Jon144

Quick tease on what I hope to release this week. Lots of new features including asymmetric braking to help turn this goliath.

Still works in 1.2

Uh-oh. Maybe the update discriminates against subassemblies from older versions. Even though nothing about the components it uses has changed.

Hey a new review series? Wishing you the best of luck. Try not to be too critical of things you don't like as that has been the death of other similar review series on the forums. But i'm in support of anything that can help showcase more people's creations. I guess you could review my helicopter but it's already seen enough attention. I don't really have much else available to be reviewed right now.

Wow. This looks super-impressive as a first shared craft. Looks awesome. Like a little dream-chaser but actually launched like a full size shuttle. Can't wait to see what you share next.

I found an ancient coaxial I made in 2014 but never published on the forum for obvious reasons since it's hideous. But it's obvious it flew. So is Azimech actually the "Inventor" of the KSP stock Coaxial? I don't think so but I don't really think I am either. Azimech is the inventor of the actually good coaxial. And first coaxial turboshaft. http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=317112698

You will need far more power than just SAS force especially with something so small. And I would advise decreasing rotor angle to allow for more RPMs. Stock physics usually dictate that lower pitch blades and props will be better performing since they have less drag.

I'm done.

I give up. I'm done.

I'm using stats and statistics myself. Wheel-less bearings are inherently simpler, smaller and lower-part count to wheeled bearings currently which is why i'm using them. And with the proper engineering finesse can still be very comparable and performing to far larger wheeled bearings. Same thing with jet-rotors and turbo-shafts. Jet-engine rotors will always be simpler and require less parts to operate as well but don't necessarily get the same style points. I am very honestly sorry. I never want and have never wanted anything that I have been saying to sound like it is my way or the highway. I'm simply trying to justify why I build the way I do and don't resort to wheeled bearings and turbo-shafts like the majority. You can be happy with their size and part count and etc. I have been finding my part count and simplicity solutions have been working rather well as very competitive alternatives. I've just been acting so defensive since you have been claiming my personal design philosophies are pointless? Ive made it clear I have been ready and willing to experiment with turbo-shafts and all of my old bearings used to use wheels. And I personally don't find them as preferable at this moment. You seem unwilling to even acknowledge the notion that these ideas I have been advocating do not have their own strengths. And my criticism of what you have been designing is only because I think that everyone here is always capable of doing better. Just like my own need enhancing with some way to change rotor RPM without having to switch craft. But again you say all WLB are pointless because my example one is just smaller and under-powered and not an actual finished product. And that somehow turbo-shafts have better performance when they are very inherently fuel-inefficient which you can figure out with your statistics. Believe it or not there are actually huge benefits to my design and we need to share the best parts of both worlds. Again. I don't want there to be any hostilities on the forums. That's why I left for so long before releasing my latest crafts in the first place. I'm just going to stop posting here for now and quit arguing and simply wait and look forward to seeing that cool plane of yours get it's own thread.

What? My craft is not over-sized. It is Kerbal-sized. My Kinchook is perfect to my standards since it's bearings are super-compact for their size, the chassis of the helicopter is reasonably and realistically proportioned to kerbals and is very low part count. I'm criticizing stock turboprops since they are generally none of these things. If the Chakora for instance had a cockpit where the kerbal would not be the size of the pilot's foot it wouldn't be as funny to me. But it's not bad but you can't say that it is realistically proportioned to a kerbal. I never said that made it bad. It's one of the coolest craft on the forum. It's just in my own design philosophy want things to seem like they exist within the world that they inhabit. If they are big or small. For example the Kinchook has a stock cockpit that the kerbals actually belong in. My beef is ultimately not about size but really about practicality. For example using the Mk3 parts for the Kinchook allows it to actually be able to carry stuff in it's cargo hold and uses jet-rotors instead of turbo-shafts so it can stay in the air for over an hour and not lag people's computers. Also on the example wheel-less turbo-shaft I posted the blades don't appear to expand much since I stuck them pretty deep within the nosecone to start with.

Neither do I!? It's the Kinchook. Inspired by the Chinook. Geez. I never said that it is the Chinook. It just has the same basic design as it since it is a tandem-rotor and the Chinook is it's clearest in-game lookalike. But it's not all about size. It is about Kerbal-size. My Kinchook is still well proportioned to kerbals in a way that it can be used practically and don't look like a giant beast. Still small enough and well proportioned to seem realistic for a kerbal to use. Whereas you take one of Azimech's turboshaft planes and try putting a kerbal in it's cockpit. That doesn't make it better or worse just to exist in a different scaled world. My sense of size-realism does not come from sheer size but realism size. For example Azimech's new helicopter too is proportioned for the kerbal-world since it has seats and stuff even though it is rather quite big. Just like it's real soviet inspiration. But of course that is overall craft size. I'm just very prejudiced against bearings that are any bigger than a regular Mk1 fuelsalage since due to their lack of compactness are very hard to find practical applications for. And coincidentally just about every bearing right now using wheels fits that description. I have made dozens of failed designs that only failed in my opinion because they were too big for me. I'm sorry if it seems like my own high expectations for my own designs are translating into me hating your own design. I'm honestly impressed with other people's designs. And wheel-less bearings are immature?

Wow! A wheel-less bearing plane flying? Must obviously be hacks according to half the people here. Good work!

