Jump to content

Azimech

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,465

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Azimech

    What did you do in KSP1 today?

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    4 hours ago, Brikoleur said:

    I gave the Asura a spin. It does fly really nicely with highly responsive pitch, roll, and yaw. It's just a shame that it doesn't have collective control. Did you ever get a swash plate actually working in a flyable chopper? Now with actuators and using a motor as an unpowered bearing I bet you could build a turbine that allowed it.

    Edit: I made one. This rough PoC though isn't all that impressive in terms of torque/power, the motor by itself is way powerful than the four-blower turbine. This is probably really inefficient though, I'll have to try with some aerodynamic blades and such. The advantage is that it doesn't transfer torque to the main vessel which make single-rotor helos a practical possibility (like Asura for example).

    (I'm spinning I-beams just to get an idea of the power output.)

    Edit 2: Now we're talkin', my problem was with intake air. Seems stationary the usual number of intakes isn't enough. This one outputs slightly more power than the plain motor, RPMs stabilised at 148 with the turbines, 141 with the motor only:

    Final edit: I made a more compact turbine that I could actually mount in a chopper. It did not perform better than plain motors, and it was much heavier and thirstier. They do transfer torque of course from the asymmetrical jets; of course that could be balanced out by more asymmetrical jets pointing in the opposite directions but not at the turbine... If I wanted to build a single-rotor helo I would make more attempts but for the double-rotor designs I'm currently tinkering with there doesn't seem to be any point.

    I did make a side innovation which I applied to the BAK-12 -- something to stabilise the rotors at higher RPMs. The BAK-12 now handles very smoothly as a result.

    I have experimented with stock swashplates and cyclic/collective but felt the part count would become too high and too fragile to be meaningful. I wanted more than a tech demonstrator, I wanted something people can really use. They do exist though, excellent craftmanship.

    With your turbine experiments ... did you disable the motor with the blowers running? The motor might actually want to limit the rpm.

    Turbines scale with diameter,  I've had the turboprop speed record for a few years until people started to make UFO's with turbines larger than the plane itself and breaking the sound barrier (which no prop can do IRL). Those planes couldn't even take off or land.

    This is an example of how powerful those stock engines can be. Look at the mass, next to the navball, and observe the climb rate. The single-engined version has a top speed of 140 m/s. The three-engined version ... I believe close to 200.
     

     

    What did you do in KSP1 today?

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    Just now, Brikoleur said:

    I'll do that one of these days. Do you have a suggestion for which one? 

    -- I'm pretty happy with the power of the stock electrics as it is. I haven't wanted to build anything heavier than what two of the big ones couldn't lift, and if I did I could always add a few more of them.

    The manual for the Selene can be found on the craft page in PDF form. You need it. The manual for the others is on the craft page.

    https://kerbalx.com/Azimech/77I-Azi20-Selene-v10 

    https://kerbalx.com/Azimech/77I-Azi24-Cronus-v20

    https://kerbalx.com/Azimech/77I-Azi31-Rhea-v20

    https://kerbalx.com/Azimech/77I-Azi14-Asura-v22

     

     

    What did you do in KSP1 today?

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    1 minute ago, Brikoleur said:

    Thanks! I did read the thread a year ago or so when I wanted to get into stock propellers, and got as far as getting a basic engine to work; however they were so finicky to get just right as well as significantly lacking in controllability that it wasn't really my thing. Mad respect for pushing KSP all the way to its limits before there were stock electric motors!

    I understand the appeal of the stock electric motor ... compact, light etc. But not powerful. With turbines you can set speed records and lift records (the heaviest heli's will always be turbines).

    About control ... you could test a few of my stock heli's. They're pretty easy to fly.

    What did you do in KSP1 today?

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

    Still tooling around with rotors.

    As it currently stands, KSP can't into small-diameter propellers. I made a proof-of-concept prop plane and it was really cranky. I got it to 85 m/s but it was a small plane and needed two big motors each with double six-bladed props with adjustable pitch; top speed was at about 76 degree blade pitch. Once off the ground it flew acceptably but that's about it. 

    The other functional prop plane I managed to build is a tiny little solar-powered one-kerbal craft. But compared to large-diameter rotors, props are really no fun at all.

    Then I made a nighttime variant of my favourite. If Jeb loses his keys again, we can certainly find them with the BAK-52N:

    https://kerbalx.com/Brikoleur/BAK-52N

    pcF2Lim.png

    c3pJE2D.png

     

    3 minutes ago, Brikoleur said:

    Still tooling around with rotors.

