[0.23.5]General Propulsionâ„¢ SOLD

[Lucchese]

Hi guys, will there still be an update for the RBI tracks?

I ask because I'm not sure what "Endless will be maintaining it when needed, so its still up to him really how it gets used." means and I've been checking here for quite a while.

[electronicfox]

The way it stands at the moment is as follows:

I have stopped working on them for now due to a busy wok schedule, but have given GalacticRuler rights to distribute the tracks, and rights to the model side of things. EndlessWaves still owns the plugin.

They wont be forgotten, and when my schedule allows, I will be continuing work on them, but that may be a little while.

[Lucchese]

Ah great.

I'll just keep checking, at least I know who's replies to look for

[Galacticruler]

Ah great.

I'll just keep checking, at least I know who's replies to look for

they work perfectly, all they needed was tech nodes.

As fox said, Endless controls the plugin, but I have temporary rights on the models. (not like I'd do much, I cannot model for ****.)

[little square dot]

they work perfectly, all they needed was tech nodes.

As fox said, Endless controls the plugin, but I have temporary rights on the models. (not like I'd do much, I cannot model for ****.)

They work, but some tweaks are definitely needed.

I seem to remember them moving very slowly, and alterations to the torque settings in the .cfg didn't have any effect on the tracks. The only way to increase speed was to scale-up the parts.

I found that the tiny tracks rescaled 2.5x are excellent, but I discarded the others because they were either going to be too huge or too slow... point being, the tracks don't quite work "perfectly", as the plugin could still use a bit of tweaking.

Edited December 2, 2013 by little square dot

[Andon]

in addition, if you angle the tracks to where the center is off the ground, they stop moving entirely.

You can actually make them go pretty speedy if you combine them with something like, say, Modular Multiwheels or similar and make a half-track.

[Camacha]

I seem to remember them moving very slowly, and alterations to the torque settings in the .cfg didn't have any effect on the tracks. The only way to increase speed was to scale-up the parts.

Please remember that they are tracks. Those are slow by nature (cue post that shows battle tank at full steam). You can go quite fast on wheels in KSP, but you should not go quite as fast on tracks.

Personally I would like to see the little picture tiles in the VAB fixed. They do not seem to show the tracks properly or sometimes even at all.

[electronicfox]

in addition, if you angle the tracks to where the center is off the ground, they stop moving entirely.

This is more due to a limitation of the Wheelcolliders within Unity, they seem to have a very limited working angle. You may notice a similar effect with the stock wheels, if theryre rotated more than a few degrees, they'll stop working properly.

[SergeantBlueforce]

How can the parts be assigned to the Experimental Motors node when such a tech tree node does not exist?

[Vrana]

I can assure you, Experimental Motors node exists. Its the end-of-tree node, with no stock parts, supposedly intended for mods, behind Advanced Motors.

[Jivaii]

Please remember that they are tracks. Those are slow by nature (cue post that shows battle tank at full steam). You can go quite fast on wheels in KSP, but you should not go quite as fast on tracks.

Personally I would like to see the little picture tiles in the VAB fixed. They do not seem to show the tracks properly or sometimes even at all.

Tank...slow? http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records-1/fastest-tank/ Try 51 mph. (82.23 kph)

[Galacticruler]

Try 51 mph. (82.23 kph)

In KSP, you're not going to go far enough on tracks to need that speed.

besides, the tracks here are electrical, so they cannot get to the RPMs of combustion engine & axel driven tracks.

[little square dot]

In KSP, you're not going to go far enough on tracks to need that speed.

besides, the tracks here are electrical, so they cannot get to the RPMs of combustion engine & axel driven tracks.

I agree with your second point, but your first one is a touch backwards... in KSP we have entire planets to explore, so the only reason why players aren't going to travel very far on tracks is because of the slow speed.

[Tommygun]

I personally like that they are slower. There are a number of fast stock and mod wheels for going fast.

Tracks should have their own unique uses and properties. Like high crash/impact tolerances for supporting heavy vehicles, but move slowly.

[Camacha]

Tank...slow? http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/records-1/fastest-tank/ Try 51 mph. (82.23 kph)

Yes, you are referring to a vehicle that is very light by tank standards (aluminium instead of full blown armour) and was probably specially prepared. Even then, I point you to normal wheeled cars where the records are 431,07 km/h for street legal cars, 707,408 km/h for wheel driven (and piston powered) cars and 1227,986 km/h (and thus supersonic) for jet powered cars. Compared to even the slowest of those, 82,23 km/h is not that impressive.

