• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

253 Excellent

1 Follower

About panarchist

  • Rank
    Space Freak and Train Geek

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Location Seattle
  • Interests KSP, Train Simulator 2017, NASA, SpaceX, cycling, camping, bike camping, mountaineering, books, Sci-Fi and especially HARD SF.

Recent Profile Visitors

1363 profile views
  1. Nice work! I agree that mass shouldn't scale at 3 - 1.5 is a good figure, midway between scaling by length and scaling by surface area, which makes sense - airship structures were a smaller percentage of mass as the envelope size scales. If you're going for realism, then the envelope / buoyancy should remain at 3 - lift / buoyancy is dependent on volume of the envelope, so doubling the "size" of the parts results in 8x the volume and 8x the lift. The US Navy at one point had plans (here's a NASA study done under contract for USN) for some truly massive airborne carriers, which would hae made use of what we view as "ridiculous" lift - as does the Zeppelin NT. Anyway, my numbers were a first pass / rough draft. I'll go back and edit the post later to modify the mass down to 1.5 and tweak some of the other values - I'm going to keep the envelope at 3x and the resources, since they would realistically scale by volume, but I'd encourage anyone who disagrees to edit the files to whatever they personally find believable. It's KSP, not real-world, so ultimately it matters only as much as you want it to. "fully loaded mass increased only twice -- to about 300 tons. I know, even this is a bit too much" - are you sure? Remember, your carrier has that flight deck on top. Remove all that, and what's the revised mass? I think that will be closer (but still a little heavier) to what the Akron was. I might take some time to mess with the exponent a bit and see if I can get a couple of envelopes the size of the Akron and the Hindenburg to match the structural mass, and see what that mass exponent comes out to. It seems also that Tweakable Everything might not be reliable either. I built a 20m airship after installing Tweakable Anything, and the resized gyros said they had torque values of -8 instead of 500 - but when I actually put it in flight, it had plenty of control authority and in the correct direction. I'm not sure Tweakscale is getting it wrong, I need to test a bit more. Since I was only having issues with the 40m airship, I'm wondering if the gigantic mass was the issue - 4x the part size = 64x the mass if using the default exponents, and 64x the lift - so the forces on the vessel are pretty enormous compared with the "stock" Heisenberg parts. I don't know what HL Airships' limitations are (if any) when dealing with large parts, so I'd imagine that there are several factors at work which could be causing me trouble. I'll take a look at it a bit more, but personally, I really like the 20m size.
  2. Well, my default response is "why would I want to delete BARIS?" Seriously, though - this is awesome, I'm loving it so far. I'm looking forward to seeing where it goes. And busy revamping my designs to survive an engine failure.
  3. Agreed, but that hasn't stopped RT. Technically, it's not "non-functional", it launches a settings screen. Really I'd prefer if we can just delete the folder if we're not using it - regardless of whether you turn it on and off in KSP settings on its own tab, or via a toolbar button, it's still taking up screen real estate. To me, it's a minor annoyance at most, but I don't have as many toolbar buttons as most. (I still have something like 74 mods)
  4. That works too. Either method works, both have been used.
  5. Yes, it should - but only on the Space Center scene. RemoteTech uses that approach. It needs to be on the Space Center scene so it can be easily enabled / disabled at will but the user.
  6. Thanks! Looking forward to the next installment. One last question - are you using Snacks for LS in this game? I see REPOSoftTech, but no TAC-LS directory, and I know you're not using USI-LS. :-D
  7. @linuxgurugamer - Don't get me wrong, Dang-It! is a great mod, my issues with it are due to implementation decisions by Ippo - and really only because I had an 11-year mission to Cercani - not exactly a mission suited to that mod. My main issue is that Dang-It! only affected the active vessel. Maybe that's changed, I haven't used it since shortly after you took it over. I use a large number of the mods you maintain, you're doing great work - so it's definitely not an intended slight.
  8. If you're asking how/where to put that text where it will be used, I put the instructions into my post that Angel-125 linked to.
  9. I realize that this is a super minor nitpick, but regarding the KSPedia page - MTBF is Mean Time Between Failures (plural). Enjoying BARIS a lot so far - it's got all of what I liked about Dang-It! but I like the look and feel of this more than I did with Dang-It!
  10. @Angel-125 - When you release, are 000WildBlueTools and 001KerbalActuators the same between your various mods? (i.e. do any mods have different/additional files in either of those directories?) The reason I ask is that I play on both Windows and MacOS, and when copying on Mac, it replaces the entire folder with the new folder. I just want to make sure I'm not losing files needed for Pathfinder, M.O.L.E., or Deep Space. Thanks. Looking forward to checking this out after work today! Edit - checked it out on lunch today! With a 40m airship hull and oversized engines, I had a ton of stuff fail right out of the gate with BARIS enabled - I don't know if that's expected due to the size of the parts, or if the failure chance also got supersized by Tweakscale. It was kind of cool - Jeb and Bill jury rigged a bunch of things, but some of the engines just failed, and one of the tanks somewhere was leaking, but I couldn't figure out which one. The 40m hull still has ridiculous balance issues, so right now I definitely don't recommend sizing parts up that large. No Hindenburg with these parts, at least not until I can iron out the problems.
  11. Thanks! It still needs some tweaking - I tried building a 40m carrier: Nose - NukeGyro - HL10Lg - HgrDeck x5 - HL10Lg - NukeGyro - Tail It had an impressive 13,000m ceiling, but it does not have enough control authority to stay level, even at only a 0.5m/s rate of climb. So I didn't get a chance to open up the throttles on the 24 WB-50s that I was using in the paired outrigger configuration normally used for the Cyclone. I need to find out if TweakScale is "resizing" the torque along with the other stats like it should. WHOOPS!
