Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'flight'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • General
    • Announcements
    • Welcome Aboard
  • Kerbal Space Program 2
    • KSP2 Dev Updates
    • KSP2 Discussion
    • KSP2 Suggestions and Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission Ideas
    • The KSP2 Spacecraft Exchange
    • Mission Reports
    • KSP2 Prelaunch Archive
  • Kerbal Space Program 2 Gameplay & Technical Support
    • KSP2 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • KSP2 Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • KSP2 Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
  • Kerbal Space Program 2 Mods
    • KSP2 Mod Discussions
    • KSP2 Mod Releases
    • KSP2 Mod Development
  • Kerbal Space Program 1
    • KSP1 The Daily Kerbal
    • KSP1 Discussion
    • KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas
    • KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP1 Mission Reports
    • KSP1 Gameplay and Technical Support
    • KSP1 Mods
    • KSP1 Expansions
  • Community
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
    • KSP Fan Works
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website


There are no results to display.

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start



Website URL



About me



  1. (KAX, FireSpitter, TweakScale - for 1.4.1 to 1.7.0 Kerbal Aircraft Expansion /L - Under Lisias Management, forever THE pack of selected vanilla-inspired parts for your aircrafting needs! In a Hurry Release [2021-0824] Announce. Download SpaceDock GitHub Issue Tracker Documentation Yes, it works with KSP 1.12.5 YES, it works with KSP 1.7.3 (with Making History and Breaking Ground) YES, it works with KSP 1.3.1 too!!! Project's README Install Instructions Change Log Known Issues TODO list Description An Add'On for Kerbal Space Program Originally created by Keptin, then maintained by SpannerMonkey and the SM Industries team, and now under Lisias' Management, KAX is a pack of select vanilla-inspired parts for your aircrafting needs! Included Parts: Turboprop Radial Engine Radial Engine Long Cowl Electric Propeller Helicopter Main Rotor Helicopter Tail Rotor Heavy Landing Gear Jump Jet Engine 2M Aircraft Cockpit 2M Fuselage (jet fuel) 2M Structural Fuselage (empty) 2M Tail Boom This Add'On Requires Firespitter and Module Manager to enable all the features. Project Directives This Management (Lisias) had agreed to oblige himself to the following directives for this project: KAX will remain KAX it will not be rolled into another Add'On it can be expanded expansions must be in keeping with the tone of the Add'On it must be vaguely (as much as possible) stockalike. This project aims to preserve the stock a like compatibility and versatility of these parts, and any subsequent parts will be designed with that in mind. The goal is that any new part will blend seamlessly with the current parts and add to rather than detract from the Add'Ons functionality. Acknowledgements Powered by Firespitter, special thanks to Snjo for his plugin. Additional Models by @SpannerMonkey(smce). Stockalike textures by Doctor Davinci. Greetings to @TheKurgan for his helpful work on the SMCS's add'ons (including this one). See LICENSE for the formal legalese. Please note the copyrights and trademarks in NOTICE. References SpannerMonkey(smce) -- Previous Maintainer Forum GitHub Keptin -- Original Author Forum Curse Forge
  2. Can we make the camera speed be separate from the scroll to zoom speed? I like to move the camera fast but I like for my zoom to be smooth. Within the game I have to choose one or the other, I would like a setting to control zoom speed separately. My camera jumps each time I scroll and its jarring and takes away from the cinematics of the game. Thanks
  3. For some really strange reason, whenever I timewarp/accelerate the time, the game thinks I am stuck accelerating at that speed, and refuses to change back at all. This means that I can't change the throttle or do maneuvers, which makes the game impossible. I've tried multiple solutions but it seems like the only thing that can fix it is by resetting to a save previous to the bug, which means I would lose hours of progress, which is very frustrating!
