Thunderbird Posted October 28, 2011 Share Posted October 28, 2011 THANK YOU! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killerhurtz Posted October 29, 2011 Author Share Posted October 29, 2011 Loving that epic rocket, Thunder.Also, just so you guys know I haven\'t been slacking off, I\'m giving you a little sneak peek at what\'s coming. Project Blaze is coming this week, but it still needs a LOT of tweaking (so if you have any specific request regarding it, it\'s now or never). Never will rocketry have been this Kerbalesque, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MC3craze Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 Loving that epic rocket, Thunder.Also, just so you guys know I haven\'t been slacking off, I\'m giving you a little sneak peek at what\'s coming. Project Blaze is coming this week, but it still needs a LOT of tweaking (so if you have any specific request regarding it, it\'s now or never). Never will rocketry have been this Kerbalesque, though.Ohhh baby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 it needed a whole lotta struts to not fall apart one question though, are your engines centered right? that thing went into a spin and nearly fell apart while exitting atmosphere,every time, i redid the ascent stages with 36 normal engines + Bertha and 8 boosters, but as the firelark version was hard to test because of FPS drop,this one is pretty nearly impossible (15min IRL translates to roughly 6-8 ingame seconds,depending on how many pages i have open in my browser... and yes,my PC sux), and its also 20% taller and nearly 30% bulkier ;P (EVEN M0AR STRUTS!!!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killerhurtz Posted October 31, 2011 Author Share Posted October 31, 2011 Yep, everything SHOULD be pinpoint centered, although the spin might be explained by the huge mass of such a booster, requiring extremely strong and stable reinforcement. And there\'s also the fact the engine has huge drag (I meant this to be used as a low-stage booster, to keep it stable).If requested, I could fix that so it\'s a normal engine.Just had a little play with it, I see what you meant now. I tried it on a simple rocket (4x of these boosters) and everything went fine as long as it was in atmosphere, at which point it went berzerk. Looking into the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 yup,thats exactly my problem with the Stargazer... Mk3 is on hold and Mk4 is simply too big to test :-DI reinforced the hell out of it and it still went out of control,so i thought it MIGHT be the Firelark engines, but to be honest,my initial stability problems up until the Mk3 were actually with the Ion drive gondolas... they were wobbling a bit under the massive stress and that caused the whole craft to bank ever so slightly,making the thrust go sideways for tiny fractions of a second... i thought i solved that,but i cant really be sureThen again, Mk2 still had SRBs for the initial takeoff stage... the moment i dropped them, the ship slowly went into a cartwheel.... the problem was still there when i intentionally didnt drop them but slightly reduced....i tried making the ship longer and placing the Firelarks further down the hull but that had no effect as far as i was able to telli deleted the Mk.2 but i still have the Mk3 ship file if you want it... theres one here http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=3534.0 not sure if its current but probably close enough... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killerhurtz Posted November 2, 2011 Author Share Posted November 2, 2011 The bad news: not quite sure how it could be happening, but at least I know it\'s not a drag issue, although I can say I like the way it handles more when the drag is lower. Going to look into other potential sources. The good news: Blaze is NEARLY ready (maybe one or two tweaks here and there, we\'ll see how my plans go, and there\'s the textures to be done), and I already found my next project. Never again will I be bothered by that pesky launch platform - I\'m making a heightened launch platform that\'ll easily clear the path by making the whole rocket stand OVER the launch platform. Will also serve as a more stable place, as you\'ll be able to put struts on there, making the whole 'holding the rocket' part that much easier. Not quite sure how I\'ll make it hold rockets with more than one engine at the first stage, though... We\'ll see how it goes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 I have a request/suggestion...Im not really sure if youre already doing that (maybe,but im going to post it anyway to be sure.... )Ive been trying to make a gunship, the movie type, sort of like Hunter-Killer from Terminator or the stuff from Avatar... unfortunately there are no engines available that point 'downwards' (plane perspective) aside from RCS, so, seeing as you seem to be the 'alternate propulsion expert' around here 8) and that thrust vectoring is not available yet (and probably wont vector as far as i need anyway), is there any way you can make any low-powered engines mountable on the ventral side of such a craft?Ideally i would want 4 engines in the 'corners' each pointing slightly outwards (which is supposed to help stabilize the thing), or on the tip/tail and wings,but i`d settle for anything similar, or if you know of anything similar already in existence, please tell me Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killerhurtz Posted November 2, 2011 Author Share Posted November 2, 2011 I don\'t think there\'s anything stable out there yet, but I\'ll just add a few nodes to Blaze to allow perpendicular engine mounts (although, just so you know, it also means you won\'t be able to use symmetry to place them). So you\'ll be able to put pretty much any engine you want aside (and for actually moving, you could just place some heavy RCS like KW\'s Quad Heavy RCS module on top of the engines, or tilt your ship (in which case it\'ll require either an additional control module or RCS because wings most likely won\'t work at the speeds you\'re going to go). The only problem with that is that well, you won\'t be able to have variable forwards thrust (at least until next update, where thrust vectoring will come in). That\'ll do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 yeah should work quite nicely...i just want the thing to hover,as for X/Z axis movement i was just planning to slap RCS units on,them tilting the craft to the sides should provide enough variability for movementif the engines will be slightly angled outwards,that would mean the gunship would 'stand' straight on the forward thrusters while the aft thrusters would be angled out enough to provide thrust.... essentially behaving like a helicopteras for symmetry... well... i was hoping for that, but worst case ill do it the Kerbal way and eye the engine mounts... =Pthanks alot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killerhurtz Posted November 3, 2011 Author Share Posted November 3, 2011 Bumping because there\'s a pre-release of Blaze available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Technical Ben Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Lol. I had an idea to put fireworks into the game... looks like you beat me to it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killerhurtz Posted November 4, 2011 Author Share Posted November 4, 2011 Quick question, guys: Now that the experimental release of 0.12 is out, it means that in a few weeks we\'ll have the full version. And that means thrust vectoring. How does a thrust-vectored Firelark sound to you guys? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 absolutely insane =Pimo wont have a use,but i saw the Blaze on youtube (didnt try myself yet) and its awesome, i hope ill be able to make the gunship with that because thrust vectoring/gimballing/whatever is utterly useless for this particular purpose it seems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killerhurtz Posted November 4, 2011 Author Share Posted November 4, 2011 Yeah, the problem is that the version I released isn\'t quite ready for your projects yet, am still working on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 me and my demand for specialized hardware thanks again man,i really do appreciate it (i love gunships, i really do =P) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killerhurtz Posted November 4, 2011 Author Share Posted November 4, 2011 They sure are awesome. Although I might have an idea for it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 well you can be fairly sure that at some point,in a distant,optimized and well-modded and developed future,i will create the only ship type i love more than gunships - a corvette, provided it will be possible ofcourse...specifically a heavy assault corvette class capital ship, with docking bays, spinal mounted torpedo racks,etc etc =P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killerhurtz Posted November 5, 2011 Author Share Posted November 5, 2011 Well, I\'ve got some good news and some bad news.Good news is, the only thing separating Blaze from a release is the texture, which I will be doing right afterwards.The bad news is that KSP, probably due to some distortion of the Z axis because of radial symmetry, I am going to need to make a whole new project for your VTOLing, Thunder.Over and out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thorfinn Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 specifically a heavy assault corvette class capital ship, with docking bays, spinal mounted torpedo racks,etc etc =PMmmmmhhhh.... Homeworld fan, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted November 6, 2011 Share Posted November 6, 2011 wow,ok Killer,ill wait for it, no sweat :-)and yeah,Homeworld is one of my favourite games,but my understanding of the Corvette 'class' comes from Wing Commander Prophecy (waaaaaay back) and few other games nobody ever heard about... (and corvettes in the current navies)Homeworld considers it a heavy,heavy fighter... i think it deserves to be slightly more than that... and i think that if this game implements 'space'ships (as in not even designed to land,but only to be in space,which i think is the future of space travel), i will probably have all the necessary tools at my disposal to make one either way,Blaze will allow me to do some really crazy stuff,with rockets and with... other stuff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarolRawley Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 Can I dare to ask this, Firelarks on a Blaze frame? ;D 8) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted November 7, 2011 Share Posted November 7, 2011 not that i have the numbers at hand, but im quite sure the sheer force of them would crush your ship,turn it inside out and then chew it to metal shavings =Pon that note,Killer,did you find out of the Firelarks are stable yet? not a priority tho, i solved my immediate issue by rebuilding it... cant test it without engine optimizations anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Killerhurtz Posted November 7, 2011 Author Share Posted November 7, 2011 Can I dare to ask this, Firelarks on a Blaze frame? ;D 8)Yup. Blaze should support 1m, 1.75m, 2m and 3m stuff (the only problem this brings is the fact that because of the way it\'s placed, you can stick on two 1m engines on it (1m and 3m connectors), and one is going to hang in mid-air. Might edit the model slightly to make it better. Or I could remake the model to look like an engine rack (which would, in turn, bring more connection points...). But that would take a bit longer.not that i have the numbers at hand, but im quite sure the sheer force of them would crush your ship,turn it inside out and then chew it to metal shavings =Pon that note,Killer,did you find out of the Firelarks are stable yet? not a priority tho, i solved my immediate issue by rebuilding it... cant test it without engine optimizations anyway...Nope, found out it\'s nothing I can fix, it\'s a game engine bug. Although about the force things: there\'s nothing struts can\'t fix. Believe it or not, my record for the most Firelarks working at once on a spaceship without it breaking is 24. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted November 8, 2011 Share Posted November 8, 2011 Decided to make another Firelark ship to test it....it makes it spin counter-clockwise...BUT... its stable,provided you can fix the turning and do course corrections on separating first stage (SAS is your friend)i just love building 'unreasonable' ships... if a true rocket expert looked at it he would probably get a heart attack, but i just like these sorts of designs =Pmods used: C7,SIDR,wobbly rockets,KW Challenger,Aerospike and Solar Panel from 'Assorted Hardware',escape tower,some weird parachutes (either triple chute or the one from KW),and ofcourse FIRELARK!!! - might have forgotten some but i dont think sooh,and it definitely should be Mun capable, it has way too much fueli tried strutting the things like crazy but i do get weird behavior either way,i think the engines are just simply too powerful to be 'solid stable' which results in a spin/wobble/whatever depending on the particular designeither way,thanks again ill try and take it to the Mun once i scrape up some time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts