Jump to content

[Stock Helicopters & Turboprops] Non DLC Will Always Be More Fun!


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Frozen_Heart said:

Did people work out what it was causing issues with the bearings in 1.4?

As of now, I don't think so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Frozen_Heart said:

Did people work out what it was causing issues with the bearings in 1.4?

 

For some reason the bearing on my K-Drive isn't functioning correctly.


I've noticed with the helicopters using the Asura 2 engine the joints have become more flexible, regardless of autostruts or rigid attachment. I'll need to test more with other designs.
If this can be confirmed by others, I'll write a bug report and it would be wise if we all upvote on that.

 

By the way, can I take a look at your K-Drive?

Edited by Azimech
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Azimech said:


I've noticed with the helicopters using the Asura 2 engine the joints have become more flexible, regardless of autostruts or rigid attachment. I'll need to test more with other designs.
If this can be confirmed by others, I'll write a bug report and it would be wise if we all upvote on that.

 

By the way, can I take a look at your K-Drive?

Not sure what was stopping it working but reassembling it identically to how it was fixed the issue. Maybe there is some slightly different collider to what it was previously. My prop bearings still see to work as well as before. (badly)

 

K Drive link here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/otdz2xqniiyk6u0/X-8C K Drive.craft?dl=0

 

Need to undock the docking port and then lower the landing gear.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Frozen_Heart said:

Did people work out what it was causing issues with the bearings in 1.4?

 

For some reason the bearing on my K-Drive isn't functioning correctly.

I think that perhaps the collision mesh on the small antenna got a bit larger and that may be what's affecting my bearings. Just a guess though really. There's nothing that's sticking out in my face as different. :/ 

As for actually fixing them, I was figuring on waiting until 1.4.1 came out with any bugfixes that might affect these things, and on top of that I should probably wait until the update for editor extensions comes out to make sure I don't bork something while trying to fix it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

I think that perhaps the collision mesh on the small antenna got a bit larger and that may be what's affecting my bearings. Just a guess though really. There's nothing that's sticking out in my face as different. :/ 

As for actually fixing them, I was figuring on waiting until 1.4.1 came out with any bugfixes that might affect these things, and on top of that I should probably wait until the update for editor extensions comes out to make sure I don't bork something while trying to fix it.

I don't think 1.4.1 will include any bugfixes they don't know about. As for the colliders ... we could take screenshots using a standard measuring device and compare between versions.

My guess though: they didn't change the colliders, there's no mention in the changelog and they didn't really have a reason to. What might have changed together with joint flexibility is collider integrity (how much force is needed for them to phase through). Both joint flexibility and collider integrity are easy to test with a simple setup. The question is, who's feeling up to the job and is willing to provide test results ASAP?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Azimech said:

I don't think 1.4.1 will include any bugfixes they don't know about. As for the colliders ... we could take screenshots using a standard measuring device and compare between versions.

My guess though: they didn't change the colliders, there's no mention in the changelog and they didn't really have a reason to. What might have changed together with joint flexibility is collider integrity (how much force is needed for them to phase through). Both joint flexibility and collider integrity are easy to test with a simple setup. The question is, who's feeling up to the job and is willing to provide test results ASAP?

I can probably do the experiments either this evening or tomorrow morning. I figure joint flexibility could be performed on an I-beam by attaching one horizontally to some fixed structure with both node and radial attachments, and testing how much fuel in a tank at the end is required to flex it some angle in 1.4 vs 1.3.1.

Perhaps collider integrity could be tested by hanging masses from an antenna pin or RCS ball joint, and finding what weight is required to make them pop out in 1.4 vs 1.3.1.

BTW I think wheels have bouncier suspension more prone to phantom oscillations now. Could this be affecting your bearings?

Edited by EpicSpaceTroll139
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Azimech said:

we could take screenshots using a standard measuring device and compare between versions.

Yes please! Can someone please do this? @SQUAD know that we don't like our precious creations getting broken and changing the geometry of a cruital part like that is both unessasry and damaging. A lot of people use antennas as bearings @SQUAD.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Majorjim! said:

Yes please! Can someone please do this? @SQUAD know that we don't like our precious creations getting broken and changing the geometry of a cruital part like that is both unessasry and damaging. A lot of people use antennas as bearings @SQUAD.

I'm fairly confident that the problems we are seeing are a result of the new unity update. Such an update could affect the way wheel suspension and joint and collider interactions are calculated, thus causing the changes we see even if squad didn't change any of their properties in terms of models or cfgs.

