Jump to content

Mekan1k

Members
  • Posts

    2,233
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Mekan1k

  1. No the drag doesn't change, but I really wish someone would write a plugin that would allow that. Sadly, I have exactly no coding skill what so ever.

    There is a mod that can do that- the firespitter plugin.

    forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/24551-Firespitter-propeller-plane-and-helicopter-parts-v4-0-(April-19th)

    I would recommend this- the air brakes use a change in drag to work, so I think they would work well for this sort of intake.

  2. I know, I just said that as a heads-up. I'd like to go into plugins and I'm kinda the only one doing anything, so it'll be good to have you two working on something. :) I'll finish what I've got in the works right now, but once we get some other things to do mod-wise (I'm thinking heat sinks) I'd like you working on models so I can focus on coding and texturing. I don't want to take all the credit, you're a part of this too! :)

    Edit: I just let 3_bit know what's going on via Skype, will be waiting for his input before I make an official announcement on a stream or whatever.

    No worries. I will gladly help with making more of the models- Especially since you said over the livestream that you had been working on a tutorial for using unity- hopefully we can take up some slack there too.

  3. Haha... Yes coming along... it's a long process, and as the weather gets better I seem to have less and less time in the house. When you think up ideas for cool future features... then realize that things will have to be changed 'now' in order for those future ideas to be implemented at a later time... you need to make that snap decision to make it all jive now, for later! And that's what I've had to do essentially.

    On a side note:

    Since everyone loves talking about how the carrier should start in the water I decided to code a slewing feature that will move the carrier to an undetermined location, most likely just off the coast. I haven't tested it yet... just made a rough draft. I'll let everyone know how that works out - once I find out. I'm thinking the starting location will be a cfg edit, so you can change it if you want.

    Essentially the carrier will spawn on the runway then once loaded will jump to the water; hopefully not like a Mexican jumping bean. ;)

    Make sure you show us pictures if it goes right... Or goes wrong. :D

  4. The one thing that will have to happen once I switch to plugin writing is that you and 3_bit will have start doing models; I can't do modeling and coding and texturing all on my own. :P

    Codes and textures are ok, all of them plus models is not fun. I'd recommend starting off by experimenting with the tools Blender (or whatever you use) contains and seeing what you can come up with. The way I did it was experimentation and using basic shapes, then changing those shapes by deleting faces, moving them, extrusions, etc. :)

    I was Initially referring to how you said that the frameshift engine engine 2.0 may come with the bubble effect...

  5. Ummm, no, that turns out not to be the case.

    The propulsive charges in an Orion Drive are nuclear shaped charges. About 85% of the energy from the nuke is directed into the pusher plate.

    If they were not shaped charges, only about 10% would hit the plate.

    Details on my website

    http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/spacegunconvent.php#id--Nukes_In_Space--Nuclear_Shaped_Charges

    Even with shaped charges, alot of energy gets lost to the 'plating' behind the charge. Think about the common military device known as a 'claymore' anti-personnel mine. Now, this is a steel plate with a shaped charge on the front, and some ball bearings or other shrapnel on top of the charge, similar to what is shown on your website. When it fires, the ball bearings go shooting away, and the steel plate becomes distorted and fractured. Similar to a shaped charge of any kind, it is never perfect. However, you have to understand that the casing around the nuke would flash-vaporize or become incredibly distorted, taking up a large chunk of the energy that could be used for propulsion. Similarly, since it is directing energy away from the center of mass of the device, the remnants of the explosive would gain momentum, rather than the ship.

    Let's go back to the claymore analogy- usually it has spikes on the bottom, that can be jammed into a surface to provide purchase upon detonation. However, if you cut off the spikes, placed it on the ground, and detonated it, the mine would fly off in the opposite direction of the explosion. Similarity, the nuclear bomb would need an equal force preventing it from moving in relation to it's initial position upon detonation. Yes, you could use a charge that is shaped to fire in two directions at the same time, but that a minimum of 50% of the energy of the detonation lost. This is due to, well, all of the laws of momentum.

    Without a force opposing the direction of the main blast, the total momentum of the propellant would be equivalent to the total momentum of the charge, and even in the optimal configuration, where the mass of propellant is equivalent to the mass of the casing, the centroid speed of the propellant would be equivalent to the overall speed of the casing away from the point of detonation.

    Anyway, when the Orion concept was first developed the concept was brought up on the unshaped nuclear charge, not the shaped ones. So really, it does not matter anyway, as the Orion system is still LESS EFFICIENT than the Nuclear Salt-Water Rocket.

    EDIT- Spelling corrections

    EDIT- Just to let you know, I am now bookmarking that site. Thanks for the link! :cool:

  6. Ummmmm, I fear that you do not understand the nuclear salt water rocket.

    Orion is a nuclear rocket driven by a series of detonations near its tail.

    Nuclear salt water rocket is driven by a CONTINUOUS NUCLEAR DETONATION near its tail.

    So the salt water rocket is worse.

    Depends on your point of view.

    The concussive impacts of the Orion system can cause damage to the rocket, and a lot of energy is release sideways and lost in the detonation of the bombs.

    Nuclear salt water rockets end up with a 'continuous' explosion, yes, but it is directed, so a lot of extra energy gets used for propulsion instead of being perpendicular to the point of detonation, making it more energy efficient. Since it is 'continuous' as well, in conjunction with the water as reaction mass, the rocket becomes more efficient and safer, and the structure does not have to deal with the concussive shockwaves of the nukes....

    From my point of view, the Nuclear Saltwater rocket is much safer, if only because the method requires less nuclear explosives.

  7. Actually, there is a problem. I remember that in a discussion before the crash, there was one guy who wanted to make a planet, and add it to the game, but he could not because the game revolves the planets and such around the player. There is no real 'gravity', merely a reference frame that lets the player know what they are 'in orbit' around.

    Of course, I could be completely wrong...

  8. On Mechjeb, Version 2 and 1.9.8 the landing guidance for a space plane doesn't work, i'm on a mac, and when I engage it, it just points directly down and doesn't do anything.

    Are you out of atmosphere? Because the space-plane landing guidance only works if your wings have lift in atmos.... I would recommend using rocket-style landing guidance prior to atmospheric landing, and then turn on the space-plane guidance as you enter the atmosphere.

×
×
  • Create New...