Jump to content

blowfish

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,559

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by blowfish

  1. blowfish
    As far as cylindrical payloads are concerned, both stock Mk3 and Nertea's MkIV can support 2.5m payloads at maximum. However, MkIV is a bit wider which is useful for rovers etc.
  2. blowfish
    Both ModuleEngines and ModuleEnginesFX are stock. The stock jets implement both an atmosphereCurve modulating Isp and a velocityCurve modulating thrust. Not that those two give anything close to a reasonable picture of how actual jets operate...
  3. blowfish
    It will make a difference. There's a reason that planes have tapered tails and don't just end in a blunt surface.
  4. blowfish
    The idea is to launch smaller chunks of a larger ship to be assembled with docking ports - not that every part is launched individually.
  5. blowfish
    None of the stock B9 craft have been balanced in a while. FAR underwent some major changes recently (adjustments to wing code, high mach skin drag) which could easily account for this. And the B9 thread looks fine to me.
  6. blowfish
    As far as I can tell AJE and FAR don't interact at all as far as inlet drag is concerned. AJE does a ram drag calculation but that is subtracted from thrust rather than affecting the inlet in any way.
  7. blowfish
    It's not a mod. Run the exe and select a folder to process (Folder -> Open). This can be GameData or some subfolder. Then go Folder->Export all to DDS. You probably don't need to worry about the settings, so just click ok in the dialogue that comes up. You also neeed DDSLoader (which is a mod) to get KSP to recognize the DDS textures.
  8. blowfish
    Whether struts are needed or not seems to be highly variable. I've built some two-segment designs with really bad wing flexing and some with none at all.
  9. blowfish
    Everything is functional on KSP 0.90 32 bit. Post your output_log.txt (found in KSP_Data) and maybe we can figure out why the crash is happening.
  10. blowfish
    FAR takes wing interactions into account, which means that biplanes don't work particularly well at subsonic speeds, and very badly at supersonic speeds.
  11. blowfish
    You'd have to go into RPM's configuration files and swap out the default MFDs for B9's.
  12. blowfish
    Is it reasonable to have bypass set just based on one parameter (mach number) without any user input? It would prevent you from, say, opening bypass doors on the runway in order to increase take-off thrust, and various other use cases.
  13. blowfish
    It does, but sometimes it takes some time to find it (I don't think searches are done very often). In any case looks like it's in CKAN now.
  14. blowfish
    I imagine that would have been painful :/ B9 already has configs for RF/MFT though, so it's probably easier to just piggy back off of those.
  15. blowfish
    What is this, an engine for ants? Anyway, it looks like the stock contracts are really out of balance with AJE - I was testing that engine at 23km and 550 m/s, which translates to almost no dynamic pressure and hence lift, control authority, or thrust. Not quite sure how that would be modified - maybe I'll look into it at some point. Also, I've made some progress on implementing variable bypass engines. I'm still not quite sure whether it should be a separate module or integrated into the existing AJEModule though. Any thoughts?
  16. blowfish
    Try patching RasterPropMonitor from the B9 download (CKAN should have it cached somewhere). I don't think the version it installs is up to date yet.
  17. blowfish
    I'm sure the model assumes some finite (but likely very small) thickness, but I don't think it comes up meaningfully in any of the calculations FAR does.
  18. blowfish
    I don't think it does. All FAR wings are modeled aerodynamically as thin surfaces specified 2-dimensional parameters - the actual shape of the wing model doesn't factor in anywhere.
  19. blowfish
    Can't speak for stock aero, but in FAR all wings are modeled as ideal aerodynamic bodies for which thickness is not a parameter. I don't think thickness affects mass either since FAR determines wing mass based on the strength slider. The aerodynamic properties of wing thickness could probably be modeled somehow but as usual it's probably more effort than it's worth. In any case it would encourage thin wings with lots of struts rather than reasonably-sized wings.
  20. blowfish
    Still sounds like Firespitter is broken. Try downloading the dll directly from snjo's GitHub page (linked in the Firespitter thread)
  21. blowfish
    Right, because KSP doesn't care if node vectors are parallel or antiparallel. In any case aerodynamic shielding still doesn't quite work with FAR, for unknown reasons.
  22. blowfish
    It's a fair bet that whatever Squad implements isn't going to be nearly as comprehensive as FAR. ferram4 expressed some worry that whatever changes they were making would break modability, but Squad has since stated that they will make sure that aerodynamic mods are still possible. So FAR isn't going anywhere any time soon. With improvements to stock aero many people will probably see less reason to try FAR but it's existing user base isn't going anywhere.
  23. blowfish
    Might I suggest smaller, more swept wings? Having wings extending beyond the edge of the nose shock like that tends to create a lot of drag. You really don't need a lot of wing to fly at hypersonic speeds, though of course it makes take off and landing a little more difficult.
  24. blowfish
    Another factor is wheel placement - the closer the rear wheels are to the CoM, the less pitch authority you need to lift up the nose.
  25. blowfish
    The cfg that ships with the mod has some issues, but I posted a corrected one a couple of pages back. The docking bay still has some problems though (which can't be fixed without model changes), but apparently the docking port doesn't work anyway so just don't use it for now.
×
×
  • Create New...