• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by KerrMü

  1. Hi MR L A Sorry for the late reply, I`ve been away for the weekend. I couldn´t find any good pictures of it, so I flew a quick mission to bring Bob up into orbit to my new tanker/asteroid miner/supply ship "Kamchatka". Recently I bolted that Dream Chaser-esque thing to a `reuseable´ booster experiment just to practice landing with it. So far I´m really bad at that. Sometimes, just sometimes it works. But I need to figure out how to strengthen the landing legs without adding too much weight or drag. Speaking of drag: The 1st version of the Chaser had only two sparks for propulsion. But at landing approach on the "glide path" the blunt tail caused so much drag that it just fell out of the sky. So I added the two Junos just to extend the descent phase and make the landing more controllable. This thing is the opposite of a glider and even with the Junos not really capable of level flight. The right side of the last pic shows the normal launch configuration with a throwaway booster. Ignore the tower. At some point I wanted to bring landed science data back to a lab in orbit. I´ve forgotten why. Anyway, I hope this is what you asked for. If not, tell me. Have fun, Mü
  2. Hi everybody I´ve been a busy builder today. I´ll come to that in a minute. I took a break for a few months. I had simply run out of ideas completely and my current carreer had gotten tedious with so many upcoming big and complicated missions. Over the holidays I got bored and opened up KSP again and changed my playstyle. More short missions, less headscratching and definitely more goofing around and trying new things. For a Kerbin ground science contract I would normally get my transport plane, put a rover into it and drive and fly around around for 2 hours to get to all the POIs. Now I just built a supersonic scibomber. It get´s to anywhere on Kerbin really quick, drops a few probes out of the back, and that´s it. I love that thing. Sooo much fun to fly. And no more 2 hour long asteroid capture nuke burns for me. This is the new multipurpose Tug. Quite a bit more omph than my old nuke powered potatoroid catcher. Ok, it´s less efficient, but who cares? And I scrapped my overcomplicated upcoming Duna mission. This time I´ll just send a little hab, a rover and a lander. ISRU und all that stuff can come later. The only thing ready for the mission is the crew transport, 0.5g artificial gravity inclusive. Just for the sake of it. Let us slowly come to what i´ve been up to this weekend, shall we? Last week I stumbled upon a monolith on Mun and sent something completely unnecessary over there: Then a thought came to my mind: "Heywood Kerman should take a look at that monolith." But how to get Heywood into Orbit??? Well, from time to time I try to build something like the Orion 3 spaceclipper from 2001. I just love the design and it´s normally a fun challenge to build. So this weekend -again- I sat down with a simple plan. But ideas emerged, problems appeared, sollutions were found, frustrating bugs were... seriously, I thought the thing with engine plates and structural rings not shielding their innerts from drag would have been solved by now... but at the end I´m really happy with the result. I think it looks kinda nice and the flight characteristics are not bad at all. Ok, I had to clip some rapiers together, which I wouldn´t normally do, but ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ In the end I´m having fun with KSP again and it feels good to be back. Have fun guys and gals, have fun, cya
  3. I like it. It´s not to far from the original but looks much nicer. And I think for an interstage engine tankbutt variations aren´t necessary. But if you revamp the Reliant and Swivel (yes, it will be controversial anyway, but at some point in the future - hopefully near future - it has to be done ) could you please include versions without tankbutts? those would be perfect for the engine plates. Thanks. speaking of tankbutts: Hemispherical tanks, maybe versions of the adapters, would be awesome! Like the spaceshuttle tank nosecone version. Anyways, as always I´m exited to learn what you have planned for the next update. This is a nice start
  4. *like* Biggest like of all times in fact. Just yesterday I couldn´t remember all the action groups on my asteroid tug. Love you guys
  5. Looks like an emotional day in KSP today with the announcement of KSP 2. By coincidence I had quite an emotional moment myself today. I wanted to build this, fly this and do this for a very long time:
  6. ...... gobsmacked...................can´t process..HOLY something. Seeing an orion drive and a fusion drive, they can´t possibly leave out the radiation aspect, can they? Anyways, absolutely cool trailer. And I am relieved to read that KSP 1 will be developed further. And I belive you guys. After all you are making my most favorite videogame of all time. Hope everybody keeps their job or falls up the ladder at some point. @ star theory games: Good luck, this is a hard community to please.
