Jump to content

Wanderfound

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,893

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Wanderfound

    [0.24] Spaceplane Plus 1.3

    in KSP1 Mod Releases

    Posted

    No, not at all what I mean.

    Module refers to the 'MODULE' config node that you insert into the part's *.cfg file

    Edit the cockpit's config file and insert


    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleDecouple
        ejectionForce = 250
        explosiveNodeID = bottom
    }

    Hmmn...I might just do that to all of my cockpits, SP+ and stock. Thanks.

    What is your definition of air hogging

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    Good luck. A spaceplane will always take longer than a conventional rocket, unless you make it so powerful that it's just a conventional rocket with wings tacked on. Just the nature of the ascent profile. Though if you like planes, more time flying them hardly seems like a penalty. :)

    Yup. Not looking to beat rockets, just looking to beat "it takes ages...".

    We've already got runway-to-orbit times of six minutes for a serious cargo plane and four minutes for a specialised speedster, and I reckon there's a minute or two to be shaved off yet.

    What is your definition of air hogging

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    Now I can fly it with only 2 ram intakes it does take a while ( hate the wait to get up to altitude ) and its rather boring. I say have some fun with it and unless your in a challenge that limits parts then see what ya can do.

    I'm currently working on disproving the "spaceplanes take too long to get to orbit" thing, BTW. See http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90354-Spaceplane-speed-challenge-shortest-elapsed-time-from-runway-to-orbit

    Testing times

    in KSP1 Mission Reports

    Posted

    I'm pretty sure I've seen a couple of your spaceplanes around somewhere, have you got a thread or something for it?

    I don't have a dedicated design thread, but they're all called Kerbodyne something-or-other. If you google "Wanderfound Kerbodyne" you should find them all.

    Spaceplane speed challenge: shortest elapsed time from runway to orbit.

    in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas

    Posted

    Yeah, stock aero. I missed the FAR thing but, really you should have two leaderboards. I think stock aero would be slower than FAR anyway as it has more drag.

    The engine rule would mean weight which is critical for your time, and rockets with HOTOL would under-perform a spaceplane. If you get big rocket entries and they would need to be disqualified with some sort of rule like part count or mass. Hard to say because my flight profile was basically like a rocket except the brief level-out to maximise energy into orbit during turbo peak 800-1200m/s. I don't see how HOTOL rockets are going to compete with the performance of turbos through atmo given their fuel consumption.

    I'm happy to track stock/FAR/NEAR as separate categories; the more the merrier. The big limitation for FAR is aerodynamic failure; you can't pile on serious Mach numbers at low altitude without shattering the airframe.

    As for HOTOL rockets...if someone wants to do that, go for it. But the intention is to see who can get a spaceplane to orbit the fastest.

    I'm not going to disqualify anyone who wants to stretch the rules and build something creative, but I'm likely to make a separate category for "blatantly not really a spaceplane" if it comes up. Unfortunately, there really isn't an objective way to tightly define what is and isn't a spaceplane. It's one of those "know it when you see it" things.

    Help me understand jet engines

    in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials

    Posted

    Thanks for the replies all.

    And Laie, I used to have a terrible time making atmospheric craft until I started always building with the center of mass/center of life/center of thrust marks ticked on. Once I got a grasp on how they all interact, building stable atmospheric craft became markedly easier.

    Also, and someone please tell me if I'm wrong, but I've noticed installing an SAS module and flying with T and R turned on helps a lot too. Especially helpful with takeoff, as without them I wobble and dip and crash into the runway half the time.

    Hmm maybe I'm using the wrong name for the module. All cockpits have SAS, I know. What I'm talking about is the ones like the gyroscopic one and the next model up from that (can't open KSP right now to take a look, but I'm sure you guys know what I mean. Should those be used on planes and should I be flying around with T and R always checked, or am I gaming the system that way?

    All's fair in love and Kerbal.

    A well done plane can get by without torque or RCS, but they do make it a lot easier. The way I look at it, ASAS units on a plane are the equivalent of the fancy computerised aeronautics packages that are used by all modern fighters. Those things are so unstable that they'd be completely unflyable without them. In a modern dogfighter, the computer flies the plane; the pilot just tells it what he'd like it to do.

    RCS is handy on aircraft (vectored thrust! Harrier for the win!), but keep it turned off most of the time or you'll waste fuel. Just flick it on and off as and when needed.

