Jump to content

Surefoot

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    371

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Surefoot

  1. Surefoot
    Seems like with modular fuels you can only change the fuel type with the action groups, the "g" key becomes inactive indeed.
  2. Surefoot
    The undocking bug affects the stock parts too, do a search...
  3. Surefoot
    That's a bug in the base game (according to devs, will be fixed in next patch).
  4. Surefoot
    That's entirely fine, as long as you were laughing maniacally all along. Otherwise i'd be a bit worried if i were you. I manage to launch some pretty heavy stuff but it's always aerodynamic (or at least fits inside normally shaped fairings). Side effect is that most of my stuff looks quite neat (that screenshot folder is growing fast)... And can perform aerobraking too, usually it's just slapping some air brakes and the same stuff can aerobrake without flipping around since it was stable during ascent to begin with.
  5. Surefoot
    If you mean exploits, none that i am aware of. You just have to know that it changes the game quite radically, as launching big payloads becomes a lot more difficult, but small payloads is easier as long as you keep a reasonable ascent profile. Also re-entry changes totally and becomes a death trap if your vehicle is not aerodynamically stable. In short, easy small stuff becomes easier, planes now behave as they should, rockets too, so for people aware of the rules of aerodynamics it's easier, for people just used to the stock game it's a lot more difficult. One consequence is payload fairings become a must have, there is no real way around them for many payloads, so that means installing another mod at least (proc fairings), also stock game lacks a lot of aerodynamic parts which are in turn provided by B9 for example (i suspect that B9 might become stock though..) or those procedural wings which are another must have with FAR.
  6. Surefoot
    We need more FAR challenges
  7. Surefoot
    Mind blowing isnt it, that's what gravity is. Submits all bodies with a mass to its acceleration, within its field of reach of course. Food for thought, try to think why gravity is also in m/s^2, or why the state of weightlessness aboard an orbiting ship is called "microgravity" One other way to present it: you are aboard an orbiting ship, engines are off - you are weightless (tell me why), and then you ignite the engines, which produce a force, which is applied to the mass of the ship, which results in an acceleration: tell me what happens to all bodies INSIDE the ship (for example, a sitting astronaut)... And as a conclusion, explain to me how a sitting astronaut aboard that accelerating ship (say, accelerating at 9.8m/s^2) is any different from us sitting geeks in front of their computers, apart from the obvious awesomeness of being in space ? Really, bring that very question to science forum because i dont want to pollute Ferram's thread with irrelevant discussion (what would be relevant is talking about aerodynamics).
  8. Surefoot
    ROFL Well without even bringing reference frames in, he's got his concepts mixed up (between "weight" and "gravity", as it seems), should bring his views to the science forum instead PS: dont think that by sitting on a chair you are countering gravity. You are still very much subject to it. That your weight doesnt make you go downwards because of the opposing force of the chair is another thing entirely. But trust me, everything in your body *wants* to go downwards and is pulled by a mysterious force... which is the result of the product of your mass and local gravity.
  9. Surefoot
    @Traches: well, YOU are nitpicking here, i was short for sake of brevity, since we are quite off topic... And yes i am sorry but i was bringing reference frames in, since it's relevant here (local gravity IS an acceleration, like it or not.. that you have an opposing force that prevents you from falling is another thing entirely, and is related to WEIGHT not to gravity directly !!) Besides if you are nitpicking then: (emphasis mine) This is wrong: gravity is NOT a force (*) but an acceleration (**). "Weight" is the resulting force of applying gravity to mass (and is totally subject to reference frame, sorry about that). That's where you had your concepts mixed up, which explains the rest... Funnily enough, you go all the way to give a formula, which applies to gravity as well. (*) that would be Newtons, look at how rocket engines have thrust given in Newtons by the way (**) in m/s^2
  10. Surefoot
    One is exactly the consequence of the other. A force caused by gravity applies to your mass (this force is called a "weight"). Gravity is an acceleration. By standing there on your chair on Earth your are submitted to constant acceleration (of around 9.8 m/s^2), if you were in a falling lift then in that reference frame you'd be submitted to no acceleration (thus, floating inside the lift). But the lift itself would be still submitted to that acceleration and then going downwards. To have no force applied to you (or no acceleration) you would have to be in a reference frame that is itself in free fall (or equivalent), relative to the local bodies that create significant gravity. That's why "zero G" is called "microgravity" actually Side note: aerodynamics effects such as lift are also forces, to make an object fly in atmosphere you have to get these forces to counter balance the effects of gravity.
  11. Surefoot
    Your weight is your mass pulled by the local gravity. Thus a TWR of 1 just counters the local gravity: for Kerbin it's indeed just less than 10 m/s^2. That means TWR of 1 = 10 m/s^2 around Kerbin, and thus TWR of 2 = around 20 m/s^2 (9.81 x 2 yeah yeah..). That's where you are wrong: if you have a thrust of 9.81 m/s^2 (and keep hovering, basically), that means you ARE accelerating at 9.81 m/s^2 already. This is also your current acceleration while you are sitting on your chair. To be subject to zero acceleration, you'd have to be in free fall (and in a vacuum), that's basically what objects in orbit are doing. From my experiences, keeping a TWR around 1.4 or 1.5 gets me the best fuel savings, of course it's mostly dependant on your ascent profile, much more than with stock.
  12. Surefoot
    Subscribed. This is awesome.
  13. Surefoot