  4. After picking up the game again after the latest update I started a new Exploration savegame and so far I have to say that I really like the concept! Flight HUD/GUI During my first hops and jaunts around Kerbin, however, I noticed some oddities regarding the flight HUD that may be placeholders or items in progress - nonetheless, to be safe I'll address them here: Yellow arc behind velocity display - it seems to be static, at this point, as opposed to the one behind the altitude display. What will it display? Velocity indicator - in all screenshots I took the decimal place always seems to display 0 - when not required, it could be not displayed for better clarity. I did not yet e.g. try docking, but I assume that when slowly closing to a target the decimal place will become functional? The vertical speed indicator in the top right of the artificial horizon cluster - what units does it use? it doesn't seem to be m/s like in the first game. For example in the following screenshot my vertical speed is around 290 m/s, but the vertical speed indicator seems to indicate +10, more or less. Science locations - orbit vs. space: On a suborbital flight I did some scientific observations and noticed that the ones performed outside of the atmosphere are listed as in "low orbit" as opposed to "in space", which would make more sense given that e.g. in this case I was clearly on a suborbital trajectory, as can be seen by the Perigee height: It would make more sense to use "in space" to refer to the location of an experiment being performed, if the intent is not to consider the type of trajectory.
  5. Since 1.5.0 landed, I've dared to make slightly more ambitious vessels and it got me thinking... When interstellar stuff arrives, I really don't think current camera control will suffice. Zooming/un-zooming would take way too much scrolling Part Manager will become overcrowded Focusing on specific part (like in the VAB) would be a very useful, QOL feature. Do devs have any plans to address these things?
  6. Is it possible to get a trim (Alt+QWEASD) indicator on the navball if it's != 0? I am aware that the axis-indicators (not sure what they are actually called) do show it - but it is not discernible when small/near 0. First I was thinking about a +N/-N display next to the axis inidcators but a "shadowed" axis indicator might be more ... sensible? Would be really helpful - could be optional too! Anyway, fantastic work so far, thanks!
  7. In original ksp1 I could set near craft or its docking port as target by just clicking on craft or its part. But in ksp2 is no this ability now, and I must to switch to map view to set craft as target. It is so uncomfortable: in map view close craft marks often overlap each other, also when center of mass of target craft doesn't match docking port I must dock to this by eye
  8. Fairings will have a seizure in the VAB when you turn on see through and a lot of the time when you separate them during flight they will bug out and one second will be behind you and the next they are right in front of you.
  9. Decouplers/Separators will not properly separate from an engine if the engine was activated before separation. this will mainly happen when the engine and decoupler are in the same stage. A workaround i found is to have the decouplers and engines in there own stage one after another instead of in the same stage.
  10. Often, you might want to take advantage of an extraterrestrial atmosphere by flying a plane or using parachutes to slow down a craft. This can be more or less effective depending on the conditions there: a parachute that lowers a capsule down to Earth safely will crash at high speed into Mars, while a propeller plane that fails during testing on Kerbin might actually work just fine in Eve's thicker atmosphere. In this sense, Eve is better for atmospheric flight, while Mars is worse. But by how much? I've seen this concept quantified before in specific instances, but not in the general case, and as far as I know, it has not been given a name. I propose a new metric to measure it: the flight effectiveness index. (If this name is already taken, or if the concept actually does already have a name I don't know about, I'd love to hear about it so that I can correct this post.) Unfortunately, air is complicated, and many simplifying assumptions are often made. One unfortunately common one is the lack of distinction between atmospheric density (how much mass the air in a given volume has) and atmospheric pressure (roughly proportional to how much energy the air in a given volume has). While clearly related, these concepts can