Jump to content

BlueCanary

Members
  • Posts

    554
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by BlueCanary

  1. What if you had to pay salary for mission control operators controlling probes too? Like an amount every second a probe is in focus (since they wouldn't have to do anything in timewarp). It could be more than the astronaut salary (since it'd be more people involved) but unlike the astronaut salary it wouldn't be all the time, so it'd just about balance out.
  2. Also, the vast majority of VTOL's I've seen, except Star Wars replicas and the like which aren't even trying to be realistic, are not "cubic strut abuse" at all. There's usually plenty of thought about where the engines and other equipment would go, and they really look completely implausible. About the delay to 1.1, could it be that they just want more time to think about the best implementation of the idea, or to perfect the models? (as others have mentioned they were quite low poly, I'm not complaining since I thought they looked quite good anyway but I know others wanted higher-poly models.) By the way it was talked about in the Devnotes it sounded like it was quite a new and quickly implemented idea, it may be they decided it just wasn't ready or they weren't sure about it in the first place. Still, I hope it's VTOL engines. Or props. Or both.
  3. My VTOL T-47 Snowspeeder replica. Easy and fun to fly, fast, maneuverable enough to go through the R and D tunnel. It also had surpringly long range too. I flew it tonnes on DMP, going Space Police on any of the ghost craft that kept showing up. It was a little bit of an exploity clipfest that only flew by the power of errordynamics, but it still had no fuel tank or engine clipping and wasn't really that unrealistic. I deleted that install so there's no craft file or even a screenshot left, and it'd be completely broken by updates now anyway. Maybe it still exists on a DMP server somewhere, flying through hangars in the great island airfield in the sky...
  4. Why not shoot debris/missiles at it in such a way that the ones that miss will just crash into Kerbin afterwards?
  5. I'm making a heavy atmospheric transport/SSTO based on the Fireflash from Thunderbirds. So far the atmospheric version has demonstrated ability to takeoff, circumnavigate Kerbin and land in under an hour, with a 58 tonne payload. The next stage is to figure out where to put that payload - right now it's just in spare fuel. The SSTO version is the first SSTO I've built since before 1.0, so I am really not sure what I'm doing. Still, so far it's been quite successful: 55 tonnes of spare fuel carried to LKO on the first run. Heating cooked off the canards and I forgot RCS/reaction wheels though, so still very much WIP. Hopefully once fully developed it will be easily capable of hauling big reds to stations. It's be very helpful if someone who knows more about how to build and fly SSTO's than me (e.g. practically anyone who's ever got one to orbit) could do some testing and modifying to help sort out its many issues and optimize it to be as useful as possible. Anyone who would want to do this, here's a link: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/138146-The-Craft-Test-Thread/page2#12
  6. So what's the situation with maintainers? Is there anyone signed up to do next week?
  7. It'd be great if someone could try working on some of the issues my new cargo SSTO has, it's based on the Fireflash from Thunderbirds and can lift 55 tonnes to LKO (so far just in spare fuel, but hopefully when I stick a cargo bay in there it should be able to haul the proverbial Big Red to space reliably). This is my first SSTO since 0.90 so I'm really not sure how to optimize it. I need help with finding the best ascent profile, optimizing resource loads, and fixing this massive list of glaring flaws: - It needs new landing gear: right now it just has some U2 style outrigger things because I can't think of the best placement for the landing gear. - It needs attitude control: right now there are no reaction wheels, only some vernors glued on that aren't really ideal at all. I need some advice on what would be the best solution. - It needs to catch fire less: right now those canards disintegrate every time on ascent. I tried sticking radiators on them hidden in the front cargo/service bay, it didn't help. - It needs cargo space: right now, there's only one small cargo bay at the front, which will house the probe core, battery, solar panels etc. I'm still contemplating what's the best way to put the main cargo bay(s) in. Notes to potential testers: Takeoff speed loaded: 100+m/s. I recommend going to around 130m/s. Ascent profile: what I've been doing is staying at sea level to gain a little speed then climbing at 20-30 degrees before levelling to break Mach 1 at 5-6000m and then climbing again to level off and gain speed between 17000 and 25000m. When it started to lose speed I switched rapier modes and pitched up slightly, waiting until the apoapsis got out of the atmosphere. Then, circularize as normal. This is probably not the best ascent profile though - I've only flown 2 SSTO flights since 1.0 happened, both today. I'd really like some advice on how to do it better. Fuel loading: fully loaded it's a little front heavy. I usually take some fuel out to get the CoM and CoL closer together, since this also greatly improves flight characteristics by weight reduction. You can fly fully loaded though, it's just not much fun at all. Flight characteristics: It's a little sluggish fully loaded, but when you've flown a long way (the non SSTO version can circumnavigate Kerbin easily) and it's down to about 2/3 to a half of its max fuel, it's actually quite pleasant to fly, with decent maneuverability and landing speeds around 65-70m/s. Other things you should be wary of are that it takes ages to slow down from high speed flight, which is made more of a problem by the fact it will disintegrate if you turn too hard at supersonic speeds. Action groups: 1: Toggle turbojets 2: Toggle RAPIERs 3: Toggle RAPIER mode 4: Jettison outriggers It's 133-ish parts. That screenshot is of the non-SSTO version, the only real difference is the SSTO version has rapiers in the rear engine pods. craft file here
