MunGazer

Moon shielding Earth from collision with space junk https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/5ar55z/moon_shielding_earth_from_collision_with_space/ Could someone who is more rocket science savvy than myself possibly make a persistet.sfs file that would closely mimic this? If so, the challenge would be that we're pretending it is, in fact, the third stage of the saturn V rocket and not an asteroid, and that we intend to retrieve it and return it to KSC without damaging it. I think this would be an awesome challenge especially for some of the more hardcore space enthusiasts. What do you guys think? Would anyone like to set this up or host it? How would you score it, if at all?

Awesome little VTOL. Looks small enough that you could pack it in a 5 meter procedural fairing on a rocket.

I hosted a VTOL challenge similar to this one what seemed like a year ago. This type of challenge can be really fun, I saw it happen. People had built amazing crafts that would even transform themselves after taking off vertically to enter horizontal flight mode. Eventually, the well of interested participants dried up (kinda glad because I wouldn't want to host a challenge for the rest of my life :P), but it was still an awesome experience seeing people pour in so much ingenuity and creativeness and have it be shared and appreciated by their peers. In retrospect, my challenge was probably a little too technically demanding and probably scared off many who wanted to just have fun and make a freestyle submission. It brought out some very impressive crafts and competition. I learned that you can have entrants of vastly varying ability levels and so it's good to be inclusive. In hindsight, the go / no-go format part by itself was a good thing it seemed. That is, can you do X given constraints Y and Z, or not? Based on my experience with hosting that challenge of mine, I would say as long as entrants can somehow show they met the requirements, that's good enough. I really like Eidahlil's k-prize inspired special achievement idea. I have a few ideas to offer: Cargo Hauler - Take something heavy to the island while you're at it and drop it off, and take note of how much it weighed in tons. Finesse - at the small island, fly through one hangar, then immediately swing around and pass through the other without hitting anything or touching the ground. Rover transport - demonstrate the ability to deploy a rover from your VTOL to the small island, one which can drive around to some extent on the island, then pick it up for the return trip. As for actual scoring, you could possibly delegate that to the entrants themselves because trust me, that can be a headache to manage as a host. For instance, cargo hauler. People will no doubt be running a myriad variety of mods. That said, you can just post what their tonnage was for that leaderboard, and let them debate amongst themselves who has the most legit high score. Oh, also figure out beforehand (wish I knew how to do it) how to hyperlink the entries so that entrants and spectators can look at the list and have a blast looking at all the entries without having to read every single reply.

I'm not entirely certain how CKAN works, but I bet that it probably will only show you stuff that is "most definitely" verified as fully up-to-date. I'm 99.99% sure, however, that FAR not being on CKAN yet since the 1.2 update is not a permanent thing and has to do entirely with the fact that an individual human being is having to devote his personal time without pay to code all the changes, run tons of testing iterations, process feedback, ensure compatibility with other mods, and Kraken only knows what else. So that's why most of us tend to suck him off when we can, because who would take his place? I also have developed the feeling that I can't play KSP without FAR. We need to get life insurance going for ferram4 so that if he bails we can pay a developer to pick up the torch. Anyway, to answer your question more specifically, I use CKAN for everything I can and then manually install the rest. In the meantime while waiting for FAR, I've just been playing career mode with KER and cheat-unlocked MechJeb2 from the very start. If I can't yet design overly complex FAR aircraft that "look cool" and make me feel a sense of accomplishment, I can go after objectives in career mode and that is more engaging that building stuff for stock sandbox with no bd armory.

Very helpful, thank you.