end up being very different because of the fact that air molecules move at different speeds. KSP does maintain the distinction between pressure and density internally, but fails to convey it in situations where it is relevant, such as when parachutes open. They open at a minimum pressure, when perhaps a minimum density would be more consistent with the actual performance of the parachute. It's not just a problem in KSP: pressure and density are both measures for "how much air there is", so the distinction between them is not intuitive and can easily lead to confusion. Even xkcd, a webcomic now known for its very good scientific accuracy, at one point got pressure and density mixed up. (source: https://xkcd.com/620/) The 9% figure would be correct except for the fact that Titan's atmosphere is not 50% denser than Earth's; it has 50% more pressure (and consequently over four times the density because the air is so cold). The relationship between density and pressure can be derived from the ideal gas law. (The ideal gas law isn't perfect, but it's close enough under normal conditions.) PV = nRT, where P is the pressure, V is the volume, n is the number of moles of air, R is a constant, and T is the temperature. Wait, this equation doesn't have density in it! We need to relate the density to other things that are in the equation. The density ρ, by definition, is the mass m divided by the volume V. The total mass m is the molar mass μ times the number of moles n. Putting this all together, we find: PV = nRT P = (n / V) RT P = (m / (μV)) RT P = (ρ / μ) RT Pμ / RT = ρ R is a constant, so the density is proportional to the pressure times the molar mass divided by the temperature. The rest of the comic is basically accurate: the amount of mass held up by a given wing or parachute (at a given velocity) is proportional to the density divided by the surface gravity. (Explanation in the spoiler box for why this works.) This gives us our final definition for the flight effectiveness index: FEI = (Pμ) / (Tg), where P is the pressure (in kPa), μ is the mean molar mass (in amu = g/mol), T is the temperature (in K), and g is the local surface gravity (in m/s2). Importantly, this is dependent only on the local conditions, not on any characteristics of the vessel. (For maximum accuracy, the local surface gravity should include the effect of the body's rotation; that is, it should be reduced for rapidly spinning bodies. However, this does not make much of a difference unless the body is rotating quite quickly.) In KSP, the pressure, temperature, and local gravity can easily be obtained in the above units from the barometer, thermometer, and gravioli detector respectively. The molar mass is not obtainable in-game, but it is globally constant across each body. For stock atmospheres, it can be found on the body's KSP wiki page. For most modded atmospheres, it can be found in the body's .cfg file as atmosphereMolarMass (in kg/mol, which must be multiplied by 1000 to obtain it in g/mol). While this definition is based on SI units, it would be nice if there was an easy-to-remember "Earth/Kerbin standard" value. (Earth and Kerbin have basically identical conditions.) Fortunately, there is! Plugging in standard thermodynamic conditions, we find: P = 101.325 kPa (1 atm) T = 298.15 K (SATP standard) μ = 28.9644 amu (US standard for Earth; Kerbin global constant) g = 9.80665 m/s2 (1 g) FEI = (101.325 * 28.9644) / (298.15 * 9.80665) ≈ 1.00375, which is basically 1 (to within the actual variation on Earth of any of pressure, temperature, or even gravity). Of course, actual conditions on Earth and Kerbin vary considerably. In the thinner atmosphere at high altitude (0.8 atm, for example), the FEI falls to 0.8, meaning that a plane can only hold 0.8 times as much mass. In the cold polar weather (temperature: roughly 240 K), the FEI rises to 1.25. The flight effectiveness index can now be calculated on other celestial bodies. Let's take Eve as an example of a popular destination for planes. On the equator at sea level at noon, the conditions are: P = 506.625 kPa T = 423.7 K μ = 43 amu g = 16.67 m/s2 FEI = (506.625 * 43) / (423.7 / 16.67) ≈ 3.08. This means that a parachute can hold up 3.08 times as much mass as would be safe on Kerbin, and a propeller plane can carry 3.08 times the mass (including the mass of the plane, so you get a lot more than 3.08 times as much payload). While this definition is designed to be as easy as possible to calculate accurately, it still requires some work. Alternatively, I've included tables of typical FEI values on atmospheric planets and moons from a variety of systems. The FEI varies across the surface of any body, mainly due to variations in altitude (i.e. mountains, which you probably already knew to look out for) and temperature (which doesn't change all that much unless the body is a tidally locked planet). The given values are at the datum level at a latitude of 17 degrees, with a temperature averaged across all daily and seasonal variation. Stock system: Real Solar System: Outer Planets Mod: Galileo's Planet Pack: Grannus Expansion Pack: JNSQ: Whirligig World: Strange New Worlds: Edge of Eternity:
