Azimech

I don't have the fantasy I can compete with something like your device, Juno's won't even run at that altitude. But it is interesting to see how one of my helicopters will do.

I really would love weather in KSP. As an option.

I'd love some life on this otherwise barren planet. Every planetary body in KSP is incredibly boring.

Which KSP version are you using? What other mods do you have installed? Must be something else going on, heavy oil is the fuel for the boilers.

Guess I'll have to start my own challenge.

Switch friction control from automatic to override. If you want to race, automatic is the worst of all possible options. My cars don't use moving control surfaces, reaction wheels, SAS, upwards pointing Juno's etc.

Let's hope the announced texture switcher could include something like that. Idea, @JPLRepo?

Uploaded four cars and busy with number 5. They're all powered by four Juno's and have boost flaps. Lowell GT60 1967. Finished half a year ago but just gathering dust on the harddrive. Porsche 917K 1970. Porsche 935/78 "Moby Dick" 1978. Also finished half a year ago. Modified a car by SpaceTrashCan with his permission, a Le Mans prototype, the Porsche 919. This one has two Juno's. Someone asked me to build a 1969 Camaro SS. Work in progress. Need to tune the suspension and finish the bodywork. The other one is my 1968 Ford Mustang, I simply used the chassis and engine to build the Camaro. What, a Ford chassis underneath a Chevy?! Blasphemy! Yep, that's me.

Lowell GT60 1967 Petyrbolt, Lowell’s parent company, became sick with envy after the Ford GT40 won at Le Mans 1966. They instructed a team to design a similar car but warned not to clone it. The result was pretty polarizing. Some hated the looks, others became fans the first second they saw it. It was the most extreme car ever designed by Lowell until the 1975 Gandini. Was it quick? Yes. But it didn’t win any race. After five prototypes had been built the CEO of Petyrbolt was fired due to a scandal and replaced with a very conservative one who hated racing and felt the Lowell brand was to produce family cars and nothing else. This CEO lost his life when he was racing a Lowell Peacock in 1968, he drove his car off a cliff right into the terrain of a rocket engine test facility and into the blast of the largest rocket engine in existence. He was instantly vapourized before he could hit the ground. After the tears of joy the original design team came together again and made sure everyone could have the original car - but with 4 Juno jet engines, 50 years later. Features: 4 Juno's. Fuel units: 100. Boost Flaps. Rear lights and brake lights. Top speed >100m/s. Download link. Porsche 917K 1970 Fast Le Mans racer. Won that year. More info about this car: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_917 Features: 4 Juno's. Fuel units: 200. Boost Flaps. Top speed >100m/s. Download link Porsche 935/78 "Moby Dick" 1978 Another Le Mans car and ... probably the weirdest looking Porsche ever. More info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_935#935.2F78_.22Moby_Dick.22 Features: 4 Juno's. Fuel units: 100. Boost Flaps. Rear lights and brake lights. Top speed >100m/s. Download link

Couldn't find a fitting emoticon so I'll just punish you with my face.

If you don't mind, I'd rather go around the launchpad scenery instead of crashing in to them and hoping for the best.

Maybe my new Porsche 935/78 :-) See, it fitz. Little joke, it fits either way.

Yeah, some people see it as if it's a bad thing. Until a new economic system arrives, we can't really blame people for trying to make to best of things.

That looks like fun!

Today I did a test for a possible evolution of the Asura II engine. The proposed engine, Asura III, has the 50 Juno's replaced with 16 Panthers. I don't like the idea. Sure, part count is lower and there's much less for ModuleEnginesFX to do. But the test involved max climb rate after taking off, this defines in a way the max cargo capacity. And what do you know: to achieve the same climb rate you have a higher fuel consumption with the Panthers than with the Juno's. Even if the Panthers are more fuel efficient, their TWR is a lot worse. Not only that, because of the higher mass of the helicopter, I need additional control authority on the tail, 3 Juno's isn't enough at full power - and extra Juno means a changing static CoM, need extra mass in the nose ... etc. I knew I was right when I built the Asura the first time. Hybrid engine with Juno's and Panthers? Maybe. That vertical thing on top of the rotor of the closest heli is an RBSC: "Retreating Blade Stall Compensator". It works flawlessly and improves control at all speeds and power settings.

He's going to race the thing in DMP he says. I'll wait with uploading until he doesn't need it anymore :-) You can try this one if you like: https://kerbalx.com/Azimech/77I--Lowell-Can-Am-racer-1969-10 What is the power source and why are the engine pods mounted on klaws? You did!

