[1.4.3 v 1.2.3] SM_Stryker BDA 1.22

[Daniel Prates]

@SpannerMonkey(smce) Ok! Gave a dedicated go at the mod. A few thoughts:

1. All intakes are in the "hypersonic flight" science node. I get some of them being there but "st-red"? It looks so "fifties"! I am sure you meant it as a mig-15 sort-of intake, so I think it should be in a lower science node!

2. The "tumansky" engine gives more or less 120 (59 +63) Kn of thrust. But so does the "wheseley" engine, although much less powerful. I always thought squad's standards of data and measurements for airplane parts to be a little arbitrary (unlike rocket parts), and i am sure you are probably more on the mark then they are - you didnt choose those kilonewton figures arbitrarily. I am also not saying that stock parts should be a "standard" (as for instance, if your tumansky engine is twice as powerfull than the wheseley, that it should mandatorilly have twicr the "x" KN vakue). Still.... it is strange to have perceivably more powerful parts than stock, being rated as having the same power output. Maybe this warrants some meditation!

3. The cockpits with no structutal cilinders like the k-109 was a great and very creative idea! Would you consider doing some variants such as blisters and turrets for 1940s-esque bombers? It would go great with BDA.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Daniel Prates

[SpannerMonkey(smce)]

18 minutes ago, Daniel Prates said:

@SpannerMonkey(smce) Ok! Gave a dedicated go at the mod. A few thoughts:

 

Hi, thanks for giving it a go and thanks for the coherent comments.

The mod is in it's present form, aside from texture changes and needed fixes,  exactly as strykersm left it.  I had 0 input in the creation process of this mod and picked it up, in order for it not to disappear into the abyss of unloved/unadopted mods.  when the creator decided that he wanted to go and make his own game. 

To your points.

Intakes a valid point, I've never involved myself in career stuff or games in general  and it's no issue moving things around to positions more suitable in the tech progression

Tumansky is a bit broken, but i've always felt the engines here to be underwhelming in the power dept. I'm not a massive  user of aircraft  , most of my activities involve surface craft and dreaming up new ways to destroy the aforementioned aircraft from ground level. In regards to this I'm more than happy to take suggestions regarding better balance

Cockpits,  I'll certainly have a play and see if I can come up with anything that'd work with KSP sizes

Cheers

 

 

[XOC2008]

2. Everything has a different aerodynamics model, which is why the Wheesley performs at around half of the Tumansky. Just thought I'd throw that in there. If you look in the cfgs and compare the two atmosphere curves, etc., you'll see what I mean. That's why thrust can be similar but have vast differences in performance. (Based on weight, fuel, intake air, etc..)

3. I don't know what Spanner has in store but I know Aviator Arsenal has a b-29-esque turret, and Carcharoth and a couple others have different weapons fitting that era.

[Daniel Prates]

1 hour ago, XOC2008 said:

2. Everything has a different aerodynamics model, which is why the Wheesley performs at around half of the Tumansky. Just thought I'd throw that in there. If you look in the cfgs and compare the two atmosphere curves, etc., you'll see what I mean. That's why thrust can be similar but have vast differences in performance. (Based on weight, fuel, intake air, etc..)

I did the simplest of tests: made a single airplane, and flew it with both engines. Performances were strinkingy different (proving the tumansky is way more powerful)  but if you check the part's description, they produce the same thrust  (or 99% equal anyway). So I think its more like a bad description of the part's abilities in the VAB helper. Now which is more close to reality, its imposisble to say. Stock engines make sense when compared amongst themselves, as do parts within a same mod, but usually cross-comparing them generates issues - due to a lack of commom language, mostly. Maybe all that is necessary is to tweek the mod's description of the parts, thats all. In the tumansky's case the total KNs of thrust produced could be raised somewhat, for instace. @SpannerMonkey(smce) , if you like, I can do some experiments for you. You know, flying the same plane with all engines and measure the speeds. Then compar with stock engines. That can provide an accurate chart in which to base a new set of part descriptions.

 

Edited March 1, 2017 by Daniel Prates

[XOC2008]

Yes, but the atmospheric curve variables will make them perform differently, which is what I said. 

[Daniel Prates]

2 hours ago, XOC2008 said:

Yes, but the atmospheric curve variables will make them perform differently, which is what I said. 

That maybe so but when performances are so different in all altitudes, sea level included, even though thrust is describrd as being the same, you realize that is not what is wrong.