    More to the point, it's an unfinished game (in alpha, even), such tools are highly useful for testing purposes, also for testing mods and ironing out bugs. Related, i use it also for kraken checks (happens quite a lot with KJR and some of my recent designs). As for the game itself, it's barely a game, it's a sandbox, it's what you make of it, you set your own goals.
  14. Surefoot
    Yes. It's an updated version of that plugin, with added stretchy SRB's.
  15. Surefoot
    Ha ! Talk about it My attempt to an Eve lander that can re-orbit does one (and only one) backflip through its ascent, ruining the already very limited DV (in regards to crazy Eve requirements). Trying to do an universal grand-tour SSTO lander (that refuels itself with Kethane on the ground), so far managed to make one work until Tylo, but Eve requires additional stages, and those are already quite crazy difficult with stock game, with FAR it's a real challenge Since every additional weight on the top stage means exploding masses for the bottom stage, and that universal-SSTO is around 83t (but has around 4000 DV by itself), lifting that off Eve surface (after landing successfully ! that means sound structural design) will require some creativity.
  16. Surefoot
    I see, no level flight then, just pitching up from the start ?
  17. Surefoot
    I second that and add this: more sweep, more high speed control. But tradeoff is low speed becomes really bad (think about landing..). Also turbojets run out of thrust around 1450m/s, cannot go any faster. I just tried with my atmo design (which is a compromise for low speed agility), starting with level flight at mach 4.5, 19.5km, then 25° pitch up, i reach around 44.6km apo. This was a quick try with a design maybe not the best suitable for this, i'll try and make a hypersonic demon (that forfeits any low speed ability) and different starting altitudes and pitch angles to see if i can top that. Also having a heavier design might help counter the drag... (edit) quick try screencaps:
  18. Surefoot
    @andqui: it took me quite a few hours and flight tests to make a design that is stable at mach 2+ at high altitudes. Try procedural wings, it's almost a requirement. Then you need more stability, if you lose control at high speed you want more wing sweep, for roll control you need some dihedral (or anhedral, which worked for me), you probably want yaw control too so more vertical surfaces. Then you can experiment with winglets, control surface distribution, wing camber (with elevons or leading edge slats)... Good luck and have fun, i had a lot doing this. For jet powered flight you can aim for 25km at mach 4.5+.
  19. Surefoot
    Thanks, worked like a charm. I can resume my 1500t supertanker orbital assembly
  20. Surefoot
    Updated to latest MFS (3.1) - now my spherical tanks hold very little volume at all (maybe 7 units of fuel for the biggest sphere) and weight next to nothing. I deleted the MFS bundled with this plugin, and installed the v3.1 instead. Any idea of what could be going wrong there ?
  21. Surefoot
    About twin engine flameouts, my current optimal design for Kerbin -> Laythe stays stable whenever an engine goes down at mach 5. It is also quite difficult to throw it into a spin. Downside is landing requires flat terrain and low AoA, but otherwise it flies wonderfully. I also made a pure atmo design, that looks and handle like a real jet fighter. Again, twin engine. Upon flameout they will veer to one side but not go into flat spin.. Of course they lose speed quickly and i have to either switch the engines to rocket mode (for the SABRE jet) or throttle down. So, it's definitely possible. Just read a bit more about aerodynamics, wing configurations, and real life examples (like SR-71, Mig 29, F-16..). For example handling the SR-71 without SAS required a lot of piloting talent as it was quite unstable, and flameout had quite a quite brutal result..
  22. Surefoot
    I also use Talisar's spherical and toroidal tanks. It seems it creates some sort of conflict with StretchySRB, as now i cannot change the fuel type, and if i resize the tank the contents and weight are not updated. Is it related to MFS ?
  23. Surefoot
    Reporting for the new 0.10 version - everything looks good on my side, my Laythe jet flies normally again (i updated KJR at the same time, maybe it's that too), and hypersonic flight is now a bit different i notice less pitch down, more resistance to inputs (my design is stable though). Pretty happy with it, didnt notice anything unusual with my launchers and spaceplanes. This flies wonderfully thanks to Ferram: Happy B.K. at Laythe north pole
  24. Surefoot
    haha sorry i was too busy laughing out that i didnt check the logs, to be honest i'm not even sure it's related to your mod (for the floating part). And yeah it started to jiggle by itself, then all the parts warped inside out (like there was a sudden black hole in the middle) and it kinda threw the central part up, which then started to float like a balloon. No, i dont take drugs, i promise ! It's a bit late for me now, i'll see tomorrow if i have time to reduce the problem to a simple mod-less design. (edit) the "proof of concept" radial mount orange tank is still wobbling itself to death on the launchpad (it's random, sometimes just warping a bit helps). Radially mounted stuff creates weird interactions... My current design is an attempt to avoid the kraken, by using a very heavy, huge core based on 5m parts, but it seems i just opened a new can of worms
  25. Surefoot
    @a.g., Ferram: i posted a stock craft that exhibits the "infinite-expanding-wobble-then-kraken" issue a little while ago, i'll try it with the new version to see how it has evolved. Also: This one krakenized itself on the launch pad, before i could do anything. Then the core (about 250t itself, not really light) went up floating in the breeze, like a balloon !! That was both weird and hilarious. I think i found another way to break the physics engine @KhaosCorp: you are victim of the undocking bug. It's not related to this plugin, but to the stock game itself. I really hope the devs can fix it in v0.23.. in the mean time the only way is to undock whatever main section contains the faulty dock, separate it, then re-dock what you need redocked. Or edit your save file by hand with a rather complicated procedure (especially if you have many parts).
×
×
  • Create New...