Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JaredTheDragon

  1. If you need a hand with imagery, shoot me the image(s) and I'll resize it with Photoshop and some fancy plugins. I upsize stuff constantly for my architectural work (most construction material sites have horrible reference photos), so hopefully I can help here.
  2. Generally, moire patterns emerge from a lack of filtering or the wrong level of filtering. I'm talking about in Maya or Blender for example, not sure how that relates to Scatterer or your work here. My guess is that the bump (no displacement in KSP water?) map is freaking out when Scatterer is running in DX11, coughing up absolutes or something as it's filtered through? I don't know much about how this works in Unity/KSP, but it's a one-click fix in Maya for example. I know that is not helpful at all for KSP, but might get you started on a path to a fix, which hopefully wouldn't be impossible. Either way, great mod - everything else looks just amazing, and there's no going back.
  3. I know it's an issue, and even posted screens of it. My question was how to overcome the issue. DX9 and OGL aren't an option anymore for my playing style (with tons of mods, in 1.04) and so if nobody's fixed the moire patterns, I'll have to wait until someone does. Given the nature of moire patterns, it doesn't seem impossible to fix, since we fix this all the time in other programs. Could we not exclude the water from Scatterer as a start, somehow?
  4. Perhaps a larger, inline Virtual Particle generator? It could simply be a set of the existing ones, attached radially to something cool but quick and simple, and welded as one piece. Maybe 6 or 8 of them, to cut down on part counts?
  5. VTOLs are still possible, and Thrust Controlled Aviation is the key, regardless of which part-set you prefer.
  6. Are these the moire patterns? Is there any way to fix this in DX11? GTX660 here, if that makes a difference. The atmosphere otherwise looks just splendid.
  7. For anyone interested, Nertea's Mk4 parts are up now for 1.04. I'm giving them a spin tonight, I missed them! And thanks so much for all your hard work around here. I'm certainly looking forward to an update of this set when you're ready. [h=2][1.04] Mark IV Spaceplane System - The 'redo everything' update - bigger and better[/h]
  8. I'm playing with these parts again, they're fun but the new stuff is a little confusing at first, here. Perhaps I'm missing a dependency for dust and ore? I was using the catalytic engines on my HX spaceplane (I know, it's ridiculous) and they generated negative thrust in dust-breathing mode? It actually didn't generate a negative force, since my ship still made it to space just fine, but at no point was there any propulsion from dust-breathing mode. Do I need dust tanks too? I think it'd be helpful to update your OP with pics and descriptions of each part, when you have time, now that there are so many. Thanks for the hard work! The ridiculous HX planes, parked along some ridiculous HX ships:
  9. I'm having no problems with the B9 Mk2 parts, here, that I'm aware of. Even mixing them with the HX parts seems to be working. And I'm still having better luck with HX spaceplanes than any other type! Got one up this morning on Hybrid Plasma, even.
  10. One page back. And on nearly every page for the past few months. At least read a page or two back in any thread, on any site, anywhere, for any topic. If we spend a post every single page regurgitating this information, it gets tedious. These guys are doing a ton of work on B9 and we can at least do the legwork of reading a few posts instead of bombarding them with the same question each day. The reason it isn't posted on OP is because it's still in development, and the kind folks developing it are hoping to avoid old bug reports by not posting it there. The development is going great, by the way.
  11. No worries, but I think I'll test them against stock intakes more empirically and see if we can isolate it further. I'm not blaming my crappy spaceplane builds on you guys and hope you don't feel that way. And I'm kinda impressed my HX plane actually orbits faster and better than any of my others in 1.04. #HXLyfeYo (no, I don't really talk that way or hashtag stuff in real life) Trem, click the B9 Maintenance Port link at the bottom of Blowfish's posts. Then click Downloads on the left. Then click Download Repository. Save that file, unzip it, and copy all but the "B9_Aerospace_DEPRECATED" folder over into your Game Data folder of your active 1.04 install. After you do it the first time, it'll seem much easier.
  12. That would also explain (partly) why the HX plane flew so easily and readily. No intakes at all, since no jets. Sure, it's ridiculous and I tweakscaled all the parts down one notch, but with no air intake variations it certainly made for a more predictable flight. I generally use the same intakes you do, and my planes are otherwise rather unpredictable. Very challenging.
  13. I've had some similar adventures but couldn't say it was B9-based parts or not, for sure. I just thought it was me, sucking at spaceplanes now in 1.04. In .90 or 1.02, you could lob just about anything into space. I appreciate the challenge, but it sure is daunting to find all my old planes are now useless. And most of my new ones, too! I've watched Scott Manley's video and all that, but still have considerable trouble getting to LKO. The HX ship parts however are a dream still, and work pretty much how you'd think, for huge square cross-sections flying at mach whatever. Probably gonna try an HX-based plane next, just for fun and testing purposes. Edit: The HX spaceplane flew like a dream, made it to LKO, and worked better than every other spaceplane design I've tried in 1.04. Thanks B9 crew!
  14. The HX parts seem to be working great! Still a lot more of a struggle than it used to be, but I've got 'em sized down a click for fun lately. Perhaps that's an additional challenge, although the TWRs seem to be scaling fine.
  15. I'm wondering if forcing DX11 mode is less efficient with model size and part count than regular? I'll test the same HX ship without DX 11 and see.
  16. I'd like to give a big, bearish, 140lb Korean-kid hug to whichever of you guys added TweakScale to the HX parts! Wow, didn't see that coming - very handy. So far, the HX parts seem to be working great in 1.04. By great, I mean as expected for a square-shaped aerodynamic profile! Watch those gravity turns. I just ended up skipping 'em, for now. Docking works well again too. My entire ship was scaled down one level and it worked pretty well, functionally. I did notice a great deal more lag at 260-ish parts than in 1.02 or .90 with a similar setup. Decoupled 4/5 of the ship and it was gone instantly, but I'm not sure if it's part-related or part-count-related? And out of curiosity, is there any real reason the structural HX hub parts don't have any fuel options? It seems like there could be a lot of fuel in such a part. Perhaps you guys have gone over this before, though.
  17. So far, things work fine in 1.04, but I still get a Firespitter warning that I don't get from other Firespitter .dlls from other mods with the same size/version. Things seem to work fine aside from the warning, though. I'll test out the HX stuff in the morning and see how it goes!
  18. Looking good, Astro. I don't mind the textures, but if you ever need texturing help just say the word. Giving these guys a whirl tonight.
  19. On top of that, using the "...KSP.exe" -force-d3d11" tag in the shortcut target literally chops RAM usage in half. Some folks may not have DirectX 11-capable graphics cards, but at this point everyone should. DX12 is not far off. I personally love the HX parts and have used them as much as any other from any pack, if not the most outright. I'd like to see them expanded upon, if anything. I started a Zentraedi-style parts pack along similar lines and sizes, but failed to make it modular enough and it just ended up seeming like a rip-off of your work on the HX parts. That, and anime-styled parts didn't really fit with anything else in KSP, so I just got bored and stopped. They would have ended up being just like your parts, only with different meshes really. Unnecessary. Please don't ditch HX! If anything, pass it off to those who enjoy them.
  20. I've had a crash now in 1.04 and some wonky landing gear behavior so far, but not the issues you're seeing. Bulldozer@5GHz with a GTX-660 here, though, for reference. Given the GT 650M graphics card, have you tried the "-force-d3d11" upon launching? This chops RAM usage in half in 32-bit KSP, generally. Even with 1.04/1.03 (tested it on both).
  21. At this point, could you toss the "1.03/4/whatever" in the thread title, so at a glance we can know when it's ready? Great work here, solid mod. Thanks for sharing this with us!
  22. Heard it all before, Woot. Your ad-hom is as original as your answer, here: no se existe. Attack my arguments, please. I don't see how I could have been more open and friendly about this. If nobody is interested in my question, fine by me. Nobody outside could answer it; I was hoping insiders could. Again, at no point have I tried to make this a pissing match, so the arguments from authority are even more worthless than they would normally be. We KNOW that planes fly and generate lift and maneuver in certain ways, and at no point have I disputed that. I was born an Air Force brat in Korea and spent most of my life studying the F-16 specifically, especially in Ft. Worth where I got to fly in them, and have no doubts whatsoever that it flies like a dream.
  23. 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.
  24. They work really well, but seem a bit underpowered? As an interplanetary/maneuver set, they're great. They go well with Impossible Innovations, too.
  25. 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. If lift is perpendicular to the airflow, we have the same problems with both ascent and descent. 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? Or do you think the control surface harness the lift? I'm asking genuinely here, despite the tone. We have an up-vector which is floating mass, due to a forward vector of course (take-off). Rockets don't feel lift this way; which is why we generate it for them with rockets. 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. Notice how in almost all the standard diagrams, we have the airflow lifted before it reaches the wing. 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: 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? The fluid sims are working just fine, given fluid dynamics as it stands in an atmosphere with gravity and charge. I'm not questioning those models. But they don't answer my question. 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.
  • Create New...