Bakase
-
Posts
124 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Bakase
-
-
Is there a patch for Standard Canard to work with FAR?
Do you mean the basic canard? I've mentioned this several times already but there doesn't seem to be one yet.
-
These parts seem way too OP.
The Aerospike is massive, yet only 3.5 tons.
Many large parts weigh too little. The most massive plane parts hardly weigh anything.
The Scramjets seem the most OP of all. They can provide like 1,500kN of thrust for those tiny little 2.5ton things. In FAR, at least.
Stock parts definitely lack a scram jet and such, and it's nice to have something better than the turbofan, and better than rapier without having to run on ox, but it's too good. It gives like double the thrust that it should.
I don't think any balance pass has yet been done -- none of these parts are final. Also, you say that the most massive plane parts hardly weigh anything -- would this have something to do with the fact that they are hollow?
-
I have no idea why Github says I'm British. I'm from Seattle, WA. (west coast of the US) and, while I have been known to pick of accents disturbingly fast, I am definitely an American-English speaker. However, it seems that our specific accent is what the world generally tried to mimic, at least as far as news casters are concerned. They call it "accent-less" English. Except for those of us with an accent that is...
No they don't... I mean this is completely besides the point, but linguistics is a field that kind of interests me and that just ain't true. You're thinking of Accentless American English or General American -- the set of american accents perceived as having few regional inflections from different parts of the US.
-
After testing out different plane designs I find that there's a need for some more parts.
Just an unordered list of what came into my mind:
- add inline I, J and K cockpits and passenger compartments
- add a MK2-J adapter without offset MK2 node (-> which leads to offset CoM, very difficult to compensate)
- add a simple J-K adapter without MK2 nodes OR a part which fits into the slots and makes the adapter look sleek
- add a 2.5 m to MK2 adapter (for attaching to J bicoupler) OR add a J to 2x MK2 adapter (just like the J bicoupler but with MK2 nodes instead of 2.5 meter nodes)
- make J & K tanks radially attachable
- add a cargo ramp in J size
- move the J aerodynamic tail and J engine mount to the tanks or aerodynamics tab
- add a K part with a docking port
- add a K tank without a hollow inside
- add a K aerodynamic tail
- add more wings
- add obviously more of everything
A couple of these parts are already being developed -- see the image posted a couple of pages back.
http://i.imgur.com/7XhRNpm.png
Also... Stock has a 2.5m to mk2 adapter.
-
That looks AWESOME! What are you calling the new fuselage profile?
As before, I'm happy to write part descriptions again...
Can't wait for the new update.
-
There is something weird about the attachment nodes in the docking bays that's messing with the Offset attachment feature.
I've been trying to mount a 3.75m reactor in the cargo bays using the internal attachment nodes. They snap fine, but the nodes are placed a little low so that the bottom of the reactor clips through the bottom of the cargo bay. So I tried to use the Offset feature in the editor, and whenever I move the part it jumps all around. I've spent about 30 minutes now swearing at the damn thing and I just can't get it to work. I've tried flipping it, rotating it, detaching the part on the other side of the cargo bay, nothing helps.
Have you turned angle snap off?
-
Hello,
I have a simple and maybe silly question: How can I use atmospheric engins using intake-air. If I put a intake-part on the front two inlets of the cockpit and an air-using-engine on the - let's say - ramp outlets (these for 1.25 engines at the sides of the ramp-end) I cannot fire the engines because there seems no connection between the intakes and the engines.
I tried radial air intakes too, but these don't seem to support the engines either. So how can I get intake air to the engines?
Isabelle
This should be working.
This might seem like a stupid question, but bear with me -- are you sure you actually have liquidfuel in your fuselage?
Otherwise it's an install problem.
-
Funny you should mention that, nli2work did a cool POC of that, and was asking about syncing the legs. Sort of on the back burner until I have a flash of inspiration for how to do it
I'd love to! I think it just uses one of the stock sounds. What I think would be percect is the lovely soft turbine sound from the drone at the start of Interstellar. Submissions welcomed with open arms for sound clips, though!