Some ideas which could improve the game in lots of ways. What do you think, @JPLRepo? 1. Optional alternative control method. Control surfaces only work with their assigned input depending on vehicle orientation. This means you can't have ailerons mounted at a 90 degree angle and expect them to function. Why I believe an optional alternative method is interesting. My largest helicopters are sluggish to control. Actually this is true for all large & heavy VTOLs. To improve control authority I use Juno's on the wingtips and tail. To have a fast response I use my invention, the Boost Flap, to block the thrust of the jets. But ... I have to use action groups. It would be terrific if ailerons would respond. In these images, AG0 = roll to the right, AG8 = roll to the left, AG9 = cancel. 2. Changing control orientation is great for space but ... Since no decent autopilot exists in stock I had to create my own. I use docking ports pointed at the sky and choose "control from here" and SAS setting "radial out". This works reasonably except the game won't control the rudder, ailerons are reversed (countered with setting control authority to a negative value) and keys are reversed: A & D become roll, Q & E become yaw but reversed. This picture shows the autopilot presets, controls pitch. Pitch down = forward flight. From left to right (in degrees) +1, 0, -1, -2, -3, -4, -5. Why I would like an optional alternative method. Using the docking ports or whatever part with the master control option, the user would finally have a good working autopilot without the hassle of the changed keyboard input and reversed ailerons. 3. Spool times of jet engines. I used a stopwatch to measure the spool up time of the Juno. A full 38 seconds from zero to full thrust. There is no jet engine in existence, anywhere, with such poor and unrealistic values. Most engines require 4 to 10 seconds. Spooling down usually goes slower than spooling up but not in KSP. Current values for the Juno, spool up: 0.12. Spool down: 0.5. I recommend the following values, spool up: 1.12. Spool down: 1.0. The Goliath is an even worse offender. Spooling up takes 2 minutes and 5 seconds, spooling down 38 seconds. A real engine company would get an FAA certification when hell freezes over. Why I think this is important. It would be a big step towards more realism and much better control while reducing the amount of frustration to some of the users, and it only takes a few minutes per engine to change the values. 4. Engine thrust vector physics, an idea for the future. When the exhaust thrust of a jet or rocket engine hits an obstacle, two things happen: 1, a force is applied to that obstacle with the same vector as the exhaust thrust. 2, all energy is converted into heat. Why I think this could be improved. In real life the exhaust stream is deflected while applying a force to an obstacle depending on its angle. I propose the following: obstacle angle defines how much thrust is being deflected and the resultant force vector; how much is being converted into heat. Thrust loss depends on part temperature and ambient air temperature, the colder the engine the quicker deflected exhaust loses thrust. For turbine builders this would mean an enormous increase in efficiency, using engine housing or stators to deflect thrust back onto turbine blades. This opposed to the current "turboshaft" engines being essentially "waterwheels". The users would start to get a feel for designing a more realistic gas turbine and it would mean a tiny step towards fluid dynamics. This requires extra calculations but a variable could be defined for the number of cascades and/or precision in calculation for low spec machines. 5. Easy way to increase the amount of available action groups. I often have problems with assigning controls for my more complex machines. Using modifiers like CTRL, ALT and SHIFT the amount would be finally be sufficient.

@DarkOwl57 asked me to build him a modern Corvette or Indycar. I chose the Indycar. It does as sustained ~7G's in corners with a peak of 11 G's. Top speed is around 90m/s. All stock.

You sick mother. I'm going to test it soon!

@JadeOfMaar I don't have a big Enterprise ... I do have a big Excelsior. I'm guessing my Enterprise is smaller than yours (not often someone brags about having a small one). Album link.

Thanks! If you want something really useful as a gunship, the Taranis is more reliable, has a higher top speed, better fuel consumption and a stronger engine. Plus a lower part count. https://kerbalx.com/Azimech/77I-Azi30-Taranis-v10 Nope, they're just models.

Magic.

Not yet but I'm not against the idea. Thanks! You're thinking of a Longbow right? To tell you the truth, I don't see that happening with stock parts soon. I could try placing something on top of them.

If you look at real life, you could say that in a way all parts are "procedural" until designed, built and tested. An agency could choose to use parts that are already proven when creating a new design. The rest depends on the time/money ratio. The more money you have, the faster you can create new parts. Now that would be an interesting game element: Either you choose existing parts or spend time/money for the creation of new parts. Essentially making the tech tree obsolete. Opinion: Who really likes the tech tree anyway?

What's the word? The word is ri-di-cu-lous. Yes. Now repeat after me.