Jump to content

blowfish

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,559

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by blowfish

  1. blowfish
    General update, for anyone who's managed to sort out their subscriptions at this point The gimbal module that B9 uses, KM_Gimbal_3, is currently incompatible with the particular setup that B9 engines have. It should be possible to fix, however I'm not sure how long it will take. The F119 now has separate afterburning and dry engine modules, and more stockalike thrust curves. The turbojet will follow, then the rest of the engines (no afterburning modules obviously) I discovered that intakes need some adjustment I've included a new plugin, B9 Animation Modules, which includes a few animation modules specific to B9 In order to avoid having to change the animations on the F119's model (which I don't have access to anyway, there is ModuleB9AnimateEngineMultiMode. It gives some variation with mach number too. KineTechAnimation will go away in a few commits, as I have replaced the single module we use from it with ModuleB9AnimateIntake A bug with the stock ModuleFXAnimateThrottle prevents it from being used with the F119's heat animation. Fixed in ModuleB9AnimateThrottle
  2. blowfish
    Pressure-fed engines still require ullage - even if the tank is highly pressurized, there's nothing keeping the propellant at the right end of the tank. RCS generally uses special tanks which keep the fuel in the right place (bladder or surface tension membrane).
  3. blowfish
    [quote name='Shadowmage']1.) I -think- I know what you are talking about; where there is a split between the tank cap and thrust plate / not one big flat plate; specifically the XL mount. I'm trying to make the mount as generic and compatible with as many layouts as possible. However, I think I can probably still pull that off (for the XL mount), but will require a bit more experimentation. Most of the engine layouts are already radial / center based, so having an outer ring with an secondary inner plate might work. I don't think I could do it for the other two mounts, but they are intended for smaller/tighter clusters anyhow. Will play around with it and post some updated pics here in a bit.[/QUOTE] I was referring to the large mount too. I think that given how small the actual mounting geometry on the engines is, and given that the spacing on the engine clusters is now adjustable, that it could work even there. But I suppose there are engines for which this would create problems - especially the RL10-B2 which has more extended connection geometry.
  4. blowfish
    Amazing work as usual :) Couple of nitpicks about the mounts (AKA feel free to just ignore them :D): [list] [*]I like the annular thrust place on the current HUS. Any chance you could narrow the end of the tank in order to separate it from the thrust plate? [*]Likewise, I think that having the intertank have X shaped trusses but the mount have triangular trusses adds variety. Any chance this could be brought back? [/list] Other than those two (very minor) things, I love what you've done with these. Can't wait to try them out in game.
  5. blowfish
    Rockets are naturally unstable, and are controlled by thrust vectoring. If the fairing isn't too much wider than the rocket, this should be enough (with SAS on). Just don't deviate more than 5ish degrees from prograde.
  6. blowfish
    OnStart() for each module is triggered by part.Start(). Since the part was added before any if its modules, Unity seems to call part.Start() before Start() for each of the modules. This means that OnStart() will run for all modules before Start() runs for any of them. Of course, this is still incredibly hacky and not at all guaranteed to not break at some point in the future, but it seems to work for the moment.
  7. blowfish
    [quote name='Shadowmage']Try changing either the mount type or mount size away from the default, and back to it; there is currently a bug where the fairing module is not yet initialized when the engine cluster module runs; so the fairing never gets populated with the defaults (stock problem regarding lack of proper multi-pass module initialization routines). Mostly solved in dev through some hacky workarounds, so you will likely see this fixed in the next update.[/QUOTE] The hacky workaround I found is that Start() is called after OnStart() for PartModules ... is yours this or something else?
  8. blowfish
    FYI, you're going to get a lot of drag from that probe core clipped into the nose (it won't be shielded). I'd recommend putting it in a cargo bay.
  9. blowfish
    [quote name='mjl1966']I don't get it. I put on a 2.5 plate and it holds - one engine. I don't see how to cluster. Yes, I'm being serious here. What am I missing?[/QUOTE] Surface attachment?
