Mike-NZ Posted June 4, 2015 Author Share Posted June 4, 2015 Its so tempting to slam some huge torque in it to solve alot of the issues but I dont think its realistic but I will definately give it a go.have you tried attaching some in the vab?For the oms you are saying when they are firing they put the shuttle off course?And for roughness are they too powerfull? I will see if I can impliment a modification in the centre of thrust to be inline with the COM.I havent had much time to play around in space.And stronger rcs yeah?I just dont like the idea of people not using rcs and just maneuvering on reaction wheels in spaceAs for aerodynamics I have a few ideas tp try Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyren Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 For the sake of playability I rammed a 2,5m reaction wheel in it, yeah...but please dont give the ship that massive torque itself, better stronger RCS Thrusters --_> thats more Space Shuttle feeling and the raised fuel consumption is a outbalancing factor again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sp1989 Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Its so tempting to slam some huge torque in it to solve alot of the issues but I dont think its realistic but I will definately give it a go.have you tried attaching some in the vab?For the oms you are saying when they are firing they put the shuttle off course?And for roughness are they too powerfull? I will see if I can impliment a modification in the centre of thrust to be inline with the COM.I havent had much time to play around in space.And stronger rcs yeah?I just dont like the idea of people not using rcs and just maneuvering on reaction wheels in spaceAs for aerodynamics I have a few ideas tp tryYea the nose drifts up when I fire the OMS. When I say rough I just mean it doesn't react the way I think it should. It takes a long time even with the RCS to flip the ship around. Then it just seems when setting up a maneuver it take a long time to precisely line up the node. It's just not smooth in space. I'm not saying it should be easy to maneuver in space but right now I can't imagine docking with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyren Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 How did you set up your OMS? Even without a large reaction wheel it flies pretty well with those 2 puny little OMS, just dont put one in the Center node Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike-NZ Posted June 4, 2015 Author Share Posted June 4, 2015 i cut the oms power down from 100 to a more realistic 26.7the nose drifts up? I figured it would of been the oppositeok just got home. fixed:texture switch on cabin (I think?) (to test)all rcs thrust now x3 the powerput some beefy reaction torque trickery in the external tank to help prevent roll on ascent (not sure if I want to keep it but will remove when aero is working)reduced nose weight to compensate for less monoprop fuel in rear (test)slightly more gimbal on oms (test)- - - Updated - - -https://www.dropbox.com/s/q7aw88iehvbw4ev/UPDATE.zip?dl=0please give it a try let me know what you think- - - Updated - - -will be doing some aero work now and get the dreamchaser up for downloadmy plan for now is to build a ksp parts stock orbiter replica, I know it wont feather, and compare drag, lift etc and do some calculations and file editing.we should have a nice to fly shuttle with Jeast' help of coursealso I will be putting in a constant energy drain of x amount I don't know yet, so you cant be up there forever! HAHAHA. (unless you load up your cargobay with xenon for the generator) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeast Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 (edited) i cut the oms power down from 100 to a more realistic 26.7the nose drifts up? I figured it would of been the oppositeok just got home. fixed:texture switch on cabin (I think?) (to test)all rcs thrust now x3 the powerput some beefy reaction torque trickery in the external tank to help prevent roll on ascent (not sure if I want to keep it but will remove when aero is working)reduced nose weight to compensate for less monoprop fuel in rear (test)slightly more gimbal on oms (test)- - - Updated - - -https://www.dropbox.com/s/q7aw88iehvbw4ev/UPDATE.zip?dl=0please give it a try let me know what you think- - - Updated - - -will be doing some aero work now and get the dreamchaser up for downloadmy plan for now is to build a ksp parts stock orbiter replica, I know it wont feather, and compare drag, lift etc and do some calculations and file editing.we should have a nice to fly shuttle with Jeast' help of coursealso I will be putting in a constant energy drain of x amount I don't know yet, so you cant be up there forever! HAHAHA. (unless you load up your cargobay with xenon for the generator)Yes thats exactly what I did. Im going to test it in an hour but it sounds like it flies completely different than it did before the upgrade. Can you confirm this SP? If so it is much easier to find the problem.Mike, with stock aero it bleeds speed so fast you can only fly like 20 meters. Thats the reason of the dragmodel override. Without the lifting surfaces you cannot control it until 6000 alt. Thats when the control surfs kick in.With the pre patch CoM location you needed a 12 degrees y axis OMS gimbal. Due to the fuel change the CoM is shifted. That should explain the OMS control issue. Edited June 4, 2015 by Jeast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike-NZ Posted June 4, 2015 Author Share Posted June 4, 2015 Let menknow what you come up with. That upliadupload I just posted it to test what modded features make it better or if it fixes faults.Im going for the copy a stock craft idea. It must be something like lifting surface area calculations are too high or ksp's mass drag scheme.... but ibdid have it going ok with lift surface removed (I think?) Was a while ago now Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeast Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Well we can try it. The only thing is the cargobay wich is hollow. Ksp has a hard time calcing drag for hollow parts so maybe we should keep the CB dragmodel on override. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike-NZ Posted June 4, 2015 Author Share Posted June 4, 2015 Your up late if your in the states! How did squad write up their cfg for the mk3 cargobay long? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeast Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Netherlands here my friend ;-)They put a cube in a new part config file in the main folder. This cube excludes drag, like a void. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyren Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 if i understand correctly you have to do a anti collider mesh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeast Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Well.. Yeah thats a way to see it ;-)- - - Updated - - -Ok working on it right now. I reverted back to the stock aero model, removed all the lifting surfaces so only the elevons create lift now. Going to test it right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheech420now Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 You should look at the KSO. The big one is one piece. Nose,Cabin,CargoBay, and Engine Mount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeast Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 For all: you have to put Xtrim on the OMS gimbal to 12 to resolve the OMS control problems.- - - Updated - - -You should look at the KSO. The big one is one piece. Nose,Cabin,CargoBay, and Engine Mount.Thats what I did. The KSO has an override so doesn't use the stock drag model. It doenst fly realistic don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheech420now Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 No it can fly forever. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeast Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Okay here it comes. I flew a couple of reentries while editing the configs everytime. My observations are that with the lifting surfaces removed and only the elevons acting as lifting objects we could probably get there. The fact is that this doesn't do anything to drag. The problem is that the thing bleeds speed very fast until the flare. It is now impossible to do S turns, fly a 20 degree final, come in and 120 m/s for the flare and land at 87m/s. It already bleeds you to 80 m/s till when you are over the runway treshold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyren Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 I think i saw something like a drag modifier, due to the fact it IS somewhat aerodynamic (FAR says, too) o guess it wouldnt be much of a problem to correct that downwards.- - - Updated - - -With FAR installed it may be not flyable, but the mass exceeds the drag by far (lol). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeast Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Oh yeah Mike, there is something wrong with the right gear. It gets loose during reentry and wobbles while on the runway.- - - Updated - - -I think i saw something like a drag modifier, due to the fact it IS somewhat aerodynamic (FAR says, too) o guess it wouldnt be much of a problem to correct that downwards.- - - Updated - - -With FAR installed it may be not flyable, but the mass exceeds the drag by far (lol).To much mass you mean?With the new drag model all the numbers don't do anything anymore. Only on the lifting objects you have that modifier. The drag gets auto calculated by KSP using the mass and shape of the object.- - - Updated - - -I hate to say this but my guess is that it is impossible to get this thing flying realistic due to the way KSP works and calculates stuff. We have to compromise. Do we want this thing to float realstic and be able to do S-turns and glide in from further out? Or do we want this thing to stall at around 55 m/s so the landing is a bit harder? I think these 2 are the options. If I'm wrong please let me know but I do not know of an example craft in KSP where realism is top notch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyren Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 No, the mass is fine, but FARs drag calculation seems to get a way lower result, especially on sea level. I just recently started to mod, so i dont know exactly to express it; there should be a modifier for the final deag coefficient calculated by ksp, which can be applied to the .cfg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheech420now Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 If you use MechJeb the shuttle really has a hard time with manuver nodes. They move all over the nav ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyren Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Offset engines, strong RCS, yeah that messes MJs precise maneuvering up. Try throttle controlled avionics, pretty useful for every offset engine setup. and you dont have to bother with trim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike-NZ Posted June 4, 2015 Author Share Posted June 4, 2015 yeah I have been trying out some aero work too... also fixed the cargobay texture switch along with the cabinhow did it turn out jeast? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheech420now Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Also the rcs in the nose dont really work.I see an issue with the Com and CoL. The CoL is way to far to the rearJavascript is disabled. View full album Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeast Posted June 4, 2015 Share Posted June 4, 2015 Also the rcs in the nose dont really work.I see an issue with the Com and CoL. The CoL is way to far to the rearhttp://imgur.com/a/TixWfEmpty your OMS tank than the CoM will shift to somewhere in the middle (close to) where it realisticly should be.The best I can do is what I did to the 1.5 model. You can glide and land at around 85 m/s with stall speed at 55 m/s. There are a lot of topics on this forum showing that SSTO's are now kinda impossible to make realistic.In my opionion we can do 2 things. 1 = wait for a new patch. 2 = go FAR all the way and see how this goes. My bet is that we can get pretty close to realism with FAR (I once created a shuttle for Real Solar Systems from scratch). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike-NZ Posted June 4, 2015 Author Share Posted June 4, 2015 cheech. did you download the patch I put up today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts