tygoo7

[OLD]Tundra Exploration

Recommended Posts

The bottom node refuses to attachto something. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks, could you give me some more info on what the problem the current version is causing? I'm not entirely sure what it is but I also want to make sure that it doesn't happen with the revamp.

Oh, well, it's not really a PROBLEM, per se. :) But I'm guessing that when you were modeling the engine pods and putting them in position on the capsule, you did so 'by eye', and not necessarily with any kind of mirror symmetry or geometric positioning, right?

If you look at the Rodan head on, like it's coming straight at you, you'll see that each of the four engine fairings intersect the main capsule in slightly different places, and all of them are at a slight angle to the axis of the capsule. This is most easily noticed by the fact that, on one side, one of the fairings comes right up to the edge of the window, almost intruding into the window itself a little bit. But on the other side, there's a bit of a flat area of hull between the edge of the window and where the edge of the engine fairing is. Another visual cue is seen when you look at the 'tips' of the fairings, where they intersect the pod up by the nosecone. If they were symmetrical, the front edge of each fairing would be a straight line where it meets the hull, and they would all be the exact same length. But currently the intersections are all at an angle, and they all end at slightly different points in 'Z', if in fact the lengthwise axis of the pod is defined as 'Z', that is. :) Finally, these visual misalignments carry over to the thrust transforms, because if you place the box-stock Rodan in the editor with NO other parts added, RCSBuildAid will show that the combined thrust vectors of all four engines, the center of thrust, is not aligned with the capsule's center of mass. There is a net torque of 1.xxx kn/m (I don't recall exactly the number, I'm not at my computer, but I know it's greater than 1 kilo newton-meter. I think it's 1.2 something).

Anyway, it's not that the center of mass is out of alignment, because if you place four RCS thrusters in radial symmetry on the capsule and check your 'forward' or 'back' translation vectors, there's no torque at all.

Now, again, the reaction wheels can compensate for the thrust torque, at least they do fine when I 'TweakableEverything' them to double the default torque, 30 as opposed to 15. And this is when using MechJeb as autopilot, I haven't tried just using the stock SAS and flying manually (why would I want to do that?). But the torque isn't huge in any event, so the pod is still totally serviceable as-is.

So, anyway, I hope this helps. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks. The four engines were placed on by lining them up with the faces and rotating them around the center so kind of geometric positioning. Much more precise than the original, which I just placed on randomly and hoped for the best. Not exactly sure how the built in RCS thrusters will work (like their performance) but hopefully it fixes most of those things you listed. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hm, I don't really like the new hatch. Could you make it like the old one again? I really like that SPP style hatch on the old one.

Gotta disagree, the old hatch was fine, but I'm really digging this new design. I'd say it fits in far better with the overall craft, the handles especially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're updating Rodan, I'd like to respectfully suggest that you make the command capsule controllable with 0 Kerbals inside. There's actually been cases where crew ferries have needed to fly to space or return to the ground unmanned (Soyuz 32, 33, 34 come to mind), so I think it would make sense if Rodan (which appears to be derived from Dragon V2, which I would consider to be a crew ferry) is also capable of flying unkerballed.

What do you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you're updating Rodan, I'd like to respectfully suggest that you make the command capsule controllable with 0 Kerbals inside. There's actually been cases where crew ferries have needed to fly to space or return to the ground unmanned (Soyuz 32, 33, 34 come to mind), so I think it would make sense if Rodan (which appears to be derived from Dragon V2, which I would consider to be a crew ferry) is also capable of flying unkerballed.

What do you think?

Interesting idea...I'll think about it. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, if I recall correctly from the walk-around Elon Musk did during the v2 reveal livestream, Dragon v2 is highly automated, the crew is just along for the ride.

Edited by Capt. Hunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really guys all you have to do is edit the file change

MODULE
{
name = ModuleCommand
minimumCrew = 1
}

And change it to

MODULE
{
name = ModuleCommand
minimumCrew = 0
}

But really think there are some that are not going to like it that way and bug him to change it back but who know hope it helped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think our engineers need to work on measurement skills...

cUka6jH.jpg

EDIT: Comparison with the old and new.

mJfq5bH.png

Edited by tygoo7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tygoo7- The new Rodan looks absolutely amazing!

MeCripp- thanks for the tip! I don't know the first thing about .cfg files so I didn't know I could change it. I made the suggestion not just to make things easier/more realistic (because I was trying to use Rodan as a crew ferry), but also to better understand how tygoo7 intends for Rodan to be used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
tygoo7- The new Rodan looks absolutely amazing!

MeCripp- thanks for the tip! I don't know the first thing about .cfg files so I didn't know I could change it. I made the suggestion not just to make things easier/more realistic (because I was trying to use Rodan as a crew ferry), but also to better understand how tygoo7 intends for Rodan to be used.

If you need a patch, I can write you one but this here ( easier/more realistic ), I think alot of people for get this is a game that doesn't run full realistic ( easier/more realistic ) there for it's hard to make something do realistic things in a un-realistic kerbal world, I hope that wasn't rude it was IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Tygoo7,

The Dragons Engines will also serve as a launch escape system. Will you consider beefing up your new versions engines?

To do this, generally you need about a 3 or 4 Thrust-to-weight ratio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Tygoo7,

The Dragons Engines will also serve as a launch escape system. Will you consider beefing up your new versions engines?

To do this, generally you need about a 3 or 4 Thrust-to-weight ratio.

Definitely, especially if the Dragon can go from 0 to 100mph in a matter of seconds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if SpaceX's intended design on Launch Escape System is to escape with the trunk attached like they did in the test flight? Those really must be "Super" engines to pull all of that weight away from a malfunctioning rocket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder if SpaceX's intended design on Launch Escape System is to escape with the trunk attached like they did in the test flight? Those really must be "Super" engines to pull all of that weight away from a malfunctioning rocket.

I'm not entirely sure, the trunk shouldn't be too heavy though, unless it has a payload in it.

- - - Updated - - -

Got it ingame. Thrusters and RCS seem to be working. There's a whole lot of stuff that I need to fix that I hid in the screenshots.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this a good size for the Rodan? The trunk is 2.5m and the capsule and heatshield are a bit bigger. Or would it be better to have the capsule and heatshield be 2.5m and the trunk be a bit smaller or have them both 2.5m which would lose some accuracy?

iqLdszG.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would do whatever's easiest for you to model. The image looks plenty big to me. Out of curiosity, how will the delta-V of Rodan be impacted by the update?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Works pretty well, haven't been able to land it from space yet but I'm pretty sure that's just because I came from a high orbit with a steep reentry...

Javascript is disabled. View full album

- - - Updated - - -

Version 0.3 released!

-Complete revamp of the Rodan!

-Fixed for 1.0.2

FRO6RIX.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Landing is not a problem. I think you could decrease monopropellant a bit if you wanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Trunk is very wobbly for me. It also is causing some slowdown when i move it in the editor. Their is also a gap between the trunk and what you place beneath it. 88ef40a794.jpgOther than that, Awsome job tygoo. and i agree with Jed, It can easily land with that much monoprop.

Edited by Doggydog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Trunk is very wobbly for me. It also is causing some slowdown when i move it in the editor. Their is also a gap between the trunk and what you place beneath it. http://puu.sh/ihOrN/88ef40a794.jpgOther than that, Awsome job tygoo. and i agree with Jed, It can easily land with that much monoprop.

Thanks for the feedback! Not really sure why it is wobbly, I would recommend KJR though. I'll take a look at what might be causing the slowdown, I didn't seem to see any slowdown but it might be some extra faces. Did not notice that one, easy fix. I'll probably decrease the monoprop a bit. :)

- - - Updated - - -

Version 0.3.1 is availabe on KerbalStuff

-Lowered amount of Monoprop

-Fixed Trunk attach node

Share this post


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