[XOC2008]

Thrust isn't the only factor though. The ramjet engine has a similar thrust to other engines but only functions well at higher altitudes due to the atmospheric curves set in the cfg. You realize, also, you're judging a "commercial grade turbofan" against a "military grade afterburning engine", yes? I just think you're looking at thrust only and deciding that's the only factor, when it isn't. They take in different amounts of air, burn fuel at a different rate, have a different shape.. so of course they are going to perform differently at varying altitudes.

Can the Stryker engines be tweaked? Maybe. But I will tell you that the MiG I built in 1.1.3 using the Stryker engines matched the plane's top speed and didn't break any unknown speed records. And this was with me building to scale on size and weight. I just don't think they need the adjustment you're asking for. 

[SpannerMonkey(smce)]

@Daniel PratesHi re the Tumansky and other engines in general, the values you see in the SPH are produced by the game reading, doing any behind the scenes math required and then displaying the info in the gui. There is no option to change the displayed figure aside from by changing the actual output. There is no "display thrust as xxx value "

Overnight I've had 3pms regarding these engines and in every case they tell me that it's pretty much perfect as it is. So unless somebody turns up with irrefutable proof that it's not quite what it should be,  then it'll stay the same. I'm not about to change it just for changing it's sake,  

There's  a lot of room for maneuver in the description and I think I'll change that up a bit for more engine details. .I'm looking at you @XOC2008

@Svm420 slight technical hitch and delay on Tumansky repair I have to learn a new animation method to enable the AB animation, non of the techniques i currently use will work., and I'm not half fixing anything

Edited March 2, 2017 by SpannerMonkey(smce)

[Daniel Prates]

20 minutes ago, SpannerMonkey(smce) said:

@Daniel PratesHi re the Tumansky and other engines in general, the values you see in the SPH are produced by the game reading, doing any behind the scenes math required and then displaying the info in the gui. There is no option to change the displayed figure aside from by changing the actual output. There is no "display thrust as xxx value "

Overnight I've had 3pms regarding these engines and in every case they tell me that it's pretty much perfect as it is. So unless somebody turns up with irrefutable proof that it's not quite what it should be,  then it'll stay the same. I'm not about to change it just for changing it's sake,  

There's  a lot of room for maneuver in the description and I think I'll change that up a bit for more engine details. .I'm looking at you @XOC2008

@Svm420 

That solves it, the way I see it. If it is correct, it is correct. Still makes me wonder how the wheseley performs that much worse having the same nominal thrust. I understand the altitude curve argument, @XOC2008, as indeed different engines may be designed to fare better in higher altitudes, like being supercharged for instance (i'm thinking RL, had no idea ksp mimicked that for airplane engines). But shouldnt they all be in the same competing terms at sealevel? 

[XOC2008]

3 minutes ago, Daniel Prates said:

That solves it, the way I see it. If it is correct, it is correct. Still makes me wonder how the wheseley performs that much worse having the same nominal thrust. I understand the altitude curve argument, @XOC2008, as indeed different engines may be designed to fare better in higher altitudes, like being supercharged for instance (i'm thinking RL, had no idea ksp mimicked that for airplane engines). But shouldnt they all be in the same competing terms at sealevel? 

Short answer: No.

Long answer: The same things are taken into account at all altitudes, which is why, like I said, the ramjet fares better at higher altitudes but not well at all at sea level when compared to engines of similar thrust. And it's not just altitude curve. It's atmospheric curve in general. It also takes into account engine -type-. Wheesley is a turbofan. Tumansky is an afterburning turbojet. Which means their performance at varying altitudes, including sea level, will differ greatly simply because of the base performance and inner workings of the engine.

Edited March 2, 2017 by XOC2008

[Daniel Prates]

37 minutes ago, XOC2008 said:

Short answer: No.

Long answer: The same things are taken into account at all altitudes, which is why, like I said, the ramjet fares better at higher altitudes but not well at all at sea level when compared to engines of similar thrust. And it's not just altitude curve. It's atmospheric curve in general. It also takes into account engine -type-. Wheesley is a turbofan. Tumansky is an afterburning turbojet. Which means their performance at varying altitudes, including sea level, will differ greatly simply because of the base performance and inner workings of the engine.

Ok, interesting! Thanks for taking the time to explain that. I thought engine design only started to show differences in performance as altitude went up.

[Daniel Prates]

Oh and btw @XOC2008 thanks for this AVIATOR ARSENAL suggestion!

