• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

157 Excellent


About Yargnit

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. yeah, you have to throttle the torque manually once you hit target rpm. Also, if you can only his say 350 rpm at 100% torque, make sure you set your RPM limit to 350. you'll use less EC/fuel with the RPM limit set to 350 than 460, even if it takes max torque to reach the 350.
  2. They are basically the electric motors, just with their resource's changed from EC to LF/Air as far as the game in concerned. Really they'd fit equally in either category, but this makes them a bit easier to find because that tab is less crowded. The usage model has changed, you'll see higher peak usage in some cases, but other cases will see much less EC used. The current fuel use is correct per intended design. ReBut yes you are correct with the reference of 230 meaning the listed fuel usage in the editor is for 50% max RPM. This was never actually a working thing, it's been commented out the entire time. In 1.7.1/1.7.2 the torque and rpm sliders both effected max rpm and torque. (so 50% torque 50% rpm meant max rpm and max torque were both 25%) Now you can reach max rpm at 1% torque if there is no resistance, or you can have max torque at 5 rpm if that's you're desire. In some scenarios (higher speeds specifically) the jets will be way better. Doing helicopter type stuff the turboshafts with blades can actually lift more than jets with the same fuel consumption. Basically when you're blades can be flat it will take way less torque to keep them spinning so you can generate more low speed power with low fuel consumption. When you're trying to go fat and have to pitch your blades significantly you'll need more torque and fuel so jets will be more efficient. The blades are very unlikely to work with FAR do to the way they are configured. You can't spin any part faster than 477rpm in kerbal without krakening (1 radian per physics tick). This is a pretty hard game engine limitation. The blades have to 'fake' the lift of spinning much faster than they really are to create enough thrust to work effectively. (This is why before this everyone had giant unwieldy looking props) To do this, the prop tells the game that it's located much farther from the rotor shaft than it really is so it's effective velocity is much faster. (If you turn on aero forces you can see this point as purple lines). Since FAR models it's own aero it won't be reading this offset, so it just seems it as a small slow spinning prop, rather than the large slow spinning prop the game is tricked into thinking it is under stock. Hope this clears up some of the prop questions.
  3. Totally the best thing ever!
  4. FYI The limit before Unity starts going haywire is 50 rad/s (just over 477rpm) The reason for this is because Kerbal runs physics at 50 'frames' per second, so this is the point where Unity crosses 1 rad/physics tick. As you cross this line Unity's ability to accurately calculate where the parts are in relation to each other rapidly breaks down. You can see this even approaching 51rad/s, and anything above that is almost certain to cause explosions. The limit of 460 for rotors is just a safer buffer again over-speeding causing it to cross this threshold.
  5. Glad you guys like it. I swear I just watched it fly for an hour because it was mesmerizing. Just seeing the shadow as it flaps is so cool. I obviously can't talk about things that haven't been revealed. What I can say is this barely scratches the surface of the potential of what things can be used for. This was a ~20 minute build that I designed in my head at work, and my first time trying some things. I can't wait to see the stuff that the community will come up with once everyone gets a chance to build with the new parts and learn off of each others advances. I've watched what everyone around has done to make hinges and moving parts within the limitation of the stock game over the last 5+ years and how it's grown to where it is now, and I can only imagine what everyone will be able to design in a few months, let alone a few years time, with what we're getting here. This has been my most requested feature since I started seriously playing over 5 years ago. It's gonna be gud.
  6. Nice run, yeah landing is the hard part. How'd you got enough fuel for 3 Rapiers in a body that small? I'm going to have to take notes from your bowl turn, I thought mine was getting good, but yours is sick. My advise, take 5 extra seconds in the landing. Get a time in, then try to refine the landing to shave seconds. You're going to make me redesign now lol...
  7. A bit more time shaved off, down to 4:38 now. I landed a 4:32 but I was 5 meters off the island into the water... I think I need to delete my craft before I finally put my controller through my monitor in frustration one of these times...
