Jump to content

Mmmmyum

Members
  • Posts

    230
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Mmmmyum

  1. I'm using FAR, yes. I'm also controlling from the pod, not the mechjeb module. Oh and the plane's not doing anything, it's just a fuel tank with a nosecone and turbojet strapped to it, angled 5 degrees downwards to keep the car on the tarmac (works well eh?)
  2. Nope, just relaunched it and it's seen as a normal capsule rocket thing, not a rover
  3. OMG Guize y is this not getting into orbet?!!?1 On a more serious note everything on this rocket car (that was not meant to fly but does) is inverted. I hold W to pull up, and not S, and Q works like E should, etc. Is there a reason why? It's kinda annoying because SAS has no idea how to get it going straight
  4. I'd probably make it stupidly detailed and complex... With realistic electrical systems, fuels, IVA's with clickable things that do stuff etc
  5. All my Jet engines were measured while stationary on the launchpad with a single ram air intake I should find a few more interesting ways of comparing engines I guess that changes upon planet, etc
  6. The whole point of this thread was to show the best engines for ascent...
  7. Personally I did a Apollo style mission, and the lander had to be able to reach LKO from the launchpad (I like having a lot of extra delta-v)
  8. 2.718315*220 is 598.023, being a lot lower than the ion engine's ~800
  9. Intel HD4000... Soz always forget that AMD have a similar line of cards
  10. . It has a mass of 2.25t, times by 9.81 gives a weight of 22.0725 kN on Kerbin's surface. 60kN of thrust divided by a weight of 22.0725kN gives a TWR of 2.718315. I'm using the sea level ISP btw, as this is TWR on launch
  11. Also changing physics engine's to one that uses the GPU would take the game away from quite a few laptop owners without KSP, such as myself; my i7 can handle the game pretty easily but methinks that my HD4000 won't
  12. I have no idea. It seems to be a measure of efficiency of TWR? Idk lol
  13. I'd look up an article on game design for that, it's something I've often pondered, game balance is. Oh and I there was also no relationship between TWR and ISP, which I found interesting
  14. LV-N came out to a value of 598.0292 according to excel lol
  15. My guess is that's the maximum delta-v a single engine can have. That's an utter guess though. EDIT Just thought about it, and nope it's not (think about the ion engine for instance)
  16. So after trying a few different things with what I got, I found multiplying TWR by ISP gave some interesting results, namely the LV-N is less useful than the ion engine. I have no idea if that means anything though
  17. Totally wasn't being stupid and forgetting about how if thrust and mass is doubled than it's all the same. Ultimately no, as adapters don't weigh that much. The TWR will always be above a Mainsail, but FPS will be an issue
  18. The radial engines are more complicated as to do anything useful you need 2 of them at minimum. I'll put them into their own charts. Oops that 9.82 was a typo it's using 9.81. And this is how I was testing jet engine's thrust:
  19. So being bored today, I decided to create a chart of various engine's TWR. I got a few interesting results, mainly the 48-7S being able to lift the most for it's weight, with the Mainsail coming second. I believe this is informative for launch rockets, as it tells how much more than it's weight an engine can lift, thus determining it's payload. The LV-N comes last, as would be expected, and the Aerospike coming 5th last, making it's higher ISP offset by it's low lifting capacity. Jets are fired at the launch pad with a single Ram Air intake. I'll update this post with the results for KW Rocketry and B9 Aerospace. Modular Fuels is not being used, so thrust is at "stock" levels. Acceleration due to gravity is taken as 9.81m/s^2 The results for the KW Rocketry engine's was a lot more even than the stock game's, with the only interesting result being the WildCat-XR and Maverick-1D having exactly the same TWR. B9 Aerospace also was a lot flatter than the stock game's, although the TFE731 has the highest TWR ratio in the game. The radial engines and other forms of propulsion were varied, with the ion engine having a max TWR of 0.2, proving that it's impossible to get into orbit with them: All in all this proves that for the largest payloads you want to have lots of 48-7S's, as they do more for their weight than any other rocket motor
  20. Why are the Mun's polar regions so hostile? Is it a limitation of the engine or did the devs intend for it to be so uneven? Mandatory picture here: (I'm not worried about the destruction of his rocket, I'll send another once I've found a flat landing location) And safe landing coordinates at 89° 41' 15" S, 27° 53' 9" E if anyone's interested
  21. I named my early science mode rockets after dinosaurs (archaic nature), and generally my rockets are build in a series that gets better until I start from scratch again. I tend to name manned rockets after birds and probes after insects, with the rockets that I mess around with being named after what makes them quirky (Like Dual 1 was just two full sized rockets being used side by side to push a center 2.5m rocket into space and beyond).
  22. Lol I have no problem getting into orbit, and that's the biggest part from KW Rocketry. I was more messing around last night and that's what I came up with. I should mark this as answered
  23. Well this is what I was messing around with
  24. Mmmmyum

    Windows 8.1

    Hey I actually love Windows 8, it uses almost no resources (but that's not an issue nowadays), and I like it's interface. That's coming from someone who thought it was a stupid thing for tablets when it came out btw
  25. I'd try renaming the vessel and changing it's type, that's all I can think of
×
×
  • Create New...