Jump to content

swjr-swis

Members
  • Posts

    2,991
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by swjr-swis

  1. I have been dealing with a rather severe case of this ailment this weekend. Ever since the Juno was added to the game, back in 1.0.5 if I remember correctly, I have wanted to build myself a griffinfly (long extinct giant dragonfly). My game saves are full of half-done examples, but somehow I never got one to a point where I was happy with it. Yesterday, the bug bit me again, so to speak: a bit of random fooling around in the SPH started to look suspiciously insect-like. For the first time in all those attempts I got one that combined looks and performance (or that doesn't auto-destruct on loading... story for another day/thread). Except... it's stuck at the very end of the transsonic region. It keeps oozing up to that edge, but burns through its fuel load before punching entirely through. There's a few very obvious things I could do to resolve it - drag reduction, involving removal of radially attached parts etc. But that would kill the design. I could add additional engines, but one of the particular satisfying details was the exact nr of engines it has now. So here I've been, self-restricted in what I can change, spending the entirety of yesterday and today's playtime launching and tweaking and relaunching to try and get it to break free. Anyway, long story short: a silly anecdote that doesn't really contribute much to this very interesting dissertation, but that particular phrase really touched a nerve today. Keep up the good work, and I hope to revisit this thread soon.
  2. Yes, you can. When you grab another vessel with the claw, it becomes one vessel, allowing transfer between all the attached crew compartments.
  3. A picture of the craft might help to find solutions. You might actually be better off going very steeply into the atmosphere, hit the thicker draggy part before the craft heats up too much. But show us a screenshot, there may be other options.
  4. If your main goal is a highly maneuverable plane, the main thing to look for is how close the CoL (blue ball) is behind the CoM (yellow ball). In fact, 'behind' is not even the right word: it should be inside the CoM. If you get this one thing right, every other detail becomes almost irrelevant. Get them practically together, and you could even build a plane without any control surfaces at all that will still maneuver like a cat with its tail on fire, using nothing but the reaction wheel in the cockpit (note: not recommending this, just saying). You can still get very maneuverable planes without doing the above, but you are just making your life difficult. The more distance between the two, the more the aerodynamic forces will fight the plane pitching away from pure prograde, so the more and bigger control surfaces you will need with more leverage (distance from CoM) to still win the battle and make your plane pitch. The catch is of course that it's a compromise: you want your plane to react quick and decisively when you pull the stick, but not so much that you risk losing control and just flipping in the air. In snap mode, a single fine tick more to the front or back can make all the difference. Knowing this, you should always build the wings with the CoM /CoL indicators on, and as you build, make sure that you keep them very close together. When you add a wing section and you see the CoL suddenly jump way back, you know you'll either need to move that section forwards a bit, or you'll have to add wing area in front of the CoM to compensate. (Note: stock CoM/CoL indicators are... quirky, and depending on your building techniques, sometimes outright deceiving. Don't trust them blindly, take them as indications and always test. There are mods that Correct this.) Looking at your plane's main body and the general F-14 look you're going for, I woud suggest the following: That Swept Wing Type B is offset and swept too far back, both for the CoL and for the look you want. It adds a lot of lift area behind the CoM, making it hard to compensate. At least offset it a good bit forward, even better if you rotate it so it's not so swept back, or replace it altogether (suggestion: Type C + 2x Type D + 2x elevon 1). The wing 'shoulders' can be a set of two wing strakes, slightly offset above and below the main wing. Simple, but mimics the F-14 pretty convincingly, and at the same time helps move that CoL closer to the CoM a nice bit. Take the recommendations already given about adding a set of elevators. Not only because that is how the F-14 actually looks, but those will be doing all the hard work of making your plane pitch in high-G turns. A pair of tail fins will do very nicely. If you follow the above recommendations, there's is no need for canards (there hardly ever is, to be honest). It could look something like this: (I later adjusted the tail fins to 75% and the Panther gimbal to 50%... it was too easy to stall and flip the plane at default settings.) Notice the CoL being entirely inside the CoM, CoM almost perfectly centered on the tanks, which should allow to use their entire LF capacity without CoM moving much in flight. I haven't even added any angle of incidence to the wings, since you seem to have built without that (but it is highly recommended!). As for performance: I haven't taken the time to learn the nuances of this particular plane as I usually do before recording or sharing, so forgive me the janky flying (keyboard controls, yay) and the not-quite-tuned plane. It's really just to demonstrate the difference in responsiveness my suggestions make. You can find the craft file for the BG06-F14 if you want to dissect it in-game, although the screenshot and the items I listed above really give all the relevant information. I hope it helps with your design. If you encounter other issues ask away, you can see there's quite a few that will gladly help. Keep us informed on your progress, and by all means share videos/screenshots/craft files of the finished thing.
