Azimech
-
Posts
5,465 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Azimech
-
-
12 hours ago, Bartybum said:
I understand that some players will relish in the opportunities that more realism offers, but KSP is a game at heart - I can guarantee that 90% of the community isn't gonna care for compressor stall, mixture control, proper starting sequences etc. They just wanna fly in space and visit planets.
I'd MUCH rather the devs focus their efforts on content that majority of the playerbase will want to utilise - more/better parts (we REALLY need more adapters, long/short landing wheel varieties, more 0.625m fuel tanks, etc.), basic life support, more planets, clouds, art improvements, etc.
You can guarantee?
Very interesting.
Where are your survey results?
What do you think of the complexities with this DLC, where the props, motors, hinges and cylinders are part of, with the programming of the controller? Tried it yet? It's new territory for me and I don't know nothing about it, but it's exciting.
For example, I never asked for these things, didn't know they were coming. But now I'm glad they're there. How can you say then, you know the playerbase? Even if you are in this community since 2012 like me, you are unable to know what the playerbase wants. Only a vague idea, based on personal bias and the amount of information you were able to gather (which is always insufficient).
What about the fact Squad shared my creations thirty times on their official FB and twitter. Do you think most of them were simple designs? -
1 minute ago, Foxster said:
It took me less than that to figure them out and get a working craft. It took around the same amount of time for me to decide I didn't like doing it.
Some of us happen to like the simple bolt-on nature of KSP's jet engines, rockets and wheels. We don't want all the extraneous stuff of reality.
So by all means maintain all the fiddly bits...but make them optional.
I agree with making them optional.
-
If anything, I think the new engines, props & rotors are too easy to use. Before 1.7.3 we had to deal with designing a solid bearing, cope with low & high frequency vibrations, expanding parts limiting rpm, spontaneous explosions mid flight, much heavier torque than now, heat damage & control, trying to improve power and efficiency etc. A total of hundreds of hours per person, trying to find a fault in the design, trying to find the right materials, trying to invent a proper cooling method, trying to improve aerodynamics etc.
And now people are complaining they can't figure it out after maybe a few hours of trial and error? Props and rotors are not jets. If you want something with the ease of flicking on a ceiling fan, please just use the jets.
I was able to design a plane with a top speed of Mach 0.84 within a few hours. Ridiculous compared how much time I spent in the past to become the speed record holder for two years.
Squad, please add realism. Heat production, mixture control, flameouts, compressor stall, progressive damage, proper starting sequence for turboshafts. And sound for all turboshaft/motors/props/rotors. -
8 hours ago, Shadowmage said:
Nice
How did you manage the torque/thrust balance between main rotor and tail rotor?
My first attempts at a single-rotor heli, I had no way to synchronize the thrust output from the tail with the main rotor, so had to manage torque-induced-yaw mostly manually; lots of manual input and adjusting of trims/defaults. Was a barely controllable mess, but did manage to go up, and come back down in one piece.
Torque and rpm should be max at all times, the only difference is pitch authority limit coupled to normal controls. If the tail rotor bites too much, lower the max rpm.
If torque is not at max, you'll get a too large drop in rpm when changing pitch. -
3 hours ago, Pixel of Life said:
There's definitely something wrong with the propeller blades. "Deploy"ing them and adjusting the authority limiter has zero effect on the amount of lift and drag they generate. Also, toggling the deploy direction kills the lift and makes them generate massive amounts of drag even if the authority limiter is at 0 (so the pitch angle of the blades shouldn't change when extending/retracting them).
Tiny increments, observe.
-
Bleriot XI, 1909.
Trying to build something with a top speed of 21 m/s is véry difficult, if the plane with the same size is more than 10 times as heavy (the original was just 230 kg!)
I couldn't do it. It takes off with 23 m/s and has a level top speed of around 30.
-
14 minutes ago, Noir said:
Yep. Although, they aren't perfectly circular, but appear to be slightly decagon (or higher) in shape.
Also, the decouples are just there for decoration.
They have a high impact rating so ... perfect.
