Jump to content

FleshJeb

Members
  • Posts

    1,733
  • Joined

Everything posted by FleshJeb

  1. Zombie is a great song because it contextualizes and represents history in a way that no dry paragraph in a textbook ever could. All that pain, anger, and frustration just come pouring out of Dolores. It makes society remember and respect the event far longer than otherwise. I think it's up there with a lot of the great songs that came out of the Vietnam War era. Youngsters who like the tune eventually learn that people lived and died for that music.
  2. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150019648.pdf https://engineering.purdue.edu/people/kathleen.howell.1/Publications/Conferences/2017_IAA_ZimHowDav.pdf I'm sure I googled the same stuff you guys did, but there it is. I read through both papers, and while the math is over my head (FOR NOW cackle), I understand that complex dynamic systems have stable and unstable regimes. The Purdue paper is particularly interesting for how they quantify and examine these things. I had a Spock-like "Fascinating" moment while reading it. On the subject of technical papers: Earlier today I read a really interesting National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Aircraft Accident Report: http://www.rvs.uni-bielefeld.de/publications/Incidents/DOCS/ComAndRep/ChinaAir/AAR8603.html The way the NTSB investigates and dissects an accident, including the human factors, is extraordinary. From these reports, new procedures and regulations are developed. As a lot of pilots like to say, "Regulations are paid for in blood." Meaning, they take them very seriously. Now, my interests are typically what space exploration will look like in 100-200 years, so I don't pay a lot of attention to current events or the immediate future. I've been holding the commonly-shared opinion that the Moon is not a very interesting place, and we might as well skip it and go to Mars. As LOL-tastic as KSP can be, it's still a very "clean" experience compared to real life. We need to actually GO and break things and make mistakes and learn from them. From reading the papers on NRHOs, I've realized that the Moon IS an interesting environment, and a fairly convenient one. The lessons we learn from exploring and inhabiting those subtle orbital dynamics will be useful no matter where we explore in the future. Thanks for that great term @sh1pman.
  3. I really want to play a game of 40k in KSP now.
  4. Whacky -- do you think you can beat this?

    Much love.

    1. Show previous comments  2 more
    2. Whackjob

      Whackjob

      Yeah.  Even the rocket engines on the outside columns.   ONE strut holding them perfectly in place?  No chance.  One, all that thrust on a weak connection, and no shearing?  Doubtful.  Two, no oscillation at all?  Even if he turned off thrust vectoring on those motors, the slightest tiny oscillation by any motor would cause all the other ones to oscillate, and that whole stack would start whipping around like a noodle.  I know, I spent weeks figuring out how to tame that particular beast.  Too rigid and you get shearing.  Too weak and you get angry whipping noodle.  You need a happy medium, and that's the truss cage system.  It's the best solution I ever found, and it's a whole lot of reinforcement.  This has no reinforcement in comparison.  A picture:

      wR4WMI2.png

      THAT is the epitome, the strongest design of a truss cage I've ever come up with.  It's hard to see, but between tanks, it isn't tank-strut-tank, it's tank-truss-strut-truss-tank, and further reinforced by using equilateral triangles.  You can see it right there.  Also note that is using the smaller radii parts, before the real large ones came out.  That's the reinforcement it took for something that weighed a lot but had smaller parts.  Anything short of that would have caused angrynoodle or shearing.

      I'm comfortable in my assertions, given I've spent a seriously long time building really big.  That being said, I was recently beaten soundly by Scott Manley, and I can't even be mad about that.  He's legitimate.

    3. FleshJeb

      FleshJeb

      Agreed. I noticed the engines vectoring during the launch. They should have torn it apart.

      Here's a question I've never seen satisfactorily answered: We know that node size is an indicator of connection strength, but what other factors come into play? There is some proof that connecting to something massive is good, but I've also noticed that impact tolerance seems to have an effect. I learned a long time ago that connecting wheels to girders and structural panels vastly increases the joint strength.

      Can you confirm this? Obviously, you're using girders above--It's got to be more than just an aesthetic choice.

    4. Whackjob

      Whackjob

      I can, in a way.  From my experience, struts increase rigidity, but not flexibility.  You can put fifteen struts between two tanks, and they'll move a huge amount less in relation to each other.  However, struts are also prone to stress failure and shearing.  A real good twist or knock or torque will unzipper the whole thing.  This is when high mass is involved, mind you.  Now, trusses, they have some rigidity, but can also flex a great deal.  By combining the two, I got the best results out of any combination.

      Look again at my example picture above.  See how I formed equilateral triangles?  From the center stack, I put two medium trusses out, and put the next column.  The two trusses is strategic.  For the outside-to-outside, I put on truss on each side.  Mirrored as it is, it puts two trusses that sort of touch in the middle.  BUT, they are not connected.  Using some fancy camera work, I can put a strut in there that connects one to the other.  That link, plus the equilateral triangles, is what gives that shape its strength.