  5. Ahem. Should this not be reported in that thread you know for the club that shall not be named? Protocol, Sir.
  6. I just published a small DSRV that might be adapted to fit your categories, or be one of its own. definitely fits within the ramp opening 7 kerbal capacity (modest enough?) amphibious by means of retractable wheels and jet-powered thrust, allowing it to transition from carrier to water to land and back designed primarily for submerged operation, including docking and/or grappling to other craft and bases under the waterline fit for exploration/reconnaissance, research, rescue, or even recreation shallow enough draft to enable it to drive back aboard the deck (worst case, by waiting to extend gear until over the edge) The SWiS Sub 1D. It doesn't get much more amphibious. There are a few parts that are mostly decorative, so I could enter an edited version to comply with the stipulated part maximum for the amphibious rover category. Let me know if it fits what you had in mind.
  7. And of course also the class 3 equivalent: the sifu-dree, reaching a new record altitude of 113951 m.
  8. Seeing as the fairing base/engine plate drag shielding are accepted, I'd like to enter themiteytoo for class 2. It combines both parts in the design for an optimal compromise between drag and weight reduction, reaching a new record of 27199 m.
  9. Missed this one before... I think the forum hid the video link from me. Spiffy-looking craft, I like it!
  10. I would like to enter the BumbleBee II, a 2.2 m RAPIER-based drone clocked at 1751.3 m/s or 796 body lengths per second. Form and length are dictated by the nacelle intake dimensions and the need for thermal protection at RAPIER top speeds. The invisibly protruding RAPIER CoM is balanced by a disabled backward-facing RAPIER, leaving CoM in a very manageable and almost centered position. The otherwise relatively conventional design manages to clock 1751.3 m/s, which at 2.2 m in length makes a 796 body lengths per second. Obviously clipping and offset have been used, but all parts are regularly attached and fully exposed to the game's thermal and drag physics, and no cheats were required, the drone uses fuel and air. It results in a quite viable-looking design, which is at least as worthy of consideration along-side more esoteric non-clipping (but mechanically/structurally/aerodynamically questionable, respectfully) entries. Junos max out at 820 m/s at sea level, there's been challenges before that proved that. It's not too difficult to make a very controllable/stable drone to do this (has to be if you need to skim the surface for max speed). So at 1.3 m with landing gear that maxes out at 631 bl/s. With clipping and droppable gear length could be shortened max to 0.5 m, using only elevons 1's, the length of the Juno setting the limit. So potentially, values of up to 1640 bl/s could be reached, which is completely outside the feasible with any other engine, RAPIER included. A non-entry example, just going for the shortest length (0.5 m) reaches 1305 body lengths per second on a single (thrusting) Juno:
  11. Automated lithobraking. If that isn't a kerbal application, I don't know what is.
  12. Imagine if we could use the pressure readout of the barometer as an input... dynamically adjust control surface authority/deployment to pressure, or ballast systems that adjust to depth. Ore % readout to make an auto-searching ISRU rover that finds the spot with the highest ore yield in the landing area. Thermometer readout to adjust airbrake deployment and/or pitch angle to manage reentry heat, or reduce throttle for super- and hypersonic planes to stay within thermal tolerances. Ah but a Kerbal can dream...
