Rune Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 4 hours ago, Thor Wotansen said: and everything is autostrutted to the root part, which is the cargo bay. There's your problem. Autostrutting is far from a magic bullet, and if fact it can be counter-productive if you abuse it. Limit it to a few key parts several joints away, and never wings (don't ask me why, but that creates phantom forces). I'd just autostrut the engines and the adaptors on each end of the ship, and it would probably work like that. Rune. Also, I always autrostrut to "heaviest part", because that doesn't suddenly change when you dock, often summoning the kraken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor Wotansen Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 2 minutes ago, PointySideUp said: Have you tried auto strut as grandparent part? No, the grandparent part in this case is the root part. 2 minutes ago, Rune said: There's your problem. Autostrutting is far from a magic bullet, and if fact it can be counter-productive if you abuse it. Limit it to a few key parts several joints away, and never wings (don't ask me why, but that creates phantom forces). I'd just autostrut the engines and the adaptors on each end of the ship, and it would probably work like that. Rune. Also, I always autrostrut to "heaviest part", because that doesn't suddenly change when you dock, often summoning the kraken. Thanks, I'll try this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EpicSpaceTroll139 Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 27 minutes ago, Rune said: <snip> and never wings (don't ask me why, but that creates phantom forces). <snip> Interesting, I've never had problems with autostruts on wings. What kind of phantom forces did you get? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triop Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 1 hour ago, Torquimedes said: I'm curious to see the rest of this. Stay on target... Project is on hold, having problems with ailerons that don't want to move... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor Wotansen Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 So it seems the problem was with rigid attachment and not autostrut. I think the wings were trying to flex under extreme aerodynamic loads at 500m/s and with rigid attachment turned on, they couldn't flex and just broke off. I've used rigid attachment on a lot of wings but I haven't tried it on Big S wings before, I guess they don't like it so much, having a bit more drag and all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Technical Ben Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 (edited) On 4/4/2017 at 5:20 AM, He_162 said: Based on a similar architecturally speaking standpoint, I have developed a very inefficient 1500 ton lifter, but I guess efficiency isn't the point of these, these just take your huge random cargo to orbit in a single launch. I present the He1500 ton lifter! https://kerbalx.com/He_162/He1500-ton-lifter These designs are work in progresses, I am essentially developing 2 stage to orbit lifters to take eventually, 2000 tons to orbit, and I am almost there, I simply have to take what I've learned from these, and put them towards developing a stronger more structurally stable rocket, which is what I have done. (Part count is now a more respectable 857 parts, thanks to what I learned from that last 1200 ton lifter (1510 parts) That thing was a beast.) [see above for pics] Keep checking back for my next, hopefully a new architectural design than the cylindrical cone shaped one I have now, I want to make it more like a simple cylinder, whilst being aerodynamic at the top. (Possibly 1750 tons to orbit?) All craft from now on will use at LEAST 4550 deltaV, the 1500 ton lifter has around 4660 [see above for pic] Still possibly not big enough for the projects I usually do... (I did a stock interstellar mission ) Edited April 5, 2017 by Technical Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor Wotansen Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 Yup, gets up there just fine now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azimech Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 2 hours ago, Rune said: There's your problem. Autostrutting is far from a magic bullet, and if fact it can be counter-productive if you abuse it. Limit it to a few key parts several joints away, and never wings (don't ask me why, but that creates phantom forces). I'd just autostrut the engines and the adaptors on each end of the ship, and it would probably work like that. Rune. Also, I always autrostrut to "heaviest part", because that doesn't suddenly change when you dock, often summoning the kraken. Autostrutting wings does not always invoke the kraken, I use it often but only on wing tips. That's fine until you damage your craft and somehow the rest goes into RUD. Autostrutting to heaviest part has another risk because the code is too immature and will easily choose a fuel tank based on resource mass instead of empty mass. I've had a kraken attack when I used fuel beyond a certain level and the struts started switching during flight. This also means that if you dock with a space station with a heavier part it could summon the kraken anyway. I should write a bug report on this. But it's true, often struts work better than autostruts. Too many struts creates problems as well, a structure that bends will break less easily (and keep your FPS higher). 1 hour ago, Thor Wotansen said: So it seems the problem was with rigid attachment and not autostrut. I think the wings were trying to flex under extreme aerodynamic loads at 500m/s and with rigid attachment turned on, they couldn't flex and just broke off. I've used rigid attachment on a lot of wings but I haven't tried it on Big S wings before, I guess they don't like it so much, having a bit more drag and all. Based on my experience, I never use rigid attachment anymore. The code looks for a modifier in the physics.cfg, with standard settings it lowers both joint breaking force and breaking torque to ridiculously low levels. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majorjim! Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 2 hours ago, Rune said: Rune. Also, I always autrostrut to "heaviest part", because that doesn't suddenly change when you dock Except it does when anything you dock to has a heavier part. ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rune Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 3 hours ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said: Interesting, I've never had problems with autostruts on wings. What kind of phantom forces did you get? Someone told me once that it was the tiny pulls to the right I was getting on my spaceplanes. Dunno if it was that 100%, but it stopped happening so much, so, you know, just in case. I also add a prayer to the FSM every now and then. can't hurt, right? 