Jump to content

[1.0.5] Advanced Jet Engine v2.6.1 - Feb 1


Recommended Posts

Thanks! :)

Aw yiss, F8F time. The Iron Works knew how to build 'em...

Yes, yes you do. I need to make ones for brushed aluminum and X-15-black. I also need to enable it for proc surfaces and proc wing ends.

Haha, so I was inspired to spend way too much time making this "skittles rainbow chaser" (working name) by your pwings.

Z578Bph.png

Incidentally, in the process of making this, i stumbled across a few other fun features in a couple of very nice plugins. I feel these would go along ways towards enhancing the experience of that big wright radial, and even the turboprob would benifit greatly if i can put it together...

Link to post
Share on other sites

So a quick question; is the overheating simulated here compatible (or overrides/is overridden by it because it's redundant) with the overheating system in KSP interstellar, and will KSPI precoolers reduce it?

Edited by InfinityArch
Link to post
Share on other sites
Aw jeeze, so much stuff to catch up on! :)

So... we don't use air intakes with this mod?

The stock algorithm is just not worth the time. The intakes should work like this: the program calculates its recovery efficiency according to AoA and Mach number. Each kind of intakes should have a different Mach number curve. The efficiency works like a multiplier to the thrust.

Right now, all inlet efficiency=1.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed that the aspect ratio of those wings is on the high side of acceptable for that kinda speed. I can almost see the shock cones getting nasty with compressability effects on those ailerons through the transonic region...

Anyway, the main reason I am posting here is due to my troubles with AJE's effect on the two stock engines it modifies. All other engines (FS & B9) work as advertised (though I'll wanna maybe argue with your performance limitations for propeller driven aircraft;) The two stock jets however refuse to work. I have even gone as far as to isolate them from any other possible MM configs by changing the part names in the .cfgs and pointing hotrockets and AJE to the new parts. I've tried using :Final in the MM cfgs as well as ensuring multiple times that both plugins are up to date with no love on those particular engines. Its strange to me that its only those two when everything else works so well. To be honest I'm not so worried about it, but I wanted to check to see if there were any known conflicts. Thanks so much for the work you've done for us so far! All of us wing-nuts are stoked to have these kinds of realism mods available to make us feel like the aerospace engineers we've always wanted to be lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What is exactly the problem with stock engines? This is most likely some kind of MM-using mod conflict.

Could you open debug->parts, find the Squad/Parts/Engines/JetEngine.cfg and see what's in there?

If you use hotrockets, It should have one moduleEnginesFX, and one AJEModule

If you don't , it should have one moduleEngines, and one AJEModule

Link to post
Share on other sites
What is exactly the problem with stock engines? This is most likely some kind of MM-using mod conflict.

Could you open debug->parts, find the Squad/Parts/Engines/JetEngine.cfg and see what's in there?

If you use hotrockets, It should have one moduleEnginesFX, and one AJEModule

If you don't , it should have one moduleEngines, and one AJEModule

If i attempt to place them on a craft in the editor, they spit out smoke and sparks whilst still in the editor, I'm sure you're right about the MM problem. Standby a few minutes as i update to latest known versions of my various mods...

Link to post
Share on other sites
If i attempt to place them on a craft in the editor, they spit out smoke and sparks whilst still in the editor, I'm sure you're right about the MM problem. Standby a few minutes as i update to latest known versions of my various mods...

That's definitely MM problem. Usually that happens when engine has ME but AJE thought it has MEFX or the other way around. But that shouldn't happen with the latest version. If you cannot solve the problem post the cfg you see from debug. No need to write it line by line just outline what modules are in there

Link to post
Share on other sites
If i attempt to place them on a craft in the editor, they spit out smoke and sparks whilst still in the editor, I'm sure you're right about the MM problem. Standby a few minutes as i update to latest known versions of my various mods...

Are you using TweakableEverything by chance? I had the same problem, and through trial and error, I found that it caused the problem, though other mods might too..

I can live without the mod, I'd rather have realistic jets; but it was handy..:(

Edited by Bloodbunny
Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you using TweakableEverything by chance? I had the same problem, and through trial and error, I found that it caused the problem, though other mods might too..

I can live without the mod, I'd rather have realistic jets; but it was handy..:(

If that's true it's a compatibility problem between TweakableEverything and HotRockets. You can try deleting hotrockets and follow the instruction on the OP. HotRockets convert ME to MEFX(introduced in 0.23) to use the fancy effects, but there's a chance that certain mods don't recognize MEFX

Link to post
Share on other sites

After a bit of playing with this, I can say that something just feels 'off' about the engines. KSP is not a flight simulator, but I have thousands of hours playing FSX, Il-2 and other hardcore flight sims, and although I don't have the numbers to run, I can say that they don't 'feel right.'