Yeah so it can use the Mk3 parts that make the chassis really low-part count. I could have made it much smaller for higher part count. But I respect the people who download and fly my craft too much for that. And since Azimech's current turbo-shaft replicas are almost twice the size of the chinook then you are talking about airliner sized single-prop aircraft. And the Mk3 parts are the only stock parts that have the loading ramp that is just perfect for the chinook.

Oh my god. I have adapted. WHICH IS WHY I ONLY USE WHEEL-LESS BEARINGS NOW! That is my adapting!? Try making a wheeled bearing using the smallest landing gear in-game. The wheels break if you sneeze on them dude unless you're using one of the ridiculously over-sized ones. And Wheel-less bearings haven't really adapted since there were none before the patch made the micro landing gear we used to use for bearings turned into structural sensitive pieces of tin foil. Wheel-less bearings were the only way for me to adapt since continuing using wheels also required ridiculous size changes I was and am not comfortable with. It's easy to say all wheel-less bearings are inferior to wheeled bearings when the rationale you're using for that are not purpose built for what you're describing in the first place.

As I have already tried to make it clear to you people I will never use or require people who download my craft to have KJR installed. And of course the bearing I showed would perform poorly since it is a turbo-shaft with only 8 little blowers. I have another with 16 which runs twice as fast but I don't know what sharing it would actually be worth at this point. And duh I already have something that lifts off with that bearing. One is stickied on the front page of the spacecraft exhange.

Looks like this can spin pretty fast and I only made this in a few minutes as a test. Bet someone could do far better with time. And if wheeled bearings didn't break do a favor and download any of my pre-1.1 crafts with bearings and try using them in the current version. Yeah they're pretty broken. And you can't really say any design is better than another since it is such a broad and vague term. What classifies as better does not to others necessarily. But when it comes to KSP science jet-bladed rotors will always be more fuel efficient than turbo-shafts unless you make the blades of the shaft longer than the rotor they power themselves.

Yeah. It was literally the dark ages compared to what we have to work with now. This was the first helicopter I shared on the forums more than a year ago. So if you see how this looks you can only imagine how bad my even older helicopters looked like. I think this was even before Azimech started sharing his own stuff correct me if i'm wrong. I'm so happy with how far we have come with all our bearing technology since then. My aesthetics were also disgusting.

You underestimate how old this is. This was made far before the 1.0 aero-update so the same blade angling logic that applies now did not apply then.

That looks awesome! It looks better than the coaxial I tried making with the same bearing. Which is so hideous I will not even share. Looks really fun to fly and you need to make sure to make it's own forum thread since it well deserves some rep! Would love to get my hands on it. From seeing it already I would suggest increasing the distance between the upper and lower rotors for obvious reasons.

And of course. You just summarized my entire design principle. It's obvious building your own engines and stuff like Azimech does is downright amazing to say the least but is very impractical in all aspects within the game unfortunately. So I try to take the best of both worlds in making my designs. Stock helicopters and propellars, rotors and etc. are all amazing in their own right and can be made simpler and smaller for general practical use within game. Trying to get the best of both worlds as they say and build something that everyone can appreciate by flying and using themselves without doing any modifications to the game. I don't see what isn't inspiring about that. Ack. Sorry for double-posting. And as far as the forum battle goes between turboshafts, jet-rotors and electric engines I might make an engine that is all three just for the fun of it. A year ago I built a hybrid engine that was half turbo-shaft and half SAS-powered. Was under-performing due to only using two blowers. Might revive the concept for the laughs. But yeah. We all need a collab. project to do here. We are stronger together than apart. An idea for an engine we all put our efforts into can use jet-rotors as the main source of propulsion with some SAS modules to use the electricity the jets produce to further increase RPMs so no liquid fuel is put to waste, and then maybe use 2 blowers with thrust-reversing capabilities to increase or decrease the throttle of the engine so you dont have to switch back and fourth between craft while still getting great fuel efficiency benefits while having the SAS and jet-rotors to give the engine idling power.

Collective doesn't really refer to the throttle alone in all situations but also the pitch of the rotor blades themselves. But vertical power yeah basically. I don't know. The Kinchook for a cargo helicopter is pretty good at doing some crazy maneuvers. It's usually too powerful to do loops unless at a very high altitude. Need to record one on my next video. And with wheel-less bearings that apparently don't work according to someone. I'll be real edgy and say no more than turboshafts are ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) And of course wheels aren't broken. But they do break if you sneeze on them. Which is why only the hugest wheels work for bearings. Which means making house sized bearings. Size, part-count and compactness are the staples of good designs. Trust me all of my bearings used to use wheels before the update broke them. Also mrmcp I think the problem with your coaxial might be the rotors hitting each-other in flight since they are spaced so close to each other.

Pardon this. But aren't we playing in the science fiction (friction) world of KSP? So isn't it best that we build our designs accordingly? What works IRL works horribly in-game. Anyways you have seen my helicopter with wheel-less bearings and it is probably the best performing helicopter made to date. I'm sure if you actually spent the time and effort to make your own wheel-less bearings and not giving up before having a finished product might actually have something to show. Sure the wheel bearings work but they are the size of small buildings. You talk so much about realism but always seem to forget how unrealistically proportioned your craft and mechanisms are?

Maybe you're just not good at making wheel-less bearings? I have not put a single wheel in a bearing since the update broke them. Have never been kept from making a functional bearing now with the proper tweaking. And on point two are you still forgetting people have to mod the game to get rid of the smoke or suffer from devastating FPS? Is there ever a way that you could only use one of two blowers? What is the part count and fuel efficiency looking like for this one?

Can't wait to see it. Won't question it if it works!