Did you ever get a sound recorded for this? If not, I've got an idea I can experiment with after work today... Not promising any good results, though!
This idea just popped into my head at work now, a couple of months later... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
-
Is it possible to forcefully revert certain parts to stock aerodynamics? I am talking about BDarmory missiles and bombs, they are unstable with FAR and impact point calculation system is broken.
AFAIK, BDarmoury is meant to override both FAR and stock aero for its parts -- it should be calculating its own aerodynamics already.
-
Ven, can you fix the FAR config for the 'Basic Canard' part that you added? You're forcing the game to apply the stock code instead.
Also, can I request some 'chine' parts? To fit on the side of aerodynamic craft for smoothing transitions and area ruling. I think that would be a neat addition, but I'm not sure it's within the scope of this mod.
Keep playing with the pre-release (which is also my first experience with VSR), and really loving it. Some feedback.1. How did you make the solar panels be reflective like that? I want to edit the panels in a couple of other mods to match the effect if possible (thinking of NFSolar). C:
2. I know its a big project, but a stock-alike dual crew pod would be a very worthy endeavor for a future version of VSR I think. I think its consistent with the part additions you have made.
3. You did a great work on the engine department. The engine TANKPLUG feature is really ingenious (although making it work is a little tricky), and the added parts complement the game well without unbalancing it. This mod made me remove KW, novapunch and cryogenic engines from my install. I just use this together with Atomic Age (for the superlative "Candle" and "Nuclear Lightbulb" engines which finish the work you started imo). Any plans for a VSR 2.5m nuclear engine?
4. It would be very nice if the added parts also had tweakscale configs.
5. I really don't like the way the parachutes look. I prefer the stock look to that of RealChutes to tell you the truth (those cones are too tall for my eye).
6. Great work on the battery department! Those lights are much sought after, hope we get to see all the battery parts having them in the future. My only gripe is that the 100 and 400 batteries are too "fat" and un-aerodynamic for putting them on the sides of a rocket, but that why the offset tool exists I guess. Any plans for a couple of aerodynamic parts that would fit well to planes/spaceplanes too?
7. The heavy RCS being 5way instead of 4way would be a nifty change imo.
Keep the goodness coming man, cheers..C:
ps: Found a bug in the last pre-release change. You added the rescaleFactor values to your configs, and the result was that the science junior got shrunk a little, and the goo canister got blown up.
1. These are TextureReplacer configs
5. Realchute doesn't have anything to do with VSR!
-
I do have some mods related to animations. I have Collision FX, CoolRockets, Engine Lightning, Real Plume, Ven's Stock Part Revamp. It's all I can think of. Any of these mods are know to cause problems with FAR? The problem is not even low FPS its just the constant stutter that gets in the way of my inputs.
I don't think any of these should be causing issues. It's more likely to be a moving or animated part -- particles and effects shouldn't have anything to do with FAR! Could you give us a screenshot or a craft file of something that causes the problems?
-
Well I created a simple drone aircraft using these parts, but whenever I start the engines after a bit the drone core as well as the seats and other stuff I put in the service bay behind the drone core overheat and expldoe for no apparent reason. I have KJR installed but not FAR.
Stock bug, I'm afraid. Small parts often overheat for no reason and explode.
-
Here's a sneak peek at what I've been working on...
-
Just post the test craft, I'll look into it.
https://my.mixtape.moe/hwurmf.craft
I just forgot -- I'm running Ven's Stock Revamp so that may be the cause of the issue: if so I sincerely apologise!
Nonetheless, the glitch happens when I take the tail piece off and move one of the two turbojets into its place instead. Removing the turbojet and playing around with its position causes all sorts of funny things to occur.
-
These graphs are all blank, and the values are all zero. I started with a fresh install of 1.0.4. No matter how many aerodynamic surfaces I add to the bottom of my rocket it is unstable. No amount of RCS, control surfaces, reaction wheels, and gimbals can hold this rocket upright.
