Hodo
-
Posts
3,667 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Hodo
-
-
I have a couple of completely reusable rockets, that work in FAR...
The first one is WAY easier to fly and land..
I found coming in engines first is fine.. you engines have a MUCH higher temp tolerance than the rest of the craft. And when you put air brakes on the other end to keep the nose pointing away so you can create as much drag as possible to slow down.
Once I am below 7.5km I should be going subsonic and can deploy my landing chutes.
-
I have to think, I think I am at 5 years now... I started about the sametime as I started on the forums. I think it was version .23 back then.
-
3 hours ago, spacehead3 said:
Yep!
I wasn't sure how FAR would effect the scores when I created the challenge, it looks like they're pretty even actually.
FAR is considerably more difficult to make a functional aircraft. EVEN more so if you use Advanced Jet Engines or AJE mod, which replaces the stock overpowered jet engines with more realistic jet engines for FAR.
-
11 hours ago, dinostar1210111 said:
Sorry for the long reply, I have school mock exams and have been focusing on them.
I wouldn't know how to upload planes to KerbalX and again, I don't know what bdac stock planes are as I am new to BdArmory.
Yes, I do have Radar on the aircraft, although the Side-winders I have on the aircraft is heat-seeking.
Ok in the AI settings for BDArmory what do you have the settings for it?
Like what is the gun engagement range? What is the firing interval, what is the number of missiles per target settings?
I tested the other night with 5 of my own aircraft to see if there is a bug in the system, mind you I am still using 1.43KSP. But I found when the aircraft were about 15km apart they would use AIM-120s first then when they got close 5km+/- they would use AIM-9s, inside of 2.5km they would switch to guns. But I shortened that to 2km.
-
26 minutes ago, spacehead3 said:
@epicman81 turn up the brightness, man! That's a cool drone design though.
He is just sending a Kerbal to plant a flag.. its a night time launch.. you know... special forces style and all.
-
And now for the F-152B
Take off and climb out.
Super cruise at 10km and feet wet.
Hitting feet dry, at mach 2 still super cruising.
Target lined up in targeting pod.. GPS coords sent to cruise missile guidance and launched at 10.9km
Missile is on its way to target.
SPLASH!!!
Jettisoned second missile and was already turned home.
Touchdown and drag chute deployed for landing. (yes I use drogues for my landings because brakes are "iffy")
Total elapsed time 45min
So score would be...
Radar = -15.1 ( 8.7 +9.2+12.3)
first hit = 100
Guided weapon = 0
No internal weapons= -5
Heat sig= 0
Cost savings = 10
Deployment alt = 10 (10.9km)
Mission Time = -45
Total 54.9
-
Thank you.. I will test it out tonight.
-
So I am trying to figure out how the cruise missiles work. They dont seem to function correctly for me.
Sorry hit submit before I was done typing...
But when I launch a cruise missile from an aircraft, like the air launched cruise missile and I have the targeting pod lasing the target and the missile just fires its engine and falls away and goes straight to the ground.. well more at a 45deg angle.
-
Later this evening I will run a couple more through this mission... And I may do it once with my UCAV aircraft.. its an unmanned combat strike craft.
-
Here is the first of several....
F/B-161
Radar cross section. 4.9x14.2x17.9
Internal ordnance load.
super cruise at mach 1.4 80% throttle.
Used guided weapons for this run.
Total mission time 1hr 3min.
Direct hit single weapon deployed.
Deployed weapon from 8km. (I was just doing a fun level hit with the target painted with the targeting pod)
((I will add up the points later when I am not tired.))
Second run was in the modernization of my F-119CA Akula.. the F-119D Akula mk2.
Take off, with 2 100 unit drop tanks, 2 AIM-9 Sidewinders for defense and 2 1000lb Rockeye dumb bombs. (completely unguided high drag bombs)
Radar cross section. 3.5x8.3x12.2
Two bombs deployed, both hit, set to drop in twos.
dropped at 2.5km ASL
Super cruised at mach 1.3 at 80% throttle.
Total mission time 1hr 4min. Landing was less than perfect on my part LOL.