Thanks ferram4 for your time and patience with corresponding here. I'm zeroing in on some of the nitty gritty details because I'm just getting started with hopes of developing some pretty serious part mods, and I've been doing a lot of reading both on my downtime at work on my mobile phone and at home on my pc. Acknowledged regarding the collider shape. Lol, no I wouldn't make the collider or make a silly wing that was ridiculously thick but it's good to know FAR would punish me for it. I'm just determining some specific things I need to know for how I make my colliders function well with FAR in the interest of utilizing the wonderful simulation capabilities FAR offers and making some parts that perform both realistically and effictively, while having the concept in mind that supposedly complex colliders are more physics expensive and... could they slow things down in ksp on a decent pc? Perhaps I'm too worried about the complexity of my collider shape, idk. Anyway, I made a quick Microsoft paint drawing to visually aid in a question I have relevant to this, and that is: Given the same exact trapezoidal dimensions and config values for a wing part, how would these three blender collider cross sections for the wing/airfoil be differentiated from one another, if it all, in FAR?

Thanks. As someone who is brand new to modding, I was just now stumbling around on FAR at GitHub and found this: https://github.com/ferram4/Ferram-Aerospace-Research/wiki/Deriving-FAR-values-for-a-wing-using-Blender-2.7 That was useful. Now I know that FAR looks at each wing as a trapezoid for the major data points. Everything in there regarding custom FAR values looks straightforward, except I wonder: "e = 0.87 // Drag per lift, lower equals more drag (based on FAR setting for Squad swept wing)" 1. What's a handy way to derive my drag per lift? 2. Additionally, does FAR care how "thick" my wing's collider is in blender? If not, then I'll make my wing collider a simple 3d six sided trapezoid with no curvature Edit: I just wanted to clarify: I got the impression in the FAR wiki on GitHub that wing calculations are determined solely from trapezoid dimensional data and config values about the wing, so really my #2 question, in other words, would be: Does my wing collider shape really matter that much?

Gotcha, I haven't messed with the forums much since the migration to new software and only just now realized that the "like this" button and giving rep are one in the same. To enhance the usefulness of this post, I thought I'd throw out a technical question or two regarding this mod: 1. If I was new to modding and wanted to make a wing part mod, what steps, if any, should I take to ensure that it functioned with FAR properly? Or does FAR look at the part's shape and mass, and determine everything it needs from that? 2. Does FAR simulate ground effect (the effect of added aerodynamic buoyancy produced by a cushion of air below a vehicle moving close to the ground) ?

Would I be right to say this mod is the most mathematically intensive mod in existence for kerbal space program, based on just the algorithms alone? Atmospheric drag and lift being computed on the fly... what kind of math would be involved? Differential equations?

I just did a fresh install and vanilla test run of the 1.2 pre release with the steam version of KSP, and I'm very happy to report to you guys that so far the rover wheels, even with an 82 ton test fuel tank on top of 8 ruggedized wheels as a test, seem extremely stable. Scott Manley did say they gave the wheel colliders another pass in his preview video. I haven't tried them to see how they interact with cargo bays yet.

Thanks COL and DStaal for the suggestions. The strut & large docking port option does indeed work well for keeping hundreds of tons of cargo in place during flight, and also would nicely facilitate detachment in an external cargo configuration. I looked at the MEPS mod and it appears to be 0.25 compatible only, although I didn't go on a long hunt for a forked newer version. The problem is since I'm using FAR, fuel efficiency, bulkiness of cargo, etc. are factoring in heavily, external cargo is sort of a back to the drawing board less desirable option. Very specifically, I have some large USI freight containers inside an SXT (Lack's Stock Extension) Mk3 cargo bay with ramps on either end. I want to extract them neatly from my beloved cargo plane masterpiece.

