[WIP] R.E.L Skylon C2. Alpha Released. FAR config broken. (08 Dec 2014)

[blowfish]

Since you're already using FSwheel for the landing gear it might make sense to use FSpartTuner rather than the default ModuleSteering. Here's an example (from B9) which seems to work quite well:

    MODULE
    {
        name = FSpartTurner
        steerMultiplier = 45
        targetPartObject = leg_lower1
        targetPartObject2 = wheelCollider
        rotationDirectionX = 0
        rotationDirectionY = 1
        rotationDirectionZ = 0
        steeringEnabled = False
        steerMaxSpeed = 25
        speedAdjustedSteeringMinimumMultiplier = 0.01
    }

[CaptainKipard]

This reminds me I need to tweak the steering curve; when taking off the craft will roll way too much when trying to stay in line with the runway.

[CaptainKipard]

Maxmaps tweeted earlier about new aerodynamics in the next update. Hopefully FAR wont be a necessity much longer, and people wont have to choose between this and FAR.

Edit

If anyone has issues with asymmetrical flameout read this post.

Edited December 19, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[CaptainKipard]

Made you look

-- image deleted --

Edited April 22, 2015 by Cpt. Kipard

[mindrunner79]

sorry my english is not good ...

many thanks for the great Skylon mod...great job !!!!

I have a problem with the cargobay,door and maingears.they can not open or closing ...!? What am I doing wrong ??? I'm using the latest version of KSP.

[Mecripp]

sorry my english is not good ...

many thanks for the great Skylon mod...great job !!!!

I have a problem with the cargobay,door and maingears.they can not open or closing ...!? What am I doing wrong ??? I'm using the latest version of KSP.

You have the updated Firespitter plugin ?

[mindrunner79]

yes i have Firespitter in the plugin folder.

should it into another Folder???

[mindrunner79]

i use Firespitter_634.

cargobay opens when i launch and the gears are retracted.here is a screenshot so you can see where my problem is.

http://img4.bilder-hochladen.tv/asMrZPW2.png' alt='asMrZPW2.png'>

[mindrunner79]

ok i have the Firespitter.dll replaced with a new file ... it works !!!!!

I have a short question will skylon texture complet black as the original?

[CaptainKipard]

ok i have the Firespitter.dll replaced with a new file ... it works !!!!!

I have a short question will skylon texture complet black as the original?

If people really want a boring black texture then I can include it as an option.

[mindrunner79]

your desing is very well done in every case but skylon is just black...the Lappcat ist White...

but that is my opinion and just a matter of taste...

in any case, i want to thank you very much for your great work and i am curious how you develop project.

[ZodiusInfuser]

your desing is very well done in every case but skylon is just black...the Lappcat ist White...

but that is my opinion and just a matter of taste...

There is such a thing as artistic license you know

[CaptainKipard]

I'm waiting for the next KSP update, so I can develop this for the new aerodynamics model. I'm also part-way through modelling the Skylon Personnel and Logistics Module

[White Owl]

I've been playing around with mockups, using this mod's fuselage and engines with procedural wings, trying to get something flyable in FAR.

It's always so close to working, but just never quite gets there.

I can't figure out why the engineers decided on these canards mounted all the way forward like this. Move the canards a little ways aft, and the handling greatly improves. Better yet, move the control surfaces all the way to the tail and the problems completely disappear! With a more conventional cruciform tail the plane is perfectly controllable even without SAS on.

But I know the goal of this project isn't to make something sort of similar to Skylon, with a different wing design.

[blowfish]

Yeah, if this is anything to go on the Skylon should be very pitch unstable. There are a few possible explanations: (1) This is correct, but active stabilization could correct it in real life (2) I set up the FAR parameters wrong or (3) The Skylon relies on specifics of the fuselage shape which FAR doesn't calculate.

[CaptainKipard]

I can't figure out why the engineers decided on these canards mounted all the way forward like this.

I don't know but I'm guessing it's because the CoM is slightly forward of the CoL of the wings, so together with the canards it should balance out(?).

[Remi]

never mind...