  8. So I tried making the Fireflash SSTO, and somehow, it did. I swapped out the 6 pod engines for RAPIERS, leaving the wing turbojets untouched for extra power and efficiency at low speeds (but mainly because I'm too lazy to attach fuel lines out to the wings.) Some extra power generation stuff went in the front cargo bay with the probe core and I swapped out the liquid fuel tanks in the fuselage for rocket fuel. Other than that, the craft was pretty much unchanged. After a terribly flown ascent profile and some moments of panic as the canards went poof one by one (Bubbadevlin, you were right. Radiators don't seem to have helped), it's now in orbit. A wierd 100 x 78 orbit, but still an orbit. There are 4596 units of liquid fuel and 6568 units of oxidiser left. That's 55.89 tonnes, and that means 55.89 tonnes of payload capacity to LKO. (Some would be used for deorbit, but I doubt that'd be a huge amount, especially once that 55 tonne payload is released.) This is my first post 1.0 SSTO, and the first thing I've put in orbit in months, and I was never a great SSTO pilot anyway, so there's probably quite a bit of room for improvement in there. If anyone who actually knows how I should be flying this has any ascent profile advice or would want to test fly this, that would be awesome. I think if I put a long cargo bay in the fuselage it should be able to reliably lift pretty much anything you can fit in there. The current plan is for it to act as a heavy lifter, putting payloads into orbit where they'll be shunted around by some tugs I'll make, so it probably won't need to do much in the way of maneuvering or docking itself. I might also make a fuel tanker variant that will dock itself, and maybe a passenger one too. Currently it's unmanned because I couldn't see anywhere good to put a cockpit, but I was thinking maybe a detachable manned subcraft in a cargo bay, capable of docking, deorbiting or landing itself if needed, could be a fun addition. KER is being uncooperative and won't give me any TWR or Delta V stats, but it's probably safe to assume they're not great, especially with payload. It's also currently borderline uncontrollable in space, because I forgot reaction wheels or RCS. It needs landing gear too. Still a lot of work left, but it still seems promising.
  9. Like: Kerbin - great terrain, great for planes, lots of different environments to go to. Gilly - seeing as it's pretty much an asteroid, I like EVAing around the place there. Minmus - just because it's probably the easiest place to go. Dres - because canyon. Laythe - jet engines, oceans, sand dunes, really fun to drive rovers. View of Jool is awesome too. Dislike: Duna: well, I don't really dislike it, I just don't like going there as much as other places. Not so much interesting terrain, at least that I've seen. Eve: Again, there's not as much that makes me want to go there as there is on other planets. Also, scary inescapable purple deathtrap.
  10. Awesome, where did you see this? This is exactly the solution I was hoping for.
  11. I think since the current buoyancy system by all accounts sucks (I've not heard much good said about it at least), and the new changes seem to make it more "water" than "boat eating sea monster filled sea of pain" there's not going to be much complaining done about it. It looks like it's going to be awesome to me, and I can't see how it could be a negative change from what we have now.
  12. I was thinking about how the turbojets now work better with speed, has anyone tried using SRBs on takeoff to sledgehammer low TWR turbo/rapier craft past mach 1 so they gain thrust to climb faster and maybe save fuel?
  13. I'd like to see this tested as a mod, maybe just stock parts with edited configs to see how well the concept works in gameplay? - - - Updated - - - Do you think there's still time to mame it toggleable or something though? I'd imagine that'd be way less work than the seperate part idea?
  14. Yeah, by the end of the flight they were precariously close to exploding. I might try putting radiators on them on the inside of the cargo bay they are placed on.
  15. I for one couldn't use mods even if I wanted to because of RAM crashes, and I expect there are many others in the same boat. So I don't think mods are going to ever be a suitable solution for a lot of people, especially if the crahiness continues.
  16. It's hard to share mod craft because anyone wanting to use that craft would have to download all the right mods too, and also for some people (for me at least) it's not even an option most of the time because of not having a fast enough computer to handle the mods. I would like to use 5m tanks and stuff for some things, but with the combination of crashes and difficulty sharing I find it's just easier to stay stock.