  12. Here's a Tweakscaled carrier - 20m, about 75 parts: and here are the TweakScale config files for ACA and Heisenberg: Heisenberg: SCALETYPE { name = freePSA freeScale = false defaultScale = 10 suffix = m scaleFactors = 10, 20, 30, 40 } @PART[hl10CargoLift] // { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = freePSA } } @PART[hl10FlightDeckFairing] // { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = freePSA } } @PART[hl10AircraftElevator] // { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = freePSA } } @PART[hl10FlightDeck] // { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = freePSA } } @PART[hl10HalfAircraftElevator] // { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = freePSA } } @PART[hl10HalfFlightDeck] // { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = freePSA } } @PART[hl10HangarDeck2] // { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = freePSA } } @PART[hl10HangarDeckHardTop] // { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = freePSA } } @PART[hl10SideElevator] // { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = freePSA } } @PART[hl10TopFlightDeck] // { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = freePSA } } @PART[hl10RCSModule] // { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = freePSA } } @PART[hl10Type1Extension] // { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = freePSA } } @PART[hl10Type1Extension] // { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = freePSA } } @PART[hl10Type2Extension] // { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = freePSA } } @PART[hl10Type3Extension] // { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = freePSA } } @PART[hl10Type4Extension] // { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = freePSA } } @PART[hl10Type5Extension] // { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = freePSA } } @PART[hl10Type6Extension] // { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = freePSA } } @PART[miniAirbrake] // { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = freePSA } } @PART[MK1Fuselage2] // { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = freePSA } } @PART[airplaneTail2] // { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = freePSA } } @PART[hl10GyroRing] // { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = freePSA } } @PART[hl10Large2] // { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = freePSA } } @PART[hl10Medium2] // { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = freePSA } } @PART[hl10NoseCone] // { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = freePSA } } @PART[hl10NuclearGyro] // { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = freePSA } } @PART[hl10Rudder] // { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = freePSA } } @PART[hl10Small2] // { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = freePSA } } @PART[hl10TailCone] // { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = freePSA } } Aircraft Carrier Accessories (to size the parts for Heisenberg) SCALETYPE { name = freePSA2 freeScale = false defaultScale = 36.5 suffix = m scaleFactors = 10, 20, 30, 36.5, 40 } @PART[ArrestWire] // ACA Arresting gear wire { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = freePSA2 } } @PART[Catapult] // ACA Catapult { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = freePSA2 } } @PART[CLLS] // ACA Carrier Launch and Landing System { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = freePSA2 } } @PART[FixedPoint] // ACA Mounting point to work with Tie Down { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = FreePSA2 } } @PART[OLS] // ACA Optical Landing System { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = freePSA2 } } @PART[TieDown] // ACA Tiedown point { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = freePSA2 } } @PART[TailHook] // ACA Tailhook { %MODULE[TweakScale] { type = freePSA2 } } I only resized the envelope pieces, flight deck, hangar deck, gyro rings, RCS, and a few other parts, and all the ACA parts - not the gondolas, nor the engines. I *HIGHLY* recommend using Hangar Extender to build these. Also note, that in order to successfully build a 20m (or larger) airship, you WILL need to set Autostrut to "Root part" on all 20m segments. Also, you'll need to use a non-resized part as the root part. KSP does not like TweakScaled or resized root parts - it's a known issue. That's one reason why I did not resize the gondola. I also recommend using Kerbal Joint Reinforcement to further ease physics. This is a first-draft TweakScale config - use at your own risk, neither I nor @Angel-125 is responsible for crashed airships, cratered/dead runways, dead Kerbals, or other unexpected or save-crashing behavior. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. That said, seems stable so far. My config file allows parts up to 40m in diameter. The ACA parts are sized for the 4 values of airship parts, plus a "36.5m" size which represents their default/original size. Edit 2: Installation Instructions: Download and install Tweakscale (prerequisite) Copy the content in the two code blocks above in this post, and paste into 2 text files (you could just do one file - either will work) Save the text files with whatever name you want, with a .cfg extension instead of .txt Put the two text files into a folder - name it whatever you want. Copy that folder with the two .cfg files into your KSP GameData directory Launch KSP and enjoy
  13. After these tests in the mid-1960's, that was pretty much it. Both the U-2 and C-130 programs were just to see if it *could* be done. in both cases, the answer was "yes, it's technically possible, but not practical". Now that I've said that, I give it a week before @Shnyrik posts the Kerbalized video version. ;-)
  14. That didn't always stop them. A Navy pilot landed a USMC C-130 on the USS Forrestal (CV-59), and there are several photos of the time a U-2 spyplane was landed on my old ship, the USS America. (CV-66) In the case of the U-2, the stall speed is barely more than the top speed of the carrier, so relative velocity was very low. The C-130 actually made an arrested landing (several in fact) and launched several times. In both cases, they were proof of concept - the wingspan on both planes was enough that they Navy couldn't operate or store other aircraft on the deck when the C-130 or U-2 operated off the carrier.
  15. No, you're correct - it scales that down to 2.5km. That's fine for me, but I'm sure it doesn't work for everyone.