Assuming you remembered to calculate the stability derivatives rather than just opening the graph window...
You done installed it wrong, lad.
Have you got Modular Flight Integrator? How about module manager?
- - - Updated - - -
Also -- is there a known issue with the axis of the graph shifting? I know it existed before and I've just encountered it again... have you managed to iron it out in the dev build? Or is it something that's impossible to fix? I imagine working out the plane's main axis could be rather tricky...
In any case, if you'd like more information on it I've got a craft that can reproduce it at several different angles if you take the engine on and off. If it's an issue you'd like me to look into I'll test it on the dev build, but otherwise I'd rather spend my time playing with the stable version. The glitch doesn't really matter to me.
-
I understand this pack probably uses alot of memory, i tried use same textures for different part before but it turns out not so good looking. Next release ill also add a optional reduced texture pack to allow much less memory usage
is the science lab! theres a tiny blue circular science symbol above the door haha is actually inspired by the planetary base pack's science module, i thought its really fancy to actually have a science symbol on the part
Thanks! is actually just a bicoupler with fueltanks xD Again, big fan of the mk4 engines ! even i made my own engines i pretty much stopped using them after your new prerelease because they look great on everything haha
Thanks haha
And for AccidentalDisassembly and M_Ouellette i really give you guy's comment quite lot of thoughts because what you guys describes makes more sense than then current K fuselages. So instead of a single k-cockpit how about i add one more j-cockpit with more j to k adaptors? because that would be pretty equivalent to another k cockpit but it gives more versatility.
Also the current K fuselage will probably make more sense to look more like a scaled up J fuselage rather than the current which are basically flying bricks. I created some mock up models (it doesnt look too good yet just an idea of how the K fuselage could be, they are roughly J fuselages scaled up by 1.25)
http://i.imgur.com/xvlJZpj.png
Note that the picture is from an anime called to-aru-majutsu-no-index, i found it when i was searching space plane images on googles and it's what i modelled the J cockpit after and main source of inspiration for the wing designs. Even though it's a anime i thought the ship is really well designed and it looked visually very convincing of it's function with it's atmospheric engines on the side and a pair of rocket engine at the rear. Apparently that scene only lasted few seconds as i couldn't find more reference images, im amazed how much thought the animators given it as a aircraft design. Its probably my second Favorited space plane design after the Valkyrie TAV.
The new k fuselage design looks more like a extension of J parts with flatter bottom, also gives a much more smoother look overall. You could argue it looks very similar to the Mk4 fuselage with its bulge at the top and lobes on the sides but i would say its some kind of spaceplane fuselage design convergence haha. This new design remains unable to carry 3.5m cargos but compare to the J fuselage, its able to give the 2.5m cargos a much bigger clearance with flatter floor more suitable for rovers. So i think is a nice extension of the j fuselage. I do not plan to give it a cargo ramp because i find cargoramp in ksp is rather awkward so ill go for a elevator part instead. Also to mention i plan to create these little rectangular cargo modules thats designed to fit inside J and K parts. Because the K parts is huge so i plan to create as few parts as possible, mostly just hollow fuselage with a decent amount of fuel stored on the sides.
I know this is going to be a huge change to the k fuselage, but i think im going ahead to make this change, im always open to more comment though when it comes to new designs! what do u guys think?
Well this looks awesome!
I knew something looked familiar about this pack, though... Would never have guessed it was inspired by Index!
The new parts look great. I whipped up a few descriptions up for the current release but haven't done all the parts yet... I guess I might wait until this revamp!
-
Well here we go. Here is a test release!