  7. The book I read was in german, and I can´t find it at the moment, so that´s useless. Just start with the wikipedia article "rocket engine nozzle". That´s pretty good and in the external links there is a NASA pdf "NASA Space Vehicle Design Criteria, Liquid Rocket Engine Nozzles" that goes in much... much, much more detail. Maybe some of the other fine folks here on this forum would be able to provide more literature? Edit: Ok, Mr Manley made a video about this. I missed that one. Thx for posting @Loskene
  8. That is a rather complicated topic. In short, rocket nozzles are often optimized for best performance in intended environment. Lower in the atmosphere the air pressure confines the exhaust gasses kind of like a nozzle, so you don´t need to put a big and heavy metal one on the bottom of your rocket. The lower the surrounding atmospheric pressure, the less it pushes against the exhaust gasses. You can observe that when you watch videos of rocket launches. At launch the exhaust gasses look like a column of fire, but higher up they spread much wider at the bottom of the nozzles. This lowers the efficiency of the motor, so you need bigger nozzles to force the gasses to go out to the back and not so much to the sides. In KSP this is just simulated with different engine specs. There are just some engines that are really good at launch, some are good higher up in the atmosphere, and some are best used in vacuum. The aerospike rocket engine that we have in KSP but not quite in real life is an attempt to deal with this problem, but has draw backs on its own. This is a crude simplification and there are other factors like the actual design of the motor and so on. I suggest you read further into this topic. It´s quite fascinating and understandable without a physics degree.
  9. Updated an old design to new technology today. Took it out for a testflight, left it alone for an hour, came back and found it near the southern ice caps. Ok, it doesn´t fly straight. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  10. @Shadowmage Hi, 400 RPM seems to be the sweetspot. Thank you very much for that info. This was very helpful for my little project. From earlier Duna planes I kinda knew that surface is key, but for testing this craft started out with 2 motors with 4 blades each... I could have just left them at home. Now I ended up with 4 motors and 48 blades and it flies really nicely.
  11. It´s been a long time since I thought "hmmm, could I fly this over to the island airfield?" Turns out I could. Phew! Just before the sun went down. I barely made it. Fuel was running out and the landing involved extreme amounts of luck and very little skill. I´d say this heli is a step into the right direction, but it definitely isn´t good. It is controllable with my old flightstick, but with keyboard... not really. Maybe I´ll be able to improve it with more experience. Oh, and the fenestron isn´t there just for good looks. I cheated a little bit. Six of the 12 blades are for steering, the other six for yaw trim.
  12. @Noir Thanks for the clarification. You´ve put a lot of effort in it and I think I now understand much better what is bothering you. And I agree with you on many points. I´m pretty sure and hopeful there are some improvements on the way. And like you said, in a game the devs have to make do with some compromises, like somewhat simplified equasions on the side of physics for examle. Maybe some values could be tweaked to improve the behavior of the turboshafts. And yes, the fuel consumption feels a little bit awkward at the moment. Kind of unintuitive. So, for me it´s time to go to bed now. Can´t think straight anymore and it took far too long to find the word "unintuitive" in my brain. Whatever you do, have a nice time.
