How2FoldSoup
-
Posts
306 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by How2FoldSoup
-
-
I'm a little bitter. Prepatch I spent hours getting my chemical SSTO to work right. I tried to incorporate the new SSME on it to see what they could do. I found they were a bit over powered...so I thought why not try to make the most ridiculous thing out of [I]one[/I] of these engines.
I present the unnamed SSTO. I built it in 5 minutes and it has 26 parts. It's in a circular 100x100 km orbit. I did the math by hand since I don't have KER on this flight and it still has about 600m/s in the tanks. Something is wrong with these engines.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/s14MF2y.jpg[/img]
Edit: I just realized my KER readouts were pulled to the side. :huh: -
[quote name='Mikki']I made a 1.0.5 SSTO. Project name is[I][B] SWAN 6B[/B][/I]. [B][I]All Stock[/I][/B], just KJR (obviously), no clipping.
Partcount:
-SSTO 229 parts
-Kerbodyne tank 10 parts
Startweight:
-540 tons+
Engines:
-12 Whiplashs
-24 Rapiers
Max thrust:
-more than 16,000 kilonewtons (at 15.000 meters altitude)
It pulls [B][COLOR=#ff0000]179.5[/COLOR] tons[/B] ([B][I]5 Orange JUMBO TANKS[/I][/B]) to 105x95 LKO or more, some fuel is left...
[I](In 1.0.2 i managed to pull up 183 tons with a similar construction, this one has more parts and much more startweight ...its on page 310 of this thread :).)[/I]
Full Show :0.0::0.0::0.0::0.0::0.0:, 10 pics
[URL]http://imgur.com/a/j403j[/URL]
Picture from start
[SIZE=1](All my Kerbs refused to enter this plane with the following comments:
Jeb: [I]"Naahhhh..."[/I]
Bill: [I]"Meehhhh..."[/I]
Bob: [I]"Are you kidding me???"
[/I]Valentina: "..." making an obscene gesture with the middlefinger...)[/SIZE]
[url]http://i.imgur.com/GvFRNJp.png[/url]
Picture from landing
[url]http://i.imgur.com/vEdin3V.png[/url]
I should have call it[COLOR=#0000ff][SIZE=3][FONT=impact][FONT=arial narrow] [B]"THE TERRIBLE BANANATOAST OVERKILL LADY IN WHITE"[/B][/FONT][/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/QUOTE]
I'm totally hijacking your style. Nice! -
All future launches will feature a landing attempt. The orbcomm launch is only to LEO so it's no problemo. Falcon 9 also recently got a few upgrades that will now allow it to attempt a landing even with GEO missions. This means that for all payloads to LEO or GEO will feature a landing attempt. Expect one from every launch from now on
. -
I added an extra pair of engines and filled up the other two wings with fuel and had improvement!
1970 m/s left in the tanks! I think I could push it a little higher I stayed a little low in the atmosphere for longer than needed so I think with better flying I could push another 50 or 100 m/s out of her. I'm pleased!
Hmmm I've seen something like that before, now let me think of where that might have been...JR
I promise I hadn't seen your ships before this
I saw someone elses with the wings just reversed and I thought about what would happen if I put one facing forward off of a deltawing(it's what's clipped under there). From there I thought they would look even cooler if I set a mirrored pair facing reverse! It worked out pretty well. She's amazing to fly and handles wonderfully. It takes off at a mere 40m/s and has no problems slowing down in the atmosphere because of high area of the wings and being extremely light when empty. The S turns work wonders on reentry and I was able to land with only using 1/4 of kerbin's atmosphere to aerobreak. -
I whipped this thing together tonight because I had sudden inspiration on the wing design. It's still a little bit shaky and needs a LOT of refining. I didn't have the front pair of wings with any fuel in them so the TWR was higher(Because I'm lazy for testing purposes) so this was missing a potential 1200 units of LF for the nuke. I'm confident it can break the sound barrier because she flies like a dream lift-wise. It has a problem with wing flexing and giving you weird forces in certain directions but more struts or better control surface placement is in order. I could definitely have put a payload in this and probably take up anything that fits in the bay. My circularization burn was only 110 m/s and it felt like an old airhogger because I could just cruise at ~21km until I started losing speed then light the rockets and pitch up. It also needs some fuel flow fixes because I had to manually transfer into tanks the nuke could pull out of to get the total dV but I'm pretty proud of this for it's first official orbit/test flight. I REALLY like the aesthetics on this one. I'm considering a 2nd pair of rapiers just to make it snappier.
Javascript is disabled. View full album
I need to sleep now.
Edit: The first SPH screenshot isn't entirely accurate or up to date.
-
That looks awesome! Much better indeed than the Heinlein, actually (albeit with a slightly higher par count and launch mass... but everything has a prize, right?). If I may suggest it, though, I'd move the capsule a smidge down with the translation gizmo so you get it flush with the body. Other than that, I actually wish I had come up with using those tanks myself, even in spite of their lower fuel fraction.
