TranceaddicT Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 @slaintemaith Your difficulty is a result of increased drag forces. It's like this, you can drive your truck 100km on a full tank of gas. But, tie a 1t rock to the back and you can only go 50km. In both cases, you are still driving until your tank is empty; it's the additional drag of the rock that's reducing your mileage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xander930 Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 Working on getting Maya, but my autodesk account is kinda broken at the moment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaverickSawyer Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, damonvv said: Are you tired of wasting all that on a Saturn 5, to only use it once? Say hello to Saturn 5 FT, A fully reusable first, second and third stage rocket! Don't just tease us like that... Give us a craft file or something! 2 hours ago, damonvv said: Edited January 30, 2018 by MaverickSawyer Stupid mobile interface... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pappystein Posted January 30, 2018 Share Posted January 30, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, TranceaddicT said: @slaintemaith Your difficulty is a result of increased drag forces. It's like this, you can drive your truck 100km on a full tank of gas. But, tie a 1t rock to the back and you can only go 50km. In both cases, you are still driving until your tank is empty; it's the additional drag of the rock that's reducing your mileage. Sad to say in this case that is not the issue. The Payload is the same between both rockets. the ONLY difference is one part is swapped for the other. @CobaltWolf @ferram4 I THINK I know what is wrong here. Cobalt you correctly removed the big shroud housing off of the LR-101. They don't fly with them IRL. Without that air-cover you are exposing several parts that are at straight right angles to each other and many that are directly in the slipstream of air around the rocket. This would exponentially increase the drag co-efficient through interference drag as well as parasitic drag (I am probably missing a form of drag here as well!.) In layman terms you went from something that was aerodynamic to a real brick wall. Ferram4, is there a way to have a part NOT calculated for Drag purposes? I have not use FAR in a while so I am a bit rusty on it's workings. @Mike` Did you try flying the OLD Atlas vs the NEW Atlas with the same payload and the old LR-101s on both? Simplified test. You don't even need to stage the LR-89s off the Atlas to test this. Do a vertical climb. Record Apogee. Rinse and repeat for all three Atlas variants [Old Atlas, New Atlas with old LR-101, New Atlas with new LR-101.] It might take a launch adjusting the fuel load down (or more mass on the payload) until you keep the rocket from Exiting Kerbin's SOI. Just make certain all three rockets have the same fuel load when you test them. Edited January 30, 2018 by Pappystein -rm lines Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damon Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 (edited) 8 hours ago, MaverickSawyer said: Don't just tease us like that... Give us a craft file or something! I will, once the whole Saturn V is reusable. Edited January 31, 2018 by damonvv Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike` Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 (edited) 15 hours ago, Pappystein said: This would exponentially increase the drag co-efficient through interference drag as well as parasitic drag (I am probably missing a form of drag here as well!.) In layman terms you went from something that was aerodynamic to a real brick wall. Ferram4, is there a way to have a part NOT calculated for Drag purposes? I have not use FAR in a while so I am a bit rusty on it's workings. If FAR calculates/estimates the higher drag correctly, then there is nothing wrong/nothing to fix, i guess. The unfixed LR-101 was clearly broken drag-wise, i haven't seen the fixed part yet and how much more drag it has compared to the old LR-101. 15 hours ago, Pappystein said: @Mike` Did you try flying the OLD Atlas vs the NEW Atlas with the same payload and the old LR-101s on both? Simplified test. You don't even need to stage the LR-89s off the Atlas to test this. Do a vertical climb. Record Apogee. Rinse and repeat for all three Atlas variants [Old Atlas, New Atlas with old LR-101, New Atlas with new LR-101.] It might take a launch adjusting the fuel load down (or more mass on the payload) until you keep the rocket from Exiting Kerbin's SOI. Just make certain all three rockets have the same fuel load when you test them. I cannot try flying a new atlas because the unfixed new LR101 has so much drag the rocket immediately crashes. Edited January 31, 2018 by Mike` Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltWolf Posted January 31, 2018 Author Share Posted January 31, 2018 2 hours ago, Mike` said: If FAR calculates/estimates the higher drag correctly, then there is nothing wrong/nothing to fix, i guess. The unfixed LR-101 was clearly broken drag-wise, i haven't seen the fixed part yet and how much more drag it has compared to the old LR-101. I cannot try flying a new atlas because the unfixed new LR101 has so much drag the rocket immediately crashes. Mike, sorry. I wanted to upload it along with some other bug fixes last night but got caught up in updating SEP. Will be first thing when I get home tonight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike` Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 (edited) 7 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said: Mike, sorry. I wanted to upload it along with some other bug fixes last night but got caught up in updating SEP. Will be first thing when I get home tonight. Really no worries, take the time you need, i didn't want to sound impatient. I'm glad you found the wrong transform and now curious how the fixed/moved transform part behaves, but i'll happily wait until you get around to provide it. After all, modding as a hobby shouldn't become stressful. Edited January 31, 2018 by Mike` Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xander930 Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 Progress! I converted my CAD model into what Inventor calls a "non-freeform faceted polygon shape" I've been trying to attach images, but can't figure out how. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltWolf Posted January 31, 2018 Author Share Posted January 31, 2018 2 hours ago, Xander930 said: Progress! I converted my CAD model into what Inventor calls a "non-freeform faceted polygon shape" I've been trying to attach images, but can't figure out how. You gotta upload them externally, I use Imgur. Either link the album or put the image URLs in individually. 