Edited February 20, 2015 by Remi

[White Owl]

I made a video about this great mod. This is in stock aero, with the minimum amount of mods to make Skylon work.

Here's a Module Manager file for the tweaks I made to various parts: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8h2ImrVfLXsaDVMY3Q3QzJONjg/view?usp=sharing

[White Owl]

After playing around with Skylon for a little bit, and reading through the manual again, I have a couple of suggestions.

The real vehicle is intended to power the RCS system with the same LH+LOX mix the engines use. Changing this model to match would be easy, and would also simplify the vehicle. The downside is the player would have to keep an eye on fuel levels whenever maneuvering with the thrusters, and KSP has taught us all that RCS uses a different resource. Still, I think this change is probably worth it.

Is it possible for the payload bay doors to open wider? The manual says it should be possible to dock two Skylons together, payload to payload, if necessary to move crew from one vehicle to another. With the current door travel, I don't think it's possible. Ideally I'd like to see the doors open wide enough to expose the very top of a 3.75m payload if looking from the side. The manual's illustrations seem to depict the doors opening that wide, but frustratingly don't give an actual measurement for door travel.

I'm loving this plane.

[CaptainKipard]

I made a video about this great mod. This is in stock aero, with the minimum amount of mods to make Skylon work.

Here's a Module Manager file for the tweaks I made to various parts: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8h2ImrVfLXsaDVMY3Q3QzJONjg/view?usp=sharing

Thanks a lot I'll add both of those to the OP if you don't mind.

The real vehicle is intended to power the RCS system with the same LH+LOX mix the engines use. Changing this model to match would be easy, and would also simplify the vehicle. The downside is the player would have to keep an eye on fuel levels whenever maneuvering with the thrusters, and KSP has taught us all that RCS uses a different resource. Still, I think this change is probably worth it.

I don't see why not. I'll revisit this when the new resource systems arrives.

Is it possible for the payload bay doors to open wider? The manual says it should be possible to dock two Skylons together, payload to payload, if necessary to move crew from one vehicle to another. With the current door travel, I don't think it's possible. Ideally I'd like to see the doors open wide enough to expose the very top of a 3.75m payload if looking from the side. The manual's illustrations seem to depict the doors opening that wide, but frustratingly don't give an actual measurement for door travel.

It's possible. I have noticed this too but this is what you get when you don't have accurate blueprints. The mechanism I made will only allow that much movement, because I just had visual reference of the space shuttle cargo bay mechanism and I didn't anticipate the use that you mentioned.

If I had some input from an engineer I could improve it quickly. Without it I'll effectively have to reinvent things myself by testing out various lengths and positions of the mechanism's components. I hadn't bothered because it's a lot of work. I'll see. I'd like it to be as close as possible to the real thing.

[White Owl]

Oh, damn. Not knowing anything about modeling a moving part, I was hoping it would be a simple change.

[Pappystein]

I don't know but I'm guessing it's because the CoM is slightly forward of the CoL of the wings, so together with the canards it should balance out(?).

Mass movement arm. The further away from the Center of mass a control is the smaller it needs to be to impart the same movement. ESP forward of the CoM on an aircraft

+

Cleaner airflow = more efficient canard.

[CaptainKipard]

So basically Archimedes's law of the lever.

[sashan]

I might try playing with FAR configs. I have NEAR, but they are nearly same, especially if you have one-part wing.

There's only one thing I can't do. This one. https://github.com/ferram4/Ferram-Aerospace-Research/wiki/Deriving-FAR-values-for-a-wing-using-Blender-2.7

[CaptainKipard]

I might try playing with FAR configs. I have NEAR, but they are nearly same, especially if you have one-part wing.

There's only one thing I can't do. This one. https://github.com/ferram4/Ferram-Aerospace-Research/wiki/Deriving-FAR-values-for-a-wing-using-Blender-2.7

I think the problem is with the way FAR handles wings when they're not added symmetrically like you usually do. My wings are attacked by stack nodes, which means they can't be symmetrical. Everything else is kinda trivial to do.