Here are also some notes:
Things that are probably done (so any problems here are bugs):
- All the engines
- Various intakes and nacelle parts
Things that aren't done or are bugs and I know about:
- No cabin lights yet
- Texture colour matching needs to be done still (particularly for the adapters, tails and the cockpit)
- Most Mk4 crossection parts lack specular maps
- A couple fuselage parts have unwelded seams (if you see any let me know)
- Cargo tail part isn't textured or anything
- Cargo tail ramp can't alter its angle in the VAB yet
- Cargo tail ramp snaps back to horizontal without animating when it is closed
- IVAs are really nowhere (cockpit needs reinstrumentation, crew cabin needs textures, finished model and stuff)
- Hatches and ladders are kinda buggered at the moment.
Things that could use looking at:
- Curves and performance of the engines
- Masses and costs of various parts (should match mk3 reasonably well)
- Ensuring cargo bays properly occlude
- Testing cargo ramp's functionality for loading cargo and stuff
- How things work with FAR?
Bundles InterstellarFuelSwitch, BDAnimationModules. License is CC-BY-NC-4.0.
Generally, how do things work? And if you build anything cool... Let me know
.So nobody seems to have done extensive testing with FAR... I played with it a bit. It's fun, the parts all play nice with FAR (new voxel model means no special configs necessary). No huge bugs to report, besides one config issue -- you're changing the lifting body / control surface modules around in a way that prevents FAR's original configs from working or the modules are computed after FAR and that breaks it. This causes the body to revert to stock lift code instead.
Vis-a-vis balancing, I haven't really had that much time to test, but things seem decent enough.
Is there any specific testing procedure I should follow?
One thing -- and this isn't a FAR issue to the best of my knowledge, but I can't get the engines to do the pretty glowy thing. What am I doing wrong?
- All the engines
-
You know, there's an easy way to find out...
-
Why do all those misconceptions exist at all?
Because lift is a highly complex principle deriving from a number of factors that it's nigh impossible to fully explain without delving into complex fluid dynamics calculations. As such, most people have been taught a highly simplified version of it that relies on eliminating all but a few factors and hedging the explanations of what gives rise to these things.
-
^ Tomato is a fruit isn't it?
Right ok. Well that sucks. I've only been playing a couple of days but I can't go back to stock now knowing that the air resistance model sucks but this is unplayable for me cos I play with mortal kerbals and no reverting. I guess I'll just put this game on hold then until this is sorted.
How can I find out when there's an update and what's included?
Thanks.
You can download the current dev build from the github.
I guess to find out when an update is is to check here and the github! Look at the update log to know what's included.
- - - Updated - - -
Please watch this:Not the first 5 minutes, not the first 15 minutes. The whole thing.
This'd be useful if he had a common misconception, such as one of those two.
He doesn't, though! He's made a completely new one.
-
I've seen all the tested theories, Ferram. They don't address my question, nor do you. This isn't a pissing match, it's a simple matter of kinematics directly, so there's no need to straw man me when I'm addressing the kinematics and everyone else is dodging them. If it was a simple question, you'd have a simple answer. I've read and studied all manner of fluid dynamics and worked the integrals, and incorporated them in my models, but cannot produce the up-vector. "The theory" is not cohesive; it's fragmented as you've shown. One answer here is AoA, another is Cl there, and on like that. Dropping in some "singularity distribution method of generating solutions to potential flow" isn't physics, it's a dodge. Vortex distributions don't lift hundreds of pounds, much less thousands - those up-vectors are again ad-hoc, and don't push up with any distinctive force. The flow at the trailing edge cannot effect the flow at the leading edge, much less the surface area in between, because all of that surface area is no longer there to be effected due to the forward motion vector of the entire plane. Those events happen AFTER the lift. The air doesn't magically travel over the top of the wing at one speed, then massively accelerate around and underneath to catch back up with the already-accelerating plane (engine thrust) in FRONT of the wing to then push it up. At supersonic speeds, this occurs with some actual impact, but not at takeoff speeds. Takeoff requires the lift to already be occurring.
I'm not attacking you, so just relax. I'm attacking MY model, which is based mathematically on the standard fare. Your mod brought these questions to the forefront for me, so I asked them. Not a drop of offense intended, so please save your rancor for an actual enemy. And again, great work on this mod and the game wouldn't be nearly as accurate without it!
