Jump to content

Raptor9

Members
  • Posts

    1,589
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

2,834 Excellent

Profile Information

  • About me
    Spacecraft & Rocket Dealer
  • Location
    United States
  • Interests
    Anything and everything aerospace-related.

Recent Profile Visitors

20,762 profile views
  1. Great video; a wonderful summary of the past decade. Thank you to Felipe/HarvestR, all the members of Squad (past and present), and the community. It's been a great decade of Kerbal experiences, and I'm looking forward to another.
  2. I wanted to say how impressed I am at your KerbalX catalog of stock craft. I've been playing KSP for a few years and honestly don't know how I could have missed this?? :)

    I have just started a stock-only playthrough (having always used extensive parts mods). Now seeing all this amazing work, I'm seriously considering doing a "Raptor-only" playthrough...

    Anyway, I thought I'd express some thanks and admiration for what is clearly a lot of hard work over the years. Kudos!

     

  3. I foresee Kerbal street racers on the runway using those light strips.
  4. can i get duna mission package rocket

    1. Show previous comments  1 more
    2. ItsSnowyy

      ItsSnowyy

      may i know why you quit

    3. Raptor9
    4. mvb4298

      mvb4298

      which craft would you recommend for a duna mission??

  5. Best part of the video: Nate: "That thing's awesome, dude!" Nate's son: "...Crash it." I liked seeing all the dev team as regular people, drinking coffee trying to wake up, not wanting to deal with a commute, etc. A good reminder that the dev's are people like all of us, dealing with the same issues, and not a faceless logo.
  6. My open letter to the KSP community (developers and players): I will not take part in any boycott of any product based on conjecture and emotion in lieu of facts and reason. I will evaluate KSP 2 when it becomes available for purchase, and if I determine it is worth the money that it's being priced at, I will purchase it and play to my heart's content. If I determine KSP 2 is not something I wish to purchase, I will move on with my life. I will not criticize, degrade, attack, or demean anyone that reaches a different conclusion as to whether or not to purchase KSP 2, or their reasons for their decision.
  7. Personally, I don't feel like the amount that Squad listens to the community has waned over the years. The process by which they collect feedback, and their manner of communication to the community has evolved over time, but our feedback hasn't exactly fallen on deaf ears. Early on, like REALLY early on in the alpha days of KSP 1, the community was small and the dev team indeed had more direct interaction. But as the game grew in scope and depth, so did the KSP community, which led to community managers, less talking directly to the devs as the staff itself grew, etc. But if the last several years of updates are any indication, they ARE in fact listening to our feedback (not necessarily implementing everything we want obviously). For those of us that have been around KSP long enough, I can't tell you how many mods are no longer in use because of features or gameplay aspects Squad has added to just the base game for free; I'm not even talking about DLC's. On occasion, they even reversed plans when the community waved their hands in protest (a la the great "ROUND8" revolt of 2015). And let's not confuse "development disagreement" with "ignoring the community". A development team, even when faced with overwhelming support for the addition of a potential feature, may still disagree with what or how something will be implemented based on a variety of reasons, such as coding/engine/hardware performance limitations, development time/budget, priority over other features, bug fixes, or simply long-term direction for development of the game, etc. As for the interaction that Star Theory has or has not had with the KSP community, that's sort of open to interpretation. However, (again my opinion) I don't think we know enough about what, where, or how in regards to the state of KSP 2 development to make a determination on whether Star Theory is "involved enough" with the community. The fact they apparently talk to Squad on a regular basis, and their creative producer is a diehard KSP fan, along with other members of their staff, I'm not too worried. When it is permissible to talk to the community about KSP 2, I'm sure they will. I think it is quite unlikely that the value of that communication would be lost on them.
  8. Thanks for keeping us in the loop. Honestly, with the original release date seeming so soon, I was slightly concerned on the state of the game at release. This reaffirms my confidence that a solid product will be released when it is ready. Of course, that was all my own internal speculation, but we appreciate the update.
  9. I hope @SQUAD releases KSP 1 v2.0 the same day Star Theory releases KSP 2 v1.0. The forums will literally implode.
  10. We appreciate your continued dedication to the site @katateochi. Hope you recover from your injury soon if you haven't already.
  11. Flying, vertical takeoff hangers that can be landed in while in flight...you never cease to impress. Well done sir.
  12. Helo pilot. The closest I'll ever be to an engineer is the KSP VAB/SPH.
  13. Helicopters do in fact adjust their main rotor plane of rotation to generate rotational attitude changes. It just isn't very obvious unless you observe them on the ground with a crew that is deliberately moving the tip path plane without collective applied, which they won't do because there is no need for it and in some helicopters can cause damage to main rotor components. However, you can see the effect demonstrated at 5:23 in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNd5cF2DIgI. What is happening is in flight the main rotor thrust is being offset to one side, instead of remaining in line with the aircraft center-of-mass, which is lower in the fuselage. This "thrust" vector, called Total Aerodynamic Force in helicopter speak, is creating a rotation movement since the the vector is being generated from a location that is above the center-of-mass. It's like if you mounted an engine high above a plane's center-of-mass in the SPH, the plane will want to nose down because the thrust is not in line with the center-of-mass. When a helicopter rotor disk is tilted in a direction due to movement of the cyclic, the lift vector being generated by the main rotor is tilted away from straight vertical, and offset away from the center-of-mass below it, causing a rotational movement in roll or pitch, or both. In KSP, this is not simulated with the stock rotor mechanics, but instead relies on differential lift vectors. So it simulates the effect of the cyclic application, but does not recreate the real physics behind it. This creates a problem when creating a tandem helicopter like the CH-47 Chinook, since yaw control in that aircraft relies on differential cyclic tilting, as shown in the cited document. EDIT: I should clarify that cyclic blade feathering in rotor systems do create differential lift on one side of the rotor disc, but the differential lift is what tilts the rotor disk as a whole, which generates the offset lift vector, which in turn creates the rotational motion around the CoM. In KSP, the differential lift itself is what causes the rotational motion around the CoM. The lack of rotor disk tilting is what differentiates KSP rotor mechanics from real life. In the Chinook, the Roll and Collective are controlled similarly to conventional single-rotor helicopters, and because of this, Roll and Collective are easily simulated by the KSP rotor mechanics. Pitch, relying on differential collective, is also easily simulated by the KSP rotor mechanics. However, without an actual rotor disk tilting, Yaw cannot be accomplished through the standard KSP rotor control input method. So in effect, there is no direct swashplate movement to control the Chinook in the Pitch axis, since it relies on differential collective for Pitch control. However, through the Longitudinal Cyclic Trim (LCT), both rotor systems can be tilted forward (as described in the document) to increase overall speed without having to pitch the aircraft itself down as much as would be required to attain the same effect without it. So in effect you have both rotor systems tilting forward in unison, much like they tilt left or right in unison to generate roll. However in this case, this increases speed rather than pitch due to the layout of the tandem rotor systems.
  14. If you wish to promote your KerbalX craft, please do so in your own thread. This is not the place for it. If anyone has any questions relevant to any existing craft in the catalogue, please PM me and I will answer when I am able.
×
×
  • Create New...