Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BlueCanary

  1. I love that imgur embeds work better now, also notifications when you're quoted are awesome. I don't like that old threads have got messed up and the color scheme is a bit bright (read: eyeball searing white hot beam BURNING WITH A FURIOUS BLAZE, HOTTER THAN THE VERY SURFACE OF THE SUN), but other than that most things, eg. the changes to rep and stuff, just seem like things which arwn't bad, but just need some time to get used to.
  2. I tried making a harrier: It sucked - too heavy, so barely limps off the ground with two wheesleys, and then it's painfully slow in forwards flight as it only has a single panther. Maneuverable, but the anhedral on the wing means it can enter an unrecoverable spin if yawed too hard. Then I tried rebuilding from the ground up, not trying to make it look at all like a real Harrier, and it's worked much better. Can VTOL on an (almost - the front NCS adaptor is empty for balance) full fuel load, and flies very nicely in both forward and vertical flight, although vertical TWR is low when on full fuel. It's also only 29 parts, which isn't bad considering most of the other VTOLs I've made have been huge overengineered monsters. Cruise performance is poor and speed maxes out at around Mach 1.2 in a dive, but since the main objective of the design is to be a ship launched light attack plane range and speed aren't too vital anyway since it'll start off close to the target anyway.
  3. THANKYOUthankyouthankyou I've been looking for that for so long I tried making an A4 Skyhawk style light attack plane to fly off carriers (still too WIP even for the WIP thread, but coming on nicely), and although it ended up more like the A4 in function than form thanks to needing canards to get the balance right it is still quite a nice plane, very maneuverable, great high angle of attack performance with 40+ degrees AoA straight and level flight at 20m/s (although I'm not sure exactly what that's useful for), with reasonable speed for a wheesley plane and long range too. It's 26 parts and 9 tonnes, with a top speed of Mach 1.
  4. I made a heavy lift VTOL for shunting cargo around bases, until KER comes back it's hard to tell what it's max payload is but you can see it here hauling 45 tonnes without too much difficulty, so it looks promising. Range is probably quite low, it does burn fuel quite fast and it has no aerodynamic lift so cruise is no more efficient than hover, but the aim was more moving heavy loads short distances so I'm not too bothered about that. Can land on the VAB helipad, the main difficulty flying this is really the unbearable lag from the exhaust effects hitting the ground. Please please please somebody find a way to turn that off without disabling the entire exhaust, it's driving me crazy.
  5. New utility VTOL prototype. Compared to the other one it's got a lower TWR and is a little less maneuverable, but it also carries a whole lot more fuel, is way more efficient in forward flight, is more stable, and has a bigger payload area. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Ssgd8vh.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Je2vSV8.jpg[/IMG]
  6. [quote name='Fellow314']Doesn't work yet. [URL]http://i.imgur.com/nkU19En.jpg[/URL][/QUOTE] Aww, mummy and daddy rocket are holding hands with their baby Can't wait to see this work.
  7. [quote name='Raptor9'] That VTOL of your's is pretty tight. One similarity is that helicopters take more power to hover [SIZE=1](due to a certain aerodynamic effect I will not digress about)[/SIZE]; so in essence, the thrust reduction of your engines while stationary is kind of an analogue to a helicopter's hovering limitations. But yeah, I plan to revisit my XV-series in the near future as well.[/QUOTE] Thanks, I'm probably going to try rebuilding it though because right now range is so poor it's not really useful for much. Because the wing area is so small and the thrust from the two Junos is so low it can't support itself in level flight without some help from the lift jets, so it burns way more fuel than it needs too. Also, it's not too useful with a payload as even though it has a theoretical max TWR of over 2.5, which should mean it could just about lift 15 tonnes, right now the engines start to run out of air before 4.5 tonnes. The plan is more wing area (testing just strapping wings on practically doubled fuel economy by not needing lift jets in forward flight), maybe more forward thrust, more fuel, and possibly using the Mk1 intake fuselage somehow since it looks like it's the best static intake.