  11. Hooligan Labs Airships CORE is a joint initiative from @JewelShisen and @Lisiasto push Hooligan Labs Airships ahead while maintaining compatibility with KSP from 1.3.x era to nowadays (or providing an additional package for such, if needed). In a Hurry: Current Release: for KSP >= 1.3 (2022-0503) It works from KSP 1.3.1 to KSP 1.12.3! Seriously! How to check Compatibility on CurseForge. IMPORTANT This release TEMPORARILY needs the latest KSPe installed. The final release will be shipped with KSPe.Light embedded. Module Manager is needed for handling the patches. Read this post before updating! Announce for Announce for never happened… Announce for Downloads on GitHub (for early adopters and beta testers) on SpaceDock. On HooliganLabs Mods for the full package. (eventually) Description: HLAirshipsCore (for shorts) will be in charge of the Plugin Development and by keeping in working condition a minimal set of assets (all of them from the 3.0.0 release times, under the MIT). Further developments may happen on Core, as well on eventual new spinoffs of the franchise. Hooligan Labs Mods will keep the distribution of the official packages, as well suggestions for new feature and similar stuff. HLAirshipsCore (this thread) will be in charge of issue tracking and bug hunting - as well beta releases for early adopters that don't fear the Krakens and are willing to Livin' La Vida Loca on the bleeding edge! License: Hooligan Labs Airships Core is licensed under the MIT (Expat), as HLA was originally. Assets from HLAirships other than the ones currently on Core are not covered by this license agreement. Float Safe!!
  12. In the basic flight tutorial I can not get the parachute to deploy, can anyone give me any pointers?
  13. I built a small plane powered by electric ducted fans and a few RTGs, which is capable of infinite flight. I was flying it on long flights around Kerbin where I set MechJeb to cruise at 4000 m altitude. I noticed something interesting, which is that the maximum cruise speed decreases as latitude increases. At the equator, it could cruise at 280 m/s but this speed gradually drops to 250 m/s at 60° latitude, which is a difference of more than 10%. As I flew back towards the equator, it gradually increased back up to 280 m/s. Even more interestingly, the blade pitch at which this maximum cruise speed occurs decreases from 49° at the equator to 46° at 60° latitude. The electric motors are always at constant (maximum) RPM and the mass of the aircraft is strictly constant as no fuel is involved at all. This is not an issue of bad controls as the plane is just not physically capable of cruising at 280 m/s at 60° latitude. I think the reason has to do with the temperature, pressure and density of air varying with latitude. Can anyone explain?
  14. Hey everyone, aircraft flying noob here. So I recently I tried flying a simple aircraft halfway around Kerbin while leaving it on time warp. The plane mostly flew straight but it kept pitching up slowly so I had to keep making adjustments. I'm almost sure this is because my COL is slightly above my COM. From what I read online, adjusting the trim should do the job. So i tried adjusting it using Alt+W but nothing changed. I'm wondering if it has something to do with the fact that SAS was on. Any ideas?
  15. Anyone interested in working for NASA in California? The work involves developing advanced flight sims for manned and unmanned aircraft. You have to have an engineering degree, a masters degree is best. If you're really good it might be possible to overlook the degree requirement, but you'd need a lot of software development experience. Skill requirements: 3D graphic programming, C/C++ (w/shell scripting, like bash or powershell), good network skills (UDP), OpenGL, Python, Git. Some knowledge of Qt is a big plus. Having game experience (like Unity or Unreal) would be important here too. These are full-time jobs with top benefits in an amazing work environment. Shout out if you're interested. Feel free to spread the word. These jobs will fill quickly.
