k00b

annoyed with rotors due to not finding effective purpose

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, k00b said:

because rotary wings don't belong where there is no atmosphere and zero gravity.......

Non sequitur.  Somebody else said you couldn't make props, I showed you damn well can.  That obviously has no bearing on vacuum, so I don't understand your problem.

If you want a practical vacuum use for the robotics, how about folding up the arms of a station's docking tree to fit in a fairing, instead of having to fly the giant X-shaped thing on the nose of your rocket?

15 minutes ago, k00b said:

(what with having to to pay "real life" money for the DLC, that doesn't give you, what is insinuated by the completely useless part in question)

Hmm, so you're miffed that you have to give up eating 1 large pizza to get the parts?  Sorry, I have no sympathy.  Get a job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, RealKerbal3x said:

It doesn't matter. The point is, KSP is a sandbox game, and you can create whatever weird thing it is that you like. The only rules are the laws of physics.

And while you can't find an effective purpose for the rotors, many others have. The DLC wasn't created for your benefit only.

this thread (SEE TITLE) is specifically asking for effective purpose, of which nobody has provided one..................................

there is no point in artificial gravity, as kerbals are non controllable inside, they sit down and makes faces.... all the other suggestions revolve around being ferris wheels (we have various functional wheels already).

ferris wheels are too delta-v consuming to be "effective"...... and pertain to visuals only so you should stop making things up.

i will tip my hat to someone who makes a functional helicopter as i am too lazy to even attempt to asign to the tail rotor ( baring in mind you can go 20x faster with a plane... i will not be finding out)

1 minute ago, Geschosskopf said:

Non sequitur.  Somebody else said you couldn't make props, I showed you damn well can.  That obviously has no bearing on vacuum, so I don't understand your problem.

If you want a practical vacuum use for the robotics, how about folding up the arms of a station's docking tree to fit in a fairing, instead of having to fly the giant X-shaped thing on the nose of your rocket?

Hmm, so you're miffed that you have to give up eating 1 large pizza to get the parts?  Sorry, I have no sympathy.  Get a job.

it is a matter of principle.

the community wanted to play with viable "helicopters" > they gave us "rotors".

that's bad, and AGAIN it is a very slippery slope......................................

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, k00b said:

 

i will tip my hat to someone who makes a functional helicopter as i am too lazy to even attempt to asign to the tail rotor ( baring in mind you can go 20x faster with a plane... i will not be finding out)

Take a look at @Brikoleur's craft on KerbalX. He's created several helicopters which are effective and do have a purpose.

Otherwise, I'm out. This is one of those arguments which you just can't win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, RealKerbal3x said:

Take a look at @Brikoleur's craft on KerbalX. He's created several helicopters which are effective and do have a purpose.

Otherwise, I'm out. This is one of those arguments which you just can't win.

he puts three massive engines on them..... and spams his pictures in peoples threads.

if you think the aerodynamic quality of a "tri engined, plus rotary winged monstrosty" is "effective" (even though you have stated they are for mess about sandbox purposes already), then yes; being "out" would be appreciated....

...please don't spam the thread with pictures Brikoleur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, k00b said:

he puts three massive engines on them..... and spams his pictures in peoples threads.

Not all of them.

https://kerbalx.com/Brikoleur/BAK-151-Kima

https://kerbalx.com/Brikoleur/BAK-52NS

https://kerbalx.com/Brikoleur/BAK-121-Rabbit

https://kerbalx.com/Brikoleur/BAK-900X-Kerwood

That last one cracks 100 m/s in straight and level flight, which is about 15 m/s more than the fastest real non-compound (rotor only) helicopter.

And here's one with a single main rotor and a tail rotor, it's not as much fun to fly as the ones with contra-rotating twin rotors though:

https://kerbalx.com/Brikoleur/BAK-666-Deathtrap

Here's a solar-powered tilt-rotor craft that has indefinite daytime endurance on Eve, and can survive atmospheric entry into it. That definitely has a purpose in career missions -- it's better than any rover on Eve for one thing:

https://kerbalx.com/Brikoleur/BAK-7000-Ikarus

No pictures, as requested.