This is mine. Engine is limited to 3% of original torque to give it a nice 1915 top speed. Fixed prop.
-
42 minutes ago, Noir said:
Today I built a biplane in FAR with the new propeller parts and a set of questionable landing gear.
Nice model! What did you use for the wheels? The grip pads?
-
No reaction wheels.
-
A smaller version got up to Mach 0.84.
-
This might be the limit ... For me at least, today.
-
Forgot about this image. Four years ago. Eight blowers, sixteen turbine blades. Top speed: 57 m/s.
-
16 hours ago, jpkerman said:
Does anybody think it is a little humorous that the hardest task in a game about rocket building has become how to make a propeller engine?
Ya think?
-
6 hours ago, boomchacle said:
I finally made a Full stock Synchrocopter :D:D:D
Good job, this is the second synchrocopter I'm seeing. The first one is from 2015.
-
2 minutes ago, KerikBalm said:
Where did you get this from.
He said:
So my question is... How????
With rotors giving about 300 rpm under practical conditions (BG ec rotors spin well under the rad/s limit of the unity engine), a prop blade of a limited diameter/offset will have a rather low velocity.
This means that it must have high pitch to have positive AoA when moving forward at a decent speed. That pitch means that there will be massive cosine losses.
What do these do differently to get around that?
They always act as if they have a certain AoA and their lift vector always points perpendicular to the plane of rotation? This would be very funky and lead to weird and exploitable behavior if using them as wings...
Or is their CoL and CoD offset, so that they act as if the rotor diameter is much larger than it is? (2m radius for a prop isnt really enough for high speed with current rotors)
Is there any functional difference between the 2m prop blade and the 2m helo blade.
I want to be excited for these, but at the moment, I don't really understand what they do differently than what we have.
Check the turboshaft topic, sort of parallel discussion about this.
-
Yes, thank you!
-
What he means with the usual issues is the centrifugal effect making the parts seemingly float around the hub at high rpm.
This is great, because those small props can also be used for turbines and/or building turbofans. -
2 minutes ago, JPLRepo said:
They are not normal lifting or control surfaces.
they are in aerodynamics part group.
It's not clear to me what you mean by that because I had the impression all lifting & control surfaces are part of the aerodynamics group.
-
7 hours ago, KerikBalm said:
Looking at this image:
We have a 2.0 meter prop blade, and a 2.0 meter helo blade. The Helo blade has a flat profile, the prop blade has a twisted profile. I guess the twist IRL would be more useful when forward velocity is significant compared to the blade velocity. How will this factor in to KSP when its a single part that presumably has 1 lift vector.
I wonder if its going to be a bit funky, and not like a normal aerodynamic part. A problem with current props, that won't be solved by this part if it just is variable pitch (but it would help part count), is that (due to the low rotational rate) to go fast, you need very high blade pitch. High blade pitch means massive cosine losses, as most of the lift is pointed away from the direction of flight.
I wonder if this part is being cheeky, or if that is literally what it does:
If it basically cancels out the lift, and instead applies a thrust, then those massive cosine losses disappear, and props can function much better even with a low RPM limit.
It would also be cool if the helo blades somehow gave the option for cyclic control (and if they generate "KSP thrust" maybe their thrust curve has a much lower max velocity?)... otherwise, what's the point of a 2m prop blade and a 2m helo blade?
Now those are valid questions which really deserve an answer.
By the way, I don't mind the stock behaviour because all my stock turboprops and helicopters are fine they way they are.
@RoverDude is there a new module/library for these parts or does it just use Errordynamics as usual?
-
9 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:
@SQUAD, another concern I have is the lack of a 0.625m equivalent to the R121, which is displayed as "1.3 m" in diameter (I assume that 1.3 is just rounded up from 1.25 meters). Ideally, for small Mk1 fuselage based aircraft that use the 1.25m crew cabins and fuel tanks and such, a 0.625m engine nacelle should be an option as well. Otherwise you end up with rather oversized engines and less build options for small aircraft layouts.
I could be jumping the gun on this one since the lack of a 0.625m engine in the preview image doesn't mean there isn't one in the works, but I figured I should bring this up earlier rather than later.
Yep.
-
1 minute ago, Chryssalid 8492 said:
I give it about five minutes tops.
You read my mind.
-
1 hour ago, m4ti140 said:
Building props yourself out of rotors and aerodynamic surfaces gives you a more accurate simulation of props/lifting rotors than a jet posing for a prop engine would and therefore gives you more insight into what's happening in rotating systems like those - which is what we won't from an educational game like this in the first place. Firespitter does fake rotors already and it's bad. Look up the Mi-26 craft someone made with Breaking Ground with fully articulated rotor hub and a swashplate - it accidentally got an almost X-plane tier flight model due to each blade section's aerodynamics being individually simulated. Of course they could make them procedural and simulate all of the effects (like center of lift shifting to the left in forward flight) instead, but I don't see them doing that.
What they should do is "just" fix the rotors themselves and change the way physics calculations are done for the parts attached to its nodes (i.e. use radial coordinates, constrain radial direction so that they don't "fly away" due to centrifugal force and perhaps do multiple physics loops per frame for rotating parts, basically give the rotating section its own physics grid that rotates with it - all of which might require circumventing how Unity handles stuff in one way or another, thought it's not like they haven't done it before).
It's not often I give someone a like on this topic.
-
8 minutes ago, Tonka Crash said:
The comments on the prop rotational speed seem kind of premature. Real world engine rpm is for real world aerodynamics where you want to spin the prop as fast as possible without the tips going supersonic. Instead of a speed of sound limit we have a Unity RPM limit, it's just a different constraint.
These props don't have to obey the physics of air flow around an airfoil to produce thrust. They follow whatever thrust curve is programmed into their .cfg files. Even if Squad screws this up, all it will take is a MM patch to change the prop thrust curves.
What I'm curious about is if there are multiple engine sizes with different power outputs to use the different blade sizes.
Yes, I already wrote it's easy to write a part that works with KSP's errordynamics. In fact I know more than most. I invented the stock turboshaft/prop, the variable pitch propeller and held the stock turboprop speed record for a few years.
What is even more interesting if the limit goes up, it opens up other possibilities like smaller & lighter stock piston engines.
-
1 hour ago, T1mo98 said:
Why would they make an engine and props to be used as a turboprop that would not be powerful enough to actually function properly?
Seems a bit silly to say that the engines and propellers designed specifically for this won't be powerful enough.
These are turboshaft engines. The difference in concept is minimal, the big difference is rotational speed. A helicopter rotor works at much lower speed but the engine delivers much more torque. Why is that? Because a rotor has a much larger diameter to produce the required lift. If you would decrease the rotor diameter you would have to increase the rpm, to a point the tips would exceed Mach1, limiting lift and produce a noise way beyond acceptable.
With a turboprop it's the other way around. A propeller is not at max efficiency while the plane is stationary. It has to move and change its pitch to match every speed regime. It also needs a high rpm otherwise the blades will stall.
Therefore: using a turboshaft with a max rpm of 477 (the current game limit) to propel a plane with a normal diameter prop might give it the ground speed of your grandma's sedan.
How did you manage the torque/thrust balance between main rotor and tail rotor?
Kerbal Space Program 1.7.3 is live!
in 2019
Posted · Edited by Snark
Redacted by moderator
Never said it was a hyper realistic aerospace simulator. [snip]
You know this game has a very steep learning curve. So what is wrong with some extra complexity ... because we're talking about the DLC here. The DLC added stuff most users have never used before and maybe never will. Infernal Robotics paved the way. So aside surface features, the DLC is aimed at exactly that userbase wanting to do more. Do complex stuff. And I'm glad Squad recognizes a lot of people actually consider KSP a powerful design tool, much more than a game. Because in ways, the editor is the biggest selling point. Not career or science mode. The gameplay is flawed and I haven't had the interest to complete the tech tree since 2014.
Watched a video ... really like it. Thanks.