Rune. Keep it up!
Thanks! A good portion of the part count is a 1.25m service bay between the mk2 adaptors and the nose cone(just translated down) with a battery and solar panel in each. That alone x6 costs me a solid 18 parts plus 4x4 verniers but they are a necessary evil
. Great idea about the capsule though! I'm going to do that immediately. I also forgot to mention she's 85t on the pad so she's a bit heavy but isn't the worst to send 3 kerbals to LKO. It's around 4.2km/s fully fueled in orbit and should be capable of landing and returning on anything except Eve.
-
Hey Rune,
I worked on it a bit last night and was just using MJ to fine tune the ascent to see what she was capable with a better pilot than me. This was the best ascent I was able to make. She's also a full 30t lighter than my previous attempt so I'll call that a huge improvement.
Javascript is disabled. View full album
-
Very good-looking one! Just a tiny correction: aerospikes have awesome isp, especially at ground level. The thing they lack (compared with, say, the Mammoth) is TWR, actually. And low TWR in SSTOs means a lot of gravity losses, meaning reaching LEO is more around 4km/s rather than 3,5. Or, a low fuel fraction if you just chuck on a ton of spikes on account of all that engine weight. Just some food for thought, one of those engineering trades that takes some getting used to.
I only meant compared to pre-1.0 days where they had ~385s and it was a dream to fly with them. I do enjoy the Isp they have at SL. That's actually one of the problems I was having with them was the low TWR. That's why I packed on so many engines. I'm struggling to come up with a solution although just as I'm replying I think I may have it. It will be a balancing of my solution here(many spikes) and my first experimental build which used a mix of spikes and sparks.
-
Hey Rune,
A week or two ago I got inspired by the Heinlein and took it in my own sort of style. I feel your pain in trying to make it work! That capsule is way too heavy and the aerospikes just don't have the Isp needed to make chemical SSTO's kinder.
Anywho, I was able to land on the Mun with mine and figured I'd share it. I went with the bigger and more engines line of thinking that gave me an extra 100-200 m/s that made making orbit a bit easier.
-
Currently studying for my B.S. in Applied Physics and in Mathematics with a minor in Polysci. 5th year senior finishing up my victory lap currently.
I plan to head to grad school to get a PhD in Aerospace Engineering as well(if I can get accepted).
-
(Statements retracted after more thorough reading of the above posts and decision to not participate in the argument after all)
Cooler heads prevail
If you have any questions(that hopefully don't begin an argument) I'd be happy to answer them.I thought I'd update the thread and say that we're past the 50% threshold but we still need a lot of funding. If anyone has seen this and became interested/might like a game like this in the future or knows someone who might be interested, please help spread the word!
-
You can just barely see it(because he's on the ground) but you can see a 30km station that's orbiting around the planet.
Ridiculously large stations confirmed
Edit: A better view!~
-
I already did that.
Went right over my head, sorry about that. Probably cinematic as Navy has already said. I'm not sure if there's a video or livestream where the pilot flies with assist-off to show it better. It's newtonian though so it's self explanatory(like you said you already know it) and it's there.
I have flown in the atmosphere in the new prototype and it is quite draggy and you can definitely feel the loss of control if you try to turn to hard.
-
Could you link to which video and a time?
What you saw was probably the correction assist correcting for gravity wanting to pull the ship down or fighting against the atmosphere but I can't tell for sure unless I know when you mean. It could have also been accelerating at the time.
I've played the prototype myself and I can assure you that with correction assist off you tap forward you will go forward forever until you hit something.
-
From 2:40 onward the ship is continually burning with the huge aft thrusters but there is no noticeable acceleration. The roll is mostly ok, with small thrusters firing, but from 2:52 to 2:55 we clearly see the left roll being stopped without thrusters. Pitching up and vector change at 3:20 and later don't look feasible with those small thrusters. Motions look like that of an aircraft, not spacecraft.
Please read my response
I'd like to expand on this - there is a correction assist that stabilizes your ship and flies according to your set speed. This assist can be turned off and you can have full control over your ships movements. Orbital mechanics are also supported in this regard so you can fly in on an "unpowered" trajectory if you really wanted to. Newtonian mechanics are fully supported.It's an autocorrect so that you don't have to fly newtonian full non-corrected newtonian if you don't want to. It isn't intuitive to many.
-
Newtonian means that when you apply thrust to certain direction ship will fly in that direction until this is countered or changed.... if you play KSP you need to know this...
It is not as realistic as in KSP but it is there you can see that in streams (second vid in OP)
I'd like to expand on this - there is a correction assist that stabilizes your ship and flies according to your set speed. This assist can be turned off and you can have full control over your ships movements. Orbital mechanics are also supported in this regard so you can fly in on an "unpowered" trajectory if you really wanted to. Newtonian mechanics are fully supported.
They show a purple rocky planet with rings, so we know the setting is not Solar system, so how is "true to scale" relevant or applicable?It is not our solar system, but a solar system. When they say true to scale they mean that the planets are many AU away from their star and that the planets/moons themselves are realistically sized with radii of multiple thousands of kilometers.
-
Hi Rune, I always take inspiration from you craft(for building my own) but I've never commented on them before. In some of your screenshots you have the shock cone intake and in others you have the ram air intake. Which one is better? I know the ramair has more air intake and less mass I so I feel like that's the best intake to use. Is there a point to use the shock cone other than aesthetics? Thanks!
Soup
-
New screenshot posted today!
It is if you turn the settings up, but I'll give you that SE is painfully slow about that, at least on consumer-grade computers.I'm actually suspicious that Infinity's test rigs are souped up way beyond the specs of the computers people would use to play the game.
The only souped up specs are needing a gpu that has 4gb of virtual ram to run the game currently. This is due to the fact that the engine is currently unoptimized. This will change as the game heads towards release.
Source: The devs themselves when regarding the private playtest they held a few weeks ago.
-
Welp. I made a thread earlier today but Dirk you beat me to it 2 days ago. I'll just post in this one and ignore mine.
-
Hey guys! Before I talk, I'll start with pictures because they speak louder than words.
(Clouds are experimental
And a video!
Every single screenshot here was taken inside the engine in different places inside a solar system. The engine allows completely seamless transitions between space and atmosphere(much like ksp with less explosions). Let me make this clear, everything you see in any screenshot is a point you could theoretically fly to! That moon? Sure go there! The ring? Lets go play around with rocks. You can travel to any of it seamlessly and without loading screens. It's not a promise. It's not a stretch goal, it's a current feature in the engine!
I myself have been following it for a good few years and I'm really excited for them to finally get funded. Battlescape will be a solar systemwide arena-like gameplay with 2(maybe more?) teams duking it out with matches planned to last over many days and possibly weeks. They plan to have battles of at least 100-200 players participating at a single longer to capture the "starwars-esque space battles" which is an actual quote from Keith but I can't find it right now.
If my extremely poor explanation got you you're interested, then head over to the forums at https://forums.inovaestudios.com/ and ask questions! I will also try and pay attention here to answer as many as I can as well.
The kickstarter begins on 10/21/2015, so 5 days! I'm just trying to spread the word.
Why do they need a kickstarter? Currently, everything you see has been made over the last 10 years by 3 people working in their part time. I know this will get compared to E:D and SC and I'm hear to tell you that it shouldn't. This prototype that you see was made my a small team working part time over a decade. E:D and SC have huge teams and more importantly money! Please do not compare them. Treat Battlescape as you would any indie game you'd see on greenlight or steam, because that's what it really is with A+ visuals.
I can add more quotes and more dialogue but I think I've made this post long enough as it is.
Edit: Ignore this thread - there was already one posted. Mods can delete this.
-
Easy on the necro ReBi.
atomic clocks in Earth-Sun L4/L5This wouldn't work. Due to relativity you would have these clocks disagreeing with clocks on both Mars and Earth quite quickly. You could do the math to convert using lorentz transform, but then what's the point of putting clocks in l4/l5 in the first place? Just keep them on Earth and convert from there.
-
Gravity
The entire plot in gravity was based off of incorrect orbital mechanics and that is more realistic that the Martian was?
Granted I still have the book version in my head which faired better in realism than the movie did, but even the movie was more realistic in my opinion because it wasn't based off an impossible series of events(like gravity was).
-
Wrong article? Unless the heavy load is being carried by the UA CEO
-
Actually no ... if they use wormholes the question whether they communicate with FTL is probably answered by "No".
Locally they just communicate with lightspeed, but their communication takes a shortcut through the curvature of space,
so, whereas "normal" information has to follow the curvature, the information of entangled particles doesn´t have (thanks to the wormhole) and seems to propagate instantaneous.
That's a contradiction. If it's propagating through a wormhole(or whatever you want) instantaneously, then it is moving FTL since c is finite. I'll admit I haven't read the article yet so if they wave that away then I'll stand corrected.
.
. Great idea about the capsule though! I'm going to do that immediately. 
If you have any questions(that hopefully don't begin an argument) I'd be happy to answer them.
LackLuster. The little chemical SSTO that could...
in KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange
Posted
Rune. A single Vector would lift a Heinlein... more efficiently and with higher TWR and gimbal.[/QUOTE]
Agreed! I posted this in the SSTO thread already but I wanted to test out the vector on my older designs but instead just build one around the vector. It's super broken(In my opinion, anyways). This has 26 parts and took me 5 minutes to throw together as a proof of concept and still had 600m/s left in the tanks in a 100x100 orbit. I'm pretty sure you could make some very interesting chemical SSTO's with it. It's got potential. It also has a TWR of 1.6 on the pad which allows you to scoot out of the atmosphere pretty quickly.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/9PFLIAG.png[/img]