- - - Updated - - -
Bakase, yes, I'll forgive you for your countless logical fallacies because you actually addressed my question, finally.
The plane is still being lifted up, as a body, or it would fall. We still have that forward vector, you see, which is tied to the up-vector. Not as much up as it is the more parallel the wings are to the ground, but it cannot be AoA pushing the plane up when the AoA isn't even aligned with the up-vector at all. Th up-vector I'm talking about is relative to the planetary body in this example: planes DO fly sideways, correct? And upside-down. I can illustrate this concept for you if need be, but that should be pretty straightforward.
Again, no need for the rancor. If you folks aren't interested in this discussion, simply say so. Attempting insult and raging on isn't necessary at all. I'm just asking questions, not calling you guys dummies. Ego need not apply.
If you genuinely had a point, I'm sure I'd love to listen to you. Do point out my logical fallacies, of course.
Planes don't fly sideways. They do fall.
You keep confusing people's arguments based on symmetric and cambered aerofoils.
For the sake of establishing basic principles, keep to a symmetric aerofoil argument. A symmetric aerofoil operates the same both upside down and normally. This is the wing structure used on planes that do fly upside down, such as the one you posted a picture of. And let's skip all the complicated fluid dynamics, which will just confuse things for someone who doesn't understand physics, or the mathematics behind it. Don't try to pretend you've worked any of that through! Every point you made in the paragraph you replied to Ferram shows you haven't. Don't lie. It doesn't help your case as someone who wants to understand the physics.
We're able to skip out the fluid dynamics (well, the calculations) because there's only one effect we're interested in, and we don't need a quantitative description. If you want that, you're going to need more of an education than I can give you.
At zero angle of attack, our symmetric aerofoil generates no lift. We'll assume the plane is travelling forwards at a constant speed, for now. As you tilt your plane upwards (using control surfaces), your angle of attack changes -- the wing surface is now pitched upwards. Airflow travelling under the wing is deflected downwards. According to newton's third law, if the plane is exerting a downwards force on the airflow, an equal and opposite upwards force is exerted on the plane. This is what we call lift.
Happy?
If you're going to argue and say that a plane with a symmetric aerofoil can fly upside down with no AoA, you'd damn well better provide a source.
-
Describing that the wing causes lift is not the same as explaining how the wingcauses lift. You give lift to AoA and camber, which is certainly the standard answer. Regurgitating textbooks is fine, and I agree with you that most instructors likely failed to explain this properly, for the same reasons you've listed above. Often it's given to the control surfaces, but those control the plane after the lift is generated, of course. If control surfaces created the lift, we wouldn't need wings, merely attachment structures, and control surfaces could fly on their own.
Nobody said control surfaces control lift. Control surfaces are for turning the plane.
If lift is perpendicular to the airflow, we have the same problems with both ascent and descent.
What problems? There are no problems here.
I argue that lift is perpendicular to the Earth (or K-body), in opposition to the gravity vector. Why? Because a plane with no AoA, flying straight forward, still feels lift. If AoA were generating the lift in the fluid-dynamics theory you're describing, then we should have no lift with no AoA, correct?
ONLY if we're talking about asymmetric or cambered aerofoils. Plenty of people have covered this. If you turn one of these aerofoils upside down, its lift vector points downwards.
Or do you think the control surface harness the lift? I'm asking genuinely here, despite the tone.Doesn't make sense.
We have an up-vector which is floating mass, due to a forward vector of course (take-off).What? Do you know what a vector is?
I have a great deal of experience with fluid dynamics and use them quite often in Maya, both for physics simulations and for my architectural work.As you have so kindly demonstrated, experience is not equivalent to knowledge -- of which you have none, and I'm inclined to doubt the former too.
Yes, it does. That's just the effect of the wing propagating forwards (because the wing is not in a vacuum, effects can propagate in the form of pressure differences).Notice how in almost all the standard diagrams, we have the airflow lifted before it reaches the wing.
