Jump to content

JaredTheDragon

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    97

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by JaredTheDragon

  1. JaredTheDragon
    You prove my point. Blowfish said the opposite, and he's no fool nor me nor you. We have a disagreement there, a hole needing to be filled. The up-vector is an up-vector relative to gravity. How would gravity know the plane had flipped? What is the mysterious mediating particle interaction which would tell the Earth (or Kerbol) that the plane had flipped? If the back edge of the wing is somehow producing thrust up relative to the craft, due to AoA or curvature of the wing body, this would be inverted in an inverted flight. It would be thrusting down relative to the craft, which would be up relative to gravity, and planes would not be able to generate lift while flying inverted, by definition. No, most old planes could NOT adjust their AoA and had no mechanisms at all in their wings to do so. There is nothing magical about it, but there is everything magical about the standard answers here. We need to do better than that. We need real answers, not dodges. But we notice it in flight parameters. Again, old biplanes didn't have adjustable AoAs, but they both flew and flew inverted just fine. That's the problem with the AoA answer, right there. Still no up-vector. I only intend for people to think on these things. Ferram, you needn't concern yourself with charge physics for the sake of the game. It's a bigger overhaul than anyone is willing to take on. But since the game still represents the best, most accurate physics of ANY game (especially thanks to you, sir), it seems only right that we continue down that course. It's a perfect opportunity to do so. Just exploration, here.
  2. JaredTheDragon
    Nice textures, I'll give it a spin and see how it goes! I like variety.
  3. JaredTheDragon
    A symmetric wing should generate no lift, since the top would be the same length as the bottom. But it does. You just said it generated negative lift at a negative AoA. How can a negative lift - by definition, opposite to positive lift - be "in the correct direction to keep you in the sky"? A negative is the opposite of a positive. And this still doesn't answer the question regarding planes with no adjustable AoA being able to both fly and fly inverted, my friend. Nor the shallow descent problem. Nor the impetus to upward motion problem - the original up-vector. Stating a wing wil generate positive lift is not a description of how, which was my only concern. How does any wing generate an up-vector? What is pushing up? Is the air above cohering somehow, and pulling the very large mass (relatively) of any plane up, then? What is causing the air cohering to pull up, then? I hate to make a swiss cheese of things, but it's so easy that it can't be ignored. We know there IS a vector up. We utilize it in airplanes, and then oppose it with wings on very fast race-cars (spoilers, obviously). So what is causing this vector up, since it's not AoA, fluid dynamics, or an imaginary cohesion with no reason to pull something below it?
  4. JaredTheDragon
    I'll argue "basic" physics with anyone, thank you very much. If there's a hole in logic or theory, let's attempt to fill it. Ferram has done some great work here and I completely respect and admire that, but that's no reason to call for an appeal to authority while leaving holes in theory and physics. If it's so basic, how can we not answer these questions without dodges, hedges, and the failed textbook answers? We're trying to explain the vector up with fluid dynamics and angles, and I'm just not satisfied. If Ferram wants me to shut up and start my own thread, all he need do is tell me so. These are questions which seemed critically important to the topic, though - not exhibiting lift on a wing, in the game, which he's definitely done already! But rather, analyzing the root cause of the up-vector.
  5. JaredTheDragon
    If this were so, the same wing profile wouldn't work upside down, since the "lift" would be pointing up, not down. If you turn the wing over, it still generates lift. Also, the explanation is post-hoc. It explains that air moves down following the trailing edge, but now how such a motion could push up on a place which is already past that due to the forward vector. It wouldn't have any pressure on something that's no longer there, and a downward vector is the opposite of an upward vector, you see. If the angle of attack goes negative, in that model, the plane would drop quickly since there would be no lift, thus airplanes wouldn't be capable of shallow descents. Lift is still very positive in shallow descents, as it's counteracting most of the weight of the plane. Most descents don't occur at terminal velocity. To address your last point, watch any older planes maneuver without changing their angle of attack. Even in the 1920s, planes were highly maneuverable. We've been flying inverted from the early days.