      Oh, I notice you call them girders.  I call them trusses, just for reference.  As far as node size reflecting strength, I believe that only comes into play with the cylandric tanks, and even then, only at the snap-on joints at the ends.  Those are considerably stronger than what they were in the past, but seem to be only in forces that pull them apart.  Shearing forces still shear about as well, and compression is still absolutely an issue.  I have an engine cluster I play around with quite a bit.  I can't remember the motor name, but it's one of the newer ones, the large scale, it's a tank with two nozzles on the end, and the radius of the tank is the same as the rockomax 64s tanks.  The engine cluster I use has I think 24 of them clipped inside of a tank (legit parts clipping, no mods / cheats) that ends up with a cluster with 144,000 thrust.  That under the usual tank stack can create compression enough to cause detonation.

      Better yet, I found a picture:

      6QbImsq.png

      To explain what you're seeing here, the motors are inside the tank, but have that medium truss attacked to the motor, but protruding from the tank.  The fuel line runs the fuel from the tank stack to the truss, which inexplicably allows for fuel transfer in to the motor it's actually attached to.  Here is three of them in flight:

      ZWHiz7m.png

      That's just fun.

  5. I like rovers that can survive high-speed rollovers and multi-kilometer tumbles. They're designed with a lot of redundancy for long-range roving, and they peel like onions when they crash. You'd have to lose a lot of parts before the crew could get hurt, or you're unable to drive: Testing after airdropping:
  6. Two years is a long time in heatsink-land--Especially on a laptop. Mine was having the same problems until I cleaned it. I didn't even take the cover off, I just blew canned air into the intakes, and then a bit into the outlets. Not my picture:
  7. No seatbelt necessary. It provides a good, snug fit.
  8. Blow the dust out of the heatsinks, man. Also, take the side of the case off--That's 5deg C right there. Barring all that, re-paste and re-seat the heatsinks.
  9. This is why I ONLY drive with MechJeb's Rover Autopilot, with Stability Assist on. (Well over 5000km worth) There's a couple of other mods and KOS scripts that do the same thing.
  10. You could modify it with a Module Manager patch. I couldn't find an existing one here, but you could ask someone to write one for you:
  11. I think we're all forgetting Rule Zero: "Never ask Squad to implement a feature that a mod already does better, for it shall be buggier, and less polished." <Insert long screed (referencing Snark's points regarding financial ROI) as to why John Maynard Keynes was right.>
  12. Have you tried getting rid of the radiators? They're basically useless for shedding heat while moving, and they're super-draggy. The fairing (if properly constructed) should protect the Vector with no problems. I suspect that the Vector, or a nearby part, is experiencing drag. The heat and drag occlusion model in KSP is pretty bad. Things that look like they should work, don't. Intuitive aerodynamic design in KSP is a myth. You have to look at the numbers. The problem might be the rapid size transition from the fairing baseplate to the engine, and a bad fairing. What I would do is flip on the Thermal and Drag cheats for the pop-up menus, (Alt-F12 menu) then right-click on the engine as the craft aerobrakes. Look at the parts in the area. If anything is experiencing a lot of drag, that's the culprit. Also, Corona, Tyko, and Foxster are probably right.
  13. For the record, you can fit six howitzers in a Mk2 Cargo Bay and still have room for spare ammo. Set them to Barrage. It also helps to designate hotkeys for the FLIR ball in the BDA hotkey manager..
  14. They're waiting for Burt's sideburns to hit Optimum Launch Length.
  15. Everything I know about safe opening, I learned from Richard Feynman.
  16. I know of a guy that gets paid to write music for videogames:
  17. I'm head-nodding and grooving -- $5.00 well spent. Everyone should donate money to Cupcake, because he's the best we have. How do those motor launches work NOW?
  18. @exbyde @drtricky Yeah, I agree, a plane should carry as many guns (with ammo) as it can support. I built the Be Gentle, so I'm used to 3 guns. On another note, I think this competition is making me forget it's supposed to be for fun. I was very rude in PMs to a couple of fellows that were just trying to offer some good advice. I'll have to apologize in the morning. In addition, I've gone and broken my dang plane and lost the earlier, much more successful version. VERY frustrating. I'm going to retire from the competition after I've submitted one more that works.
  19. @HeroBrian_333 Any restriction on the number of fixed guns? It's been privately insinuated that I'm being spammy by mounting three Vulcans... I'm trying to build a raging murder-machine here, not some delicate flower of aerodynamics. They look real pretty when they fall out of the sky.
  20. I can only accuse myself of being a short-sighted idiot for that one.
  21. The atmo TWR won't even lift the engine until you hit 3.5km. Am I allowed to use a 4km-high launch clamp?
  22. OK. It's the first time it's happened so far, so I thought it might be craft-specific. I'm packing two AIM-120s and two Sidewinders, but it usually doesn't get all of them off before the gunfight starts. I'm hitting the merge FAST. PMed you the craft so you can experiment if you feel like. I still need to polish a few things and run more tests before I submit.
  23. It took me a while to find the download link. @HeroBrian_333, I know you're short on time, but could you comb the thread and add all the craft downloads to the OP? Just tried two 3v3s: 3-0 (One of mine lost a wing and a nose, but was still in fighting shape. No damage to the other 2). 3-1 (Complete loss on one of mine, no damage to the other 2). EDIT: While on the ground, the F-25 leaps into the air on quickload and destroys its engines. It could be a bug on my part, but I've done two separate setups. You may want to look at your landing gear settings.
  24. I respect the heck out of what your plane has been able to accomplish (and I stole some AI Pilot settings from it), do you mind if I try to fix that flaw?
×
×
  • Create New...