  16. So lately I have taken to the habit of building many of my rovers with reaction wheels, and I set all the electric torque components to "SAS Only" mode. I find that this helps a lot on flat(ish) terrain, making the rover less likely to flip over when aggressively breaking or making sharp turns, as the torque of the reaction wheels in SAS mode helps cancel out forces that might send the rover spinning. But experience has taught me that on rougher terrain where gravity is lower and changes in elevation more sharp than on much of Kerbin (like, say, the Mun) I have to "pulse" deactivation of the SAS at times to make sure all the wheels return to the ground. If I end up taking a big leap off the terrain, the reaction wheels can be used to help make sure it lands at a good angle, but I have to manually change their mode, which is not easy to do under pressure during an unexpected leap. Basically I want to control the torque fully if the vehicle is off the ground, while keeping the vehicle firmly planted on the surface while grounded. So, to resolve this and make rovers a little more controllable, I would like a "parallel to surface" mode for the SAS, which tries to keep the vehicle's "front" (as defined by whatever I select "control from here" from) perpendicular to a normal vector from whatever surface polygon lies directly below it. I would think that this would be pretty simple, as far as engine capability and math goes. Do a ray trace from the center of mass of the vehicle to the center of the stellar object it is in the sphere of influence of, then get the normal vector of the first non-vessel collision polygon it passes through (which would typically be part of a planet's terrain mesh.) Then we try to have the SAS keep the vessel's forward pointing vector perpendicular to that surface normal vector. The advantage to this is that the vehicle will try to keep itself oriented properly so we do not have it doing bizarre things like trying to maintain a wheely, which reduces driver control. It also means that, should the vehicle launch itself into a parabola, it would try to align itself with whatever it is passing over so it lands on its bottom as evenly as possible. This should help spread out the impact of landing and lead to less damage over all. Heck, if we want to introduce a simpler version of the same thing which can just keep a craft pointed perpendicular to a vector traced down to a stellar object's center, that would also help as a great aid for flying aircraft while cruising long distances instead of having a make a bunch of minor corrections for the pitch of the nose. If there is some concern about this making things "too easy" on the players, it could be restricted to higher level probe cores and experienced pilots, like many of the other "autopilot" features in the base game. It would also build up player experience in cruder situations in career or science before they unlock the more helpful assist gear. Heck, I would even go with some add-on components like gyroscopes to enable it (similar to the Avionics Hub) if there needs to be some kind of (mass/cost) trade-off for that ability. What do you think?
  17. Can someone recommend a good autopilot/cruise control mod? I mainly just want something that will maintain a consistent altitude during atmospheric flight but other kinds of autopilot would be a cool bonus.
  18. Hello Kerbal Community, Recently I've been trying to create a space plane on a heavily modded install of KSP version 1.2.2. However, it does not work. Any of the jet engines that I use (ie: whiplash or RAPIER) do not generate a high enough TWR and cause the plane to run out of fuel before ever making it to an orbit. I know that this is not a design flaw, becauseI I've tested a very similar SSTO Spaceplane in a stock version of KSP (also running 1.2.2) and it got to an orbit just fine, with plenty of fuel remaining. This leads me to believe that one of the mods that I have installed is causing the jet engines to work less efficiently, and/or causing a tremendous amount of atmospheric drag. I do not have FAR installed. Below is a link to a picture that shows my game data folder: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B6FVkmwt4jGnSmNVaG1kdWlGN28 Can someone please explain to me why this is happening and how I can fix it? Thank you very much, R_Aerospace!
