Nils277

[1.4.X–1.7.X] Feline Utility Rovers v1.2.10 (28.March 2019)

Recommended Posts

Well, it seems, that number 3 is the favorite here.

25 minutes ago, Sebra said:

Additionally to my previous  vote (for 3 and 4).

Concepts 1 and 2 looks like they cannot be walked through.

Concept 3 looks like douse is too short.

Concept 4 looks like it need self decoupler.

Also I think absence of own fuel is better for the balance reasons.

One would be able to walk through at least 1, two might be weird with the engines directly underneath.

The model for 3 is not final yet and will be a bit longer.

4 would have a self decoupler 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I decided to try out Kerbal Foundry's antigrav parts recently. (I've avoided those parts because they were too sci-fi for me and likely won't use them in a 'real play through')

The end result was this Lynx Mobile Lab with jet engines and antigrav...

Edited by Starwaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Starwaster Pssht....don't tell anybody :wink: 

rL5trAT.png

Edited by Nils277

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Starwaster said:

lhjhbB9.gif

That'l take a loooong time :wink: It's just a concept at the moment and i still have to write the whole code for these things to be usable.

Edited by Nils277

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Nils277 said:

That'l take a loooong time :wink: It's just a concept at the moment and i still have to write the whole code for these things to be usable.

Sure, no pressure! But, I can't say the same for Colbert up there... looks pretty impatient :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Update to 0.5.2

Changelog:

Quote

Enhancements:

  • The floor of the service bay can now be removed
  • The config now has the option "showInOneCategoryOnly" to show parts only in one function filter

Localization:       

  • Added translation for russian mFRcn0a.png . Thanks to Tirathangil

Bug Fixes:

  • The Fuelcell kanister now has the correct name
  • Corrected a weird part name from "Bellowed Joint" to "Joint with folding bellow"

Download:

oYvtZpW.png UVVt0OP.png lMOxt2k.png

Note: You have to remove the KSPModFileLocalizer.0.1.0.dll file from your GameData directory before installing this update. Otherwise there might be problem with the translation of KSPedia (douplicate entries). 

There are no new parts in this release yet. Although already shown in some screenshots, they are not quite readyd for the public yet. But stay tuned :wink: 

Edited by Nils277

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24.06.2017 at 10:22 PM, Nils277 said:

Sooo, i'm currently trying to find a good part with thrusters for the Lynx and have 4 options at hand. The problem is, that i'm not completely happy with any of them.

So to make it short it is your decision which idea should make it into the mod.

Here are the four concepts:
BlzA4G1.png

So, which one si your favorite?

I'd personally go with 1 or 3 but the two other options also have their benefits.

I think, 3 and 4 look's good. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 25.06.2017 at 7:31 PM, Nils277 said:

@Starwaster Pssht....don't tell anybody :wink: 

rL5trAT.png

I'm not great at aerodynamic, but...

1.Fast forward motion would mask rear fan. Rising it up would not help, full height would.

2.Wide holder would mask side fan. Border holder would not mask.

3.Side fans would be great with ability to turn, based on controls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sebra said:

I'm not great at aerodynamic, but...

1.Fast forward motion would mask rear fan. Rising it up would not help, full height would.

2.Wide holder would mask side fan. Border holder would not mask.

3.Side fans would be great with ability to turn, based on controls.

1. You are totally right. A full height fan looks really weird though. Would air intake that guide the horizon speed into the fan be of any help? Not an expert in aerodynamics either.

2. Right too. This concept was the first valid one to enable Nr. 3. Maybe I find one that is not occluding the fan.

3. Already planned if it can be implemented in a reasonable amount of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I don't actually see #1 as a problem, per se.  This design is obviously more for maneuverability and terrain-handling than speed - It's not efficient or desirable to fly long distances using rotors in that manor, so this is for delivery to moderately nearby (a couple hundred kilometers, max, really) - but hard-to-reach - locations.  As such size, weight, and maintainability would be primary concerns, not top speed.  So what if the design limits the speed?  It makes it easy to reach the parts, and keeps it out of the way in use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Nils277 said:

1. You are totally right. A full height fan looks really weird though. Would air intake that guide the horizon speed into the fan be of any help? Not an expert in aerodynamics either.

