thorfinn Posted June 11, 2014 Share Posted June 11, 2014 Excuse me, how do I make the manual patch to avoid using RealFuels exactly? Do I just substitute the names, or do I need to change the mixture ratio also? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 You delete the parts that change propellants. That will leave the existing stuff untouched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodo Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 You delete the parts that change propellants. That will leave the existing stuff untouched.How do you add the ability to use RF for engines not currently supported by RF? And if I wanted to change an existing engine from the TT VTOL engine pack to mimic the VTOL engine for the YAK-141 how would I go about doing that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodo Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) Camlost here is that problem I am having with the P&W PT6 Turboprop. It is listed at 150kn or 675hp at take off. It at best kicks out 6.7-7kn of thrust. Is this what it is supposed to do? The PT6 is rated from 550hp to over 1000lb depending on the application.As seen in this picture. Edited June 12, 2014 by Hodo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subcidal Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Some of my engines are bugged, in the VAB or SPH they shoot out particles from the bottom and the side, Common problem / easy fix? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camlost Posted June 12, 2014 Author Share Posted June 12, 2014 Excuse me, how do I make the manual patch to avoid using RealFuels exactly? Do I just substitute the names, or do I need to change the mixture ratio also?Only if you want to use SABRE or RAPIER. You can find them in B9_SABRE.cfg and AJE.cfg and change it back to liquidfuel and oxidizer. Other engines are adaptive. Camlost here is that problem I am having with the P&W PT6 Turboprop. It is listed at 150kn or 675hp at take off. It at best kicks out 6.7-7kn of thrust. Is this what it is supposed to do? The PT6 is rated from 550hp to over 1000lb depending on the application.There's no way a propeller driven by a 600hp engine producing 150kN of thrust. Suppose you travel at 10m/s, then the power output would be 1500kW>600hpSome of my engines are bugged, in the VAB or SPH they shoot out particles from the bottom and the side, Common problem / easy fix?Probably one of your mods like tweakable everything don't support ModuleEngineFX and you have HotRockets which uses ModuleEngineFX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodo Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 There's no way a propeller driven by a 600hp engine producing 150kN of thrust. Suppose you travel at 10m/s, then the power output would be 1500kW>600hpI think I said that wrong or you read it wrong. What I am saying is in the SPH the engine is listed as 150kn. But it actually barely cranks out 7kn of thrust. Some of the electric engines create more thrust. Shouldn't it create more thrust then 7kn of thrust at sea level. It is the engine that powers this..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camlost Posted June 12, 2014 Author Share Posted June 12, 2014 150kN is just a eye-balled number which is ridiculously overpowering if the engine is a PT6A. Why do you assume 7kN is too little? The twin otter weighs about 5 tons only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodo Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 150kN is just a eye-balled number which is ridiculously overpowering if the engine is a PT6A. Why do you assume 7kN is too little? The twin otter weighs about 5 tons only.The thing is I think the engine you have made in game is the PT6A which is horribly underpowered for KSP RO, mainly because the parts weights are so high. Perhaps the later more powerful, PT6A-60? Wait.... it just hit me....Tech scale it like the boosters in RO!!!! So you can choose the power application you need. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subcidal Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) removing tweakable everything seems to have made the particles coming out of the side go away, But still they particles coming out of the bottom are there. And I noticed that all my b9 engines don't show any engine module.Not reporting this as a bug or anything, just trying to figure out the incompatability the easy way.Edit : Ok, removing tweakable everything fixes all the stock model engines. The b9 engines are still acting odd. Edited June 12, 2014 by Subcidal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodo Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 removing tweakable everything seems to have made the particles coming out of the side go away, But still they particles coming out of the bottom are there. And I noticed that all my b9 engines don't show any engine module.Not reporting this as a bug or anything, just trying to figure out the incompatability the easy way.Tweakable everything broke my install I had to reinstall the game, even when I tried to remove it it still caused issues. What other mods are you running? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subcidal Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Tweakable everything broke my install I had to reinstall the game, even when I tried to remove it it still caused issues. What other mods are you running?A lot.. haha. http://i.imgur.com/VCAg7t9.jpgI noticed removing tweakable everything fixed all of my engines using the stock models. But my b9 engines are still shooting out particles / have no engine module. Could it be from the .cfg i deleted due to the lack of hotrockets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodo Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 A lot.. haha. http://i.imgur.com/VCAg7t9.jpgI noticed removing tweakable everything fixed all of my engines using the stock models. But my b9 engines are still shooting out particles / have no engine module. Could it be from the .cfg i deleted due to the lack of hotrockets?That could be it. Hotrockets I think is a requirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subcidal Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Wasn't sure how it played with RSS so i was hesitant, I'll pop it in and see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tidus Klein Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 A lot.. haha. http://i.imgur.com/VCAg7t9.jpgHA looks a lot like mine:) LINK and of coarse it grows every week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Hodo: camlost never got around to changing the display max thrusts of the engines (camlost: you really should, it'll save a lot of support headaches). 