• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

92 Excellent


About Yargnit

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Yargnit

    River-run Air-race Challenge

    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...
  2. Yargnit

    River-run Air-race Challenge

    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...
  3. Yargnit

    River-run Air-race Challenge

    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.
  4. Yargnit

    River-run Air-race Challenge

    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.
  5. Yargnit

    River-run Air-race Challenge

    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.
  6. Yargnit

    River-run Air-race Challenge

    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.
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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.
  11. Yargnit

    Help me prioritize 76+ mod updates - Updated

    1.3.1 Hanger Extender still works fine in 1.4/1.4.1
  12. Yargnit

    [1.5.1+] Hangar Extender Extended

    FYI the 1.3.1 version works perfectly in 1.4/1.4.1, probably why it's at the bottom of the priority list over stuff that's actually broken.
  13. I know, but it would work as long as we aren't rotating with landing gear struts running across the hinges. Edit, in case my description was too brief. The thought wasn't to change the default behavior at all, it was just to add another button in the parts right click menu that when enabled would skip the disabling auto-strut step when that port is rotated. So if you don't push the button nothing changes compared to now, but if you push it then you must manually remove the auto-struts that cross the port. I'd say most of the time the stuff I've built with this doesn't have wheels on both sides of the hinge so this would solve it completely. VTOL engines or moving docking ports/claws up and down are my biggest uses in gravity where auto-struts matter.
  14. What about a toggle to make it not disable auto-struts at all, and if checked we have to manually disable them across the parts or it (obviously) wont work?
  15. One thought of a fix that could greatly increase the usability, can you make it only disable auto-struts that cross ports that are being rotated, instead of all auto-struts? On large craft having all auto-struts disable can mean instant death if not backed up with a significant amount of regular struts to take up some of the slack at least. I'd like to make arms that raise and lower docking clamps on my carrier for planes to attach to, but my carrier is 330m long, and would self destruct in about 1 physics tick without autostruts.