  6. JaredTheDragon
    Do not install the Deprecated folder. All the parts are there, in mine, using the latest Dev build. Engines seem to be working more predictably and similar to the stock engines. That is to say, they sure overheat quickly! But good work, Blowfish and company. I can't even begin to keep up with you guys! I'm using Heat Control and Heat Management. Would anyone be opposed to an HX-sized part, along those lines?
  7. JaredTheDragon
    I remember watching jetliners take off with no necessary angle of attack. Lift being generated by...?
  8. JaredTheDragon
    Call me stupid, but I've had your mod installed since it came out and I just finally got around to using it tonight. Except I can't find it, in the parts "list"? I have Heat Management installed and it works fine. Is your mod in a different place? Not "Command and Control"? I checked through the various sorters, but still can't find any of your parts. ~100 or so Mods here in 1.02, am I just looking in the wrong places?
  9. JaredTheDragon
    Can confirm the engines are working fine in the Dev build from last week, where you guys fixed that SAS connector. Flies like a dream in stock Aero, actually, but I'll update tonight and test your new flight models, Blowfish.
  10. JaredTheDragon
    The Dev version is working very well, in 1.02. Give it a spin, and help these guys find any bugs or problems. There's no reason you can't have multiple installs of different versions of KSP, people. If you prefer .90, play that.
  11. JaredTheDragon
    Is this not evidence against the angle of attack theory of lift on a wing? Many planes (if not all) can fly upside-down, which negates angle of attack as the cause of lift on a wing. Waxing theoretical, here. FAR is still awesome and the actual cause of lift need not be introduced, since the up-vector is the same regardless of the cause.
  12. JaredTheDragon
    Second that. Gimbals seem to be working just fine with the latest Dev Release here, in 1.02.
  13. JaredTheDragon
    There's certainly a big difference between the mobile GPUs and the desktop, full-flavor ones, all across the board. My guess would be that you could probably fix some of these issues in the Nvidia Control Panel, as per-application settings like Nalfz says. The first one to try would be: Multi-display/mixed-GPU acceleration: Single display performance mode This generally helps with rendering, even if you don't have a second monitor at all. This setting alone used to make the difference between being able to use Maya or not on a laptop, back in the day. The second culprit generally would be: Threaded optimization: On Hope this helps someone!
  14. JaredTheDragon
    Out of curiosity, what graphics card are you using? More than a bit off-topic, but perhaps we should start a thread and analyze and rate solutions if one doesn't already exist. I'm using a GTX-660 with 2GB of VRAM, on a 5GHz Bulldozer setup. I don't experience those artifacts you're finding, but had some problems with Scatterer producing moire patterns on the oceans which made it unacceptable.
  15. JaredTheDragon
    I'll be testing all the HX and plane parts pretty heavily. I really missed them, since .90. So far, only that one S2 node seems awry and the HX stuff is working great. Not sure how to unheat the things yet effectively, but we'll burn that bridge when we get to it.
  16. JaredTheDragon
    run1235, if you're using a DX-11 capable graphics card in Windows, the single most helpful adjustment I've seen (or used) was to force Direct X 11, in the launcher shortcut. Right-click your shortcut and click "Properties" down below, and add this line to the end of the target field: -force-d3d11 This literally cut my RAM usage in half. From 3.6GB on launch (unplayable, crashed at ~3.7GB) to 1.8GB. This way, you can add even more mods as you desire. I'm at roughly 75, with B9 installed in KSP 1.02. Here's a screenshot:
  17. JaredTheDragon
    Good work, guys! Finally got around to testing the dev build this morning, in 1.02, without FAR. Feels good to lob an 8-part HX ship up to 150km with little effort again! So far, the HX set seems to be working fine. I did however find a little bug with the S2 SAS module. The attachment nodes are wonky, probably just a config fix? Thought you should know. Keep up the great work!
  18. JaredTheDragon
    Out of the utmost vague curiosity, I randomly wonder what this one is. But we are men of action; topical headlines do not become us.
