Jump to content

[1.0.5] FASA 5.44


frizzank

Recommended Posts

You could have the vacuum Isp be very close to atmo Isp, and make the latter somewhat low, essentially doing the same thing balance-wise (constraining F-1 as a brute-force 1st stage powerhorse).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The F1 was the most powerful engine mankind has ever built, it should feel beefy.

What is a good TWR for the F1? Want to get the engine feeling right for kerbal.

RD-170 is actually the world's most powerful rocket engine, for liquid engines at least. :)

I think it should have a similar TWR to the Mainsail, since they're generally accepted as the F-1 analogs (as the Skipper is a J-2 analog).

Is it possible for engines to be more efficient in atmosphere than in a vacuum? I would like to use that balancing feature for the F1 as well..

Jet engines, maybe? :sticktongue:

In all seriousness, most engines will be more efficient in vacuum, it's pretty much impossible for them not to be. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have an idea. Have the F-1 "overpowered", but remove or seriously limit it's throttle. The real F-1 didn't have a throttle, and this is a pretty serious disadvanatage for a vacuum engine, and also limits it's uses in small rockets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the download with just the launch towers optimized for 0.23.5?

There are no changes for .23.5. Unless you want asteroids on launch clamps....

I think I am going to make it heavy and powerful but a bit more efficient than the mainsail, just so there is a trade off to it.

mass = 11.5
dragModelType = default
maximum_drag = 0.2
minimum_drag = 0.2
angularDrag = 2
crashTolerance = 18
breakingForce = 220
breakingTorque = 220
maxTemp = 4200

stagingIcon = LIQUID_ENGINE
stageOffset = 1
childStageOffset = 1

MODULE
{
name = ModuleEngines
thrustVectorTransformName = thrustTransform
exhaustDamage = True
ignitionThreshold = 0.1
minThrust = 0
maxThrust = 1650
heatProduction = 500
fxOffset = 0, 0, 0
PROPELLANT
{
name = LiquidFuel
ratio = 0.9
DrawGauge = True
}
PROPELLANT
{
name = Oxidizer
ratio = 1.1
}
atmosphereCurve
{
key = 0 340
key = 1 325
}

}

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erm, I have a question. I tried to use the Saturn V to launch a Taurus 3.75m HCV, with the short 3.75 fuel tank, J-2 mount, J-2, 8 external mono tanks and 4 solar panels. It couldn't get to 100km without eating into the SM fuel. Either my 3.75m CSM is VERY heavy, or the Apollo CSM/LM combo is VERY light...

This is launch

4RtLSuI.jpg

This is 2nd stage (1st burned out at beginning of grav turn at 7km)

iIMYwDU.jpg

And this is the CSM it strained to get to 100km

fNU6t0h.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erm, I have a question. I tried to use the Saturn V to launch a Taurus 3.75m HCV, with the short 3.75 fuel tank, J-2 mount, J-2, 8 external mono tanks and 4 solar panels. It couldn't get to 100km without eating into the SM fuel. Either my 3.75m CSM is VERY heavy, or the Apollo CSM/LM combo is VERY light...

This is launch

http://i.imgur.com/4RtLSuI.jpg

This is 2nd stage (1st burned out at beginning of grav turn at 7km)

http://i.imgur.com/iIMYwDU.jpg

And this is the CSM it strained to get to 100km

http://i.imgur.com/fNU6t0h.jpg

You know, the Saturn V is a three-stage rocket. You should add an S-IVB on the top.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Erm, I have a question. I tried to use the Saturn V to launch a Taurus 3.75m HCV, with the short 3.75 fuel tank, J-2 mount, J-2, 8 external mono tanks and 4 solar panels. It couldn't get to 100km without eating into the SM fuel. Either my 3.75m CSM is VERY heavy, or the Apollo CSM/LM combo is VERY light...

This is launch

http://i.imgur.com/4RtLSuI.jpg

This is 2nd stage (1st burned out at beginning of grav turn at 7km)

http://i.imgur.com/iIMYwDU.jpg

And this is the CSM it strained to get to 100km

http://i.imgur.com/fNU6t0h.jpg

The Apollo CSM will be 2.5 meter, not 3.75.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, the Saturn V is a three-stage rocket. You should add an S-IVB on the top.
The Apollo CSM will be 2.5 meter, not 3.75.

There is a third stage, I just didn't upload the pic

I used a 3.75m pod to test it out. RL Saturn V was capable of putting 140t into orbit after all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a third stage, I just didn't upload the pic

I used a 3.75m pod to test it out. RL Saturn V was capable of putting 140t into orbit after all

And what's 140 tonnes multiplied our friend, .64? 89.6 tonnes. Things get smaller in KSP. Except for the heads, they keep getting bigger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Payloads are also scaled, I put a station module consisting of a MOL, MPL and has module using a rocket much smaller and less powerful. The Saturn V should be able to lift something much smaller and lighter into more than a 100km orbit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a little confused.. Dennys SaturnV .. that's his own work? Did he break off the deal with you Frizz and go his own way? Not trying to criticize. The more the better imo. Just.. confused.

We are still working together, at least as far as I know. Denny just wanted to do his own rockets...

His are more accurate, mine are a bit more kerbal.

I'm gonna assume incompatibility with ARM....

It is made specifically for compatibility with ARM. The parts fit and look great with the stock stuff...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are still working together, at least as far as I know. Denny just wanted to do his own rockets...

His are more accurate, mine are a bit more kerbal.

Both packs have their own pros & cons, the model shape, scale from denny is more accurate and very detailed, while frizz's texture look more realistic. (no offense at all, denny's texture/color looks abit cartoon-ish to me).

One noob question to frizz, i bet those rims on S-I are from bump mapping while denny actually making those rims into the mesh, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both packs have their own pros & cons, the model shape, scale from denny is more accurate and very detailed, while frizz's texture look more realistic. (no offense at all, denny's texture/color looks abit cartoon-ish to me).

One noob question to frizz, i bet those rims on S-I are from bump mapping while denny actually making those rims into the mesh, right?

Im not sure I have not seen his mesh. Mine are from normal maps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not sure I have not seen his mesh. Mine are from normal maps.

I see, I personally prefer normal maps, it seems looking more natural in game imo. and save cpu/gpu power i think :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both packs have their own pros & cons, the model shape, scale from denny is more accurate and very detailed, while frizz's texture look more realistic. (no offense at all, denny's texture/color looks abit cartoon-ish to me).

One noob question to frizz, i bet those rims on S-I are from bump mapping while denny actually making those rims into the mesh, right?

yup indeed.

i'm very bad painter. Mainly engeneer than an artist. With my 4 months expirience in 3D modelling i prefer 3Dmax and UNITY rather than Photoshop.

Most my meshes divided to many small submeshes that carry singlecolor material. and only big meshes use textures and normal maps.

Triangles are not a big problem for modern PC, only optimisation of colliders are important for physics modelling (IMHO).

Edited by DennyTX
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...