    As it currently stands, KSP can't into small-diameter propellers. I made a proof-of-concept prop plane and it was really cranky. I got it to 85 m/s but it was a small plane and needed two big motors each with double six-bladed props with adjustable pitch; top speed was at about 76 degree blade pitch. Once off the ground it flew acceptably but that's about it. 

    The other functional prop plane I managed to build is a tiny little solar-powered one-kerbal craft. But compared to large-diameter rotors, props are really no fun at all.

    Then I made a nighttime variant of my favourite. If Jeb loses his keys again, we can certainly find them with the BAK-52N:

    https://kerbalx.com/Brikoleur/BAK-52N

    pcF2Lim.png

    c3pJE2D.png

    If you want to know more about props & rotors, you're welcome in my topic. We've been busy with these things since ... well ... 2015.

     

    What did you do in KSP1 today?

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    I don't think I'll be working on props and helo's anymore.

    Instead I'll  be focusing on this old love of mine. Piston engines.

    First iteration timing chain for a DOHC. The chain can't be much tighter because of the way it is closed: with a strut so one joint is rigid. This things runs pretty smooth at 100 rpm although the gif doesn't show it. In any case: the fastest chain I've seen yet.

     

    What did you do in KSP1 today?

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Azimech

    18 hours ago, Geschosskopf said:

    The upshot is, moving parts like paddles and screws don't push any "water" backwards, so there's no 3rd Law force resulting to push the craft forward.  This really shouldn't come as a surprise given that we've known for years that submerged control surfaces are pretty much useless.  I should have known better than to waste any time with this, but the desire to have a paddlewheel boat was too strong :).

     



    https://kerbalx.com/Azimech/77I--Turbo-Electric-Hybrid-Propulsion

     ;-)

     

    [Stock Helicopters & Turboprops] Non DLC Will Always Be More Fun!

    in KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange

    Posted

    On 5/29/2019 at 4:02 PM, Frozen_Heart said:

    I think people shouldn't be worried about the DLC making these designs too easy.

     

    Instead it will just open up even more complex things to do using hundreds of robotic parts interacting with each other. Could make a full on piston engine or something like that.

    Full piston engines exist but they will always be a sort of hack because we don't have fluid dynamics. The 4-stroke variant is terribly complex with monstrous part count ... mine doesn't run yet on its own power.

    On 5/28/2019 at 1:24 AM, ErinBensen said:

    I forgot to write this before.

    You could also use a jet driving to turbine to drive a propeller, and use control surfaces on the tips of the blades to make a controllable-pitch propeller.

    Glad you're on board and yes, you had the right idea. This topic is all about the concept you've described.

    [Stock Helicopters & Turboprops] Non DLC Will Always Be More Fun!

    in KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange

    Posted · Edited by Azimech

    My helicopters have more lifting power than the sum of the jet engines, but also the durability. I once circumnavigated Kerbin by plane and once with a catamaran which could drive as well. Both propeller driven.

    But they are bulky, heavy and produce a lot of drag.
     

    What I'd expect to build with robotics are heli's with proper cyclic/collective with durability and low part count. The examples that exist are very fragile and have a terrible part count.

    What did you do in KSP1 today?

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    5 hours ago, ARS said:

    Made an improved version of my observation aircraft. Now it becomes even more bulbous than before

    Xbxhpi8.png

    1eoi6ia.png

    Some changes includes the modifications to tail assembly, different engine, and tweaking the wings' positions

    ErZQHid.png

    Four nuclear thermal engine allows it to fly indefinitely, befitting it's role as an observation aircraft to reach faraway places

    W2fp1dq.png

    Due to it's extremely bulbous appearance, it's officialy named "Swollen Tick"

    This recording of Frank Zappa and Captain Beefheart suddenly became relevant 50 years later.
     

     

    Kerbal Space Program 1.7: “Room to Maneuver” Grand Discussion Thread

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    30 minutes ago, panzer1b said:

    To disable dV calcs (and get rid of the freezing when flying larger ships) go into the settings.cfg and set DELTAV_CALCULATIONS_ENABLED = False.  This should fix all performance issues ever since that feature was intorduced.  It sucks since it is a neat feature, but the fact that it brings the game down to a crawl makes it not worth using until its debugged properly.

    And the game could use an update purely focused on optimization. If some of you may recall, the early beta's of 1.2 were incredibly fast with high part counts. That is ... until they added all these extra features and never bothered to optimize again.