RoverDude, first I'll say thanks for this very nice mod. I find that the Malemute rover with miniwheels underneath on the nodes fits nicely into a mk3 cargo bay. That said, I'm asking you for help/advice with something. I made a nice cargo airplane for the polar charter challenge, and I have these really dense / heavy USI containers with lots of Uraninite in them. Over 135 tons in each. The airframe and landing gear handle the weight well, but even with lighter payloads the rover wheels are oscillating around and sliding everywhere inside the bay. I also have the same problems on the runway with almost any rover I make, light or heavy, stock wheels or modded wheels. 1. So, is it just Unity 5's wheel colliders that are causing these problems? 2. In any case, is there anything I can do on my end to circumvent the problem? 3. For the long standing mk3 cargo beds and ramps out there, is there any alternative to effectively extracting ultra heavy freight? I've been experimenting with infernal robotics gantries and linking containers for resource transfer, but the complexity, part count and risk of more physics glitches starts to escalate rapidly and eventually I find myself exhausted and back at square one when my house of cards falls. I've spent probably 20 man hours trying to find a way to get these containers out of my plane without rover wheels to no avail.

Thanks IgorZ for your reply. I will definitely try altering the winch mounting point strength and magnet strength in the config file (hoping I will be able to know how to alter it without coming back here for assistance); so far the air frame has been handling the weight well because the attachment methods I used distribute the stress across the airframe well enough using a large docking port and several struts, although my first description of the problem made it sound like the entire vessel was collapsing.

Hello IgorZ, I decided to come to this mod forum to address a very particular problem I'm having - not a bug, but rather a need for advice. I was participating in the Polar Charter challenge by Pine, and I ran into issues regarding extremely high mass, high density cargo. I have three 2.5m freight containers from USI packed with Uraninite, and they altogether weigh some 400 - 450 tons (depending on if I 100% fill each one or not), and it seems that no matter what kind of infernal robotics or KAS I use, it always either breaks the crane, over stresses things, makes them stretch apart or compress together severely beyond clipping, etc (understandably, irl things of this density would absolutely smash most systems). I've tried using a docking port senior with struts, and that holds it steady as would many other static support options, however, I would like to separate the cargo from my air frame in style rather than just dropping it, or paradropping it (which would probably work pretty well, I just want to stay lore friendly to the challenge). I have considered using an extremely large number of cranes with electromagnets, but I'm a perfectionist when it comes to everything having perfect symmetry and the part count of two dozen winches or more + finding a way to make them look sharp is a huge headache. And of course, wheel physics in Unity 5 spaz out and detonate all parts with the force of a supernova when subjected to such weight. Is there any mod out there that you know of that would assist in handling such 4 locomotives crammed into a Honda Civic mass type cargo? And if not, could you possibly make an ultra-strong winch and attachment system that is capable of manipulating such containers in and out of Mk 3 cargo bays without permanently attaching parts to them?

So apparently Unity 5's wheel collider is extremely unstable, which is probably why I'm having so many problems both with rover wheels and landing gear - especially for ultra-high mass cargo. The more weight you put on wheels, the worse it gets, to the point that my entire craft will suddenly spaz to pieces and send fragments scattering in every direction for several kilometers. I was looking at a tank tread mod 'Kerbal Foundries', but found that it was outdated, and also found this excerpt from the first page of that mod; I figured it would be relevant knowledge for this challenge: "There is currently no 1.1.x compatibility. We're working on it, but as Squad found, U5 wheel colliders in KSP are about as stable as a stack of ping-pong balls. It's being working on by some very clever people, so please be patient. In fact, we're working on an entirely new wheel collider (the bit of U5 that's given Squad so many problems). As you may imagine, this is not easy or quick, but progress is being made." I put a lot of work into that plane and really enjoy it, but unfortunately I may have to wait until the wheel collider is working better. I'm kinda sad about it, because I didn't realize ksp 1.1.x was so terrible with regard to wheel physics until now. As for this challenge, I'd have to go back to the drawing board and create an entirely new airframe which will make handling ultra heavy cargo much easier, without having to worry about wheels. That said, it'll take me a few more days or so, but no worries, I won't give up and I'll make an entry eventually. So, for anyone starting this challenge, I'd advise you to consider designing your craft inside out, starting with a reliable cargo manipulation system. Then, slap that onto a suitable air frame afterward.

