Rezolution
-
Posts
119 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Rezolution
-
-
3 hours ago, IkranMakto said:
Tail rotor rpm or torque? You could bind only rpm and tail rotor will stop on its own. Also there is one better way - blade angle of attack with constant speed of rotors. One guy before you created a larger coaxial helicopter, but with original swashplate mechanism. And I made this. I really want to see more interesting and maybe useful crafts, instead of barely flying machines which many of us make a lot and usually save as "unnamed spacecraft" ;}
That is a good idea. Probably should have just bound rpm. I did that on the main rotors, after all! I went through a lot of variations, so I think I just got lost in the weeds on that one. Easy enough to fix, however.
Even still, the concept works. Ultimately, I had not seen anyone try this yet, so I thought I would. It actually flies alright. It was just never meant to compete with a real helicopter.
I wasn't sure if you meant mine should be classified as "barely flyable."
Seems a bit harsh.
Maybe just not that useful? I will grant you that one. Then again, for the same reason one might argue that one of these isn't either. I guess it just depends on who's using it!
Thanks again for your tip about the rotor/ rpm binding. I'll definitely change that.
-
1 hour ago, IkranMakto said:
Well that's simple, too simple to download it. You could bind tail rotor to pitch axis, BG has much more features than IR.
I suppose I should have put in a little more description. I actually did bind the tail rotor to the pitch axis. I hid the KAL-1000 inside the fuselage.The reason I use custom 1 to brake and toggle the rear rotor is due to the added lift generated from the free wheeling prop. You need to kill that quickly at low speeds in order to prevent a nose over.
I suppose it may look simple, but it actually took quite some time to balance correctly as well as to tweak all of the motors and lifting surfaces.
Additionally, although you can’t see it from the pictures, the main rotors are attached independently to a central I-Beam in order to prevent having to attach one motor to the other. This prevented me from having to use a free-spinning motor as a counterbalance.
Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Thanks.
-
Hi all.
It has been a while since I posted a craft, but Breaking Ground has brought me back from another hiatus.
Today I present the Vertitrace three bladed helicopter.
Essentially, I wanted to see if I could implement an R/C three channel helicopter design with the new Breaking Ground parts. As in real life, it was never meant to represent the most efficient or advanced use of helicopter technology. Rather, I was mainly just curious to see how it would work in Kerbal. As such, it is not fast and has a few quirks, but overall the craft can be said to be flyable.
If you choose to download and try it out, keep in mind the following:
-Rear rotor is bound to pitch axis.
-Custom 1 cuts power to and brakes the rear rotor. You must do this if you intend to enter into a hover and/or land the craft.-Custom 2 enables motors with 100% torque. Throttle controls RPM only on main rotors.
It is more stable when two small reaction wheels are added to the lower railings (line of fuel tanks that connect to the landing skids), but I wanted to build something that did not need wheels in order to fly.
Here is a link to the .craft file for any interested parties:
Thanks for reading!
Please let me know if you have any questions.
*Update: Custom 1 no longer has effect. Rear rotor rpm is tied to pitch. Old version had rpm and torque tied to pitch.
-
I know I am odd, but as a pilot in real life I enjoy designing and flying planes and SSTO spaceplanes. I also fly, whenever possible, entirely IVA, from the cockpit. To me, the joy of KSP is about the vessel creation itself, and getting to know the unique flying characteristics of each new aircraft. In other words, I like the act of piloting and flying for its own sake.
Rockets certainly have their place in my stable, as well. However, I always find myself defaulting to conventional airplanes whenever I don’t have a specific space mission in mind.
And, yes, I know that the physics of Kerbal don’t match true flight sims such FSX or X-Plane, but whenever I just want to slap a few parts together, firewall the throttle, and see what might happen, it’s hard to beat the fine balance between realism and fun that is KSP.
-
Have the badges been sent out for this challenge? I haven't received a message yet and I just wanted to check.
Thanks!
-
So I decided to go a slightly different route. I thought it might be worth a few extra points if I were to land a conventional plane on the VAB roof; in other words, one that is not a VTOL in any form. After several different design attempts, this was the largest traditional plane I was able to make that I could land on top of the VAB. It weighs 41.63 tonnes and took me a few tries to finally stick the landing. As you can see, I had to use up the whole pad, but she's on there!
Cheers!
-
Here is my smallest entry to make it across:
Cheers!
-
-
That was perfect advice @Drew Kerman. Found the function in the spaces folder just you mentioned. Looks like this:
MODULE
{
name = InternalSeat
seatTransformName = Seat1
portraitCameraName = CockpitCam
allowCrewHelmet = false
kerbalEyeOffset = 0, 0.02, 0I changed the Y value to .003 and I think that will work for me (at least on the MK1 cockpit. Haven't tried the others yet).
Thanks again!
-
Thanks guys!
7 hours ago, Drew Kerman said:Ok I knew there was a config setting for this but the first few I checked in the Squad folder didn't have it so I thought maybe it had been removed or changed to an internal setting with v1.2 - then I remembered to dig up the last post where I answered this type of question and opened the stock config file I referenced there and hey - looks like some internal configs just opt not to use it. Okay.
So long story short you want to add kerbalEyeOffset = 0, 0, 0 to the InternalSeat module and tweak that setting (x,y,z motion I would assume). For an example look at the Squad/Spaces/MK3CockpitInternal/internal_MK3.cfg file
My MM-fu isn't strong enough to work up a patch syntax without a lot of experimentation I don't have time for right now, some one else will come along for that I would hope
I was hoping there may be some function like this inside the config file somewhere. I'll take a look myself and see what I can find. Thanks for the info.
