• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

309 Excellent

1 Follower

About Stewcumber

  • Rank
    The alpha-fail

Contact Methods

  • Website URL Array

Profile Information

  • Location Array
  • Interests Array

Recent Profile Visitors

1,725 profile views
  1. I've been watching some The Grand Tour recently and enjoyed the episode where they travelled through Mongolia. The landscape reminded me quite a lot of Kerbin! I've decided to do a mission I've wanted to do a lot over the years but have never pulled it off, due to boredom - drive around Kerbin. I'm sure we're all contemplated it, done some basic maths and decided there are better uses for 24h of your life. In the past I've tried it with jet powered vehicles, on the basis that a true rover would take approximately forever to get around at 30m/s. These have never been that sucessful, with tipping and travelling too fast after lapses of concentration. The fuel has also made it rather cumbersome when it gets airborne.This meant driving was not very efficient with lots of loading quick saves. I never actually got far enough to run out of fuel and need to air drop a fuel tank (which was going to be the plan). I wanted to make a much more manageable vehicle, even if it was slower. Instead of wasting half my miles by crashing and having to load and do them again, I would travel more slowly but not crash and waste miles! I also wanted it to fly short stretches and be able to float and drive in the sea - be a boat basically. I ended up with this: Slower and more manageable props (which can act as thrust or airbrakes) but faster than a pure rover Light(ish) due to zero fuel - just a load of generators. No need to stop at night or refuel. good height / track ratio - it doesn't ever want to tip over The winglets that are used to achieve the slightly wide track are sufficient to fly reasonably for what is primarily a "car". It can fly perpetually at 3,000m if I wanted to cheat! One "steering wheel" as the XL landing gear can't steer. It drives very well for a what is quite a tall vehicle. Bounces and getting airbrone are controllable due to... the control surfaces and lack of weight I guess. It is quite happy flying at 120m/s without draining electricity and doesn't need to SAS to be relatively stable. It even does being a boat fairly well. This must be new in Kerbal that props work in water as I needed to be flat out to get up to 200rpm or so - more drag in the water? Fortunately I went overkill in the generators and I didn't drain any electricity (which is fortunate, as now I think about it, I didn't pack any batteries!) I've so far made it from the KSC (in what I call Africa) to the desert continent to the west. I've done 3h of driving (and 2h of speeding up for the morning to arrive). A mix of flying and driving. I crossing the channel between continents on the water at 50 to 70m/s (it actually drives on water really well). I'm going to go to the dessert airfield, followed by the bigass crater, then have a look at the on that continent. In my 644h of playing kerbal I've never really explored Kerbin. I'll head to Woomerang airfield and then... I don't know really. Keep heading west. I've found some nice views on my travels. Most of the pictures are of flying but that's because I have time to take pictures when I'm not constantly steering and adjusting throttle for the bumps! So far I've crashed once and lost about 30 seconds of progress. I landed too hard and the undercarriage didn't like it. Other mistakes so far - I didn't include a rudder on the tail! It wasn't ever meant to be a plane but still..... Also no batteries. I also couldn't think of anything interesting to carry with me in the cargo bay (like a tiny base / camp, or tiny plane or car...), so it's empty. Bit of a waste of a trip! I'll update this so that I'm less likely to chicken out.
  2. I've been interested in World War 1 for a while now. I find the early aircraft carrier prototypes fascinating where wooden planes were catapulted from the top of a gun mount with essentially zero runway, and floatplanes would land in the sea next to the plane and be winched up rather than land on the deck. Which sounds like a perfect opportunity to engineer something stupid and unnecessary. Allow me to introduce the HMS McBain and the plane especially designed to take off and land on it (by which I mean I put the landing gear closer together so it would fit on the narrow deck easier and made it a tail dragger so it pulls itself up as well as along on take off). Following the British tradition of naming planes after cities, please welcome the Chipping