Now that I've heard about joints possibly being more flexible, I think that's probably what's causing the problems with my antenna bearings. When I suggested earlier that the antenna mesh might have gotten larger, I was really grasping in the dark, because I didn't see anything obviously different.

I seriously doubt squad intentionally changed the parts we used for bearing, because really, why would they?

Edited by EpicSpaceTroll139
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

Now that I've heard about joints possibly being more flexible, I think that's probably what's causing the problems with my antenna bearings.

Hmm. To Testing!

Will try to put stuff up later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am unable to buy the expansion right away.

Instead I've chosen to do something else.

My first turboprop in over a year. Slammed it together in less than an hour using soms aerodynamic advances I've learned. On its very first flight it immediately proved to have a top speed around 100 m/s (non-adjusted aero) and exhibits a really fantastic climb rate! Powered by just two Wheesley's. Part count: 80 for the airframe, 21 for the turbine/prop assembly. KSP 1.3.1.

BsNR8tx.png

 

After that I decided to improve the bearings, double the amount of blowers and give it 1600 units of fuel extra. Fuel economy and reliability are good, spent half of the fuel at 55 minutes.

4MNMOgp.png

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys, I tried my helicopters in KSP 1.4 and they are broken too. They all break EXCEPT the KG-3 Barracuda which seems as reliable as it was. I couldn't say why but maybe we can find some elements of answer here. If I had to guess I'd say using heavy parts for the bearing is the lucky charm.

LNkms2A.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

We'll figure it out ... and I really hope the lot of us can pressure T2/Squad to take some action.

If not ... there's this startup where I might take my motivation and creativity ... I'm sure some of you would be interested.

 

Edited by Azimech
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Azimech said:

We'll figure it out ... and I really hope the lot of us can pressure T2/Squad to take some action.

If not ... there's this startup where I might take my motivation and creativity ... I'm sure some of you would be interested.

 

Woah! :cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Azimech said:

We'll figure it out ... and I really hope the lot of us can pressure T2/Squad to take some action.

If not ... there's this startup where I might take my motivation and creativity ... I'm sure some of you would be interested.

 

Heck ya, lovin’ this stuff! Awesome video 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Results of I-beam join flexure test.

LO9OFFh.png

In KSP 1.3.1, 31.0 tons of propellant must be transferred into the tank to bend  a radially attached short I-beam joint by 6 degrees.

4rfGufN.png

In 1.4.1, 29.7 tons of propellant must be transferred into the tank to achieve the same deflection.

However, this is a difference of only 4.28%, which is probably within the margin of error. I could possibly set it up to be more sensitive by moving the angle guage outside the tank, but at that point phantom forces wiggling things around slightly* (due to high stress) could make it hard to figure out where on average it is.

I think you guys are right though that things are more flexy. It's probably more noticeable in small parts like solar panels and RCS balls and such. Those joints are harder to test in this way though.

 

*Actually just looked back at the setup which I left for 5 minutes while typing this, and it was swinging around like an elephant trunk lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/13/2018 at 6:47 PM, Azimech said:

Powered by just two Wheesley's

 Aww, those were so nice to tuck inside stuff if you needed hidden propulsion.  I guess I'm ok with a new turbo-engine tho.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, klond said:

 Aww, those were so nice to tuck inside stuff if you needed hidden propulsion.  I guess I'm ok with a new turbo-engine tho.

:-)

Together with the Gotliath the Wheesley has the highest ISP. It shows: a four blower version has a range of 730km (altitude 6000, 100m/s, 2480 units of fuel, total mass ~30t). This is with standard drag values. This means turboprops in KSP could start to compete with real world aircraft except the fact they're 10 times heavier. A Cessna 172 has a range of ~1500km, cruising at 3.6km and 63m/s.

So the Juno has fallen out of my grace except for tiny engines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Azimech said:

So the Juno has fallen out of my grace except for tiny engines.

I like the Junos for small VTOL craft, they have really good response. I hope 1.4 Junos are going to remain much the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, so my new cargo turboprop flies fine in 1.4.1.

But here's something special for you guys & gals. For the first time ever:
 

 

The propellor sound can be an expansion for Rover Wheel Sounds but ... I need a free high quality sample without background noise. The one in the video can't be used because ... it belongs to a different game.
 

 

Edited by Azimech
Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...