So yeah, tracked vehicles/tanks are dead slow compared to normal wheeled vehicles.

[electronicfox]

Regarding the speeds of tracks, I believe we had similar views on fast/slower tracks on the original thread. Some prefer the realism of slower, electrically driven tracks, and others preferred faster sets. I believe EndlessWaves did mention one of the stats in the CFG could be altered to speed up the tracks though.

[Tommygun]

It would be nice if the two middle size ones could be made amphibious, but I realize that might require too much coding.

[little square dot]

So yeah, tracked vehicles/tanks are dead slow compared to normal wheeled vehicles.

Hold up a second... I think you've overlooked the fact that tanks are insanely heavy, armoured machines of war. Their speed is not limited by their tracks; they simply aren't designed for speed. Even on wheels they wouldn't do much better. Just look at the LAV series... light armoured vehicles, on wheels, designed to be relatively fast, and they still can't do any better than around 60 mph.

Take a look at how insanely fast some snowmobiles can go if you think tracked vehicles inherently lack speediness.

...or how about this tracked amphibious vehicle. The production model can go 55MPH on land, 39MPH on water, and custom models with a 300HP engine can go 80MPH on land! This is the kind of vehicle a space agency would create, and it's a far-cry from a battle tank.

http://www.engadget.com/2007/02/28/fast-track-amphibious-vehicle-moving-beyond-proof-of-concept/

The point that was made about the tracks being electric is the right one to support the keep-em-slow argument. The 'tracked vehicles are inherently slower' argument simply isn't true. It's pretty silly to be comparing F-1 race cars to bulldozers.

Edited December 6, 2013 by little square dot

[MedievalNerd]

Those tracks are awesome! Love the smallest ones for rovers, glad to see it's being kept alive.

Cheers,

[Camacha]

Hold up a second... I think you've overlooked the fact that tanks are insanely heavy, armoured machines of war. Their speed is not limited by their tracks; they simply aren't designed for speed. [...] Take a look at how insanely fast some snowmobiles can go if you think tracked vehicles inherently

lack speediness.

Even though you are partly right, there is a reason tracks are mainly used for heavy vehicles. If it is high speed capabilities you are after, tracks are not the way to go. Only when you are in need of a certain robustness or load spreading tracks are used, and then they are a compromise between speed and the desired capabilites. This is even true for the snowmobiles you mentioned.

Tracks add more friction and are mechanically more complex, meaning that they will be slower for the same amount of power and torque applied and will break more easily when not designed or driven carefully. There is not much that can be changed about that.

The 'tracked vehicles are inherently slower' argument simply isn't true. It's pretty silly to be comparing F-1 race cars to bulldozers.

It is true. Compare the record in tracked speed to the record in wheeled vehicles - with any vehicle, so not just tanks. There is a fundamental reason for that.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Camacha

[Camacha]

Regarding the speeds of tracks, I believe we had similar views on fast/slower tracks on the original thread. Some prefer the realism of slower, electrically driven tracks, and others preferred faster sets.

I do not mind the current speed, but I feel the current tracks are lacking a bit of torque that might be expected at a slow speed. I built some bulldozer and tow truck type vehicles with them to clear debris from crashed aircraft, but they were not as powerful or capable as I would hope, rendering them pretty much useless.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Camacha

[SergeantBlueforce]

I can assure you, Experimental Motors node exists. Its the end-of-tree node, with no stock parts, supposedly intended for mods, behind Advanced Motors.

So there are a bunch of nodes that the Squad put in for mods to use?

[Vrana]

So there are a bunch of nodes that the Squad put in for mods to use?

Supposedly... they do not contain stock parts and many of them fit some popluar mods in regards to thier description. I have persoanlly never seen any offical word on these nodes but then again i didnt really go looking for it.

[Galacticruler]

How can the parts be assigned to the Experimental Motors node when such a tech tree node does not exist?

So there are a bunch of nodes that the Squad put in for mods to use?

Supposedly... they do not contain stock parts and many of them fit some popluar mods in regards to thier description. I have persoanlly never seen any offical word on these nodes but then again i didnt really go looking for it.

I assure you that they exist, they only needed parts assigned to them.

[SergeantBlueforce]

You know I kind of disapprove of dumping mod parts at the end of the tech tree.