3 hours ago, Mike` said: Really no worries, take the time you need, i didn't want to sound impatient. I'm glad you found the wrong transform and now curious how the fixed/moved transform part behaves, but i'll happily wait until you get around to provide it. After all, modding as a hobby shouldn't become stressful. Ah, it becomes stressful because I never get to work on it as much / make as much progress as I'd like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOARdV Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 On 1/30/2018 at 7:45 AM, slaintemaith said: I didn't focus on any issue. If I use the deprecated 101s and FAR: I get into orbit. If remove the new 101s and use FAR: I get into orbit. If I add the new 101s and use FAR, I don't. If I add them and disable them and use FAR: I don't. If I add them and disable FAR: I do. If I'm honest, I don't understand the rocketry aspects of it as much as "do thing: thing works/thing doesn't work: note result." I leave it to smarter heads to interpret the data. FWIW, I can confirm that the new verniers mess up FAR. If I look at the debug voxels in the VAB, the Atlas looks fine until I add the verniers. Then the voxels appear only just above the top of the craft and just below the engines. If I pull the verniers off again, the voxels look fine. So it appears that there's something about those specific models that FAR does not like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saltshaker Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 2 hours ago, MOARdV said: FWIW, I can confirm that the new verniers mess up FAR. If I look at the debug voxels in the VAB, the Atlas looks fine until I add the verniers. Then the voxels appear only just above the top of the craft and just below the engines. If I pull the verniers off again, the voxels look fine. So it appears that there's something about those specific models that FAR does not like. reuse the voxel config of the deprecated vernier? """""""""""""""""""""""""""might""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" work i mean i have no idea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltWolf Posted February 1, 2018 Author Share Posted February 1, 2018 15 hours ago, MOARdV said: FWIW, I can confirm that the new verniers mess up FAR. If I look at the debug voxels in the VAB, the Atlas looks fine until I add the verniers. Then the voxels appear only just above the top of the craft and just below the engines. If I pull the verniers off again, the voxels look fine. So it appears that there's something about those specific models that FAR does not like. That issue has been fixed, I just haven't been at my home computer for about 2 days now, some small IRL drama going on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOARdV Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 3 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said: That issue has been fixed, I just haven't been at my home computer for about 2 days now, some small IRL drama going on. Ah, okay. Sorry. I remembered seeing it being discussed a few days back, but I haven't kept close tabs on this thread, so I didn't see that there was already a solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltWolf Posted February 1, 2018 Author Share Posted February 1, 2018 Just now, MOARdV said: Ah, okay. Sorry. I remembered seeing it being discussed a few days back, but I haven't kept close tabs on this thread, so I didn't see that there was already a solution. Oh, not a problem at all. Just wanted to let you know a fix has been developed before you or anyone else hurts themselves trying to fix it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xander930 Posted February 1, 2018 Share Posted February 1, 2018 Hello! The Ariane 1's main fuel tank is coming along nicely. I am having trouble configuring it to have attachment points and stuff though. Any advice? sorry. I'm a bit new to modeling and stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanamonde Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 Congratulations on being named a thread of the month, @CobaltWolf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltWolf Posted February 2, 2018 Author Share Posted February 2, 2018 (edited) Thanks @Vanamonde! Bluedog Design Bureau v1.4.2 "атлас" Available on Github and SpaceDock Changelog: - AJ-260 Solid Rocket Boosters - LEM IVA (Requires NF Props) - Uhhh... some bugfixes and balance updates I guess? Edited February 2, 2018 by CobaltWolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Araym Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 17 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said: Thanks @Vanamonde! Bluedog Design Bureau v1.4.2 "атлас" YAY! BIG SOLID ROCKETS!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 I'm already make booster noise before download. Thanks !! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaverickSawyer Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 Soooo, what kind of container full of boom are we dealing with now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
linuxgurugamer Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 Congratulations on TOTM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slaintemaith Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 (edited) Although the Atlas rocket doesn't lose control like it used to, it still cannot make orbit once the 101s are added. Remove them, and everything's fine. The aerodynamic overlay still disappears when you add the 101s. And the 'skirt' for the Buzzard engines still 'sticks' to the rocket, even though the retrorockets fire for it. The 101s are positioned as high as they can be and are in no way touching the skirt. Yup, I'm using 1.4.2. Yup, I updated all dependencies. Also: correct me if I'm wrong, but the new LM IVA has -fewer- functional controls in it? Edited February 2, 2018 by slaintemaith Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nittany Tiger Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 On 1/30/2018 at 9:37 AM, damonvv said: Are you tired of wasting all that on a Saturn 5, to only use it once? Say hello to Saturn 5 FT, A fully reusable first, second and third stage rocket! Impressive. Resuable Saturn V? Why not? Now we just need reusable Novas and a reusable Sea Dragon. Reuse everything! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidy12 Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 No real plume for AJ-260. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.