I appreciate the help and please let me know if you think of anything else.
-
As someone who likes flying aircraft/spaceplanes from inside the cockpit, I am not enjoying the higher IVA point of view since the release of 1.2. In order to keep the instrument panel in view, you have to angle the camera down quite a bit and zoom out to nearly max for all airplane cockpit types, which just feels awkward to me.
So, here's my question. How difficult would it be to mod the .craft files in order to lower the default point of view in the cockpits? Where would one start? I wouldn't mind giving it a go, however I have never before modded anything in Kerbal and might need a little guidance.
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Thank you!
-
-
14 hours ago, Wildcat111 said:
What do you mean? Also @GDJ @Rezolution @epicman81 @JollyGreenGI and @DoctorDavinci the festivities will start tonight!
Can't wait!
-
2 hours ago, epicman81 said:
it is time
Indeed.
-
8 hours ago, Wildcat111 said:
@GDJ @DoctorDavinci and @Rezolution caugt a picture of your planes along with mine. @Rezolution's P-97 Broadsword is seen far off in the distance as a tiny smudge underneath the Competition description. However, it sped past the formation later on.
Very cool
. Apparently I'll need to get my guy to brush up on his formation skills before the next fight .
-
10 hours ago, JollyGreenGI said:
If I may make a suggestion, I noticed it said "2km re-engagement over KSC" and in my testing slow aircraft which fly under 80m/s cannot get fully airborne before being ripped to shreds under unrelenting fire. At 3km re-engagement, all aircraft are fully prepared to fight, and are just outside the maximum range the AI will fire.
I agree. I have also noticed this, and, in the spirit of competition, I think all aircraft should have a chance to engage before being fired upon. I would not want to win (or lose) because one side wasn't ready for combat.
-
Ok, one more aircraft. I promise this is the last one and below it is my final team configuration
.
The P-76 Discord:
I have also updated my previous craft with a few tweaks. Here are the new links for the other two:
@Wildcat111 here is my final team request:
2 x P-83 Super Scythes
1 x P-76 Discord
1 x P-97 Broadsword
Thank you! Sorry for so many changes. Just having too much fun with this ;D .
-
3 hours ago, Wildcat111 said:14 hours ago, Rezolution said:
The multiple plane team is completely optional
Thanks for the clarification. I just wanted to make sure before I started throwing multiple planes out there :).
For my team, 2 of each fighter would be great. Thanks again for all your help, @Wildcat111.
-
4 minutes ago, Wildcat111 said:
Yes. Do you want 2 Super Scythes and 2 P-97s?
Yes, that's exactly right. Thank you!
12 minutes ago, GDJ said:Neat planes Rezolution! Looking forward to seeing how they handle.
Thanks GDJ! I've been practicing a bit with your Kraken and, I gotta say, you've created a very formidable craft. I'm still not entirely confident that my ships'll do the job against it, but at least I had fun with the challenge.
-
Before we officially start, I have updated my P-79 Scythe to be replaced by the P-83 Super Scythe:
Also, I was hoping to throw in my newest ship, the P-97 Broadsword, as well:
I am assuming by the way the rules read that the 4 plane team can be composed of more than one type of aircraft? Please let me know if including two aircraft in the competition will be a problem and I can always remove one.
@Wildcat111, both ships are uploaded to the ASC IV hanger. I would like to completely remove the P-79 Scythe from competition and replace it with the P-83 Super Scythe. I apologize for the late switch, but I just wasn't happy with my original design
. Thank you! Please let me know if this is going to be a problem.
-
55 minutes ago, Wildcat111 said:
Can you please add the craft to my ASC IV Hangar (link in the opening thread)?
Just added it to the hanger. Sorry about that.
-
Thanks for the catch! Just fixed the link.
-
Love the WW2 theme for this event.
Here's my first entry into the contest: the P-79 Scythe.
Please let me know if I need to change anything to make it rules compliant. This will be my first time competing in one of these combat challenges, so it's entirely possible that I may have inadvertently overlooked something.
Thanks for hosting the event @Wildcat111! Looking forward to it.
-
Alright, here's my entry.
Ship name: Virga
Time to island: 3:33
Mass .624
Part Count: 11
50-(.624+3.33)=46.156
Uses sepratrons for a nice little boost, but flies fine off of just the Juno engine. Not much lift, so lands fast. Once you get used to it, though, it's actually quite fun to fly.
Had fun making this one! Thanks for the challenge.
Seems a bit harsh.
Vertitrace Helicopter (Stock)
in KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange
Posted · Edited by Rezolution
Spelling
I could not agree more. In fact, I actually said as much in my preface:
My whole purpose was to see how one of those three channel 'copters would fly in Kerbal, given the same basic design. Turns out, they can be made to fly very similarly to their R/C counterparts (which, also, were never meant to be great helicopters; just cheap and easy to fly).
Look, it is clear you have a very specific vision of the type of craft you feel should be included in this forum, to which my helicopter obviously does not belong. We simply have different opinions on that matter.
At any rate, I did update the .craft file with a newer version that binds rear rotor rpm to pitch, rather than rpm and torque. I think I like the way it flies even better, so thank you for pointing out my oversight.
Again, hope you all enjoy it.
Cheers.