Azimech

For anyone having problems getting good performance out of your turboprops, here's a short list of do's and don'ts. 1: Don't use rigid attachment anywhere on the turbine shaft, this limits max engine RPM. 2: Don't use Kerbal Joint Reinforcement for the same reason. 3: Make sure your engine is capable of operating near 50 rad/s and keep it operating at those speeds. Unfortunately 50 rad/s is also near the physics redline so you need to watch your engine speed closely at all times. 4: Use a variable pitch propeller. 5: A larger diameter turbine means more torque. 6: Make use of the fact parts radially expand from the turbine shaft at speeds >30 rad/s. Build a stage for starting the engine, another stage that kicks in at 35 rad/s, these blowers start hitting the colliders of the turbine blades. 7: Try to build a stock fairing around your engine. All parts inside will be shielded and produce no drag. No airflow for cooling either so you'll need to build a cooling system as well. 8: Use Kerbal Engineer or V.O.I.D. for the ability to read engine speed. Example turboprop with multi-stage blowers: https://kerbalx.com/Azimech/77I-Azi12-Curious-Chakora-v31 Example turboprop with a stock fairing and cooling system: https://kerbalx.com/Azimech/77I--Azi19-Jolly-Jinn

I admire your compact design but I think more people will like it over here: Development update, my Focke Wulf Fw 190-A4. Another major redesign. Click the album for picture descriptions.

Super! But I've forgotten how to do it. Edit: it's as simple as pasting the link to the album.

Terrific news!

Forgot to mention the redesign of the engine involves a radical departure from the Chakora form factor I introduced almost a year ago. Instead of using a MK3 cargo bay as the engine frame I'm using a MK3 short fuel tank as the base and attach the blowers & bearing elements floating behind the fairing. The result is a superb increase in fuel capacity. Craft empty: 54t. Tanks full: 91t. I also discovered joint strength is not only based on basic part mass but also resource mass which is a serious bug! To illustrate: flying with tank full, everything fine. Tank almost empty: kraken attack. Solved it with a few struts. I believe the landing gear autostruts might switch dynamically to which part they're connected to, another reason we need more control over their behaviour.

Small update: redesigned engine and introduced a simple fairing. The old one had the looks of a fairing but was really just a drag hog. The result: 80 parts less and a speed increase from 540 to 576 km/h. But now this engine needs a cooling system as well - it overheats in 10 minutes and explodes. Dimensions and position need some tweaking. The hole is a problem to get right, the fairing system has the incredibly irritating tendency to snap, making the hole too small or too large. I'm very happy with the results so far!

If you ever decide to build a stock turboprop, the Brewster Buffalo is a fine choice and seems a bit of a legend in the Finnish air force. While the Finns liked it and highly successful against Soviet aircraft, the Dutch called it the "flying coffin" because it was inadequate against Japanese fighters early in the war. Aircraft based on radial engines are easier for building turboprops although I've built my Bf 109 using a "flat" turboprop.

Keep asking, I'll join :-)

I'm really going to finish it this time. I promise! Now with winter camo! :-P I've continued the development of my Focke-Wulf Fw 190 A-4 from where I left it last August. A lot has improved. I've redesigned the core so it's possible to exchange the engine for a newer one (only in the editor) without disrupting the fairings. The engine is the improved Chakora 4.0 using 60 blowers. Lowered the cockpit somewhat and increased pilot size. Made the canopy detachable and the pilot should be able to jump/fall from the cockpit and use his parachute. The list with improvements is far from complete. Max speed is ~540 km/h (German planes didn't measure speed by tying ropes together) using adjusted aero and almost empty fuel tanks, which is a bit slower than a real one. It's very easy to fly and the engine is reliable unless running in overspeed. I might build an A8 using a GM-1. I might even build a D9 or later. To do: clean up the exteriour, improve the pilot, create the dashboard. Change the position of the prop blades so they look good at operating speed.

Thanks, I'm curious to see your bf 109. Decided which version yet? You can use KerbPaint but ... currently paintable parts do not produce a shadow and unpaintable parts can be seen through other parts. And you need a custom config to make more parts paintable. Someone made a few and I've added a few as well. C-130: look for EJ_SA on KerbalX. He's made multiple giant stock aircraft using a working cargo ramp and/or nose.