  19. A subject that has long fascinated me, the idea that someday, decades or centuries after colonizing the planet, humans might someday be able to fly drones or even manned vehicles around Mars. To be clear, this is completely impractical as an exploration concept. NASA would have better luck with rovers or craft modeled after ultra high-altitude balloons here on Earth- which can reach altitudes exceeding 170,000 feet here on Earth (certainly high enough to fly in Mars' lower gravity and denser gaa composition). But I like to wonder and dream about whether we'll someday see winged aircraft on Mars... The non-rocket aircraft with the current altitude record for level flight is the NASA Helios H-1, which reached level flight at 96,863 feet on August 13, 2001. It was a subsonic monoplane flying-wing solar-electric propeller aircraft with an aspect-ratio of almost 31:1, a wing-area of 1976 sq ft, a wing-loading of 0.81 lb/sq ft, no wing-sweep, and a total gross weight of just 1600 lbs. Mars' mean molar mass is about 43.34 g/mol, as opposed to about 29 g/mol on Earth, and the highest atmospheric pressure is found in Hellas Planitia is about 1,155 Pascals (by contrast Earth's sea-level pressure is defined as 101,325 Pascals). So, the highest density air on Mars should have a density about (1155/101325) * (43.34/29) = 1.703% Earth's sea-level density, equivalent to the density of air at about 95,000 ft (28.956 km) on Earth... This is already just barely within the flight-envelope of an aircraft with specifications similar to the Helios H-1 (which could fly at altitudes over 96,000 ft), but Mars' lower gravity should allow aircraft to fly substantially higher due to the reduced lift requirements, and allow different optimization of aircraft to obtain higher total lift and altitude-ceiling at the expense of mass. What I am curious about, specifically, is what the best design characteristics would be of a winged aircraft on Mars... Would a solar electric-propeller monoplane like the Helios H-1 be the best option available? (even with radically improved materials, something like this couldn't be expected to fly more than a few thousand meters above the lowest-altitude parts of Mars with surface elevations below the nominal "sea level" of Mars...) Or would it be worthwhile to go with something like a biplane or even triplane design to obtain lower wing-loading and better aspect-ratio? (the Helios H-1 wings were 11.5 inches from front to back. With a biplane design, a better aspect-ratio could be achieved by making the wings thinner, to obtain similar wing-area while extending just as far from the Center of Mass...) This was actually a design-strategy in some early aircraft that allowed higher altitude-ceiling, climb-rate, and better maneuverability on some early fighter designs at the expense of top speed- and on Mars, where attitude-ceiling would be the driving design-constraint, this would probably be a worthwhile tradeoff as well... Alternatively, if provided with electric supersonic jet engines (similar to what Elon Musk likes to fancifully talk about today) or even nuclear-thermal supersonic turbojets, a better strategy might be to opt for speed instead of low wing-loading to keep winged aircraft airborne. This would require slightly futuristic propulsion methods, but there is nothing about the laws of physics that forbids obtaining your propulsion energy from batteries, solar panels, fuel-cells, and/or a tiny nuclear reactor instead of combustion. .. Supersonic design concepts might also be aided by breakthroughs in airframe design, if the Japan/MIT concept of a supersonic biplane ever comes to fruition- in which two wings are placed such that the shockwaves from each destructively interfere with each other, producing less than half the wave drag of a comparable wing-area monoplane and reduced sonic-boom. However these designs have significant difficulty with low-speed flight, and while they might be able to fly perfectly well at low altitudes on Mars, would probably have extremely high takeoff and landing speeds that would require impractically long and smooth runways for even the lightest of craft... These ideas might all seem fanciful or even impossible, but they are not so pie-in-the sky as one might think, and I would appreciate if all individuals responding to this post keep the discussion optimistic and non-critical. Let me repeat myself- these concepts are on the very edge of what is possible, and many of you may feel they are *impossible*. I do not mean this as a form of backseat or pre-emptive moderation, but I would appreciate if those of you who are critics and cynics respect those of us who would like to have a positive discussion of this concept, by refraining from quickly jumping to make such statements- as they will drown out all other discussion if you do not control yourselves from making highly-critical statements to this effect. Out of respect for myself and other forum users, please avoid statements here to the effect that flight on Mars is impossible- the assumption that most people probably hold, and this discussion is meant to reconsider. Regards, Northstar
  20. Hello im new to the Ksp community but i played ksp since the beginning anyways i wanted to show u guys my plane that i developed its called Stearwing K600 its the most realistic plane out there i.... well i think its is i dont know, here are some pics ! http://imgur.com/gallery/4qQI1 http://imgur.com/gallery/c2m1A http://imgur.com/gallery/MHUPd http://imgur.com/gallery/o4Got http://imgur.com/gallery/C2O55 Hope u guys like it ^^
  21. Spirit of St. Louis As you can tell from the title, this challenge is about the first non-stop transatlantic flight. Your job is to replicate the Spirit of St. Louis and have it fly across the Kertlantic and land in Keurope (A pic is provided). Rules and submissions are below. Badges currently in the works Rules 1. No cheating (this means debug menu, HyperEdit) There may be some exceptions 2. No mods (KJR, any other autopilot mod, FireSpitter, KAX, and any other mod with propellers are allowed) 3. You must takeoff from KSC and fly straight east 090 degrees until you land in Keurope. 4. Required pictures: Takeoff, In-flight, and Landing 5. I must be able to recognize the craft, this means make it look as close as you can to the real thing. How Submissions Will be Judged Craft that are able to fly and land will be submitted and the craft that is most efficient and uses the least amount of fuel will win a badge. Any other submissions will be rewarded a Participation badge (which is similar to the winners badge - both coming soon) Images Submissions 1. Martian Emigrant - http://imgur.com/a/NVE6J 2. 4d4Garrison 3. The Optimist 4. NightshineRecorralis Thanks for taking a look!