Norton. (Hmmm this is actually an old version as I lengthened it a bit, gave it more engines and improved the crane) To be fair it flies really well; it's very balenced without an SRS active. It doesn't use any electricity at full power. Looks legit.. and safe. Each GIF is about 10mb so I'll save your bandwidth a bit and put some as links... *safety Intensifies* 10 m/s Take Off! (I could probably improve this significantly by adjusting the angle of the blades for low speed power and removing the harshness of the ramp (or removing it all together) to allow a gentler take off). Many landing fails were had. Does this count? I feel that this should count. Tomorrow I'll land in the sea next to it and winch it back on board maybe.
  3. Damnit, you're right. They must have defaulted back to mirror at somepoint when I was faffing around with the spacing on the wings. Easy fix at least!
  4. I made a larger "sustainable" plane. It tops out at 130m/s like my others and has 32 of the electric generators on it so can fly forever. I then tried a Stuff Delivery System, which worked surprisingly well! The idea being I will fly (or rather leave it to fly itself with light supervision whilst I do chores or whatever... but I need to sort out its 'lean' first) to one of the poles and deposit some kind of base there without having to land Got a slight issue to fix though:
  5. I made a plane that can fly in perpetuity. It doesn't "draw" power at full throttle 100% torque and the small rotors plus "B" propellers can spin at 460m/s at 50% throttle at 5,000m ASL. Maybe I will make a bigger one that can actually carry something with four engines, I reckon it will only two more of those electric generators. Benefits over conventionally powered aircraft: Can fly for a very long time Propellers look nice when they spin Drawbacks over conventionally powered aircraft: Slow-ass flying Can only fly at 1x multiplier No cargo capacity Weird physics when diving (propellers act as airbrakes once they hit 460m/s) Can't use the power of magic to work underwater Need to counter act the torque they produce
  6. I tried this a couple of weeks back and it just span my craft around the waterwheel, so I'll give it another go!
  7. Hopefully a clever person knows the physics behind this.. I made a simple "car", with 4x large propellers each on 2x counter rotating small electric rotor engines. I set it to full power and the blades immediately spin up to 460m/s, and the car gradually increases in velocity. Reload, set it to about 10% power and the blades still spin up to 460m/s. However, once I hit about 90m/s velocity, the blade rpm begins to fall. Why is this? Is it something to do with drag on the blades? When my velocity is 0, (pretty much) all of the torque is spent rotating the propellors against stationary air. When I'm moving at 100m/s the torque is also fighting against air that is pushing the blades perpendicular to the torque at 100m/s... so less RPMS per unit of torque. Anyway I ask this as I think this phenomenon is what limits the maximum velocity of my car/plane whatever. I seem to have a max velocity of about 115m/s with 2x rotor engines and 130m/s with 4x rotor engines. Perhaps if I have 3x or 2x blades (not 4x) there's less drag but also less thrust, so I would need more engines or bigger engines... I think I need to experiment but I was hoping someone would know the science behind it?
  8. Today I loaded up Kerbal for the first time in a few weeks and find we have propellers!? I've wanted propellers for years (but not enough to download a mod). They seem significantly more powerful than the "home made" propellers I made with the robotics update rotors. I've got a lot of learning to do! I wonder how efficient an electric plane can be?
  9. Ha, I have been too, but the opposite way around; tracking a moving object to blur the background but keep the object sharp (this was at the British Grand Prix). This was made quite difficult as the cars were accelerating hard out of a corner, not moving at a constant speed! I was also pleasantly surprised at how well my crappy phone handled this moving, light-y night picture!
  10. I had a bit of sucess with landing on my floating airstrip. Lots of fails too Fails:
  11. I made an airstrip. I tested it at the desert dessert airstrip. I made a super light and slow plane (I should really have used one engine) And after a few attemps crashed landed on it I had set the brakes to operate at 50 "strength" but it still tipped over. I think I'll rebalance the plane so it isn't a tail-dragger and can land on three braking wheels (nose and wings) like a modern plane. On the plus side this plane can "fall with style" at about 17m/s. Going to drive the landing strip into the sea now and land on water now! (no, I didn't have anything productive planned for today, thanks for asking )