  13. @Noir Hey, thx for the polite answer. It is very much appreciated. Of course your criticism is welcome. You´re constructive and you´ve got valid points. Part count for example. And I didn´t want to attack anyone in no shape or form. I just wanted to give my opinion why I think the advantages of a flexible system outweigh the disantvantages. I´m sorry that we disagree on this, but I´m really having fun building with it right now. On the technical side I can´t argue with you. Torque effects, prop wash aso. My flying experience is limited to building a few balsawood gliders as a kid, crashing far too often in IL-2 Sturmovic back then, and now KSP. Tbh I thought the motors are ok with fuel and air going in and something round comes out of the box and spins -> rest of the aircraft counter rotating (thanks to Newton, always making things difficult). Genuine question: How should torque affect the characteristics of ,let´s say, a single engine aircraft? I mean, what feels so wrong about it now? Anyways, have fun playing. And is it really seven years already? Holy .... we´ve come a long way.
  14. Just a few friendly words to all the voices in this thread who want the new propellers made easyer. Let´s be honest here. We don´t need all the new stuff, robotics, props, programming, to play in career mode. I´ve played career since it came out and got everything done I needed/wanted to without those new toys. But that´s the thing, you see? They are NEW TOYS! Yippie! Pre Breaking ground and 1.7.3 I had run out of ideas what to build next or what mission to fly next. Now we´ve reached a new level of what we can build in this game. New functions, new machines, new ideas. And the old crafts that worked perfectly fine before BG? They still work perfectly fine, but now we can - if we want to - rebuild them to do their jobs more elegantly, more efficiently, sometimes less efficient but funnier or cleverer. That satisfying feeling when the machine that you built meets or exceeds your expectations. The base game hasn´t changed. But now, on top of it, there is a completely new level of complexity. New stuff to learn. (And I like learning new stuff) Regarding the implementation: In my book the devs have already found clever workarounds for limitations of the game engine. Are they perfect and foolproof? Of course not. Just like in real life. If you overstress mechanical systems, there is a chance they will break/ go boom. If the programmers find a few tweaks here and there in the future, that would be cool. But for now I´m more than ok with the implementation. Is building custom propellers/rotors more complicated as it absolutely has to be? Yes. Overly complicated? I don´t think so. Now we have a system in which we can tweak our propulsion system to pretty much exactly what we need in different circumstances... COOL Now, I´m pretty stupid, but it only took me a few hours to go from my first crude 1.7.3 prop plane (posted on the first page of this thread) to a transport plane that could deliver 10 tons to the poles. I just had to slowly (remember, I´m stupid) understand how the new engines work. Helicopters on the other hand are something completely different. Man, they are complicated. I tried to build one with tailrotor yesterday and failed spectacularly. After pulling my hair in frustration (long hair, will take for ever to grow back) I closed the game and opened up a few webpages and books and realized how little I knew about helicopters. I´ve made some real progress today. So where are we... Hmmm, a game that confronts me with some really complicated problems, but only if I choose to be confronted, and that encourages me to learn how a helicopter works, or how bipedal robots walk, or just how to build a crane that doesn´t fall over... I don´t know about you all, but I am as happy as a pig in the mud. There is ONE little thing that I HATE about this update. I don´t have nearly enough time to play with my new toys these days.
  15. I´m getting windspeed effects with my very first 1.7.3 prop plane... Not having much time today, but the weekend is going to be crazy exciting. A big thank you to all the folks at SQUAD for the new toys. Feel firmly hugged.
  16. I´m away for one single day, and I totally missed the LF engines announcement. What an awesome surprise. On the one hand I want all the 1.7.3 features right now. On the other hand... If you magnificent people insist on adding more and more stuff to it, it would be rude to hold you back . (Wrong emoji. There, Kerbal watching rotorblades. Better)
  17. Don´t worry, I didn´t use indestructible parts. And believe me I destroyed fortunes yesterday. I made 6 testruns before recording. On two runs the runway stayed intact, on 4 it blew up. It just would have been a pain to record it in that circumstances. I took the little rant out for a more casual walk today. From 40 to 70% thrust it behaves really well. The crazy thing is: The 3 pairs of legs are independant. How quick they go into resonace is remarkable. Could watch that all day. And hey, I´m fine with every category you throw me in. Running this thing in the articulated legs competition just would not be fair, me thinks. Have a great evening.