F/B-161
Radar cross section = -18.5
Deployment alt = +8
1st shot direct hit = +100
Total mission time= -63
Heat Signature = 0
External weapons= 0
Total = 27.5pts
F-119D
Radar cross section = -12
Deployment alt = +2
Total mission time = -64
1st shot direct hit = 100
Unguided bombs= +5
External stores = -5
Heat signature = 0
Cost savings = +10
Total = 36
-
37 minutes ago, spacehead3 said:
Yes, just not over 25km altitude.
That's fine, just count it as a guided weapon.
Ok just checking. I figured these would be counted as guided weapons...
JDAM 1000lb bomb, TOW Missile, Hellfire, Maverick, RBS-15 Cruise Missile, AGM-165 Cruise Missile and a few other AGM I am probably forgetting.
I dont plan on using guided weapons though. Probably using 1k snake-eye bombs or standard dumb bombs. Considering I can put a light load on the F-119CA Akula with 4 drop tanks and get it across that distance... and hope it has enough fuel for landing.
AJE makes a HUGE difference in your fuel use.
-
Quick question about the mission. You state the release height of the weapon is what is counted... can you fly higher than that till you get to the target area?
And how would BD Armory weapons be scored? Because I can hit the target with a Maverick missile from 6KM out using the laser designator pod but the missile will travel through the structure because.. well KSP...
-
So I am kind of up in the air over which aircraft to use for this challenge.
I have my new strike aircraft... the FB-160... which has fuel to spare for this trip and is more than capable of destroying the target and everything around it need be.
That is actually 2 rotary racks, the first one just happened to have 100unit drop tanks on them for range testing and 4 Hellfire missiles. But that craft super cruises at mach 1.2 at 97% throttle no afterburner at 7km alt. It is capable of hauling 16k pounds of bombs internally.
Or I go with my tried and true... new leading fighter.. the F-152B...
Not at all stealthy, but has great internal fuel range and is actually the easiest to fly and land.... thanks to a drogue landing chute.
Or do I use the oldest aircraft in my inventory... the F-119CA Akula.... It has the range of a gnat without drop tanks...
But it can super cruise at mach 3!!!!! at 99% throttle no afterburner. Or at mach 1.5 at 50% throttle. But has a whopping 15min of flight time on internal fuel.
If I can I may do 3 aircraft tomorrow when I get home and get a chance.
-
It is closer to 3/4th of the way up the throttle position. It will tell you when you are in afterburner. Not to mention you will see the afterburner.
-
Horrible thing is I think I have a strike aircraft that will be able to do this... I am also sure my oldest design can do this... I still use a 4 year old fighter I designed back in the day with very few actual modifications to the original plans for most of my scientific work on Kerbin.... Last mission I strapped 3 drop tanks to it and a science pod to complete the mission. So I will play with this mission when I get home.
One question though, I run FAR + AJE mod... so none of my engines are stock, they all run like real jet engines, so they use more fuel and have separate wet and dry modes based on the throttle position. How would I even score those?
-
Final question, do you have a radar on the aircraft?
-
The AI will only fire missiles if the missiles are the better option. So if the target is out of gun range (about 1km) it will switch to missiles. You can adjust your AI pilot settings in the VAB/SPH for what they use and when.
-
On 11/16/2018 at 2:03 AM, Sharpy said:
SSTO spaceplanes are not money-savers.
They are money-savers per Kerbin hour, but with the time compression at hand's reach that means very little. They are definitely not money-savers per player's hour.
Say, your average contract done the 'disposable' way will take, say, an hour to complete, and yield 70% of the offered profit. It will also take about 5 Kerbin hours.
The same contract done SSTO way will yield 98% profit (providing you don't crash), take maybe 6 Kerbin hours (return flight home!), but in real time it will take 2-4 hours of your attention. You could do 2-4 contracts "the disposable way" in that time.
That being said, SSTO launchers - rockets - are a money-saver. Launch goes the same, landing them takes maybe 5 minutes, and you get ~90% ROI (you won't land them at KSC, but you'll get >70% recovery value).
