Jump to content

swjr-swis

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,002

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by swjr-swis

  1. swjr-swis
    The link I posted was just the first search hit of the kind of deals I mentioned.... not an endorsement of a specific software package. It may not be the best fit. Doesn't Vegas support plugins/filters - just like After Effects/Premiere, Final Cut, etc? I realize though that that means it wouldn't be the video editor itself doing it, so my comment is out of place. I'll scratch it.
  2. swjr-swis
  3. swjr-swis
    [wrong example apparently. carry on] ..use video editing software, which is designed exactly to handle/correct many of these things. I get that people are loathe to spend money, but seriously, this is what video editors are for. And if you look around, you can get pretty good deals, no need to spend a lot. https://www.humblebundle.com/software/vegas-pro-discover-your-endless-freedom-software?hmb_source=&hmb_medium=product_tile&hmb_campaign=mosaic_section_1_layout_index_1_layout_type_threes_tile_index_1_c_vegaspro_discoveryourendlessfreedom_softwarebundle
  4. swjr-swis
    Docking ports are their own special kind of beast, as far as KSP parts go. There's a reason several mods make a special exception out of docking ports when doing wholesale MM patches (or welding). That thrustchair is really coming together. Professor X meets Aquaman.
  5. swjr-swis
    You've never had to deal with The Beast, young'un. Let me tell you a story...
  6. swjr-swis
    On the contrary: it's feedback from a -clearly- better pilot than I am. I would not expect this kind of design to win any handling prizes. It's a flying engine with a steel H-profile for a skid and an open seat. Pretty sure we wouldn't find anyone to insure this craft, let alone certify it.
  7. swjr-swis
    I am not surprised, that's exactly what I would expect if you do that. And it explains... ..this too: you're trying to fly it at a much lower altitude than I build it for, so yes, you end up having to 'trim too much' (or as you worded it, 'pronounced nose down') to force it to stay at that lower altitude. You're literally fighting the plane (with roll control too, I get the impression from the video). Hats off for that run. It also shows it's indeed capable of under 5 min runs when it all goes well.
  8. swjr-swis
    I ran it at full throttle, and it only flamed out moments before touch down on the KSC runway. I did however climb pretty steeply right from take off and leveled off at around 3km - at that altitude it uses less fuel and suffers less drag. Then on approach to the island, I first lined up, then pitched into a steep dive so I could throttle way back and flare at the last moment. Remember there's the thrust reverser as well. The most efficient landing requires engaging it (brakes) and then shortly burst throttle to shed speed. But the landing requires an almost perfectly level touch down... it's very stressy to get all that done at the same time. Like I said... perfectly level end of approach. I placed it there to keep the CoM balance, but you can't afford to bump or bounce in any way. Hmm, were you adding too much trim perhaps? If I remember correctly, at neutral trim, it wants to climb, no need to 'make' it rotate. Yes, both to help with the take off (to combat the frequent 'stumbling' over completely invisible bumps in the KSC runway), and to regain a natural tendency to flare up on that final approach, when I sometimes needed to Alt-X to completely reset all trim to have a sane last-minute setting and get it perfectly level a meter over the runway.
  9. swjr-swis
    Only when picking one up from Duna.
  10. swjr-swis
    Yes, I've tried this one for good effect (my submission numbering may give a clue as to a number of unsubmitted entries). I ended up not using it due to it still being one part more than I needed. They're also rather expensive, although I wasn't going to lose much on that account anyway. But it works!
  11. swjr-swis
    Somehow... I highly doubt this... *any* of what we're doing here... is in the way they intended. https://i.imgur.com/1400OgM.mp4 (how I picture KSP devs more than once watching us use new parts/features they just added to their game)
  12. swjr-swis
    The craft file is there to try out. In flight it's very stable. I think much of it is passive stability due to the insane drag of the kerbal behind the CoM. Which is much more forward than you'd expect, because of the jet engine's CoM being artificially pushed far ahead. The wings being slightly cambered add a bit too, but that's mostly roll stability. Honestly, the only points where I felt it severely lacked control was on the ground. The skid allows no steering whatsoever, hardly does any braking, and has zero margin for bumping or bouncing. Hence the frustrating part.
  13. swjr-swis
    Ha! You'd think by now we would've learned to flap our aircraft wings for thrust... or to run them on mitochondrial energy... like pretty much every other flying creature we have ever encountered. Or to autoshape our lifting/control surfaces as required at any point of the flight envelope; use them for seamless transition between V-H-V flight; translate in hover with 6DOF with 'static' wings; make our wings of materials and shapes that take optimal advantage of vortex formation/transition/release for physics-'defying' lift to drag ratios; tail sections offering perfect control without vertical stabilizers; etc etc etc. Yes yes, we can go insanely fast, and make really heavy/bulky stuff fly, and we're good at making things go boom while flying. But we're like... toddlers, playing at flying, while clearly still having a very limited understanding of the whole concept. Humans are the real life kerbals of the flying world.