7kN sounds about right. And remember that's thrust at 0mph; props lose thrust rapidly as speed increases. You should be able to get about 150m/s tops out of two of those engines on a 5-ton craft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodo Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Hodo: camlost never got around to changing the display max thrusts of the engines (camlost: you really should, it'll save a lot of support headaches). 7kN sounds about right. And remember that's thrust at 0mph; props lose thrust rapidly as speed increases. You should be able to get about 150m/s tops out of two of those engines on a 5-ton craft.Would it be possible to add the tech advancement to the AJE system like with RSS/RO? So if I wanted to use the small PT6A I could but if I wanted the more powerful PT6A-35 I could switch it in the config tab? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Quite hard, actually. It would probably be easier if camlost implemented support for switchable AJEModules, since that's what would be going on (the whole module swapped out and replaced--it's not like rockets where there's just three things to change, thrust, Isp, and fuel). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodo Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 So I built a working Twin Otter knock-off...All I have to say is, it is HARD thinking that small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subcidal Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 Seems to work fine and fix the engines. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorfinn Posted June 12, 2014 Share Posted June 12, 2014 OK, I think I could finally have found how much realism is too real for me... after getting a decent understanding of FAR aerodynamics and building me a nice clean jet + rocket SSTO, I decided to install AJE, and it promptly turned into an anemic poor thing that can't even break the sound barrier without starting to worry about fuel.Could someone show me what kind of designs are required to get SSTO with real jets, just so that I have an idea of the scale? On Kerbin, of course I'm not even trying in RSS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camlost Posted June 12, 2014 Author Share Posted June 12, 2014 OK, I think I could finally have found how much realism is too real for me... after getting a decent understanding of FAR aerodynamics and building me a nice clean jet + rocket SSTO, I decided to install AJE, and it promptly turned into an anemic poor thing that can't even break the sound barrier without starting to worry about fuel.Could someone show me what kind of designs are required to get SSTO with real jets, just so that I have an idea of the scale? On Kerbin, of course I'm not even trying in RSS.Why not show some pictures? I uploaded a A-12 like plane to test J58s about a month ago in this thread, which was capable of cruising at Mach 3.5 for 2000km Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodo Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 OK, I think I could finally have found how much realism is too real for me... after getting a decent understanding of FAR aerodynamics and building me a nice clean jet + rocket SSTO, I decided to install AJE, and it promptly turned into an anemic poor thing that can't even break the sound barrier without starting to worry about fuel.Could someone show me what kind of designs are required to get SSTO with real jets, just so that I have an idea of the scale? On Kerbin, of course I'm not even trying in RSS.I don't have any pictures of SSTOs that use AJE, because I dont use it when I was playing stock sized Kerbin. But here is a mach 2 aircraft that can cruise for a few hundred if not a thousand miles on RSS/RO.Javascript is disabled. View full albumBut the trick with AJE is finding that balance of air inlet size + engine thrust at altitude and speed vs mass + drag of the aircraft at that speed and altitude. Now that I have refined some of my designs down a bit, I am feeling more confident at attempting another SSTO in RSS/RO using AJE. And I feel that after a week of testing the SABRE or RAPIER, I can find that balance if not just use a Aerospike rocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hodo Posted June 13, 2014 Share Posted June 13, 2014 So with some inadvertent advice by Nathan Kell, I found if I built a fighter using the F-16C as a base for weight and fuel load. You can build a fighter that is very close in performance at the same mass. But there is one question about intakes Camlost.The larger Variable Geometry Intakes take in less air then the supersonic inlets which are smaller.With just the outer VG Intakes the engine has 54% of the required air. But the Supersonic inlets which are the smaller ones, take it over the 100% required air intake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAKC Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 So with some inadvertent advice by Nathan Kell, I found if I built a fighter using the F-16C as a base for weight and fuel load. You can build a fighter that is very close in performance at the same mass. http://i.imgur.com/QSNwQpU.jpgBut there is one question about intakes Camlost.The larger Variable Geometry Intakes take in less air then the supersonic inlets which are smaller.http://i.imgur.com/YJikPFB.jpgWith just the outer VG Intakes the engine has 54% of the required air. But the Supersonic inlets which are the smaller ones, take it over the 100% required air intake.Good that you reminded me. It's a bug in the inlet MM patch. The same intake appears 3 times, so it gets 3 times the intake area. You can fix it by removing the other 2 duplicate entries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts