Jump to content

Do you like flying hot dogs?

Roflcopterkklol

By Roflcopterkklol
in KSP1 Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

regex

regex

Posted
Posted
the more realistic looking aerodynamic styled SSTO's which are no longer viable
Sorry, that doesn't look realistic at all, it looks like a bunch of panels slapped onto a smooth hull in a completely unaerodynamic manner. There's also some really strange wing-things going on in the back there, you like cars with spoilers or something?
Or the flying hot dogs which you have to build now
Oh ... oh my. I wonder where you get your hot dogs, sir. Also, you've already proven you can build spaceplanes the same way you did before, I don't see why you can't try to optimize those, maybe learn some new tricks? Too hide-bound? Someone built one that can potentially make it to Duna, or at least to Minmus for refueling. Too short a trip for you?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fel

Fel

Posted
Posted

This thread seems more like "What looks cooler" rather than "what is more realistic" and reverting to concept design, or trashed project design, to affirm it.

Well, I want my space helicopter.

roton3.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RayneCloud

RayneCloud

Posted
Posted

nza3rA1.jpg?1

Stock spaceplane nearing 51km on a suborbital hop straight up from the KSC. The only issues so far here in this thing, is with asymmetric flame-out and intake air problems, but that can be fixed. This thing broke a 1,000M/S, was lit up like an x-mas tree, and not only did it not explode, or tumble, or have ANY issues getting up to this altitude and speed...but it flew like a dream. So, again, the problem my friend is with you, and solely with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WOODY01

WOODY01

Posted
Posted
And then there are these. I don't see why we can't have both.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d9/2009VersionX33.JPG/405px-2009VersionX33.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Lockheed_Martin_SR-72_concept.png

-we already have super functional x wings in 1.0.2

-the above designs are realistic

-so why can't we be allowed to build spaceplanes that mimic the above style? Why do we have to glue together tubes and a maximum of ten wing parts with no consideration for style or be punished in performance?

KSP is more of a Space exploration game then it is a game to design planes, they did an ok job with the aero.

One thing they modeled some what correctly is how high aspect and low aspect ratio wings behave. If you look at the examples you posted they have very low aspect wings as do any aircraft that are meant to fly fast. Slower planes have higher aspect ratios to get the more lift they provide. At high speeds more wing means more drag which is not offset by the extra lift the wings provide.

Basically what you are asking for is every design players make the game needs to determine how the part is being used, even if it is a wing being not being used as a lifting surface, determine each parts relation to airflow and correctly and accuratley calculate it all to determine how fast and well something should fly. The other option is just going back to the old way of as long as your lift is behind the COM and you got enough thrust it will fly, make suborbital flights with jet engines, and can get to orbit using very minamal delta-v.

You may not be able to build planes exactly how you want, they may not have many options for fuselages and therefore design variations for planes, but the game offers what they said it would and what they ended up with post 1.0.

If this was a flight and plane design simulator I would be more inclined to agree with you, but my guess with a similar flight simlation game where you design the planes yourself they would give you more parts related to aircraft and focus on aerodynamics more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Levelord

Levelord

Posted
Posted
KSP is more of a Space exploration game then it is a game to design planes, they did an ok job with the aero.

One thing they modeled some what correctly is how high aspect and low aspect ratio wings behave. If you look at the examples you posted they have very low aspect wings as do any aircraft that are meant to fly fast. Slower planes have higher aspect ratios to get the more lift they provide. At high speeds more wing means more drag which is not offset by the extra lift the wings provide.

Basically what you are asking for is every design players make the game needs to determine how the part is being used, even if it is a wing being not being used as a lifting surface, determine each parts relation to airflow and correctly and accuratley calculate it all to determine how fast and well something should fly. The other option is just going back to the old way of as long as your lift is behind the COM and you got enough thrust it will fly, make suborbital flights with jet engines, and can get to orbit using very minamal delta-v.

You may not be able to build planes exactly how you want, they may not have many options for fuselages and therefore design variations for planes, but the game offers what they said it would and what they ended up with post 1.0.

If this was a flight and plane design simulator I would be more inclined to agree with you, but my guess with a similar flight simlation game where you design the planes yourself they would give you more parts related to aircraft and focus on aerodynamics more.

FAR and Deadly re-entry has shown that the aero model can be done reasonably well, I don't see why KSP can't even adopt half of what was contained in those mods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Der Anfang

Der Anfang

Posted
Posted
The SKYLON as planned looks very hotdog-like... frankly. :cool:

Hahahah, made my night. Gave me a great laugh.

This guy, the OP is hilarious. In a bad way. Sorry, dude, but just play .90 if you miss the old aerodynamics. :wink:

- - - Updated - - -

Does airhogging even work now or can you safely use 1 intake per engine?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Temeter

Temeter

Posted
Posted
Does airhogging even work now or can you safely use 1 intake per engine?

Probably. Airhogging doesn't only work functionally, it also doesn't make much sense since the engines now have a capped speed. Intakes, on the other hand, will now add lots of drag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RocketBlam

RocketBlam

Posted
Posted

I like the new aerodynamics. Spamming air intakes was so cheesy. I just designed an SSTO that is far from ideal (haven't unlocked the hybrid engine or anything above the turbojet, had to use two turbos and two lt-v45s), but I still managed to barely make it to orbit. Its different now, but better.

Sorry you got so attached to a beta version of the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WOODY01

WOODY01

Posted
Posted
FAR and Deadly re-entry has shown that the aero model can be done reasonably well, I don't see why KSP can't even adopt half of what was contained in those mods.

My point is more of this is not a flight simulator game, but agree that FAR and DRE do seem to do a better job. I also believe Squad not focusing on the aero or trying to balance the game to be friendlier to new or casual players is not a bad thing. It is not easy with a sim for devs to please everyone since everyone has different expectations of what should be modeled, how it should be modeled and how close to realistic it should be.

I think Squad did a descent job of getting the basics down, things behave in a manner that is somewhat correct. More wing=more drag, jets lose thrust the higher they go , air hogging does not work, COL behind COM, COT behind COM, get the COL ahead of COM you have an unstable plane, COT off the center of mass can lead to some trouble, the faster you are going the more likely a large course change will cause a problem. Rockets need to follow a more realistic ascent profile. All these are very basic and IMHO adequate for a game centered on space exploration and where most of the places a player will go to have no atmosphere.

My guess the majority of people spend most of their time out of Kerbins atmosphere playing this game. They are either designing, in space, or somewhere on the surface where all but one other place where jets can be used. At least that is how my games tend to go, spending a lot of time planning and designing a vehicle, a few minutes getting that vehicle up in orbit, hours where the aero model has no effect on my designs and game play and then a few minutes descending where the aero model comes into play again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Redshift OTF

Redshift OTF

Posted
Posted
http://i.imgur.com/nza3rA1.jpg?1

Stock spaceplane nearing 51km on a suborbital hop straight up from the KSC. The only issues so far here in this thing, is with asymmetric flame-out and intake air problems, but that can be fixed. This thing broke a 1,000M/S, was lit up like an x-mas tree, and not only did it not explode, or tumble, or have ANY issues getting up to this altitude and speed...but it flew like a dream. So, again, the problem my friend is with you, and solely with you.

Er, try circularising that. The DeltaV would be quite high if you are only going 900 m/s and you don't seem to be carrying any rocket engines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kuu Lightwing

Kuu Lightwing

Posted
Posted

I'm not sure about 1.0.2 compared to 1.0. Shuttle landing at 25 m/s might be a bit too much and I don't like that the sound barrier is so hard to break without turbo-ramjets. I mean, there's only one example of turbo-ramjet IRL and quite a lot of planes flying over Mach 1. There are even an AIRLINER that CRUISES at Mach 2.

But on the other hand, in 1.0 it's stupidly easy to get to Mach 3 at sea level. Just no-brainer - add two turbo-ramjets to your plane and you're good. Plane size doesn't matter.

As for the OP's question, what's a "realistic SSTO"? Apollo LM? All Earth SSTOs are nothing more than concepts and AFAIR lots of them are lifting bodies with little to no wings. Skylon is literally an oversized cruise missile. What other space planes do we have? Space shuttle? Delta-wing with small wings. Dream Chaser (not yet operational)? Lifting body with tiny wings. X-15? You got the idea. Slapping some wing surfaces on a plane doesn't make it more aerodynamic... Maybe it makes it LOOK somewhat aerodynamic, but only to a degree.

Yeah, it's my first post, sorry. I was mostly posting on Reddit before. Oh, and sorry for my English - I'm not a native speaker and mostly learned from the internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TeddyDD

TeddyDD

Posted
Posted
Which SSTO style do you prefer?

the more realistic looking aerodynamic styled SSTO's which are no longer viable (This particular craft was capable of a 500km orbit reliably in 1.0)

Realistic one. So completely different than yours. Stop crying and learn how to play this game.

This

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aanker

Aanker

Posted
Posted
Realistic one. So completely different than yours. Stop crying and learn how to play this game.

This

Learn to post coherent and valid arguments on this board, and actually address the points of the opposing poster instead of retorting to old tired expressions like "l2p" and "stop crying".

We don't really improve the game that way. And we want to improve the game, don't we?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Temeter

Temeter

Posted
Posted
Learn to post coherent and valid arguments on this board, and actually address the points of the opposing poster instead of retorting to old tired expressions like "l2p" and "stop crying".

We don't really improve the game that way. And we want to improve the game, don't we?

OP didn't make any points to answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Aanker

Aanker

Posted
Posted
OP didn't make any points to answer.

Maybe. I'm starting to mix these threads together because I repeatedly have to explain the same things all over again. To the same people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...