  13. This is a dead giveaway for the root cause: this means that the docking port has been attached to the ship by its front docking node, instead of the back one. Since that front node is not free to use, it won't dock. And this is the second part of the puzzle. Fairing interstage nodes always come in pairs, almost overlapping, pointing opposite of each other. Add to that a part that also has its front and back nodes very close to each other, like a docking port, and it's very easy to get those attached incorrectly. Always check and double-check in such cases. You may still be able to correct this in flight with EVA construction, if there's not too much clipping involved. otherwise back to the VAB/SPH and reconnect them properly before launching again.
  14. Thank you for doing this. Much of this I already 'knew' from my own planes and testing, but it always helps to see it confirmed with actual data. Much appreciated, also with the very readable presentation. One tip that may open a world for you in matters of fuel efficiency: add a few degrees of Angle of Incidence to your wings (rotating them so the leading edge is pointing a bit upwards compared to the trailing edge). This allows for lift to be generated while keeping the main body of the plane as close to prograde as possible, which minimizes body drag. Conversely it may allow smaller wing area to maintain the same lift, which would also lower total drag. both of those tend to translate to more fuel efficient flight, combined with the more common optimizations. Get accustomed to tuning your plane designs to efficient flying, and you'll notice it's possible to do much better even, with smaller/slower engines too. How about on a single Juno, using less than 86 units of LF? Flying at mach 2+ and relatively high was definitely key for this one too. I'll be interested to see what designs you come up with. Do share!
  15. Corrected entry for class 2: themiteyone c, 9728 m. Corrected entry for class 3: the sifu-dawn b, 52148 m. The sepratwist did not need correction, it landed with all parts intact.
  16. I need to stop doing these challenges when I'm having trouble sleeping - just now realized this means the entire rocket, not just the kerbal. I'll have to redo the class 2 and 3 entries, since they lost their fins on landing. I assume this also means no fairing shroud deployment? Correction coming up.
  17. Entry for class 1: the sepratwist, 1469 m. Entry for class 2: themiteyone, 11674 m. Please ignore, see corrected no-damage entry. Entry for class 3: the sifu-dwan, 88128 m. Please ignore, see corrected no-damage entry.
  18. Or... and hear me out a moment... add an option for us to entirely disable (and I really do mean with absolute prejudice disable) the code that does the 'let's disable stuff when parts are shielded' thing. That would solve So. Many. Bugs. in one fell swoop. Anyway. Never mind me.
  19. These three are not stock or DLC parts (names are different), and you're forgetting to mention one part - the engineer's report in your screenshot shows your craft is made of 6 parts.
  20. There's a third option: use fuel cells powered by LFO (you won't need much). You could even combine things..
  21. Good news! We're always interested in mission reports in this forum. A Sea Dragon launch would make a spectacular one. Hint hint.
  22. Tip: https://kerbalx.com/parts/31747 A few examples of the diversity of legitimate uses for a KAL-1000, in no particular order: https://kerbalx.com/BlackRockStar/Countdown-timer https://kerbalx.com/Triop/Frisbee https://kerbalx.com/BrainyDJ/The-Electric-Rocket-Roller-Coaster https://kerbalx.com/CoyoteFoxtrot/Hexagonal-Folding-Solar-Panel https://kerbalx.com/sir_frost/self-assembling-icosahedron https://kerbalx.com/IkranMakto/Combine-Gunship-Half-Life-2 https://kerbalx.com/yajifu/Auto-Balanced-Drone https://kerbalx.com/jmark1213/MechaRaptor https://kerbalx.com/jmark1213/Imperial-AT-AT https://kerbalx.com/Squiddy/Herald-Mech
  23. Is there a cargo bay or a fairing (base) near that hatch, or is the part slightly clipped into one? And did you stage/decouple/(un)dock something since the last time you tried to EVA? Or even just reload a quicksave? That might be the source of the issue: if a crewed part is considered shielded/occluded by a bay/fairing, it won't allow use of the hatches, ANY hatches on that part. Unfortunately if there is a way to fix it, I'm not aware of it - in all cases where I encountered this, that part would no longer allow EVA regardless of what I tried, with the same message you're showing.
×
×
  • Create New...