Even FS2, running on the C64 and Amiga 500, had a weather system.

Okay ... this is becoming this.

I'm rebuilding my stock turboprop Fw-190 Anton. If you're into that kind of stuff, I can give you a link.

That's fast. Fascinating solution :-) I've never used an asymmetrical wing design when building these birds. Usually I just clip together extra control surfaces. Prop pitch angle has an influence on rolling tendency. The number of blades is usually a matter of trial and error. My first turboprops had a lot of blades (6 - 12 blades) during 0.90. I think it's interesting to (re-)develop some science with the variable prop and the revised 1.2.x drag values. I see you've extended the prop shaft through the fuel tank making it semi-virtual (a hack?). Interesting approach, I never wanted to do that but it creates new possibilities and for sure a lower drag. Look at my Azi-19, the first turboprop with a cooling system. This way you might be able to lower the drag some more. https://kerbalx.com/Azimech/77I--Azi19-Jolly-Jinn

Before we had RUD, we had SMEF: Spontaneous Massive Existence Failure. Starship Titanic. The first ever space liner with the "infinite improbability drive" (IID). Right at the start of her maiden voyage she sent out an SOS and promptly vanished. The engineers were so busy with making failures as improbable as possible, the engine actually used the high improbability factor as fuel, creating a failure in the process. Moments later the gigantic ship crash landed on top of your house ... then the game begins. Building this beauty in stock is a challenge. Especially because it's highly improbable kerbals are able to build an IID. You need a cup of very hot tea and we all know kerbals don't drink tea. Current design in the SPH has a length of ~80 meters which makes it probably a quarter of the "original length", no blueprints exist so it's all eyeballing. More info will follow. Soonish.

Very impressive collection with a lot of creativity!

Since you didn't exactly specify what kind of vehicle, I present to you: a monowheel. Top speed is around 100 m/s and very easy to drive. Cross country? No problem! Not on KerbalX yet, I've built this in 1.2.9.

My stock helicopter Azi-15 Archon II. https://kerbalx.com/Azimech/77I-Azi15-Archon-II-v10

Didn't read every single word but what I read, I liked!

Actually I do recommend them (spring/damper settings) to less experienced players. The results can be fantastic and solve many problems. It just takes time and some dedication to find the right settings. I just solved the problem of a player with a Cessna like airplane, his landing gear exploded on physics load. I lowered the spring setting to 0.5 and voila, works fine now. This is not as strange as it sounds, in real something that bends does not break. Same with automatic friction/traction control. They are terrible. The "AI" tries to interpret what the player wants, the player expects a certain result but gets a different one. Adjusting them to manual leads to much improved vehicle control or at least a lot more intuitive and predictable. @aluc24, solved the problem yet? If not I'd like to take a look at your craft.

Extremely serious? Got any examples?

TS, I solved the problem of your airplane. Lower spring setting to 0.5. Gear doesn't explode anymore and perfectly capable of landing with a modest descent rate.

"Touching" the particles means there would have to be a collider. Since we can't add colliders to particles (they would grind the game into a slideshow) there would have to be a different solution. A zone made out of a primitive like a box would would work, different atmospheric values like ambient temperature, lift, drag, pressure and the amount of oxygen.

Just particles wouldn't interest me. Interaction with the particles is far more compelling. Imagine flying in an oxygen atmosphere and you're flying through an ash cloud. Your jet engines stop working and may not recover when you leave that cloud, damage to external features due to the abrasiveness of the ash etc. Maybe communication problems due to static electricity and the occasional lighting bolt. Close to the caldera or lava flow: heat buildup. Direct damage to craft or death of a kerbal due to collisions with pyroclasts. The possibility of a pyroclastic flow depending on volcano type ... I imagine we'd need fluid dynamics for that. Buildup of tefra of various types & sizes. Changing weather and/or climate after a massive eruption (yep, we need a weather system first). And a lot of science points to gather so players have a real incentive to risk going near them.

It's coming soon. Probably one of the next builds.