  12. I've got two of the four "lift" motors spining clockwise and two spinning anticlockwise already (I had an r/c quadcopter at home and have mounted the wrong blades on the wrong motor a couple of times!). Without the forward and backward props it hovers just fine. The issue is just moving forward causes the craft to roll, when I would have thought the four "lift" blades would counter the rolling as they're rotating perpendicular to the roll....? But yes I think it will just be easier to put counter rotating props for forwards and backwards movement!
  13. I just messed around with rotors a bit today. I made quadcopter. OK now I know it is possible to generate enough lift, can I make it move forward and backwards? No. The torque from the "forwards" propellor rotated the craft. Which creates a problem for me as real helicopters use a tail rotor, perpendicular to the main rotor, to counteract torque. My single rotor engine at half power managed to spin me around despite having in effect four "tail rotors" perpendicular to the tail rotor... Then I thought I'd have another go at making a plane finally. 40m/s! Feel a bit like the Wright Brothers with this slow, frame of a plane. I also found out I can map the torque amount for engines to the main throttle using action controls, which will help immensely.
  14. Would anyone care for a race? People have been able to "drive" without using wheels in the past, but one of the main hurdles I've had with that is a lack of control over the axle, and lack of steering. Not anymore, thanks to Breaking Ground! Steering is possible through hinges so you can point a car where you want it to go. Rotor engines allow you to spin "wheels" at whatever speed you wish (sort of) so you can speed up and slow down. Therefore racing is possible! Rules: Drive comes from rotor engines only. No rover wheels, no jet power. Steering is done by wheels. Suspension can be used. No ready made wheels, e.g. planes or rover parts. Don't use mods that would give you an unfair driving or part-picking advantage that would break the spirit of the challenge! Time it how you want it. It's just a bit of fun. A few screenshots would be good! The Tracks You don't need to do all 3! The drag strip is fairly easy as you can start from the spawn point. Drag Race From the Dessert Airfield Spawn at one end of the runway, to the other end of the runway (marked by the lights). Low Speed Manoeuvreability Track Stay on the tarmac (other than the short grass section between R&D and Tracking) and don't cut the corners. However I appreciate it is impossible to avoid the grass all the time. If you slide off the track on the "outside", as in the opposite of cutting a corner on the inside it doesn't matter. If you cut a corner because you're crashing and it doesn't result in saved time, it doesnt matter, etc. I recommend you quick save when you reach the start! Start off of the run way so it doesn't explode. High Speed track This is much more flexible, use whatever space you want just as long as you pass by the relevent "corners". I recommend you quick save when you reach the start! Start off of the run way so it doesn't explode.
  15. I spent most of yesterday afternoon trying to make a rotor powered car. I had some success using girders (which is how I made my previous cars)... I added steering by adding four hinges, with action key 1 to turn left and action key 2 to turn right. I topped out at about 25m/s in this car. I thought I'd use a round part like heatshields (with collision set to 100m/s or so in the .cfg) but it doesn't really work - there is no traction, so they skip and bounce at even moderate power. I thought I'd add suspension. This also doesn't work. Looks cool though. This morning I started fresh with smaller girders, lower power motors and no suspension. This is my most stable design and can do 40m/s downhill. Does it solve any of the problems with existing land based transport? No Is it any better than the existing land based transport? No* Is it energy efficient? No Is it fun to powerslide around in a rear wheel drive deathtrap? Hell yeah! *actually, it drives perfectly upside down, with rear wheel steering. Flipping it over doesn't matter. I wonder how it drives on Minmus... (Terribly I think, as whenever I did any jumps the torque would try to rotate my craft. I would spend most of my time "air"borne on Minmus so would just flip around a lot I think.