Make no mistake, FMRS and similar stage-recovery techniques are not money savers for the same reason SSTO spaceplanes aren't. In the time it takes you to safely land and recover all the boosters you could've flown half of another contract.
BUT SSTO spaceplanes are fun and challenging! Do you need more reason than that to build them?
I dont really agree with this. But it does ultimately come down to play style.
I can say that a few years ago when there was a challenge in the challenge section of the forums about building a space station using a reusable launch system that you could not despawn had to stay in the game and you had to find a way to refuel it, and load the new cargo module on it and get it ready for launch... I found that my SSTO program at that time was MORE than up for the challenge. And I in a matter of 3-4 real life hours put over 200 tons in orbit and assembled a space station that I actually continued to use for my space program till the update killed my save.
-
Well I have finally got a VERY reliable SSTO rocket tail lander.
And YES it is amazingly easy to fly and land.
-
OK Schwarz have gotten some time to upload some of the picks of the aircraft I have been working on for you to give you an idea what I am talking about. One is a canard and forward swept wing design the other is a more traditional setup with forward swept wings.
Here is the first one.. and also doing the experiment with the vertical engine setup versus the horizontal engine setup.
And now for the more traditional setup one....
The biggest thing I can say between the two is the canard setup will stall its canards before it stalls its wings thus making it a bit more controllable in high AOA situations. The other design... well if it werent for fly-by-wire it would probably be a bit of a handful.
And this is where the first craft started in design... for testing.
-
On 11/24/2018 at 10:06 PM, Schwarz said:
Quick question for all you experts out there:
I'm currently meddling with some forward swept wings and came up with a plane with its CoL ahead of its CoM;
During test flights I noticed this:
https://i.imgur.com/6wG7ALY.gifvHope you guys can see it but if you don't, basically the TVC nozzles, instead of pushing the tail around the axis, is actually pointed slightly towards the opposite direction, countering the pitching moment to keep the plane stable(what I suppose it's doing, I'm running Atmosphere Autopilot).
Q1: I suppose I'm wasting energy with the nozzles pointing at the wrong direction?
Q2: Is this a result of excess control surfaces(too much imput) or pitch instability(CoL ahead of CoM)?The biggest thing on forward swept wings is you have to rely more on the canards for your pitch control than your tail. Most of my designs that use this setup have removed the tail elevators and use canards for most of the pitch authority. I also use the fly-by-wire mod which makes the craft fly more like a modern fighter craft. I also use leading edge slats, on most of my more agile aircraft and even on some of my more mundane designs. But those engines are designed to gimbal and pitch the aircraft. And with your COL ahead of your CoM, it isnt helping your design much. Move it back closer to your COM, so it is abit more stable. I know that isn't exactly what you are going for but in KSP making a modern aerodynamically unstable airframe is a challenge to fly in this game.
So I like to have my CoL either right on top or a hair behind the CoM. I have no recent craft pictures but I have a fair number of forward swept wing airframes. I found they are a bit trickier to design but when they work they work really well for high speed flight and lower speed flight. But have NASTY stall departures.
-
I fixed the updates breaking the mods I run by not updating... Still running 1.45
-
My finest hour... was building a space station for a challenge using a SSTO space plane with FAR, and KAS, and not despawning the aircraft, but refueling it, loading the new modules in it and taking off again.
One day I will figure out how to hide these things.
-
There is always a second option, which I cant believe I didnt think of till last night.
A tail sitting rocket primary, jet secondary engine system.
You use the rockets for launch and re-entry but on finale landing and adjustments you use the jets. This will give you a bit more control and les fuel concerns. Downside is you are pretty much haulling dead weight into space.
Temple Airstrike Challenge
in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas
Posted
Stock jet engines in FAR and you can put most aircraft into an orbit around Kerbin. With AJE, you have a lot of factors that go into it that limit your jet engine performance based on real life jet engine metrics. And the new jet engines found on like the F-22 "c"Raptor are about 1.2-1.4m across. They are PRETTY big. AJE even adjusted the masses of these engines to mirror their real life counterparts. Which also help balance them.
I strongly suggest anyone running FAR run AJE with it. It makes for a far more enjoyable aircraft designing experience.