    Great, all these new features but since single core CPU power won't be increasing much anymore, every new feature is slowing the game down thus making it less playable for an increasing amount of people.

    I've bought my 7700K in 11/17. Moore's Law is dead and buried for sure.

    https://www.cpubenchmark.net/singleThread.html

    Kerbal Space Program 1.7: “Room to Maneuver” Grand Discussion Thread

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted · Edited by Azimech

    27 minutes ago, Boyster said:

    We have to remember that the ability to build some insane ''kraken'' devices is a wonderful stock SIDE EFFECT combined with the players that come up with all these crazy stuff.

    If the game is improving and again as a SIDE EFFECT people get less room to work(although i am still pretty sure they will figure it out) its fine, at least for me.

    Changing the parameters to make stuff explode easier is simple. Changing them to make them more solid as well. But just changing them without considering the wonderful marketing potential of such krakentech just because the values are not in line with the rest ...

    There are players who never go to space. There are people who build krakentech and are on the forefront of promotion. There are people who get that extra attention (EJ_SA on Twitch for example) because they do more than building a standard rocket.

    KSP is old. You need new people who can be amazed with outrageous stuff because frankly ... once you've seen one Saturn V or Space Shuttle replica ... you've seen all of them.

    And how do you think I got almost 7500 points on this forum ... playing the game as it was meant to be? Quite the opposite. I haven't played career since 2014.

    And it's not points I'm after. I hope to inspire.

    13 minutes ago, DMagic said:

    It might be true that balancing and part adjustments are generally considered "improvements" but I've never heard anyone complain about the crash tolerance of the RCS balls, and given those parts' importance to this kind of wacky designs I think it would be prudent to consider that when changing their properties. If making a few tiny parts a little bit less crash tolerance means they no longer work for this kind of hinge, or bearing type of design, then maybe they should just remain unchanged. A lot of the attention KSP gets outside of its own community comes from these kinds of designs, and that is worth considering.

    This is a perfect example of where more community input could really help. The game's designers aren't generally going to be the people most familiar with things like part balance and their nitch uses.

    Excellent.

    Kerbal Space Program 1.7: “Room to Maneuver” Grand Discussion Thread

    in KSP1 Discussion

    Posted

    Interesting. The vernor and RCS ball have a 15m/s impact rating now.

    Although it's more realistic, it does effectively kill off any future development of a lot of technical ideas. No turboshaft engines, no gears, no piston engines etc.

    To give you an example:
     

    Those hardcore technical things are a niche but Tory Bruno (CEO United Launch Alliance) loved it when I showed him this GIF.

    What's your opinion, @klond?

    KSP Gearbox mod!

    in KSP1 Mods Discussions

    Posted

    On 4/8/2019 at 11:22 AM, harits said:

    can anyone make a gear mod? i mean mechanic gear or cogwheel, not landing gear. to help my helicopter work properly. 
    coaxial gear, planetary gear. ETC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gear

    Helicopter guy here. Gears in KSP are very difficult to get right but can be done. Most often you'll have the big limitation of collider interactions per second. Too many calculations and the system will produce errors. This means rotor/engine speeds need to be low to the absurd. This means a huge rotor and a very powerful engine.


    However ... you can build stock helicopters without the need for gears, if that's your thing.

    Make RTG units have halflife

    in KSP1 Suggestions & Development Discussion

    Posted

    On 3/29/2019 at 2:32 AM, Pds314 said:

    Ok but then give me several of them with different halflives. I.e. one with a 100-year halflife and low power (current one but nerf the power), one with current output (30 years) and one with much higher output, higher cost, and a halflife of half a year. Also make them generate heat while running.

    I agree with this idea.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator#Criteria_for_selection_of_isotopes

    CommNet Dish Inspection Challenge

    in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas

    Posted

    Report, stock parts. All flights started and ended on the KSC.

    At first I tried with my multi-role fighter but then discovered I needed even more control at very low speeds.
    LdJY9F3.png

    So I made a smaller version with the same wing surface area.

    First stop: Baikerbanur.

    USbcpuP.png
    Nbs05th.png

    Went on to the Crater Rim.

    mVljWPb.png
    Bj79NrZ.png

    And the North Station.

    Tqcwmg4.pngEyVNNH0.png

    It was time to head home. This picture was taken after landing and a Hyperedit refuel.
    ZZhNCQ1.png

    Out of time, off to work. I'll finish the report when I get home.
     

×
×
  • Create New...