Jump to content

StarSlay3r
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

Looks amazing yall :D 

Question for folks who know more about real engines: can this bit get scrunched up a bit for nutters like me who will try to use this for big landers? I feel like it's nice to have that vertical dimension as condensed as possible in that application.

wdYgV2F.png

Probably? The only functional parts around there are the turbopumps (very small actually for the volume of LH2 that may need to flow through there), and the propellant lines. Those bends are important so that thermal expansion/contraction doesn’t rupture the pipe.

I’d also like to point out the cycle of the engine- it looks like both turbopumps feed LH2 into the reactor, but I don’t see a second pipe to input into the nozzle for the LOX input. (There is a set that leads from the top of the reactor into the boattail, but I believe it’s for a coolant being sent to the radiators). Also- that joint where the 2 pumps join outputs looks a little questionable.

Edited by Clamp-o-Tron
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

Wow, it took you only three months to create the texture for the LANTR engine!

Honestly I think it was finished some weeks before and it was just shown, because it was just something small to show. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Alexoff said:

Wow, it took you only three months to create the texture for the LANTR engine!

Higg poly model from low poly concept, materials, textures, animations, probably also exhaust effects, behavior, parameters...

I assume now it's ready to be put into the game as finished product. So yeah, that took 3 months, because there were probably few other things to do as well in that time.

Jeez.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, The Aziz said:

Higg poly model from low poly concept, materials, textures, animations, probably also exhaust effects, behavior, parameters...

I assume now it's ready to be put into the game as finished product. So yeah, that took 3 months, because there were probably few other things to do as well in that time.

Jeez.

The model was almost complete. The animations are not very complicated. The exhaust and parameters are not visible in the video, they are made by other specialists, it is not known whether they are ready. We did not see the engine in the game. I would like to remind you that the game was announced for 2020

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a minor question. When we actually start building with these engines, is there going to be some kind of low profile mode like in KSP 1 where we can mount these engines without that large engine plate-looking structure? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Alexoff, I would love to know how game development works in your mind. Do you imagine an entire team all working continuously on a single part non-stop until it is ready, and then move on to the next one?

Can you think of any other possible reason why we are only now getting to see the final model? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

They don't retract, they're stationary. The nozzle extension seems to be on rollers. You can see the rods inside the vacuum nozzle when it is retracted.

Minor bug. They will actually retract like the strings on blinds -- you won't see rods impinging on the nozzle interior like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nate Simpson said:

Minor bug. They will actually retract like the strings on blinds -- you won't see rods impinging on the nozzle interior like this.

That's ur 100th post. Thanks for all the information you have given us Nate and others from the KSP 2 team on your great upcoming game!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Inglonias said:

Wouldn't it be advantageous to let us run the afterburner with the nozzle in vacuum mode as well to increase efficiency when firing high-thrust in a vacuum (IE something like Tylo)? Something like an in-beween?

A good idea would be for the nozzle extension and afterburner mode to not be linked. That is, they don't have to happen together. The nozzle could automatically extend or retract when you reach a certain atmospheric pressure, while the afterburner would only switch when you manually switch it, or maybe automatically if you're above a certain TWR, but they don't have to happen at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/2/2021 at 3:33 AM, Synonym Toast Crunch said:

A good idea would be for the nozzle extension and afterburner mode to not be linked. That is, they don't have to happen together.

Fully agree. I'd like to be able to use the lH2 only version in thicker atmospheres, when high TWR isn't needed, such as on something like Titan. I'd also like to be able to maximize vacuum dV even when using the high TWR afterburner mode, such as when landing on Tylo.

On 10/2/2021 at 3:33 AM, Synonym Toast Crunch said:

The nozzle could automatically extend or retract when you reach a certain atmospheric pressure, while the afterburner would only switch when you manually switch it, or maybe automatically if you're above a certain TWR, but they don't have to happen at the same time.

Well, I think automatic switching would be convenient, like the autoswitching on the rapier... but I can also imagine wanting manual control over it, such as making somewhat shorter vacuum landers: retract the nozzle before touching down.

I can see 2 ways this works:

1) a toggle for the nozzle, and a toggle for the afterburner. The first dynamically changes the atmosphere Isp curve for the engine, the 2nd dynamically changes the overall Isp, thrust, and resource consumption (adding O2). I'm not surehow much of a change to the game engine this would require

2) a multimode engine with 4 modes. If I'm not mistaken, already we can have 3+ engine modes in the game code, even if we only have engines with 2 modes (rapier, panther).

This would be a little awkward to switch between modes, as you'd have 4 modes to cycle through to get the one that you want.

I imagine that mostly during a burn, you'd be going from high TWR and atmo pressure, to low TWR and low atmo pressure, so I'd have the order go:

i) Afterburner, nozzle retracted; ii) Afterburner, nozzle extended; iii) No Afterburner, nozzle extended; iv) No Afterburner, nozzle retracted;

This would allow easy cycling during a burn from the surface of a planet with an atmosphere. In this case, generally you'd want:

1st, high TWR and the nozzle adapted to a high ambient pressure. 2nd High TWR, but an extended nozzle as the rocket climbs. 3rd low TWR and high Isp as you circularize your orbit. The no afterburner, nozzle retracted case isn't needed.

If you want to land on something like Mun, you'd probably not want the afterburner, so you'd go from no burner, extended to no burner, retracted (for touchdown) - this order works again.

But it would be inconvenient when you want to land with the burner on, but the nozzle retracted, supposing you come in with burner on and nozzle extended (such as on Tylo), you need to press the cycle button 3 times rapidly to get to the burner+retracted mode for landing.

Similarly, taking off from Mun with  the mode initially being: no-burner, retracted  - if you want to switch to no burner, extended, you'd cut the engine, and have to cycle 3 times to get to the mode you want...

So if we can't just have independent toggles for the burner and the nozzle, 4 modes to cycle through would be a bit annoying.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...