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/K-12/airplane/Images/incline.gif
But that's a blatant dodge, because the angle is supposed to cause the lift AFTER the airflow hits the wing. With me? The airflow has no reason to be moving up to hit that wing at all, in the second diagram on the left there especially.
We go to Maya, and I run a quick fluid sim with both a straight wing and an angled-up wing, for some confirmation:
http://i.imgur.com/4BcSaOa.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Soj9PNK.jpg
Notice how we have no field-lines pushing up for some magical reason, before the wing? Also, notice how even in Maya those arrows are just field indicators? They're a post-hoc overview of the field lines. A tracing, basically, showing how the fluid is moving. Now notice that none of them are pushing up on the wing, much less the rest of the plane itself. We don't have any up-vectors at all until after the wing. How can those up-vectors push an entire craft upwards, when the craft isn't even there anymore to begin with, due to the forward-vector?
A) I think the simulation doesn't seem terribly good, but I don't really know how to interpret this.
Your simulation won't display any effect on the craft, even if it predicts one there -- which it does. Notice that the net movement of the flow is DOWNWARDS? Ever heard of a little thing called Newton's third law? I do hope you're not a physics student, as anyone who lacks that understanding is surely going to fail.I'm looking for the cause of the up-vector here, nothing more. Thank you for clearing up the terms especially in regards to AoA, and I am still studying quite heavily, but was chiefly curious if you or anyone here could explain it. There's really no need to be angry; I certainly am not. I am not a crank, crackpot, or any other ad hom, but a curious physics student trying to fill in holes, either in my understanding or in theories as I find them. Which is why I brought it up here, since most of you folks have a wealth of knowledge on these topics. As I stated, your mod is just fine without filling this hole in the theory, and works beautifully and I thank you very much for all your hard work! I'll read that paper again.
There really is no hole in the theory -- or at least not one you have hit upon. If lift always points upwards, do you think planes can fly on their sides? Why do we need wings?
I think you'll forgive me for saying that you do seem like a crank or a crackpot for trying to dispute established principles with no understanding of even the most basic physics.
-
Hello,
I have a bit of an issue with ailerons and elevators. I've set each one to have the correct input, ailerons with only roll percentage and elevators with only pitch percentage but both sets move when a separate roll or pitch input is given.
E.g when i put the stick to straight left roll the pitch elevators also move (in the opposite direction). It happens with stock control surfaces and procedural. I'm not sure if its a bug or not or whether I need to change something else in the SPH. I've included a pic of the aileron settings - apart from the pitch/roll distinction the inside elevators have the same settings.
Any help gratefully received,
Thanks!
I think you forgot your image!
Does this happen using WASD input, or is it just the stick?
-
Well yes 1.0 stock aero good enough. But what you suggest? FAR?
No way. i've tried it 2 times since 1.0. First time i meet constantly aero failure on maneuver. Second time ("Ferri" build) in addition constantly craft shaking and destruction on bypass the sound barrier. It was enough to reject FAR use.
Yes, FAR is good. If you're not going to build and fly your planes in a sensible manner, of course FAR won't be happy with it. With FAR, you actually need to consider the shape of your aircraft rather than just slap sixteen wings and a turbojet on a fuselage and call it a day.
Otherwise, you can wait until they update B9 for the stock aerodynamics -- which won't happen until 1.03 is released (along with a stock aerodynamics overhaul).
Your simulation won't display any effect on the craft, even if it predicts one there -- which it does. Notice that the net movement of the flow is DOWNWARDS? Ever heard of a little thing called Newton's third law? I do hope you're not a physics student, as anyone who lacks that understanding is surely going to fail.
[1.3.0] OPT Space Plane v2.0.1 - updated 29/07/2017
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted
I don't really like that K cockpit... i love the one in the current test version!
It's not really a problem having extra cockpits in the pack, anyway -- I don't think anyone's complained about it!
As for part descriptions -- I'll be back at home in just over two weeks, so I can finish them off then.