  8. [quote name='Raptor9']The latest in large-scale personnel transport...and my first designs utilizing the J-90 'Goliath' turbofan. Available for download on the OP. Happy transporting. :) [/QUOTE] Very nice, interesting how small the range reduction is despite the extra 4.17 tonnes of turbofan hanging out in the airstream. Are you planning to revive those VTOLs you made that 1.0.3 killed? Here's my first attempt at a 1.0.5 VTOL, heavily influenced by your XV-M: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/AmaztGu.jpg[/IMG] It's got tonnes of TWR, and is really maneuverable and easy to fly, but there's still a lot of problems. Now the intakes don't work so well static it can't reach full thrust stationary (It can still easily take off though and once in the air you can push the engines as hard as you like). Also, fuel consumption is very high and it only has 500 units of the stuff, so range is very limited. Still, it's a much better situation for VTOLs like this than in 1.0.3/4, so with work it might be possible to get back to the performance the old XV-M had in 1.0.5
  9. [quote name='allista']Do you have ModuleManager installed? It is required by TCA to add its modes to engines.[/QUOTE] Looks like this was the problem, it's working now. Thanks for the help, this mod is great.
  10. I'm not getting any right click options in editor or flight either, it's odd. I only have the applauncher button and menu, which as far as I can tell is working great. The only other mod I'm using is Pilot Assistant, I'll try uninstalling that but I doubt it will help. I'll also try the beta version when I get home.
  11. [quote name='322997am']Also will the usernames get ported? [COLOR=silver][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] Ooooooo [COLOR=silver][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] Wait. So I can't make a cinematic Ksp video and post it. Is that role Playing?[/QUOTE] If I understand the rule right it's only against the rules if you are interacting with other forum users in character. So cinematics are fine, stories are fine, even some in character backstory on craft and threads is fine (I think). But if you were to maintain that character when replying to other users, that's what's against the rule, for the reason that people tend to end up having huge fights and making personal attacks on other people but justifying it by saying "I was just in character".
  12. [quote name='322997am']Ok. But why bother with the forum upgrade when you can focus on the game. Like u5 needs work and instead the forum gets updated. If this is not the case i don't care then[/QUOTE] It's different people working on the forum than on the game - the forum upgrade has absolutely zero effect on the speed of work on u5 and adding game content.
  13. I'm probably missing something obvious, but I'm not getting any editor options or any way to change engine modes? This is on the current 1.0.5 version and without toolbar installed. The AppLauncher button shows up and works in flight, but there is nothing at all in editor.
  14. [quote name='PineCone'][COLOR=transparent]removing rep bars[/COLOR][/QUOTE] Wait, whaaaat? I thought they were staying? From the OP: [QUOTE] [LIST] [*]Almost all data will be preserved including reputation, custom user titles and signatures. [/LIST] [/QUOTE]
  15. [quote name='Majorjim']So what is the 'mod' he made then?? He ignored my previous question..[/QUOTE] I might be wrong but I think it's going to be part of [URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/139625-WW2-Warships-0-1-Finally-online!"]this one[/URL], but it might not be fully implemented yet. It looks like it has/will have some really nice features - boilers that produce steam to power engines and pumps and stuff, flooding, properly sinking ships.
  16. [quote name='More Boosters']Why not just mod in a proper looking carrier rather than parts you can't use for anything else? I mean it's not like you made an interior. Part count: 1[/QUOTE] That gives you no control over what the carrier looks like, how big it is, anything. It also means in a crash it's either all destroyed, or not at all destroyed. Azimech's mod gives you much more options, and I can see the parts being useful for lots of other things too - giant bases, other kinds of ships, plenty of stuff.
  17. [quote name='Astrofox']Have fun! I love the ideas here, and I hope to see more of these (awesome) insanities in the future. By the way, can I post some of my own insanities here?[/QUOTE] Yeah, feel free to post whatever you want. I don't have much to put in here myself at the moment (lack of time and ideas) so if you want to help keep the thread going that would be great.
