Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'flight'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • General
    • Announcements
    • The Daily Kerbal
  • Kerbal Space Program 2
    • KSP 2 Discussion
  • General KSP
    • KSP Discussion
    • Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission ideas
    • The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP Fan Works
  • Gameplay and Technical Support
    • Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
    • Technical Support (PlayStation 4, XBox One)
  • Add-ons
    • Add-on Discussions
    • Add-on Releases
    • Add-on Development
  • Community
    • Welcome Aboard
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
  • Making History Expansion
    • Making History Missions
    • Making History Discussion
    • Making History Support
  • Breaking Ground Expansion
    • Breaking Ground Discussion
    • Breaking Ground Support
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU Forums
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Skype


Twitter


Location


Interests

Found 15 results

  1. 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.
  2. 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?
  3. 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.
  4. 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!
  5. 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
  6. 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?
  7. 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 ^^
  8. 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!
  9. 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.
  10. 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?
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. I've been flying planes without SAS more frequently to obtain a smoother flight, and now with 1.1 there's an option to dedicate the reaction wheel control to SAS only, Pilot only, and normal. However a few things are missing I believe. 1) Ability to set Pilot control, SAS control, or Normal control to control surfaces. 2) Ability to change Reaction wheel mode to Dampener, allowing you to dampen your rotation along the x,y, and z axis. This would allow for smoother craft turning, without the jerky movement we have currently. 3) Ability to adjust the dampener of reaction wheels (along x,y and z axis individually or as a whole),engine vectors, steering wheels, and control surfaces so you're not forced to change your attitude quickly and suddenly if you dont want to. I know how stubborn you are. 4) Ability to set the Vector control of engines to Pilot only and SAS only, as well as Normal. 5) Ability to create presets for control surfaces and bind them to an action group.
  14. I do not know if this is possible for plugin so i'm posting it here. Also i don't know if this was already requested. When Kerbal goes on EVA, the action is performed instantly, there is no transition from IVA to EVA with for example animating hatches (this may even include "failed EVA" animation for blocked hatches due to obstruction or mechanical failure). Also, this transition event could be used by plugins for various other events. Another stock game example would be animating enter/exit actions for standard aviation cockpits with raising/lowering canopy and animated Kerbal that enters/exits the cockpit. Note: Even if animating a Kerbal would be too much work (or too complex / prone to bugs) delayed transitions would still provide enhanced gameplay for airlock type hatches where Kerbal enters an intermediate chamber which then closes, hiding him/her so it can just disappear inside without animation. Player won't notice this and gameplay won't be broken. Extension of the above : Animations for kerbals in first person view (via plugins, stock is not a must) and transition enter/exit animations in portraits.
  15. Having been bombarded with two requests, I am following in the footsteps of the Wright brothers. Or possibly Icarus. What follows is an informal introduction to planes and flying things with wings in Kerbal Space Program 1.05. In episode 1, I explore how to make your first plane, where your CoL and CoM need to be, and how (not) to land. This mini-series (expected to be four episodes, according to the napkin I made notes on) will walk you through the steps to building and flying an SSTO that's actually useful. And with a mic that works, it's much easier to listen to me drone on! Success!