I'm not saying NASA's data is wrong (it's not); so it must be some other limitation within KSP that prevents a realistic jet engine from performing as it should. In real life, a jet aircraft takes off at full throttle, but must be throttled down at altitude to prevent overspeed. In KSP with this mod, I have the throttle firewalled (afterburner on, no less) and am actually SLOWING DOWN as I approach 20,000 feet (very low for a fast jet.) Yes you lose some thrust with thinner air, but you also reduce drag as well. I'm not sure how FAR/stock KSP handles drag, so that could be the culprit. (drag may remain the same no matter the altitude) Looking at my individual parts during flight though, I see no part that is producing an inordinate amount of drag.

Link to post
Share on other sites
After a bit of playing with this, I can say that something just feels 'off' about the engines. KSP is not a flight simulator, but I have thousands of hours playing FSX, Il-2 and other hardcore flight sims, and although I don't have the numbers to run, I can say that they don't 'feel right.'

I'm not saying NASA's data is wrong (it's not); so it must be some other limitation within KSP that prevents a realistic jet engine from performing as it should. In real life, a jet aircraft takes off at full throttle, but must be throttled down at altitude to prevent overspeed. In KSP with this mod, I have the throttle firewalled (afterburner on, no less) and am actually SLOWING DOWN as I approach 20,000 feet (very low for a fast jet.) Yes you lose some thrust with thinner air, but you also reduce drag as well. I'm not sure how FAR/stock KSP handles drag, so that could be the culprit. (drag may remain the same no matter the altitude) Looking at my individual parts during flight though, I see no part that is producing an inordinate amount of drag.

You know, you bring a point I feel worth mentioning, and indeed have asked for as a function of vessel viewer. The ability to see at a glance the total drag acting on a vessel, a graphical representation of said drag, and realtime analysis of aerodynamic performance. Man, prototyping super gangster jets would just be so much easier and effective...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I half-cheated and added a conic stretchy that acts as a fairing to ease making jets with part clipping that don't suffer too much drag. Once that's done and only parts that should be causing drag are causing drag, it seems to work fine. (This is why, inter alia, it's so useful that Ferram left the coefficients visible in the latest FAR).

Example: This Starfighter-with-Voodoo-wings: mjiiokMl.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bloodbunny, AFAIK all the commercial flight-sims use look-up tables to calculate engine thrust. Most of them (except x-plane) use look-up table for aerodynamics too. So whether or not a flight model is realistic totally depends on the quality of data. My point is in flight-sim world there're good products and bad products. Even if you try different simulators I believe they will feel different.

Now if you compare the aircraft performance brought by FAR+AJE+whatever to reality, they will certainly be different. The equations can never reflect reality 100%, and there are many features that are lacking. For example, airfoil, fowler flap, induced vortex, inlet, ground effect... There's also the limitation caused by KSP being a game based on parts but not a fully-functional 3-d editor

Link to post
Share on other sites

K, did a few experiments, and was finally able to get a high flying plane that does Mach 3. I simply coupled the most powerful engine, with the lightest frame I could make. For larger, more realistic plane designs though, the thrust loss curve seems a bit too steep, and though drag does diminish with altitude, it does so much slower than the engines lose thrust. Thus, the planes are running out of steam at 20000 feet.

So this may be more an issue with FAR's drag model than these engines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
K, did a few experiments, and was finally able to get a high flying plane that does Mach 3. I simply coupled the most powerful engine, with the lightest frame I could make. For larger, more realistic plane designs though, the thrust loss curve seems a bit too steep, and though drag does diminish with altitude, it does so much slower than the engines lose thrust. Thus, the planes are running out of steam at 20000 feet.

So this may be more an issue with FAR's drag model than these engines.

Which engines are you using? There are varieties from turbofans to ramjets to serve different purposes. The engines thrust is function of two variables: mach number and altitude. What do you mean by "thrust loss curve"? At a given mach number, then engine thrust is proportional to the air flow through it, thus it's proportional to static pressure of atmosphere. I think that's a given, although you don't see that in stock game.

Could you be more specific about at what mach number and altitude which engine is producing how much thrust and how does that compare to static thrust at sea level? I don't think there'll be this kind of problem with v1.0

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bloodbunny: are you playing on Kerbin, or with RSS? Remember that if it ain't RSS, it ain't Earth, so your experience will obviously be different. :)

Actually aerodynamic constants like Cd are largely independent of altitude too, they are functions of mach number and Reynold number. So engine thrust loss and FAR drag loss should be synchronous, in theory. AJE uses in-game air pressure too, so this should not be a problem

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...