 

Edited by Brikoleur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brikoleur said:

Here's a solar-powered tilt-rotor craft that has indefinite daytime endurance on Eve, and can survive atmospheric entry into it. That definitely has a purpose in career missions -- it's better than any rover on Eve for one thing:

https://kerbalx.com/Brikoleur/BAK-7000-Ikarus

No pictures, as requested.

 

thankyou.

...but it's nowhere near as effective as a aerodynamic plane is it (especially considering we now have had the opportunity to pay for folding wings (an effective part).

considering wasted construction time vs said exponentially faster, more aerodynamic air craft with much less wasted time top speed.....

...considering said rotors are now in the game forever, opening the doorway for a more redundant dlc > NOVELTY wears off > buy dlc > novelty wearing off ad infinitum ruining of game, by way of putting in rubbish parts with no longevity that only serve the "sandpit" contigent of the community....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, k00b said:

...but it's nowhere near as effective as a aerodynamic plane is it (especially considering we now have had the opportunity to pay for folding wings (an effective part).

Folding wings don't have any effect on drag in the KSP aerodynamics model; wing drag is determined by wing area only. I.e. a plane with a long thin wing will fly just as fast as a plane with a swept or delta wing and the same wing area. (The same is not true for real-world aerodynamics, nor FAR, but we are discussing the stock game here.)

As to the Eve tilt-rotor, it is certainly more efficient/effective than any rocket-powered plane on Eve, and jet-powered planes don't work there at all since the Evian atmosphere has no oxygen. It's also better than rovers because it's faster and less likely to crash when attempting to move quickly.

I built a rocket plane that carried an ISRU and flew it on Eve, and it was only able to make hops of a few tens of km before having to land to refuel -- and landing it was not easy because of the high gravity and high drag.

Rotorcraft are the best way to explore Eve, no contest. Solar-powered small ones are so light that they will even survive atmospheric entry without heat shields. I believe somebody even demonstrated that rotors can be used to create an Eve SSTO, which is otherwise extremely hard, one of the hardest things that are possible in KSP.

Anyway, I think we've demonstrated some career uses for rotors for you by now. I'm sure people will come up with more, as well as providing you with a variety of helicopters you've asked for. There are always going to be parts you don't find much use for, but somebody else will, and perhaps you will too as you get deeper into the game and start taking on different types of challenges. (I've never had much use for the Panther and Whiplash engines for example.)

Edited by Brikoleur

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lack of uses for rotary parts in 'specifically career mode' is not a fault of the rotors; it is a fault of career mode!

Career mode features plenty is dumb pointless stuff, that exists only to facilitate weird and unusual craft, or to fix problems in career mode. Eg, Kerbin-based survey missions are dull, tedious and "have no place in this 'space-game'", but are necessary to net you some easy contracts at the start of a game. Likewise, "test this part, while going at speed X and altitude Y" are also odd, especially when concerning things like 'decoupler on launchpad', 'landing gear in orbit of the Mun' etc. These are simply an extension of existing sane missions, applied to funny part-criteria combinations.

Career-mode could just as easily feature a contract 'expose a Kerbal to at least X many G-force'. which can be completed using some wonky Super-Jet plane. OR you could use the rotary parts to make a G-force training rig! (and yes, the physics of the game allow G-force to affect individual parts, and their crew). 'Build station'-missions could feature a DLC-only 'needs a gravity ring' requirement.

So rotary parts could have great uses in 'specifically career mode' sometime soon.


As for more immediate applications, I would like to point to reality; sure, the stock game provides easy access to jet engines and rocket engines, right of the bat and these can do "anything a propeller can" and "go fasta", but in reality rotary engine craft see a fair share of use, for many reasons.