  19. JaredTheDragon
    I think we need to know what version of KSP you're running, first and foremost. I used ATM with .90 and it worked pretty much flawlessly. I never had the issues you're seeing. But I also ran 25-50 mods through several different setups, so it may also be helpful to know what other mods you might have that alter textures or texture management?
  20. JaredTheDragon
    I use Maya, 2012 and 2015 mostly, for my arch/viz job. It seems more efficient just to poly-model parts, that way you can control the UVs better? What are people using to handle complex UVs these days? For Maya, there's Nightshade UV Editor, which is very slick. While the stock tools are also good, it takes UV unwrapping to the next level and it's free. Hope this helps anyone using Maya. http://www.creativecrash.com/maya/script/nightshade-uv-editor
  21. JaredTheDragon
    Gonna give this one a whirl tonight. I don't mind the colors at all, but many people tend to "colorize" their ships with colored lights, so perhaps that's something to think about if you decide to make a neutral scheme? The textures are at least symmetrical and crisp, something you don't see in many (most?) other mods. Good show!
  22. JaredTheDragon
    I've been using ATM up through the .90 release(s), and it worked great. It doesn't help much in 1.02, however, as everyone has already talked about. What worked for me, using a GTX-660 Nvidia card, was the -force-d3d11 flag at the end of the shortcut's target. Dropped from 3.6GB RAM usage at startup (right at the x86 version of the game's limit, in Win7 x64, for reference) to 1.8GB! Chopped memory usage IN HALF, outright. For other graphics cards, this may not be helpful. Forcing OpenGL may work instead. Am I correct to assume that the game defaults to DX9? Is that why the DX11 flag works so well?
  23. JaredTheDragon
    You folks had me at "HX parts", yet again. Easily my favorite parts to work with, in the entire game. Keep up the great work! And Bac9, if you need any outside assistance modeling or texturing, just say the word. Maya for a living, here, and I'm okay with Unity so far with Maya 2015's new "Send to Unity" features and all. You guys rock. Here's my latest hybrid from .90, just for visual fun:
  24. JaredTheDragon
    The premise is false, due to a fundamental misunderstanding of the material involved. 1. Any container must be made of matter. All matter absorbs and emits charge. Not all matter recycles and emits charge in the same way, but there's no evidence of any baryonic matter that isn't charged. Charge is photons. 2. Temperature is thus charge-density, or the amount of photons in a given volume. You aren't applying any physical, mechanical definitions to temperature (heat). Heat is charge density, often given to the infrared photon, but all photons can potentially collide with larger matter (electrons, protons, neutrons) and spin up or down into infrared. 3. The walls of glass, to absorb no energy, would have to exist in an ultimate vaccum with no incoming charge. This has never been shown to be possible. The glass itself emits takes on and emits its own charge, since it is made of matter, and all matter takes on and emits charge photons. 4 Your phrase, "but this also introduces the possibility to nullify (not destroy) energy.", is also false. Nullify and destroy mean the same thing here. Your definitions need to be rigorously examined. You state it almost correctly in the following sentence, but energy is mass in motion, and even in a 1:1 collision the masses are still in motion. Perhaps not relative to each other, but they must still have energy to have mass in the first place. They are still moving with the local system, in the solar system, in the galaxy, in the universe. We have never witnessed a massless, energy-less particle. 5. Infinite resonance is just a catch-all. It requires a resonating mechanism, a waveform outcome of actual moving particles. Without a mechanism, it's just a fun thing to say, with no physics. 6. Given the current, falsified model of hydrogen, oxygen, and water above those, your theory must introduce increasing margins of error. If the configuration of water is unknown, using it as a baseline isn't helpful.
  25. JaredTheDragon
    Excellent! Back in business. I have notice however that the Standard Fusion engine has some issues. When sorting by size, it comes in just before the HE Fusion engine, instead of after it, despite the larger size and greater mass. Then the engine itself is oddly-sized, and looks like it's coming into the VAB as a fairing-engine instead of the usual model? The nodes are also weird, as it offsets up and isn't sized properly, even tweakscaled. It works just fine as expected, upon launch, but graphically and positionally is kinda wonky for me. Can anyone else confirm?
×
×
  • Create New...