  18. Hi Earlier today I´ve been fooling around with a walker idea I had last night, and as my "Rockroach" surprisingly reached 12m/s I thought "wait a minute, I think I´ve seen a challenge for this sort of stuff". After reading this thread I obviously thought I must go faster. So I scrapped Rockroach and a few hours later the "Rant" was born. If this falls under the rotor-with-some-legs-sticking-out rule, I´m fine with that. Oh, and I hope that it´s ok that I had to enable indestructible buildings. The runway tended to blow up at speeds over 20m/s. ¯\(ツ)/¯ Dammit, I wanted to tidy up the garage today. I blame you @Kergarin To the rest of you folks, lot´s of awesome (and sometimes hilarious) walkers around here. Have fun, Mü Edit: Just found a typo in the vid. Sorry, got late. And I have absolutely no clue why my recording software cropped of the edges. Will investigate tomorrow. Edit2:
  19. Hi folks My day in one picture: What?! That´s it. Half a baby step, from standstill to (maybe) start walking. I´m still learning how to use KAL1000 adequately. This sequence used maybe 55-60% of all the robotics on this thing. The walking loop - if possible - will probably make my brain go . But that is for another day. Have fun. @Brikoleur Hey man, sorry for not answering your suspension question. I´m not having much time for forum browsing or playing at the moment. Your submarine program looks amazingly fun. I´ll have to dive into that soon. But man, submarines are tricky. Kudos to you, Sir. Edit: Maybe I´ll have to redesign Mr Robotos feet. More traction would be good. Any ideas how to give the soles more grip guys?
  20. Not yet. I´ll make one quick. (might take a bit till it´s online. my upload speed is terrible) I´ll post the link here when I´m done. Thx for the quick reply. Edit: @nestor Ok, vid should be up now. Sry, took some time. I had to re download all the recording and editing stuff. Not making vids very often. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  21. Hi guys. I´ve been tinkering with a swashplate rotorhead design today and with low speeds it looked promising. But at higher revolutions hefty oscillations started to occur. I tried to figure out where those were coming from for a few hours. Then I reverse engineered the whole thing bit by bit to find out that the EM-64 was the wobbly part. I´ve build quite a few test stands. Here is a pic of one of them. (to the right the rotorhead so far) Test stand: Everything is built with symmetry mode and attached to nodes. If the I-beams are surface attached to the rotor the effect gets worse. The Girder Segment to the front left in the pic is rocking and weaving quite hard in this experiment. Maybe there is a slight symmetry issue with the EM-64? I know, this isn´t exactly in the scope of the game, but nontheless I wanted to ask if there is anything you could do about that. Seems quite a lot of players are building choppers at the moment . Should I write a bug support, and if yes, could you send me a link to the Breaking Ground bug tracker? Apart from that I´m having a blast with the DLC and haven´t found any major issues yet. Thanks, Mü
  22. Thanks for the reply mate. You´re probably right, I just haven´t observed any effect yet. I haven´t tried helicopters today. Just wanted to say helicopters are rockhard. It will take some time till we learn how to build and control them sufficently. Don´t worry, you´ll get there Currently I´m slowly figuring out how to use KAL 1000 with very simple tasks. Not easy, but it´s robotics, it´s not supposed to be.
  23. @Frank_G That´s a very nice looking lander you got there. I´ve got a payload for you: Curiosity Rover with fully functional rocker-bogie suspension. And it can climb stuff . Suspension also works with normal wheels now. Aaaawesome! Has anybody figured out what damping on the rotation servos does?
  24. First flight with breaking ground. Me and Jeb are enjoying this. I´m beginning to think planning this baby was a little bit ambitious, but to be honest, I pretty much knew that frome the start. I´ll have to tinker with the new stuff way lot more. Maybe we´ll come up with new awesome motor ideas. something with pistons... maybe??? Sooo much to do and even more to learn.