  22. A simple debug feature (much like how f12 shows drag/lift) that would display the CoL, CoM, and CoT while in flight. This would help with spaceplanes because you could adjust fuel levels to balance it out or watch how it moves in flight.
  23. So I was trying to come up with a way to graphically represent the scale involved concerning the speed of light. I wanted to make a comparison between that speed (~300,000,000 m/s) and the fastest airbreathing craft in existence (the X-43 at roughly 3300 m/s). It's a pretty large gulf. The simplest approach, I decided, would be to depict the distance traversed by a photon next to the distance traversed by the X-43 in some arbitrary period of time. Trouble is, the ratio is 90,333:1. That's a hard distance to depict in a simple graphic; I don't know of anybody with a screen large enough to display a 90,333 pixel line. However, what about a spiral? If I could create a spiral with an arc length of 90,333 cm, then I could display it next to a 1-cm line. That would be a pretty striking way of depicting the difference. If an arc length of 90,333 cm was impossible, I could make a perceived arc length of 90,333 cm...for example, by depicting a spiral with 500 turns and an outer diameter of 180 cm (as if the diameter is constant but the spiral is receding back into the screen). No idea how I could possibly find a way to render that, though. Any ideas? Or any other ideas of how to depict a scale difference of 90,333:1?
  24. My highschool geography teacher once told me that if you take a flight from Amsterdam to New York, you sort of fly over Iceland due to the curvature of the earth. Looking at my textbook map, this idea seemed kind of ridiculous because a straight line doesn't bring you anywhere near Iceland. You'd need curved maps or 3D maps. I don't think I outright believed him, but I have been on enough flights since to know that this effect does affect a plane's trajectory. I just still don't have an exact idea how much. Now it seems I have a problem along a similar vein. I did a long distance data collection contract and noticed I was constantly adjusting my course because I kept tracking the indicator on the navball for the first objective. I started out at 207° and near my destination it had shifted to something like 250°. I had been flying in a giant curve because I had assumed the indicator would adjust for the curvature of Kerbin. Ideally I only would have had to point my plane into a direction once to reach my final destination. It seems I have to guestimate instead. How do I aim for the actual shortest route to a location that's nearly on the other side of Kerbin? I assume someone made a mod for this already, but I'd like to know if there are any tricks to get pretty close to it.
  25. Hi all, This is a (re)request for a mod to move the staging icons to the top of the screen, and the stock toolbar to be returned to its original orientation. My ideal location would be between the timer and the altimeter. The purpose is to have all information for flight at the top and bottom of the screen including any text, ideally within a 180px range on a 1080 height screen. This would keeping the centre of the screen free for 720px cinematic recording. The navball is also too large but other mods deal with this (unless this mod creator wanted to look into this as well!) I have requested this before, but it was suggested that you wonderful modders would want to wait till 1.1 dropped with the changes in Unity 5. Is this even possible! Thanks in advance! Peace.
  • Create New...