Surefoot

Members
  • Content Count

    367
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Surefoot

  1. Yeah the possibilities of this mod along with TAC FB are mind boggling. Trying to setup something nice for my Grand Tourer (a 2 part ship basically, a nuke engine block for interplanetary and a SSTO module for landings), i already discovered some neat ideas.
  2. You'll need the "aggressive" version of rbray's texture compressor if you use the HD packs, otherwise the game becomes unstable quickly.
  3. That mod makes my Eve lifter look good: Need Novapunch and KW effects now (the middle engine on boosters is the NP aerospike, should have a similar exhaust as stock ones i guess ?)
  4. If you know about piloting, it's a bit like this: http://www.combataircraft.com/en/Tactics/Air-To-Air/Forward-Velocity-Vector/ or a kind of high-speed yoyo could do it (but watch that AoA !). Basically any move that costs energy / velocity.. And yeah i wonder about those B9 airbrakes too, they seem to get through a few mods including DRE (where they just burn off even when closed..).
  5. Nice mod. Very good work on the models. @Giggleplex777: stock game does this. Take a look there for a solution: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/65754-HotRockets!-Particle-FX-Replacement The mod author could add a config to that mod, so if you use it the engines exhaust will look realistic.
  6. Yeah i know, right. This was just for one of the upper stages of my Eve lander-lifter. 126t is actually 2 other stages above that one. With your tool i tackle multi-stage by considering the stages above as payload - that's why i dont need to have 15% payload fraction (also i use FAR, i can get around 21% payload fraction on Kerbin and get to orbit.. and for Eve it's more like 3%). That's why the middle stage not respecting the min. TWR is a problem here, and i suspect for other lower stage calculations. With 15% fraction my stage would be too heavy (i am trying to balance the whole thing, it has to be able to land.. also FAR punishes unwieldy designs)
  7. Thanks. Played with it a bit, found a problem with one design: payload 126t payload fraction 30% twr 1.8 to 3.0 (that's for an Eve upper stage) center stack size 3.75m boosters 2 - 6 max center outer engines 4 center radials 0 0 max booster outer engines 4 booster radial engines 0 4 only "true radial engines" checked i calculate for best ISP, with stock, KW and Novapunch Result ends with center stack having a Bearcat with 3x 48-7S, which is quite not enough to propel its own weight along the top payload - TWR is maybe 0.8 at best and of course way under the 1.8 that i need for Eve. Once i drop the side boosters the craft drops like a stone. Shouldnt the center stack respect the min. TWR ? (i went around that by replacing that cluster with a KW Titan, but that's maybe not optimal)
  8. Looking very good, i'll follow this... Support for popular engine packs is just adding to the CFG right ?
  9. .craft file for my blackbird-like speed demon: https://www.dropbox.com/s/pt6b6ds3ekiaiql/HyperJet%20Z.craft mods needed: B9, P-wings. And of course FAR and KJR (that's a given if you're reading this ) It's capable of mach 6+. Beware, it's not very easy to fly (got a spiral unstability, use a joystick..), get a good ascent going for transonic then over 16km you'll be able to reduce AoA and start moving reallly fast. See how it wants to put itself into orbit by just flying straight. Have fun improving my design i'll be very pleased if you do so (by improving the yaw /roll coupling issues and eliminating the spiral mode, for example). Reducing the mach tuck at transonic is secondary. Reducing the pitch/roll coupling that seems to happen for no good reason (?? is there one ?) could be nice too. (edit) i put the leading edge slats on an action group, dont forget to retract them when over mach 0.8...
  10. Yeah they are definitely in the right direction. They dock to regular 2.5m sr docking ports, but not to each other. I'll take a look at tweakables.
  11. As a challenge, try to make best payload ratio launchers (that means less launcher and more payload), use precisely the amount of fuel needed, and leave zero debris in orbit And while optimizing, trying to find the best ascent profile, since it's different for each launcher.
  12. real rockets do this too anyway, no worries. Keep a low AoA through the ascent, you'll be more efficient as a bonus.
  13. Made a huge cargo hauler using the 3m docks, painfully launched the parts in orbit, and they wont assemble They just bump into each other, no magnetic effect, no lock... I use the "Tweakable everything" mod too, is it related maybe ?
  14. What is the "true radial engines" checkbox for ?
  15. @MaverickSawyer: With good TWR (1.4+) you can use about 55% profile starting at 0 ending 70km, of course tweaking this is integral part of the fun. Heavier rockets with lower TWR need steeper ascent. You know you have a good profile if you stay within the prograde marker during the ascent (or very close to it).
  16. Not totally true: this doesnt replace 3.75m and 5m engines (which would have scaled properties from the current 2.5m series, with further weight of course). Why would i want those, that's my own business, and i'll ask you: why not
  17. Not much RAM at all, but maybe some CPU. And hundreds of hours of your time spent exploring aerodynamics
  18. Made it Blackbird-like delta winged beauty with scramjets. Can put itself into orbit by just going forwards at full burn. Low speeds are taken care of by leading edge flaps. Transonic is terrible (mach tuck is huge ! i'll have to investigate why, delta wings are supposed to counter that effect somehow) but once over mach 2 things look good again, when i switch the engines to ramjet mode. Ascent: Scramjet mode: Notice the chimes: I didnt make use of the full set of tricks the SR-71 did, p-wings can do so much only Also notice the raised tail with small chimes around it, that's needed to balance out mach tuck. It's got too much dutch roll for my taste, but i spent too many hours on it already
  19. Yup, there's just the folders, and no files. Moar small engines is good, those are especially valuable for Eve missions.
  20. Wow this is great. Very helpful for those many-tanks-space-stations and those hypersonic birds that need fuel balancing
  21. Checked the Concorde configuration, it's a delta wing with slight ogival shape, anhedral (drooping from the middle of the wing approximately), no leading edge slats, no flaps, no airbrakes, no canards ! Just elevons (3 pairs). Doing this with pwings and still attaching the engine pods straight on will be an interesting challenge. (edit) useful link: http://www.concordesst.com/wing.html
  22. See a few posts before, i clearly mentioned i tried the elevon design (and even played around with fuel transfers) - and i am still missing something. When i look closely these planes all have some degree of wing camber, clever tricks such as lifting body for the blackbird, and so on. The combination of all these tricks is what makes them fly, and i am missing at least one, since so far my tests are mostly lawn darts.
  23. And that's why i am trying to take inspiration from them, and see what "any means available" is actually, since they did find a solution. My current problem with tailless designs is two-fold, first is an unrecoverable mach tuck, the other is constant pitch-down even at subsonic, to the point i cannot even fly up sometimes. I have quite some experience with FAR (and have very successful conventional designs, including SSTO's that can go to Laythe and such), it's just i think i am reaching the limitations of KSP modelling tools at the moment - i would need finer rotation increments (so far it's 15°) in order to create a proper cambered wing for instance, which seems to be a common feature of those delta-winged supersonics. Trying to compensate with leading edge control surfaces, the idea suggested by Ferram that they would be situated near COM has to be explored
  24. i was more specifically thinking of tail-less designs such as SR-71, Concorde, XB-70, Space Shuttle... How do they avoid the very violent pitch-down tendency i noticed when recreating said designs, and mach tuck effects ? I was thinking about leading edge control surfaces, and maybe some flaps... when i have more time i'll check out the designs for Concorde. For example the aborted Boeing supersonic had a very visible wing camber, which is very hard to reproduce in KSP due to too large angular increments when positioning wing elements.