Yeah, I hadn't considered landing gear, maybe they'll interact with the bay floor better. I'll give that a try.

Nice, zolo. Well guys, for the CF FAR it looks like I won't be able to deliver anytime soon. I got a very nice airframe going but the way rover wheels interact with the cargo bay is ridiculous, things keep exploding and slipping everywhere.

For the benefit of others looking for cargo solutions, I've discovered two key things: 1. The NRAP Procedural Test Weight is extremely problematic/glitchy inside cargo bays with anything attached to it, I would definitely not recommend it as your actual mission cargo, although it is definitely useful during load testing of your airframe as a simple static load that you don't intend to manipulate/move, unless you're just dropping it straight on the ground or something. 2. The Umbra Space Industries (USI-Rover Division) Karibou Cargo Crate filled up with the EnrichedUranium and DepletedUranium resource (there are a plethora of different resources you can fill it with) weighs in at a very nice 27.825 tons per crate, has very nice cargo bay friendly dimensions, and although I've only just begun working with it, I'd bet that it will be much more easy to manipulate in cargo bays and is also very lore friendly to this challenge.

This is my first time back in the forums in quite a while, but I just happened to be working on a cargo plane when I saw this awesome challenge. So, I decided to refine it and use it in this challenge. I wanted to give you guys a heads up that I'll make a video entry of it hopefully sometime this weekend. In the meantime, I've got a couple questions: 1. Is it alright if I use an NRAP Procedural Test Weight for my cargo? It makes it a lot easier to get the exact weight I want on my plane. I'll certainly deploy it at the polar site with good form. 2. NavUtilities with the HSI isn't working for me in 1.1.3; Van are you using an earlier KSP version that is compatible with the mod, or can someone point me to a version of NavUtilities that works with 1.1.3, or perhaps a substitute?

Thank you so much for your prompt and helpful response. I'm now flying the plane that I had been having trouble with via only stock wings. I have the modular wings now, and I love them, they work great.

For some reason, (just installed this mod), I can't find the actual B9 modular wing parts anywhere while I'm in the SPH. Has this issue come up already with anyone else?

[quote name='ostrich'][URL]http://imgur.com/a/qQ8jM[/URL] Is this allowed?[/QUOTE] Absolutely, just let me know which division you want it in when you make your entry. Looks awesome :)

[quote name='Darren9']I made it around in FAR, in IVA only, in the Harrier, with a full combat load-out, without reaction wheels or SAS. I did use Atmospheric auto-pilot and Vertical Velocity Control, added two JSI/RPM camera's (one looks straight down at the center and one to see the engine position), added ASET throttle position, TWR and radar height readouts as they weren't easily visable and probably worst of all edited the KAX Jump-Jet engine to have the same throttle response time as the new stock Panther engine (0.5), it was 4 times slower and took over 12 seconds to gain 25% throttle. You might want to put it as Gate-Crasher, it seemed reasonable to have it perform as well as a stock one though. It's actually a joy to fly now, especially hitting the air-brakes at 250m/s and falling straight into a stable hover. [URL]http://youtu.be/Kv39V-pJQYI[/URL][/QUOTE] Cool! All the autopilot and instrumentation stuff is just fine; regarding the "mod" of tweaking response time for the engines - I don't consider it overpowered in the context of your entry, you definitely displayed skill and good engineering. So it's a legit entry. Sorry about the delay, I've been playing Fallout 4 way too much.

Looks sharp Darren. Appears to be a valiant effort to capture the functional essence of the real life harrier. - - - Updated - - - Yes you may use those mods for those divisions; if they control throttle and fuel distribution I'd regard it as being sort of an autopilot feature in the context of the challenge. Good luck with your designs and the IVA operation.

It's alright man. I've become much less strict for basic certification entrants than I was when I first set out. I can read between the screenshots a bit and rest assured it was a legit run . Good job, nice craft.