Jump to content

BlueCanary

Members
  • Posts

    554
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BlueCanary

  1. Although I think the situation has been somewhat blown out of proportion considering the relative low traffic of the Rocket Builders forum and the fact that the Spacecraft Exchange still remains as an alternative, I still don't really understand why Rocket Builders has to be deleted? Are there any recent examples (other than ones related to this forum migration) of the kind of minor role play in Rocket Builders getting out of hand and requiring moderator intervention? If not, it seems like this is an incident of rules being enforced for the sake of enforcing the rules, and that the huge loss of information that may have been beneficial to lots of players looking for craft and inspiration outweighs the positives of possibly avoiding future confrontation.
  2. [quote name='Zucal']Will the look of the forum change at all?[/QUOTE] Yeah, here's a screenshot from page 4 of this thread: [quote name='KasperVld']I don't think those are planned features at the moment, but it's something we can look into down the line :) I've taken [URL="http://i.imgur.com/W73ty98.jpg"]this screenshot[/URL], which is only a [I]rough indication[/I] of what the new forums will look like. And ignore the missing avatars :)[/QUOTE]
  3. 100m/s is fast, but not too ridiculous. The X-15 landed at 108m/s, and the shuttle at 93, so although you probably do want to kill a bit more speed in the air, you should still be able to stop on the runway, especially in a reasonably light plane like the Ravenspear. Whereabouts on the runway did you touch down? Maybe you just need more of the runway to slow down? Also, could it be that you are cutting throttle too late and the thrust is keeping it going? I really don't know what could make a ravenspear with brakes on go off the end of the runway, I'm pretty sure that doesn't normally happen.
  4. Maybe the engines being so close together is causing problems? If they were more seperated, maybe with some winglets added to the engine to radiate away heat, would that help?
  5. [quote name='5thHorseman']The problem with limiting image size in any way is that - currently - the forum isn't directly involved in the image. It's just a link, that isn't even on the site usually. If you were to enforce an image size the forum would have to either check the image, or intervene to process the image and cache it. If you don't cache the image then the poster could just replace the "legal" image later with a larger one. Granted that's not likely to be a huge problem or anything, but it'd still add a lot of overhead for the server for something that most people wouldn't even understand the desire for (I know I'm an edge case for this one).[/QUOTE] Also while we have such useless imgur embeds putting in big pictures seems like the only option for me, the albums are tiny on PC and don't even load half the time on my phone, so I find even massive pictures are a better option.
  6. [quote name='Azimech']Increase the length of the tail, then it will be fine. [COLOR=silver][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] Glad to see some influences of my BUFF series passing the revue. [/QUOTE] I'm not sure that would help since the problem with that prototype was bendiness - the nose and tail drooped, pitching it down. The redesign though (a few posts below it in this thread) is much less floppy, and flies much better. But yeah, lots of influence from the BUFF series (which is awesome btw). In fact, for comparison what is the performance of the BUFF 3 like? Particularly climb performance and maneuverability? Also fuel efficiency, mine looks to have a much higher fuel capacity than the BUFF but it burns at quite a high rate. I can't really try the BUFF myself because the part count is so high, but it seems reasonably similar to mine in terms of configuration so I'd imagine it should fly similarly, if I've got mine right - and since I have little to no experience with planes this big, I don't know if I have.
  7. [quote name='Mad Rocket Scientist']Don't worry, I'm sure someone else can do it.[/QUOTE] So what happens now? Skip this week and do a double week next time?
  8. I rebuilt my cargo plane from a few posts ago: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/i4OxYCc.jpg[/IMG] Now certified to suck 80% less than the old one, it flies reasonably for a several hundred tonne brick, and has cargo bay space for 3.75m parts. It is hideously slow though and when heavily loaded (its 100 tonnes empty but 230 tonnes at standard fuel and 308 at full fuel, so there's quite a lot of variation in flying characteristics depending on weight) it takes ages to climb and can't get very high. I think speed will get a lot better if I go through the design adding nosecones in various places, but this will add quite a few more parts, and it's already at around 200. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/LrXJGbx.jpg[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/jQd7kC6.png[/IMG] [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/pKsktEZ.jpg[/IMG]
  9. To be honest I never really expected this to fly, but a pair of crudely slapped on canards later, here it is veering off the runway and into the sky: [imgur]1mRjk[/imgur] Those canards were necessary because the thing is a big floppy banana of a plane, and without them holding it up the nose drooped and splattered everything over KSC. It's 188 parts with a cargo bay big enough to hold mk3 parts, but at the moment it's practically useless since it's too floppy to turn harder than what you see in this album, and the way it's put together (those mk2 fuselages in the sides are not connected to each other) is supremely draggy. Maybe a redisigned version will look better and be a little less bendy, but until then it's a bit pointless.