  18. [URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/101559-Raptor9-s-Showcase-Concepts-Solutions/page3#21"]Complete rip off of an old design by Raptor9[/URL] (although I did come up with that engine-through-reaction-wheel thing independently before but never really use it), but I'm still quite happy with it. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/RfPAt6a.jpg[/IMG] Plenty of excess power, easy to fly, nimble, and can carry 6 kerbals on seats or lift a small payload. Hopefully I can find out a way to sort out the wing strength and fuel flow issues, and also make it faster and more efficient in forward flight. If I manage that it should be quite a useful VTOL. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/AmaztGu.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/rftapcJ.jpg[/IMG]
  19. [quote name='Alshain']There was a thread posted for this yesterday.[/QUOTE] Yep, I somehow managed to miss it until right after I posted this thread.
  20. So AFAIK multiplayer is still a definite planned KSP feature - but beyond that not much is known. This thread is really just for discussing what people think multiplayer will be like, when/if you think it will come, what you would want in it, etc. Also for pooling any multiplayer-related information that gets released. I'd be surprised if a thread like this hasn't already been created in the past, but there doesn't seem to be one active recently, so I figured I might as well make one. EDIT: Literally the moment I started this I saw another similar thread GregroxMun created earlier today. Oops :(
  21. [quote name='Azimech']I've flown the IL2 series for years and AFAIK: there were no catapults in use. They just aimed the bow into the wind and went at flank speed to aid taking off and landing. I might consider some kind of catapult but it's too early for that. This mod really pushes KSP's physics system to it's limits. I've had numerous catastrophic explosions while building multiple types of ships.[/QUOTE] Yeah, there were some catapults but they weren't at all common. I think although they experimented with using them on carriers they mainly just used them for things like [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAM_ship"]this[/URL]. Arrestor gear was used a lot though, are you planning anything like that? I think InfiniteDice's mod had it implemented to some extent but it never really worked properly IIRC.
  22. And here I am trying to land planes on pathetic little 50m by 10m Mk3 tank island things and getting annoyed when they slide off into the ocean. This mod looks awesome, are you planning to add some kind of arrestor gear/catapult system? Although I guess catapults weren't really used that much in WWII. Still, one of those seaplane catapult things they had on battleships would be so cool.
  23. [quote name='5thHorseman'] Existing threads in the Rocket Builders subforum will not be transferred. This will effectively delete them though it sounds like, if you ask, they can still access the content in them for a time after the transfer.[/QUOTE] The thing is, there'll be lots of threads by people who've left the forums, and those will not be backed up. Since when I was first learning KSP I remember getting lots of help from rocket builders and spacecraft exchange threads that were 3 years old and started by users who hadn't posted in years, this means a lot of useful information for both beginners and non beginners will be lost. I really wish they'd keep it as read only or something, there's a lot of stuff that's going to be missed.
  24. Sorry if this has been asked before and/or is dumb, but rule 3.1 says: [QUOTE][B]3.1 Definition of “staff” and “member of staff” A member of staff is someone appointed by or on behalf of Squad to handle (part of) one or multiple services as meant in 1.1. Squad employees and forum moderators are two such examples of this definition.[/B][/QUOTE] So do Porkjet/Roverdude/NathanKell and any other modders Squad hire count as staff? I'm assuming they do, but does that include when they are not acting in the capacity of Squad staff but are instead acting as normal members of the community, eg. commenting on mod threads or spacecraft? Not asking for any particular reason, just out of interest.
  25. It'd only be cheating if you were participating in a challenge that said specifically not to use the F12 overlay. Like others say, it's a single player game. Otherwise, it's purely an informative tool the game provides, far less of an aid to flying than say KER or Mechjeb, so as such it's not really even in the same category as the game-changing tweaks available in the Alt+F12 menu, so IMO there's much less grounds to consider it cheating than those things. In fact, you could say it's an important feature standing in for the lack of wind tunnel testing and computer simulation in KSP.
  • Create New...