  10. blowfish
    [quote name='Shadowmage']Might also be including unmanned-probe-core capability, and am contemplating including a variable-torque SAS module (torque would vary with size of the tank). I'm personally not too fond of the KSP 'magic-torque' system... but it is the stock system...[/QUOTE] +1 for the probe core capability, particularly since it's just a few lines in the cfg. I also am less a fan of reaction wheels, particularly for expendable stages ... you'd be surprised how far a little RCS fuel will go when you don't blatantly waste it. [quote name='Shadowmage']Well, some of that is still in-flux. Have not decided if I will be including some Monoprop in the base tanks for the RCS, or if they will be verniers consuming LF+O. Might just use Monoprop for both the RCS and fuel-cell, to make sure they are still operable when alternate fuels are selected for the upper-stage.[/QUOTE] Interesting question ... as far as real life goes, I think that expandable stages have traditionally used a dedicated monopropellant (hydrazine/nitrogen/whatever) reserve, but newer designs have begun to take advantage of boiloff from the tanks for both RCS and power generation - the goal being enabling longer, more flexible missions and reduced mass (monoprop tanks and batteries). So setting the RCS and fuel cell to both use LFO might be reasonable.
  11. blowfish
    [quote name='JoseEduardo']well, they could be added as a top endcap for tanks with some RCS, probe control and reaction wheels strong enough to help maneuvering the rocket, like KW had the radial reaction wheels for the tanks, which were far more powerful than stock ones (well, they had to move a 5m tank around where the biggest ingame are the 3.75m ones that doesn't even have a reaction wheel :P ), of course, in order for the RCS to have any practical meaning the reaction wheels couldn't be so strong, the RCS units could run in LFO from the tanks and give even more power to move the rocket around :) although that would have a weight gain of course, so having a IU for each tank could be a bit counterproductive :P[/QUOTE] I'm not sure I see the use case for this ... on a lower stage, it probably has gimbaling and you're going to get rid of it as soon as it's spent. On an upper stage, Shadowmage is planning specific parts with control, RCS, and possibly power generation.
  12. blowfish
    [quote name='MrMeeb']2) Pls pls pls RealPlume support :3 [/QUOTE] RealPlume support isn't really maintained by individual mods. The configs are in the RealPlume-StockConfigs repository.
  13. blowfish
    [quote name='Van Disaster']Well, no, it won't necessarily disappear ( it doesn't ) above 1.2, but it it steady state. B9 pW uses it's own shader so I wasn't really expecting aero viz to work - although you can see an effect if you have an open wingtip. Mostly I was confirming my suspicions that it was showing wave drag in the first place, because that's the first supersonic thing I've recently built big enough for a specific effect like that not to not get lost in noise. Actually fixing the issue is another matter - I don't know much about shaping the back end of wings and I don't really want to add more wing panels. Sticking anti-shock bodies to the fuselage helped, but not a terribly elegant solution. [url=https://flic.kr/p/BpYXyS][url]https://farm1.staticflickr.com/567/23243879486_4481411936_c.jpg[/url][/url] Incidentally is this another one of yours, Ferram? [code] [ERR 08:06:31.687] The hull has more than 255 polygons. This is invalid. [/code] It's probably blowfish's cockpit which has a broken collider, but just checking.[/QUOTE] It would be that ... I thought we talked about this on IRC though.
  14. blowfish
    [quote name='Van Disaster']Note/reminder: the cockpit's collider is invalid, appears to be over the 255 poly limit. Why it's that way now, *shrug*.[/QUOTE] For some reason 1.0.5 forces all colliders to be convex, and convex colliders have a 255 poly limit. I can probably fix this pretty quickly.
  15. blowfish
    Re: RAPIER - I think that any turbine engine designed to even approach Mach 5 would need to be precooled, and thus would need cryogenic fuel. LH2 is ideal, but liquid methane provides an interesting intermediate when hydrogen-fueled engines are also available. Not sure if methane gives you the efficiency you need to reach orbit in 64k/RSS though - particularly since most of your delta-v is in rocket mode. Re conventional jets and cryogenics: you're correct that it doesn't really make sense to use cryogenics for lower speeds. The main issue is the volume penalty - methane is about half as dense as kerosene and hydrogen is much less dense, but you also have to contend with pressurized tanks, which means that you can't store fuel in the wings anymore and space efficiency in the fuselage also goes down. I've toyed with models of some precooled methane jets which either allow higher top speed or higher efficiency (by increasing the compression ratio), but that's way outside the scope of RF stockalike and probably even outside the scope of AJE.