3 hours ago, Thor Wotansen said: So it seems the problem was with rigid attachment and not autostrut. I think the wings were trying to flex under extreme aerodynamic loads at 500m/s and with rigid attachment turned on, they couldn't flex and just broke off. I've used rigid attachment on a lot of wings but I haven't tried it on Big S wings before, I guess they don't like it so much, having a bit more drag and all. Yeah, that is a bad idea. In general, if your structure is too rigid, KSP will usually blow it up. Glad you got things sorted out, tough! 1 hour ago, Azimech said: Autostrutting wings does not always invoke the kraken, I use it often but only on wing tips. That's fine until you damage your craft and somehow the rest goes into RUD. Autostrutting to heaviest part has another risk because the code is too immature and will easily choose a fuel tank based on resource mass instead of empty mass. I've had a kraken attack when I used fuel beyond a certain level and the struts started switching during flight. This also means that if you dock with a space station with a heavier part it could summon the kraken anyway. I should write a bug report on this. But it's true, often struts work better than autostruts. Too many struts creates problems as well, a structure that bends will break less easily (and keep your FPS higher). Not a matter of blowing up, just weird forces applied. And yeah, I think we concur on the basics: use autostrutting as least as possible, only when it's necessary. I've saved so many space station at this point with a quick autostrut. 1 hour ago, Majorjim! said: Except it does when anything you dock to has a heavier part. ;-) I've found it a bit less kraken-inducing than root part, but yeah, it still has some issues. Rune. Protip: In case of "the shakes", freeze things by warping time, then start fiddling with autostruts until the shakes stop. Greatest trick ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torquimedes Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 3 hours ago, Triop said: Project is on hold, having problems with ailerons that don't want to move... Looks like it thinks the "forward" vector is currently pointing up, which means the ailerons would not affect any of the normal axes. Maybe mount a probe core facing forward and make it the root part? I tend to use the OCTO2 since it's small, easy to hide and fully functional. And its shape might even fit the aesthetic of your model. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triop Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 6 minutes ago, Torquimedes said: Looks like it thinks the "forward" vector is currently pointing up, which means the ailerons would not affect any of the normal axes. Maybe mount a probe core facing forward and make it the root part? I tend to use the OCTO2 since it's small, easy to hide and fully functional. And its shape might even fit the aesthetic of your model. You are my hero, it works ! Placing the core did the job, ailerons are moving left and right. It looks happy now... Thanks Torq. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor Wotansen Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 Working on a vehicle for a challenge I'm putting together. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triop Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 (edited) Picked up the project, have a flying prototype. 3 minutes ago, Thor Wotansen said: Working on a vehicle for a challenge I'm putting together. Awesome, the buggy is my favortite. What is the challenge ? Edited April 4, 2017 by Triop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torquimedes Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 7 minutes ago, Triop said: Picked up the project, have a flying prototype. I commend your bravery for using the lollipop wheels, they are the bane of my low-tech science-survey plane attempts. If you go much faster they might explode from the pressure! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triop Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 1 minute ago, Torquimedes said: I commend your bravery for using the lollipop wheels, they are the bane of my low-tech science-survey plane attempts. If you go much faster they might explode from the pressure! I know the uselesness (not a real word, sic) of these wheels, they don't even have brakes... It's just a prototype to test flying, landing is not an option.... brave indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor Wotansen Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 11 minutes ago, Triop said: I know the uselesness (not a real word, sic) of these wheels, they don't even have brakes... It's just a prototype to test flying, landing is not an option.... brave indeed. Meh, TIE fighters were always expendable anyways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triop Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 7 minutes ago, Thor Wotansen said: Meh, TIE fighters were always expendable anyways. Yes, but my pilots seem to disagree... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triop Posted April 4, 2017 Share Posted April 4, 2017 Recorded a test flight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gman_builder Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 Guess the plane? She still needs some work XD Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castille7 Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 (edited) Mini SR-71Test Flights How high can a couple Juno's take you? Reduced Fuel Spoiler Edited April 5, 2017 by Castille7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torquimedes Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 5 minutes ago, Castille7 said: Mini SR-71Test Flights How high can a couple Juno's take you? Reduced Fuel Impressive. I thought they ran out of air around 11km. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castille7 Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 1 hour ago, Torquimedes said: Impressive. I thought they ran out of air around 11km. Speed may have thrown me from 11 to 18....haha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gman_builder Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 (edited) Antheus Edited April 5, 2017 by Gman_builder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seiryu Posted April 5, 2017 Share Posted April 5, 2017 I'll show you guys some old stuffs that's I made in past days. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.