    Incidentally, if you like RCS, start playing around with the Vernors. Each one has the thrust of eleven linear RCS ports. They're very handy for making unruly aircraft behave, or making better aircraft do ludicrous tricks. Useful for building Munar VTOLs, too.

    Kerbodyne Velociraptor: light cargo express SSTO for Spaceplane Plus and FAR

    in KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange

    Posted · Edited by Wanderfound

    First attempt with your second iteration

    Took off, all good until around 25000m started getting a bit squirrelly. Hit 30k lost air, fired up rockets

    got into 80km orbit without trouble.

    Did some science (science around kerbin contract).

    Landed at KSC (well next to KSC)

    Drove up onto runway, recovered for 100%

    Always good to see a happy customer. :)

    Was that with NEAR or FAR?

    The reason that you're finding things harder to control at high altitude with FAR is probably because FAR more realistically models the effects of supersonic drag. In the real world, the behaviour of the air changes substantially at supersonic speeds. Drag increases, and conventional control surfaces lose much of their effectiveness. This is why I always tend to put some all-moving surfaces on the nose.

    It's worth using quicksave/quickload while you're adapting to FAR. Save every 1,000m or so, and when it goes wrong just reload and try again until you figure out how to get through it. Think of it as spending some time in the flight simulator training.

    There's a good reason why fighter pilots get lots of training; supersonic jets are tricky to fly, and when stuff goes wrong it does so very rapidly. It's just the nature of the beast.

    Help me understand jet engines

    in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials

    Posted

    That really depends on what you call overpowered. Their thrust ratings are on the upper end of real world mainstream jet engines, but certainly nothing exceptional. The RR RB211 and Olympus 593 produce somewhere in the 200kN range. If you strapped a couple of those RR engines onto a 10-20t aircraft in the real world, it would happily do a vertical climb on them.

    If you're only going to have 2 jet engines, a basic/subsonic one, and an advanced/supersonic one, KSP currently has approximately the correct choice, as less powerful would inhibit building larger aircraft, or building mach 3+ aircraft.

    Under stock aero, a single-turbojet basic plane can do better than Mach 6. That's scramjet territory. If you're having fun with it, that's all cool, but it's a long way from realistic.

    Help me understand jet engines

    in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials

    Posted

    Things don't have to be that way: there are mods that change this to a more realistic (or at any rate, more credible) behavior. They're called NEAR and FAR -- the FAR fanboys are sure to be around shortly.

    That would be me. :)

    And, yeah; the treatment of atmospheric craft in stock is ridiculous. That's why they don't make sense. Install FAR or NEAR if you want them to behave sensibly.

    0.25 Discussion thread

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    What I really only want is ........

    BLACK HOLES!!!!!!

    there is 0.5% chance to see it in GUI and when you reach it you have 90% to die and 10% to go future , and when you back to earth there will be cities , new planets , English language and terrformed duna

    i know what you guys saying its 99% impossible

    A lot more than 99%. You're going to be pulped long before you get anywhere near the event horizon. Reinforcing your ship won't help; the forces involved are strong enough to distort atomic structure. Read up on neutron stars and then consider that black holes are a lot more powerful than that.

    Kerbodyne Velociraptor: light cargo express SSTO for Spaceplane Plus and FAR

    in KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange

    Posted

    Okay: the Kerbodyne Velociraptor Mk2: https://www.dropbox.com/s/s231vw8argy5vjm/Kerbodyne%20Velociraptor%202%20ST.craft

    This should be substantially easier to fly, although it's still more Ferrari than family sedan. Keep the angle of attack below 20° and use the Vernors to keep control if it gets squirrely. There is still a bit of a tendency for the nose to climb if you try to ascend too steeply. Keep the aerospikes off until the RAPIERs flick to closed cycle.

    screenshot369_zps8baad1b4.png

    [1.3.1] Ferram Aerospace Research: v0.15.9.1 "Liepmann" 4/2/18

    in KSP1 Mod Releases

    Posted

    This is an interesting mod and I'm wondering if I should try it. I'm pretty good with rockets, but my space plane skills have a long way to go. Would you recommend me trying the mod now or waiting until I have improved my flying without it first?

    FAR makes planes fly like planes, which for me is much more intuitive. But FAR makes you worry about aerodynamic failure, while with NEAR you can slam your plane sideways into the airstream as much as you like. Give 'em both a try and see which is more fun for you.