  14. swjr-swis
    Well, I'm entering a new one. It won't be competing for top overall, but should improve on my previous entry. The bad news: I'm getting pretty frustrated trying to make a safe (read: no parts breakage) run with a better time than what I previously clocked. The good news: I finally managed to clock one run that while losing a few seconds from my previous entry, still retains first place in performance category with a good margin. Even at mach 1-ish max speed, runs of under 5 mins are possible. I'm just tired of trying. So this one will have to do. The better news (and reason I'm submitting this entry at all at this point): it takes first place in the complexity/part count category, being the first entry to use only 7 parts. So, presenting the Brik-SPR-4: Cost: 3754 funds Parts: 7 Mass: 2.206t Performance: 5m19s round trip KSC-Island-KSC. This gives it a current overall score of 54 points (2+25+2+25), which together with the resulting ranking reshuffle moves me up to third place overall. I think.
  15. swjr-swis
    Interesting result of this particular scoring system. Shame @QF9E's spectacular top time was lost in the ranking shuffle due to the replacing entry... it'll be pretty hard to get anything close to that with the current type of entries. In all fairness, I think you should dock my time 10 seconds too then, for the same reason (last part anyway).
  16. swjr-swis
    Portal 2. Space core. (Probably Wheatley... blue iris and all. But the Space Core seemed more fitting. )
  17. swjr-swis
    Hmm. Do you happen to have a KAL1000 on the ship? . . . : "Leave the radiators retracted, KAL. KAL?" : "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that."
  18. swjr-swis
    Recently. Ahh kids these days. History only reaches as far back as they can look up on Youtube. Despite what some highly retconned Wikipedia articles may tell you, speedruns were invented in the gaming 'community' about five seconds after the first gathering of gamers finished a regular run of the first computer game with an ending, for the second time in a row. (Ahem. Never mind.)
  19. swjr-swis
    <affecting 'Siri' voice> "I have found 3 Liberators on KerbalX, 3 of them scoring multiple upvotes."
  20. swjr-swis
    The result of a few nights of insomnia. Seems to always work that way for me. What parts did you use for the parasail?
  21. swjr-swis
    That, and what looks like a highly eccentric orbit, to spend less than 20s near Pe. Gives the pod 75 yrs to cool down before the next pass.
  22. swjr-swis
    It's the fastest-loading version on my disk, and still to this day the KSP version least affected by game-breaking bugs/memory leaks/crashes - the only one that is guaranteed to keep running no matter how long I have it open or how many scene changes have happened. And craft created in it are largely compatible with all later versions (*), and perform identical or better in them, so when I share the craft files pretty much everyone can use them. (*: although some caution is necessary with some of the jet engines - just switch them out in a new version, and all is well). Personally, I'm confused people use any other version. I can't run 1.11.2 for more than an hour or two, or a few launches and reverts, before it grinds to a halt and crashes to desktop.
  23. swjr-swis
    If there is a way, I haven't found it yet. KSP's staging logic works in mysterious ways...
  24. swjr-swis
    Today was a day of challenges. I made an OPC (or 5) on @Pds314's Top speed on 1% power. I ran with scissors on @Brikoleur's Simple Plane Race. And I went through a long sepration for @Klapaucius' Sepratron Airplane Challenge. I think I'll try something relaxing next. Like spark-proofing SRBs...
  25. swjr-swis
    Note that due to altitude differences, this grants airfields other than the KSC an advantage (higher TWR & Isp from the sepratrons). For those playing without DLC or on pre-1.4 versions, there are no other airfields than KSC to use. True. 'Not the most reliable' is an understatement, especially regarding distances. The worst of it is that it's wildly inconsistent, else we could still compare the numbers even if inaccurate. But it will easily and for no apparent reason sometimes show numbers several times what the real distance could possibly be, while doing a practically identical run. Possible alternative: you could ask for a screenshot of the Map View once the craft is landed/splashed. When focused on the craft, the Info button will show the LAT/LON of its location. The default KSC runway spawning point is at LAT 0 2' 55" N, LON 74 43' 28" W. Given that one degree is about 10.5km ASL (10.472), the real ground distance covered is relatively easy to calculate from the difference in degrees. All that aside, here's my initial entry, the KlapSAC-1d (craft file here): 115 sepratrons (as many as can be fit in a 1.25m bay such that every nozzle remains distinctly visible), impelling a kerbal in an Mk1 command pod. Lifting and control surfaces present and used, three-point landing gear provided for safe landings. Chute is present only for heat and drag reasons and is not deployed. The KlapSAC-1d reaches an altitude of 57.75km, landing 513km (F3 ground distance) -or around 24.05 degrees (LAT/LON difference, ~252km) if you so choose- away from its starting position, after a flight of 18m30s. Full album: https://imgur.com/a/DfVXSiF
×
×
  • Create New...