  17. So I left the Fireflash flying east at cruise speed and altitude under autopilot whilst I did other stuff (pretty much my standard test flying plan), and the results were pretty impressive. It circumnavigated Kerbin on with 11516 units of liquid fuel remaining, out of a total load of 18690 on takeoff. The maximum load is 25690 units, but I took some out to balance it better until I can think of another way. This means that not only did it have range to go around Kerbin again at least one more time (possibly two, since a lot of fuel was used on takeoff and climb), but it effectively completed a circumnavigation with a 58.45 tonne payload (the weight of the fuel left on landing). I think that, especially if I can work out a more efficient ascent profile, this means it could be an extremely good long range cargo plane, although it does need a long flat runway to land and take off so maybe it's application could be limited by that. It takes ages to slow down, making timing the exit from cruise to land a bit harder, I actually had to resort to using the landing gear as airbrakes to slow it down. Also, the canards get dangerously close to overheating in cruise, less than 120 degrees from their maximum. I also found that although it disintegrates unless handled with extreme care in maneuvers while supersonic, at low speeds and without very high fuel levels it's also quite maneuverable and much less of a difficult and scary plane to fly than it is while it's really heavy. I'm going to start trying to make it SSTO soon too, but before I do that it would be nice to get some design feedback. What do you think of the design? Are there aesthetic improvements you would want made? Any particular functions I should include?
  18. There does come a point where the runway just isn't long enough. I think I've almost hit it - this has a TWR of around 0.45 on takeoff fully loaded and still uses most of the runway on it's way to takeoff speed of 120m/s or so (not an unrealistic speed when you consider Concorde rotated at around 111m/s). It's well balanced and has plenty of lift to get to 20,000m/s and 1240m/s, it's just big and sluggish on takeoff. It's not far from needing more than the runway provides to get in the air - and since there are runways in the real world more than double the KSC runway's length (5500m is the longest in real life), that doesn't seem too unrealistic either. I think there are quite a few situations where you might need takeoff assistance of some kind, especially if you are planning to takeoff from another runway. Also, I think 0.27 isn't an unreasonable TWR, here's a plane with 0.14 that still manages to fly and be not entirely useless, if only as a high endurance Rutan Voyager type thing. Whenever I use RATO (admittedly not often recently) I tend to go for jettisonable packs of sepratrons or Flea SRBs on bigger planes, one trick of questionable usefulness I found is to combine the rockets with drop tanks to extend range. Also, tilting the RATO rockets up a little to get some vertical thrust too. Those might be more useful things to do for when you're using RATO for getting in and out of tiny landing sites than for when you're just trying to takeoff from the runway though.
  19. Yep, glad to see I managed to make it at least vaguely recogniseable. I'll try to make a remote controlled cart, but it's going to have to go super fast. This already needs almost all the runway to take off fully loaded, so landings are going to be scary. I really think it might be a possible future SSTO, it's already saving weight by not using a cockpit, maybe by just swapping the turbojets for rapiers it could be used to lift reasonably big loads into LKO. Probably not much Delta-V on orbit though, seeing as I can't see anywhere to put nukes. Problem is, it's hard to work on something that runs in jerky slow motion and causes a game crash every 10 minutes. Since I first posted about it I've left it flying at 20800m and its now reached 1200+m/s and accelerating (even at 127 parts the FPS is so low on my PC it's only been about 5 ingame minutes since then), now burning less than 2 units a second, so performance is a little better than I first thought. TWR at the moment is 0.08.
  20. Vertically placed nozzles with the actual engine there in all but appearance (in pretty much every VTOL I've seen on the Spacecraft Exchange there is space where the engine could be in real life, and the nozzle weighs as much as the engine would) don't seem at all like an exploit to me. All this is doing is limiting designs to ones where the engine is directly in front of the nozzle, which is not a limitation present in real life, and is also one that will be a huge issue for a lot of people. - - - Updated - - - This is completely different from arguments against a new aerodynamic model - the new aerodynamic meant considerably more realistic gameplay and quite a lot of extra options in how people played the game. This is a change that will barely affect some people, but also be a massive annoyance for a lot of others, and doesn't bring any substantial benefits to make up for the negatives. And yes, we are getting a 0.625m jet. It also has a great big awkward engine sticking out of it.
  21. It's a VTOL flying car, but not a good one. It looks wierd, but I'm not sure whether that's in a bad or a good way yet. It also is a brick in forward flight and uses up fuel very fast in VTOL. Still, it is a flying car, and until the fuel cuts out it does handle well in takeoffs and landings. Hopefully I'll be able to make a better version when 1.0.5 comes with 0.625m jets. And here's a prototype of something less useless I'm working on, imaginary prize for anyone who guesses what it's (loosely) based on. So far it looks promising, at 127 parts and with an enormous fuel load it can cruise at 1070m/s and 20,800m burning 2.4 units of fuel a second, not bad for 150 tonnes (178 fully loaded) of plane I guess. Hopefully I can swap out some of that weight for useful payload, and maybe even make it an SSTO eventually. I have some moderately cool ideas of features to put on it if I do.
  22. there are definitely engines making the smoke come out of the launchpad, but surely that means they're facing downwards?
  23. Yeah, and other than a couple of bug reports until now nobody seems to have cared much. I don't see why its suddenlybsuch an important issue worth breaking tons of designs for.
×
×
  • Create New...