Kimalayan Survey

[Jason_25]

This is a collage I made from a recent mission to the north.

A few other notes: Keverest is about 2600m, K-2 is about 2500m and Kangchenjunga is about 2400m.  There is a large mountain about K-2 size just beyond Keverest in the picture that is hidden by clouds that can be named Kurtis and Herman Kerman peak I suppose.  "get-there-itus" and insufficient engineering support lead to a crash during landing and takeoff and the loss of an over 1 trillion dollar vehicle.  I should have had a better understanding that low light conditions were inappopriate for landing and high angle takeoffs would lead to insufficient pitch control authority.  Furthermore, at least one hover engine action panel should have been open at all times to quickly modulate lift vector balance.  Risk of avalanche that would threaten the mission was minimal because the landing was accomplished in a "bowl" shape near the mountain top.

[jost]

The Image doesn't seem to work for me.

[Jason_25]

I just tried with my phone directly and on the forum itself and it works for me.  With that said I have noticed some intermittent issues with seeing the images also.  I also uploaded the image to github here just in case:

https://github.com/bobbybudnick/SFS-KSP2-Showcase

[Socraticat]

Holy guacamole, that's quite the spread!

[Jason_25]

Thanks.  4  x 1080p pictures will fit in the space of 1 x 4k picture.  My network AI gives me an audible alert when people are viewing the image and I have heard it go off several times over the last few days.  I wanted to mention that you can see on picture 4 that the landing gear bogeys are bugged but I have reported that already.  Also the vehicle only uses 2 SAS units for maximum delta-v but it would be much safer in the hover with an additional 2 SAS but it is already very maneuverable when you fly like an F-32 is supposed to be flown.  It is scaled up and fatter than the real thing to hold enough fuel for about 20K DV.  It is a cheatbird so I did not post it yet but you may want to check out VTOL "Mike" on the github page which is a more realistically sized and shaped F-32 that is only about 50% larger than my F-35 instead of the space shuttle version you see here which is twice the size of an F-35.  All versions have a fat body and a large intake just like the real thing.

[FleshJeb]

Some of the most fun I had in KSP 1 was zipping around in a VTOL and hunting anomalies and sightseeing. I'm glad to see the tradition continues.

I can highly recommend:

• Designing for in-game aerodynamics because it's a much, much more efficient use of fuel and gives you loads of time to have fun.
• Design for ease of piloting (add those two SAS if it helps!).
• Design for evenly-balanced COM at all fuel states.
• Add strategically-angled spotlights on multiple axes and color code the lights so that you intuitively know your clearances to obstacles. Two overlapping spots is a fantastic way to gauge distance without focusing on instruments or your craft. It really helps the zen experience of zooming through terrain at night.

Enjoy!

[Jason_25]

They took away the aerogui so it is harder to design for aerodynamics.  You sometimes have to balance space performance and atmospheric performance.  The airliner jet engines on there do not go very fast and are very efficient as you can see in the first picture so there is not much need for aerodynamics.  The "DIY interstellar" modded nuclear cheat engine in center has no need for that either as it is very efficient with 4000 isp and 750kn thrust.  Additionally, the real F-32 is not super aerodynamic but as I mentioned the "Mike" model I made is more aerodynamic but will never be going to space by itself because it has a thinner body.  I like the idea of huge fighter planes so adding more and more fuel is fun even if it makes the vehicle look fatter.  This vehicle is a true VTOL with enough power with 4 panther engines under afterburner to easily lift it with the huge DV loadout.  I typically launch it like a rocket with small long rockets under the wings and with hydrogen droptanks on the other hardpoints.  Before they took the aerogui away I noted that launching like a rocket somehow gives a plane a higher top speed at least with the whiplash engines.

I will keep those SAS units in mind but I do not plan on doing more extreme landings like that.  Other vehicles in the line like "November" are for lunar landings with 2 small nuclear vertical engines.  There is another variant "Lima" with aerospike vertical engines with more TWR.  Then there is "Papa" with rocket style landing only with a cocoon of liquid engines and parachutes around it for venusian operations with mega TWR.  Balancing fuel manually and changing one set of vertical engines thrust limiter dynamically are other ways to balance without taking a hit on DV.

I should have added that I did try to transfer fuel optimally manually before the summit attempt but control was still marginal at that altitude especially when perched at an angle.  This vehicle is duel fuel with hydrogen for the cheat engine and methane for the large jets and panther vertical engines.  It does not seem possible to design this vehicle in the way that methane flows evenly.  This is because hydrogen fuel has been prioritized over methane because I never want to get "stuck" in space.  So roughly speaking the methane is at the front, the engines are at the back and the hydrogen is evenly distributed along the sides.  Because there is so much engine weight at rear a hydrazine "ballast" would need to be inserted at the nose which would affect the vehicle's ultimate fuel mass percentage.  But I only use ballast on planes if I have to and never on space vehicles because of the aforementioned problem.  So unbalanced methane on the nose it is.  There is enough time to transfer fuel on the go under SAS control or after an austere STOVL landing.

To me the in-game lighting both at the space center and on vehicles is really weak right now compared to KSP 1 and I did not want to go overboard on the parts as it was around 100 already.  The mountain was unrealistically pitch black but I landed anyway.  But the real problem was suspension settings causing a bounce and flipover.  The save/load system works perfectly for me and with the morning light and brake and suspension and fuel distribution tuning the landing was successfully accomplished on the next try with a little luck.

It would have been better to have an antimatter powered nuclear thermal engine because even with 12000 isp or whatever I only get about 2 hours flying time given that so much fuel weight has been prioritized for hydrogen.  I need a good 100000isp or so and about at least 50k DV to really be happy.  So the suborbital jumps were necessary unless I wanted to sputter around at 150 mps and then run out of fuel shortly after.  I refuse to dedicate more mass to terrestrial usage though!  It pains me to think of having to add a bunch of whiplash engines on there just to slow the game down and get a pathetic speed boost compared to the Interstellar engines I am used to working with.  The technology we have to work with now is just absolute Oregon Trail trash and it is a miracle that I could accomplish what I did with that mission.

[Sylvi Fisthaug]

The files of the images broke   can you post them again, or post a link to the gallery on imgur or wherever, @Jason_25?