Edited March 2, 2017 by Daniel Prates

[Guest]

I know this is a  pre-modern parts mod, but any chance of a Fw-190 cockpit? Ta-152's are kinda pre-modern, so I guess it will fit enough...

[SpannerMonkey(smce)]

Just now, Murican_Jeb said:

I know this is a  pre-modern parts mod, but any chance of a Fw-190 cockpit? Ta-152's are kinda pre-modern, so I guess it will fit enough...

Its probably definitely possible that some blister style cockpits will be added , as I've discovered they're ok to do

[GhostboyDB]

10 minutes ago, Murican_Jeb said:

I know this is a  pre-modern parts mod, but any chance of a Fw-190 cockpit? Ta-152's are kinda pre-modern, so I guess it will fit enough...

Aviation Cockpits has a nice Fw-190 cockpit.

[Svm420]

On 3/2/2017 at 9:00 AM, SpannerMonkey(smce) said:

 

@Svm420 slight technical hitch and delay on Tumansky repair I have to learn a new animation method to enable the AB animation, non of the techniques i currently use will work., and I'm not half fixing anything

 

Any news?  

[SpannerMonkey(smce)]

12 minutes ago, Svm420 said:

Any news?  

 

Hi

Nothing good, several poor attempts later, it's OK but not as smooth in operation as the ab anim was previously. 

Investigations into what debug stuff was showing, it seems to have trouble displaying certain colliders, It's a fairly safe bet,  that if the collider was actually as being shown then you wouldn't be able to surface mount the engine (and you can/could , which proves there is/was collision where debug stuff says there is not)   and would have difficulty in simply placing it. Regardless it needed a fresh coat of paint, and it'll be refreshed shortly.

Cheers

[halowraith1]

is this mod still being worked on? i have bunch of engines to suggest since i struggled to make them myself.

[SpannerMonkey(smce)]

Just now, halowraith1 said:

is this mod still being worked on? i have bunch of engines to suggest since i struggled to make them myself.

Hi at this point in time there's no major development taking place. I will be adding some more surface mount cockpits when time allows. As for your engine suggestions if they are relevant to the current pack then by all means feel free to suggest, especially if you've some references (pics etc) as examples.  That's not to say I'll be adding them just that I'd consider appropriate additions.

[halowraith1]

Well, here goes. They're all german ww2 jet engines, since i kind of like the idea of working with crude, clunky and horribly unreliable motors. There's already a jumo 004 so i won't put that here. Additionally, i believe that most of these engines work best as an inline attachment rather than a radial part.

 

1. Junkers Jumo 012

Spoiler

Basically a much larger 004 meant mainly for use on bombers.

Thrust: 2,780 kg (static), 2,200 kg (sea level, 900 km/h), 1,100 kg (10,000m, 900 km/h)

Compressor Speed: 5,300 rpm

Weight: 2,000 kg

Specific Fuel Consumption: 1.2 per hour

Airflow: 50 kg/sec

Diameter: 1.063m

Length: 4.862m

 

 

2. BMW 003

Spoiler

Counterpart to Jumo 004

Stats (BMW-003 A-1)

Thrust: 800kg (static), 705kg (sea level, 900 km/h), 565kg (4,000 m, 900 km/h). 315kg (10,000m, 900 km/h)

Compressor Speed: 9,500 rpm

Weight: 570 kg

Specific Fuel consumption: 1.35 - 1.4 per hour

Airflow: 19.3 kg/sec

Diameter: 0.690 m

Length: 3.565 m (exhaust cone extended) 3.460 m (exhaust cone retracted)

 

3. BMW-018

Spoiler

Thrust: 3,400kg (static), 3,000kg (sea level, 900 km/h), 1,460kg (10,000 m, 900 km/h)

Compressor speed: 5,000 rpm

Weight: 2,200 kg

Specific fuel consumption: 1.1 - 1.15 (at static thrust)

Airflow: 83 kg/sec

Diameter: 1.25m

Length: 4.95 m

 

4. Heinkel HeS-011

Spoiler

Thrust: 1,300kg (static), 1040kg (sea level, 900 km/h), 500kg (10,000m, 900 km/h)

Compressor speed: 11,000 rpm (max), 6,000 rpm (idle)

Specific fuel consumption: 1.31

Compressor efficiency: 80%

Weight: 950 kg (prototypes) 865 kg (production)

Height: 1.08 m

Width: 0.864 m

Length: 3.455 m

 