2. Right too. This concept was the first valid one to enable Nr. 3. Maybe I find one that is not occluding the fan.

3. Already planned if it can be implemented in a reasonable amount of time.

I think sometimes it's ok to prioritize aesthetics... If it really matters the part can be flipped upside down and still fit right can't it? Thrust transform would be a problem but that's solvable...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Nils277 said:

Update to 0.5.2

Changelog:

  • The floor of the service bay can now be removed
  • The config now has the option "showInOneCategoryOnly" to show parts only in one function filter

Localization:       

  • Added translation for russian mFRcn0a.png . Thanks to Tirathangil

Bug Fixes:

  • The Fuelcell kanister now has the correct name
  • Corrected a weird part name from "Bellowed Joint" to "Joint with folding bellow"

Thank you so much! That works the same way as the Planetary Base System? The OCD-hermit that lives inside my skull will be sooo happy with that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Nils277 said:

1. You are totally right. A full height fan looks really weird though. Would air intake that guide the horizon speed into the fan be of any help? Not an expert in aerodynamics either.

2. Right too. This concept was the first valid one to enable Nr. 3. Maybe I find one that is not occluding the fan.

3. Already planned if it can be implemented in a reasonable amount of time.

1.KSP aerodynamics is weird anyway. I think it would work in KSP in any shape. High speed lift is the job for wings.

2.Have you seen the film about "navi" coloured people?

3.Have some "simple" idea. :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nils277 Thanks! I have just discovered this rover, congratulation and thank you for this magnificent work full of details! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Nils277 I am interested in translating the mod into Chinese. Has anyone started the project yet?

Edited by ssd21345

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ssd21345 said:

@Nils277 I am interested in translating the mod into Chinese. Has anyone started the project yet?

That would be really cool! :) I'm currently not aware of aynone translating FUR into chinese.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Nils277 said:

That would be really cool! :) I'm currently not aware of aynone translating FUR into chinese.

Currently, I only translated KSPedia part:

https://pastebin.com/Df4SPQc6

But I'm unsure whether the "Feline" and "joint" for Chinese is correct.

Edited by ssd21345

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ssd21345 said:

Currently, I only translated KSPedia part:

https://pastebin.com/Df4SPQc6

But I'm unsure whether the "Feline" and "joint" for Chinese is correct.

Thanks!
For joints, one can also say "articulated joint" maybe there is a specific consistent word for that in chinese :wink:

I'm also not sure about the "Feline", had the same problem when making a translation into german. I think it may be best to just keep the name "Feline Utility Rover" untranslated, at least its what is done in the other two translation into russian and spanish. 

 

Edited by Nils277

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry for the stupid question...but how do you attach the ladders?? No matter how I orient the Lynx in the assembly building, the ladder attaches sideways. 

Ladders WILL attach properly to the rear airlock, but not to any 'side' door.

EDIT: On a curious note, the ladder with platform DOES attach as advertised over a Talon wheel...

Edited by OscarJade

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, OscarJade said:

Sorry for the stupid question...but how do you attach the ladders?? No matter how I orient the Lynx in the assembly building, the ladder attaches sideways. 

Ladders WILL attach properly to the rear airlock, but not to any 'side' door.

EDIT: On a curious note, the ladder with platform DOES attach as advertised over a Talon wheel...

Turn off snapping (Toggle Snap)

And rotate the ladder with W/S

Edited by Starwaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24.06.2017 at 10:22 PM, Nils277 said:

Sooo, i'm currently trying to find a good part with thrusters for the Lynx and have 4 options at hand. The problem is, that i'm not completely happy with any of them.

So to make it short it is your decision which idea should make it into the mod.

Here are the four concepts:
BlzA4G1.png

So, which one si your favorite?

I'd personally go with 1 or 3 but the two other options also have their benefits.

Aerospace engieer student here (yea, kinda late)

#3- downright nope-ish in current proportions- there is so little space for proper LFO engine, you won't have any space for combustion chamber in such position, but if at least the nozzle would stick out to throat, it would be good.

#2- quite okay, but to have adequate control moments from engines they need to vector much more, than compared to #1- they are much-much closer horizontally to CoM. Also, there will be quite a bump in the floor of passage inside due to (again) combustion chambers.

#1 and #4- the most legit (imo) in terms of internal arrangement and controlability- nicely spreaded out horizontally from CoM, alot of headspace for whole engine, turbopump, and even in case of #1- (small) propellant tanks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.