Jet engines can go faster, but propellers produce the same amount of thrust at slower speeds and of a greater range of low speeds. This is great for VTOL craft, even in KSP. Propellers are also more fuel efficient. A Jet will guzzle up a lot of fuel when going fast, and when you don't need to go fast, but DO need to pull hard (for say a sky-crane) jets are just useless. And you can re-charge your batteries in-flight with solar panels, RTGs, fuel-cells and yes, jet engine alternators.

Also, cranes and other ground utility vehicles (and in case of using BD-armory, Tanks) get good use out of turret-mounted systems, is is specifically the domain of rotors. Try building a refueling truck.

 

Then again, if you don't really enjoy being an engineer, and just "Wanna Go Fast & Far", none of that really matters to you either. KSP might not even be the game you really want to playing right now. Try a racing game instead. Or 'Asteroids', the original space simulation!

Edited by The-Grim-Sleeper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The-Grim-Sleeper said:

Career mode features plenty is dumb pointless stuff, that exists only to facilitate weird and unusual craft, or to fix problems in career mode. Eg, Kerbin-based survey missions are dull, tedious and "have no place in this 'space-game'", but are necessary to net you some easy contracts at the start of a game. Likewise, "test this part, while going at speed X and altitude Y" are also odd, especially when concerning things like 'decoupler on launchpad', 'landing gear in orbit of the Mun' etc. These are simply an extension of existing sane missions, applied to funny part-criteria combinations.

Playing devil's advocate, some of these contracts have at least a tenuous relationship to actual space program stuff.  E.g., before going to the Moon and whatnot, NASA did a lot of testing with high-altitude aviation and the like (e..g, the X-15).  And the earlier Apollo missions were largely dedicated to testing and proving the components for moon landing.  Apollo 10 in particular was fairly close to "test landing legs in lunar orbit." But yeah, some of the random combinations do seem pretty ridiculous.

1 hour ago, The-Grim-Sleeper said:

Also, cranes and other ground utility vehicles (and in case of using BD-armory, Tanks) get good use out of turret-mounted systems, is is specifically the domain of rotors. Try building a refueling truck.

I feel like the rotary actuators are more useful for this than the continuous rotors, which are what I believe OP was talking about.  The former seem better when you want a precise adjustment; the latter when power is more important. 

Returning to the original topic, I do agree that I haven't been able to find a purely practical use for the continuous rotors yet.  The other robotic parts seem useful for unfolding things to save space; docking booms; cranes, etc.  The rotors, not so much.  But I'm fine with this.  There are a lot of parts that you don't really NEED to accomplish anything in the core "explore space" gameplay experience, including almost all the airplane parts and miscellaneous structural doodads.  But they can be fun for a side project, and I certainly don't begrudge parts that indulge other playstyles.  I would love to have a legit electric propeller, but just because the rotors aren't that, doesn't make them a net negative. And I've already gotten more than enough entertainment time out of Breaking Ground to justify a $15 investment.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, at least he's saying 50 m/s in his complaining, instead of 0.5 mph. Still over 100 m/s is possible, so... Please stop saying knowingly false statements.

Rotors are great for duna, never had such easy landings.

With jets, they make great compound helos, that handle much better in a hover than tilt engine VTOLs.

Not to mention that they are the only option for subs on eve or mod worlds like tekto.

Many people have fun with them. If you absolutely do not want them, you can remove them, or text edit them to be better... If you would want them if they were just better

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The-Grim-Sleeper said:

Career-mode could just as easily feature a contract 'expose a Kerbal to at least X many G-force'.

It does! "Take <<kerbal>> on a high-G adventure!"

Has anyone tried if it's possible to do that with a centrifuge?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

It does! "Take <<kerbal>> on a high-G adventure!"

Has anyone tried if it's possible to do that with a centrifuge?

I took a quick run at it, but could not seem to get accurate numbers for either speed or g's.  This thing maxed out at 5.9g, but I think that's when it was violently ripping itself apart after a few seconds.  While it was intact the meter bounced between 0 and 1, so it might just be looking at the up-and-down motion rather than rotational?

(I vehemently deny any accusations that Jeb is going to get strapped to the front of this thing in the near future.)

ekUDBTX.png

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.