5. Daimler Benz 016

Spoiler

This thing is huge

Thrust: 13,000kg (static)

Compressor speed: 3,500 rpm

Airflow: 400 kg/sec

Diameter: 2.0 m

Length: 6.70 m

 

6. Daimler Benz DB-007

Spoiler

Early turbofan

Thrust: 1,275kg (static), 960kg (sea level, 900 km/h), 560kg (6,000m, 900 km/h)

Compressor speed: 12,600 rpm

Ducted fan speed: 6,200 rpm

Weight: 1,300 kg (prototypes), 1,100 kg (production)

Specific fuel consumption: 1.05 per hour (12,000m, 520 km/h), 1.45 per hour (sea level, 810 km/h)

Airflow (compressor): 8.2 kg/sec

Airflow (ducted fan): 19.9 kg/sec

Diameter: 1.625 m

Length: 4.725m

 

Edited March 26, 2017 by halowraith1

[Citizen247]

@SpannerMonkey(smce) Hi, I've been trying to write some AJE configs for your intakes, and I think I might have uncovered a bug in them. As you speed up the TPR drops rapidly, as if the intake isn't aligned with the airflow. I've played around with them, and found that on all the intakes they only work properly if the "bottom" of the intake is aligned with the airflow. This indicates the intake transform is pointed in the wrong direction.

Additionally the intakes seem rotated when added to the craft so that the "bottom" is on top, this is only obvious on the mig 15 intake which has the light at the bottom instead of the top, but I think it's the same on all the intakes.

[SpannerMonkey(smce)]

30 minutes ago, Citizen247 said:

 Hi,

The intakes are indeed broken and  i've been apparently been lax in pushing the update that fixes them, I honestly thought I had .. I'll sort that asap

3 hours ago, halowraith1 said:

Well, here goes.

Hi, yes all very nice but i can't see what they actually look like, all those fancy details will be mostly invisible = not there

Edited March 26, 2017 by SpannerMonkey(smce)

[halowraith1]

1 hour ago, SpannerMonkey(smce) said:

Hi, yes all very nice but i can't see what they actually look like, all those fancy details will be mostly invisible = not there

i know, but there aren't really any other images. what i did when i attempted to make the models, was follow the outline of the exhaust section (and the exhaust cone) and leave to rest out, intending to have it as an inline part so i could just attach a procedural fuselage and make a cowling out of that. in fact they all follow a basic outline for their cowling (except for the Hes-011) in one way or another.

[Citizen247]

12 hours ago, SpannerMonkey(smce) said:

The intakes are indeed broken and  i've been apparently been lax in pushing the update that fixes them, I honestly thought I had .. I'll sort that asap

1

Thanks. I've also just noticed that FAR doesn't seem to voxolise some of the cockpits properly. In at least the bubble canopy cockpit the canopy doesn't seem to be seen.

Quote

Hi, yes all very nice but i can't see what they actually look like, all those fancy details will be mostly invisible = not there

The Jumo 012 is, as far as I understand it, just a bigger jumo 004. There's a picture of the HeS 011 on it's wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_HeS_011. A partial cutaway photograph of the BMW 003 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_003 and a bigger picture here: http://legendsintheirowntime.com/LiTOT/Content/1946/Av_4603_DA_BMW003.html.

Looks-wise though, they seem fairly similar to things we already have. The only big difference between the Jumo 012 and Jumo 004 seems to be scale, while the exit nozzle to the HeS 011 and BMW 003 are pretty similar to the existing stock mini jet, save for a cone sticking out of the centre. It might make more sense just to write new configs for existing models.

[halowraith1]

4 hours ago, Citizen247 said:

The Jumo 012 is, as far as I understand it, just a bigger jumo 004. There's a picture of the HeS 011 on it's wiki article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinkel_HeS_011. A partial cutaway photograph of the BMW 003 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_003 and a bigger picture here: http://legendsintheirowntime.com/LiTOT/Content/1946/Av_4603_DA_BMW003.html.

Looks-wise though, they seem fairly similar to things we already have. The only big difference between the Jumo 012 and Jumo 004 seems to be scale, while the exit nozzle to the HeS 011 and BMW 003 are pretty similar to the existing stock mini jet, save for a cone sticking out of the centre. It might make more sense just to write new configs for existing models.

I did literally acknowledge in my post that the 012 was an upscaled 004 (not entirely true though, the 004H was closer).

Also, variety is the spice of life. The stock models are boring.