, but would DEFINATELY prefer to have some way of interacting with the world, like a robot or something. Or maybe you could run a matrix-style program, like being on earth but in a simulation.
  3. I suggest including some way of easily getting boats to the water. The maritime pack has those wheel attachment decoupler things, the old aircraft carrier mod has such OP engines and strength that they can simply slide into the water and I think firespitter (used?) to have something to teleport ships to the water. Other than that, just TRY to make sure you keep working on it, a lot of mods don't get far and I always love naval vehicles in ksp, so i'd love to see just how this turns out.
  4. The ordinary jet engine-I forget what it's called, but it's just been so usefull generally, especially now the turbo uses so much fuel
  5. BWI Space program Safety Report is as follows: 1: Assembly Many landers are underbuilt, and frequently run out of fuel or have landing legs too short to land on without severe risk of critical damage to engines. Many rockets are not fitted with launch escape systems, however they have almost never been needed. In contrast many of the program's older and larger rockets were overly complex, heavy and fragile, and solid rocket boosters were often positioned much too close to each other. This has improved since their policy of 'One large stage is better than multiple small ones' was implemented however. 2: Pre-launch Remarkably, the BWI has an almost perfect record here as of late. Even when proper launch supports are not attached, most of the machinery they churn out is sufficiently well constructed to hold it's own weight, and while staging errors are common it is rare for these to not be detected before a problem is caused. In addition, specialised software allowing for updates to staging setups during flight has significantly reduced casualties. 3: Flight Very little atmospheric rocket flight is performed by BWI pilots anymore, as their supercomputer codenamed 'Mech-Jeb' has had a remarkably higher success rate. However, especially with the aforementioned heavier launchers this is not fool-proof, with fairings and drives firing early and the occasional complete failure to control the machine-often preceded by what ground crews call 'the jelly effect', a wobbling that shakes lower stages to bits, often resulting in collision with crew capsules or upper stage tanks. Again, simpler lower stages have massively increased reliability in this area. 4: Space Things rarely go wrong with a single vessel in space as Mechjeb is especially reliable here. However, larger machines assembled in space don't tend to go far, as they too are affected by the jelly effect. While more struts seem to be the answer, the BWI rarely build this type of vessel. What (sadly) is more common are casualties caused in re-entry, especially returning from the mun/minmus as their often underbuilt munar vehicles don't have the required fuel to slow down to a safe speed, and entire heatsheilds melt before all the ablator can even burn off. Since BWI interest is almost entirely based around kerbin and LKO this is rarely an issue though. 5: Planes The BWI's record is mixed here. Their aircraft are (mostly) well built and reliable even on their first flight, with special mention to the 'Sky pirate-Brute', a seemingly crude but extremely manoeuvrable bi-plane which in over ten unmanned crash tests only ever destroyed it's cockpit once, and several times landed on only one of it's four wings. However, while BWI pilots are also good, they are overconfident, and often attempt to push their planes to the limits before promptly overdoing it. Many a plane has smashed into the VAB or Space plane hanger tower while over stressing a turn in some way. In addition, the occasional plane will have landing gear too tall or unstable, not often causing a problem on take-off but straight up crashing it on landing. Attempts at building larger aircraft almost all end in utter disaster, and the BWI has only constructed one SSTO that managed to reach space-which ran out of fuel attempting to circularise, and killed it's pilot on re-entry. 6: Mun Simply put, the BWI stinks at Mun landings. The landers that don't simply smash into the ground have only recently started using the so called 'Apollo technique' and before this, almost none made it home, running out of fuel long before reaching Kerbin, often on the ascent. They are improving, but more work is needed. Good points: The BWI is, despite the report, fairly competent when it comes to safety, or at least no worse than the average. Their rockets have come on leaps and bounds, and their smaller aircraft have proven themselves time and time again-it is almost always pilot error that causes issues. Staging errors are infrequent, and it's very rare that a rocket doesn't have enough thrust to launch properly. Bad points: Their record with large aircraft is, with two exceptions, a disaster with most failing to lift off at all. SRB's on complex stages often collide rather destructively with fuel tanks during stage separation and return missions to other planets have an (at best) poor record. Overall, this space program has simultaneously come a long way, yet not been far with so many missions stuck at kerbin. Acceptable, so long as safety improvements continue
  6. Thanks man, glad you liked it! Maybe i'll do another, it was kinda fun. Azimechs certainly looks better but there's always room for improvement. I wonder which one i'd make though? Maybe one of the arial-bots, or insecticons. Also, to anyone out there reading this, try making your own, it's fun and i'd love to see what you come up with.
  7. That is VERY cool, and I love the lightstrips. Keep up the good work man!
  8. Yeah, I thought we were going to be stealing the mun? Maybe use tweakscale, hyperedit and the mod mentioned earlier, and try to recover a giant version of it?
  9. Building one of the others eh? Now that IS tempting, I'll get back to you, I think this could be fun... EDIT, ok, went building for an hour and here is the result, one armada era Starscream!: http://imgur.com/a/vXPOl There is more that one image, but you have to click browse all. He's not as fancy as Optimus (having troubles with kerb paint and wings) but he's still good, and I'm starting to wonder if a working transformation would be possible in ksp too... have to look into that one. Couldn't get it straight up embed the album onto the post though-anyone know what I was doing wrong?
  10. You know what? I like that idea, I think you could be right there. And what we could offer them? Variety maybe? New ways of thinking, types of culture and entertainment and the like. But no human zoos, that ain't cool.
  11. 25 Miles an hour was the speed they wanted it to be capable of reaching, but IIRC they simply didn't have engines powerfull enough to push it past about 4mph. That's why they never built an actual ratte, though IMO it still would have been a force to be reckoned with as it would have been basically immune to anything smaller than cruiser (possible battleship) scale cannons
  12. This, is the Rockwell RPRV-870 HiMAT. Or rather, my version of it. This plane was designed to test lots of at the time new ideas, such as closely grouped canards and digital fight control (for more info, see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockwell_HiMAT ) It looks, IMO, pretty close to the real thing. However, there are two small problems, the first is the nose (but I wanted to keep this stock, and can't think how to get it any better-any comments welcome on that) and the engine, which is similar to both ksp stock jets but at the same time, noticeably different. I know B9 has a perfect engine for the job, but again, stock. In terms of performance, despite the awe inspiring manoeuvrability of the real thing, in stock ksp it's responsive but slow to turn, and care should be taken on landing to avoid breaking engines. And for anyone who wants to test it: https://www.dropbox.com/s/x0gs5mj2lwxwpp2/Rockwell%20HiMAT%20Replica.craft?dl=0 (also, feel free to use it in any kerbal based stuff you like (YouTube vids, ect) but post the link, I wanna make sure you treat her right. Or the boom when you don't, your call) (Extra note-if anyone wants to see if FAR lets it fly more like the real thing, lemme know how it turns out-thanks!) For KSP 1.04, fully stock