  10. [quote name='Mad Rocket Scientist']However, I feel that having "employees" and "companies" does NOT mean role-playing, or, at the least, not enough role-playing that it creates arguments. [/QUOTE] This, to me at least, seems like a really important point. Yes, technically it's role play, but technically pepper spray is made of the same stuff as Tabasco sauce (completely useless analogy I know, but the best I could think of.) I may be very wrong, but I think anyone would be very hard pressed to find an example of rocket builders style role play - which rarely even extends outside of the first post of the thread - causing a fight. I don't really know the full story well enough to fully understand it, but this seems like a knee-jerk reaction against a problem that doesn't really exist.
  11. [quote name='RixKillian']After a few hours of work, here we are: Presenting the [B]Inigma-Class Aircraft Carrier[/B]: [URL]http://imgur.com/a/o2HNW[/URL] It currently has 288 parts, so a little on the high side but I haven't noticed any drop in performance when landing on it (I'm playing on a macbook pro). The deck is over 100 meters long; I was able to land a stock Gull seaplane on it using only about half the deck with a makeshift arrestor hook. The ship is based loosely off the American Kitty Hawk-Class Carriers, and includes runway and deck lights for night landings. Hope it's useful for what you need, if the part count is too high, let me know and I'll try to slim it down. Cheers! -Rix Killian[/QUOTE] This is awesome, any chance you're going to be posting a craft file?
  12. The thing I don't understand is that the "role play" in Rocket Builders is almost never more than occasionally calling requests customers or a couple of sentences worth of back story. I've never seen it get argumentative and there's rarely even more than one person involved. Most of the mission reports/fan works section seems to be at least as role-playey as rocket builders, and those threads aren't deleted, in fact many become extremely popular. This seems a really wierd reaction to a barely existent problem, less "sledgehammer to crack a nut" and more "nuking the nut farm because eventually some of them might need cracking".
  13. [quote name='War Eagle 1']I just called it LAPES to give it a good challenge name. You don't have to do a true LAPES but don't be airdroping rovers from space either[/QUOTE] Oh, I see. Anyway, I found the album from ages ago that shows a big red being delivered to the island runway: [imgur]ng7lu[/imgur] I have a craft all set to try repeating this for 1.0.5.
  14. I did this lots in 1.0.2, my record is dropping a full big red with wheels out of the back of a plane at 33m/s, which was scary to say the least. I'll update this with the album when I'm not on my phone, and I'll try to do a 1.0.5 entry too. Edit: wait, in your example the payload is decending vertically under the chutes. I thought LAPES meant the load was dropped a couple of metres off the ground and the parachutes decelerated it as it slid across the ground, not when it was in the air?
  15. A mix of both I think. I was planning to wait until 1.1 brings non-glitchy wheels to make anything land based but until KER updates most of the other stuff I want to do is very difficult (no TWR and delta V stats), so I might try a train today.
  16. The only things I can see that haven't changed are the undercarriage, struts and fuel lines.
  17. I've only got to really try 1.0.5 properly in the last couple of days, so not a huge amount. A flying car is the first thing I have in the works though, here's a couple of screenshots of the first design I tried: EDIT: Ok, there would be some screenshots but they must have been lost when I messed up backing up before downloading the silent patch. Oh well, the design wasn't working great anyway. I have a much better plan for the next one though.
  18. Sorry if this is a dumb request or I'm asking in the wrong place, but would a TWR mode for Throttle Control be a good idea? Like you set a TWR for it to retain, so you could keep fuel burn rate constant or get a VTOL to hover perfectly for example.
  19. From what I can tell it is like you say the same mechanics with drag and stuff changed, if you get the "aero data in action menus" thing turned on you can see that underwater things have crazy high drag (like 75 for a big reaction wheel at 20m/s when out of water it'd have next to nothing).
  20. Maybe if you put big wings underneath the main wing so you can't see them so much but so you still can strut them up and get a much stronger wing?
  21. Yeah, I've heard that. Apparently the P-38 had incredible turning ability by differential thrust, I remember reading that it was pretty much the most maneuverable fighter the US had for most of the war. The technique works really well in Combat Flight Simulator 3 too, so it definitely doesn't seem a complete urban legend.
  22. Why not try landing probes/rovers on Duna and Laythe to "test which is more suitable to support Kerbal life" (i.e. to find out which you think will be most fun). You'll get to make a better choice about which to go to, and to practice landings.
  23. Well, it's an interim update that wasn't even planned to happen originally. Also, Squad is working on 1.1 at the same time. Maybe they just haven't had time to plan such a big media campaign as usual. Although personally, I'm not sure it there is that much less being released that normal. I mean, they have told us everything that will be in the update, just in less videos.
  24. It's hard to tell from the few short clips of it we've had but by the looks of it it doesn't really have the same kind of high speed thrust ability as the whiplash so I doubt it will be a good SSTO powerplant.
  25. If I'm understanding this right, you'd need to get a ship circularized at 37.5km+ so that you could get to space and still be within 22.5km so it wouldn't despawn, then try and send up a ship to dock?
×
×
  • Create New...