    Kerbodyne Velociraptor: light cargo express SSTO for Spaceplane Plus and FAR

    in KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange

    Posted · Edited by Wanderfound

    So it is probably my lack of piloting skills but I decided to try loading up FAR. For some reason I totally can't fly this plane with FAR. I left it as is (removed the cargo) and I just find it terribly hard to control.

    It is fairly twitchy and very high-performance; it's designed for climbing straight to space, not performing aerobatics (you want bigger wings for that). Winding down the control maximum on the surfaces (especially the front ones) is probably a good idea and don't try to go too fast until you've got it over 10,000m. Watch the flight condition indicator and try to keep it at nominal.

    Also, I fly by keyboard, with taps at the controls rather than holding them down. Are you using a joystick?

    I've been playing around with a second version where the central turbojets are replaced by aerospikes. Not quite as fast as the original in atmosphere (at least while the aerospikes are turned off), but faster and more fuel efficient in space as well as being easier to control. I'll see if I can put up a craft file for that today.

    Testing times

    in KSP1 Mission Reports

    Posted

    Awww Shucks is often used as a bashful version of "Thank You," at least in the rural parts where I'm from. Now I'm curious how Google translated it.

    Anyway - this makes me want to restart the SSTO cargo plane project I was working on back in 0.22 or 0.23. I could never get to a happy point where the payload capacity justified the effort. You seem to have that bit figured out. I may need to borrow some of this for inspiration. ;)

    Feel free: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/88628-Kerbodyne-D7-Heavy-X5-a-heavy-lift-SSTO-spaceplane

    Testing times

    in KSP1 Mission Reports

    Posted

    What does shucks mean? (non-native english speaker here)

    *uses Google Translator*

    Oh no, that was meant seriously! I'm pretty sure I've seen a couple of your spaceplanes around somewhere, have you got a thread or something for it?

    And about that tail off-blowing, is that only because of FAR? I had FAR and thought "Oh yeah finally I can fly some fighter jets realistically", so I turned, pulled full up at full throttle and BANG! Aerodynamic failure. I think I'm gonna reinstall it soon if I've got enough time to build some spaceplanes, currently I'm working on a space station. Maybe I could use the spaceplanes to bring the parts into orbit? :huh: Not a bad idea, tho. *starts KSP*

    Cydonian has it right on the "shucks"; it's a way of saying "thank you" for a compliment while trying not to seem overly conceited. I'm also curious what Google told you...

    Blowing off the tail wasn't a FAR-induced aerodynamic failure (which does happen a lot with big planes, which is why the wings are heavily strutted). It was because the tail was directly in the path of a very big rocket exhaust. Incinerated rather than snapped.

    What's Wrong With My SSTO?

    in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials

    Posted

    Thanks. Honestly not sure whether to start from scratch again, but this is as close as I've got to a functional SSTO so it makes me wanna try to fix it.

    You CoL is way too far back; you want the spherical part of the CoL/CoM indicators to be touching each other. If you do that, you'll find it much easier to keep the nose up. Instead of adding more surfaces to the front, remove some of the decorative panels from the rear fuselage.

    The fact that it's happening in vacuum strongly suggests that it's nothing to do with CoL, though. Does it have any RCS or ASAS units? Is the RCS on when it's happening?

    What's Wrong With My SSTO?

    in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials

    Posted · Edited by Wanderfound

    How would I combat this?

    The RCS Build aid mod also gives you CoM with both full and empty tanks (without having to faff about with tweakables) and measures the distance between the two. If it's more than 1m on a spaceplane, you should think about rearranging your tanks. Spread your fuel load laterally rather than longitudinally and use fuel lines to control the order in which they drain.

    CoL needs to be behind CoM at all stages of the flight. Only a smidge, though; the indicators should overlap. The fact that it's happening in vacuum suggests that it's probably a CoM/CoT misalignment rather than anything to do with the aero, though. Unbalanced RCS might also be a problem.

    At a first guess, I'd say that your aerospikes are aimed slightly below your CoM. You can get away with this at low altitude, because the aero surfaces will counter it. But in the stratosphere or space, there isn't enough counterforce to compensate.

    As mentioned above: give us screenshots in the SPH, from above and the side, with CoM/CoL/CoT indicators on, with tanks both empty and full. The spaceplane crew can diagnose most issues, but we need some info to work with.

    We'll also need to know if you're using stock aero, NEAR or FAR. You've got a huge amount of wing surface on that thing; that'll work in stock, but it's counterproductive with realistic aero.

×
×
  • Create New...