  8. It's funny, I started out trying to skim as close as possible to 3000m or so for a while, but after probably 50 different trips in and out of the bowl I actually found that often my ~3500m runs were actually faster on the turn-around than the ones that just barely reached or even came just short of 3000m. The reason I determined is 2 fold. One, often times (such as in this run) when I notice I'm cutting it a bit close it means adjusting the flight a bit to add more height at the last minute, which takes significantly longer than just flying a few hundred meters higher in the 1st place. Also diving down from ~3500m I notice I'm able to use gravity to pick up significantly more speed and get out of the low-thrust range on the RAPIER compared to being down at the ~3000m range (you wouldn't think that 500m would matter, but it does combined with the slightly altered angle it means you come down it) That's actually why I commented that my turn around on this run was meh, it was actually too low for optimal time and cost me probably 3-5 seconds over some of my higher turns. Overall I've been using 3000-3500 as my goal and anything below 2900 or above 4000 I was reverting and trying again. I'm not sure if you can tell from that video, but between TWR on the plane being so high, and it's relative drag being so low, I actually decoupled the SRB's before they ran dry and out accelerated them even though they were still burning. That's how much power it has. On the final sprint It hit 1915m/s (mach 5.5) before turning to line up for the landing. If it didn't take me several hours of tries to put down a run I'd push to try and get sub 4:30 but it's so stressful to fly at those speeds. I think I almost need to tweak my relative pitch/roll sensitivity if I'm really going to push it. Pitch is too sensitive while roll isn't sensitive enough, but the problem is I'm using the same control surfaces for both to minimize drag. Half the pitch sensitivity and a bit more roll response and I think I could make some of the corners with noticeably less speed loss.
  9. Well I've crashed roughly half a dozen sub 4:45s, and a couple sub 4:35s times trying to land intact, but I finally got one down. This ones only a 4:48 thanks to a meh turn around and a bad landing, but at least it's very solidly in the sub 5 minute category. My game was starting to lag from so many reverts which threw off my timings a bit, but I was in such a groove with not crashing at least I forced myself to push through until I got a time. Sub 4:30 is very much possible with my plane. I nearly put down a 4:32 that still left some time on the track, but I dinged the nose a bit too hard on the landing. That's enough for tonight though, if anyone else is able to get down in this range I'll try to improve it further.
  10. Really... you're going to make me stress myself for another 2 hours until I can do another run without crashing just to shave 2 seconds... Maybe later lmao. And RAPIERs being the best option for a speed run was never in question unless the course is so tight you 're averaging a bit below mach 2. RAIPERs produce more thrust than Whiplashes are capable of above mach 1.8 (like 630m/s) I literally have to be pulling max turnrate hard 90 degree corner to even briefly drop below that speed. And the RAPIER's continuing to put out higher thrust than the Whiplash is even capable of at optimal speed until it reaches over mach 5, which a whiplash cannot reach period.on the sprint back to Home Plate I hit 1875m/s (nearly mach 5.4) and was still accelerating hard if I hadn't cut the throttle a bit early to ensure I didn't crash trying to get it on the ground. Not only do Whiplashes not have the thrust curve to reach those speeds, they also start to overheat bad above ~1600m/s or so. I can push a RAPIER close to 2100m/s without heat issues. Whiplashes are just easier to manage for most players. This guy is my current record holder for sustained level flight from a "plane" for reference https://i.imgur.com/aPCrLfS.png It just can't do anything but fly straight.
  11. I guess it's time for me to throw the gauntlet down with the 1st sub 5 minute time... 4:59 from wheels off the ground to wheel stop! (Up at 3:02, stopped at 8:01) And the plane's still got some legs in her with better piloting as well. with more practice I could get below 4:45 with it no question. A perfect run maybe around 4:30 but that would be extremely difficult from a piloting/reaction time perspective. The engines/air-frame certainly have it in them though. Xbox controller was used, not that it appears to really matter from the relative times posted This is her in an all out speed run, top speed just over 2000m/s asl Tis a hell of a course at those speeds for sure.
  12. Well, unfortunately my lift is a bust. The smart auto-struts keep the vessel itself from falling apart, but the actual hinge joints have way too much flex, and it does not approve of having a 30+ ton aircraft on it in the slightest
  13. Dude, works brilliantly! Didn't massively test it, but worked perfectly with an adjustable height docking birth for my carrier. Well done Only final thought would be possibly make it so if you connect the nodes in the VAB the rotation works even if the part it's attached to isn't actually a docking port. That's mostly just to save a bit of part count if I could attach the port directly to what I wanted to rotate as opposed to needing a matching port. (so I-beam > port > i-beam, instead of i-beam > port > port > i-beam) for example. Just a very small idea i thought I'd throw out to see what you think. Overall, they're just about perfect now I think.
  14. Sweet, with work I'm not sure I'll get a chance to test it for a couple days, but I'll try and see if I can jump on for a few minutes tonight and throw an adjustable arm on my carrier to give it a quick go. You rock
  15. I get that, and in an ideal world I 100% agree. I just think it's far better than not being able to work with auto-struts at all.