  16. blowfish
    [quote name='doudou']Hello , first of all thank you for this very promising mod ! Is it possible to have launchers .craft ? Thank you[/QUOTE] The download includes some craft files. Not sure how up to date they are.
  17. blowfish
    [quote name='asgkatz']Is it ever necessary to have more than one version of the .dll? For example, if a certain mod comes with an older version? Or will it work fine with newest as well?[/QUOTE] Like Sigma88 said, the newest will take priority, but it's good practice to remove the old ones too.
  18. blowfish
    Those upper stages are almost exactly what I hoped they'd be :) This is pretty trivial, but I'm curious how you're going to handle the fuel lines - are you planning a single generic setup or switchable options to cover different numbers of engines being mounted on the bottom? And re: solar panels - I think they're unnecessary for a stage that's probably not going to be used for more than a few hours. If power generation is necessary, I think a fuel cell module would be fine, particularly since the cost on the assets side is basically zero :)
  19. blowfish
    [quote name='Shadowmage']Like I said; it does not work when you have multiple animations on the part due to stock drag cube bugs. Simply having a 'cabin lights animation' will kill the ability to use parachutes/kill the parachutes drag cube ... If it was actually working, and you turned on the cabin lights, you would start plummeting to your doom with no way to recover (even though the parachute was still attached, and fully deployed!).[/QUOTE] It wouldn't fix any of the issues parachutes have by themselves, but it might be simpler to write a new generic animation module that doesn't affect drag cubes. Especially for something as simple as a light animation, the module should be pretty short.
  20. blowfish
    One other option for fuel in the upper stages is to allow a "bare tank end" option (like the top of the ICPS and HUS as you have them), and add another node (as on the ICPS) that allows the engine cluster base to "clip" into the tank. I can make mockups if that doesn't make sense.
  21. blowfish
    [quote name='Paul_Sawyer']Hello, guys! I'm a new player at KSP and FAR, and have very little knowledge about aerodynamics, so I would really appreciate any help. I'm trying to build some kind of a passenger jet liner using stock parts - original and resized with Tweakscale. [url]http://i.imgur.com/uoUH7b6.png[/url] [url]http://i.imgur.com/uVkvzbd.png[/url] It looks pretty much like the real ones and the derivatives are all green. Problem is that with this configuration it completely rejects to fly. It just pitches the nose up and happily rolls off the runway straight into the ground. What is especially confusing for me in this is that if I'm not mistaken the lift affecting the wings is quiet OK: [url]http://i.imgur.com/cPK8zNv.png[/url] [url]http://i.imgur.com/iqWuOvW.png[/url] It seems to me that the problem is somehow connected to these aeroplane wings (maybe the fact that they were resized?), because I have another craft with them, showing the same behavior, although I'm not sure what is so problematic about them.[/QUOTE] Well one problem is that the control surfaces on the back of your wings are trying to pitch and likely killing your lift. You should probably disable pitch on those surfaces. Maybe enable them as flaps too, that'll add a bit of lift. For a subsonic plane you likely want to angle the wings up a bit as well (lengthwise, so they have a positive AoA when you're sitting on the runway).
  22. blowfish
    [quote name='Starwaster']Or other engine packs...[/QUOTE] In general, yes, but are there any other active ones right now?
  23. blowfish
    I think that configuring parts like fuel cells is probably more the responsibility of the individual engine config mods, i.e. Realism Overhaul and RF Stockalike.
  24. blowfish
    I'm not trying to excuse Squad's doing this without telling anyone, but aren't there justifiable performance concerns for why all colliders in KSP should be convex, even if it requires more colliders?
  25. blowfish
    [quote name='kcs123']Link for download is same one from github, in OP ? Asking because it is not provided in your post or in signature. camlost is silent for long time too, so people might not be sure is it link in OP still valid one.[/QUOTE] Correct, you can always get the latest release from Github.
×
×
  • Create New...