pwnedbyscope Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 http://imgur.com/a/CMKv6any chance for a download? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 Yea when it's ready Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlipNascar Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 Tip: Much longer tail. And it's possible to have 2 rotor blades that are still strutted together while being detached from the main shaft, to reduce risk of Rapid Unplanned Departure. I say 2 rotor blades, because otherwise multiple strut connections will prevent easy flapping. If you're interested, I can still upload my stock cyclic/collective experiment.Very much interested in taking a peek at the stock cyclic/collective experiment. Do you mean to strut the blades to the mast, and they remain strutted after decoupling (if so, how?), or just to eachother? The only strutting I notice being necessary, is sometimes the individual elements of the blade (wing connector E) are stretching and could probably use a strut.If anyone is interested in seeing where it is at at the moment pm me and I'll happily share the link with you, provided you fly it and crash it and provide some feedback. The only tip, do a wheelie on the runway before you start rolling just to make it easier for the blades, otherwise they don't always flap correctly until you pitch up, and therefore you get an un-commanded roll moment.@Rune: I can't help it. I was raised with a fixed-wing flying father and subsequently my aviator buddies all spoke ill of rotorcraft. I have however seen the light ever since I first flew a chopper, and if I had the cash I'd go and do that. And while I understand the hows and the whys, I can't help but think an autogyro looks like a death trap. Typically open cockpit, has no [fixed] wings and you can't power the rotor blades directly. Still I suppose in an autogyro you can't ever get yourself into vortex ring state? My aerodynamics knowledge is too rusty so always grateful for the hints and tips of those that have it. I just have the experience of flight.- - - Updated - - -Although I wonder, would FAR be more understanding of the autogyro, and would you have more rpm with less mast angle? 'spose I'll add to list of experiments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jetenginestar Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 (edited) I have a feeling I am unable to resurrect the 747 again...It flies, barely, it's definitely a long way from cruising at 10,000 m...I think the wings are too small for a 200t+ aircraft... Edited September 28, 2015 by Jetenginestar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 (edited) I have a feeling I am unable to resurrect the 747 again...It flies, barely, it's definitely a long way from cruising at 10,000 m...I think the wings are too small for a 200t+ aircraft...http://i.imgur.com/UBvSFRB.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/q6K6hyM.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/gjV3Yoc.pngWhy? The apocalypse is near!Too much ... unstrutted .. aliasing ^^ Edited September 28, 2015 by RevanCorana Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azimech Posted September 28, 2015 Share Posted September 28, 2015 Very much interested in taking a peek at the stock cyclic/collective experiment. Do you mean to strut the blades to the mast, and they remain strutted after decoupling (if so, how?), or just to eachother? The only strutting I notice being necessary, is sometimes the individual elements of the blade (wing connector E) are stretching and could probably use a strut.If anyone is interested in seeing where it is at at the moment pm me and I'll happily share the link with you, provided you fly it and crash it and provide some feedback. The only tip, do a wheelie on the runway before you start rolling just to make it easier for the blades, otherwise they don't always flap correctly until you pitch up, and therefore you get an un-commanded roll moment.@Rune: I can't help it. I was raised with a fixed-wing flying father and subsequently my aviator buddies all spoke ill of rotorcraft. I have however seen the light ever since I first flew a chopper, and if I had the cash I'd go and do that. And while I understand the hows and the whys, I can't help but think an autogyro looks like a death trap. Typically open cockpit, has no [fixed] wings and you can't power the rotor blades directly. Still I suppose in an autogyro you can't ever get yourself into vortex ring state? My aerodynamics knowledge is too rusty so always grateful for the hints and tips of those that have it. I just have the experience of flight.- - - Updated - - -Although I wonder, would FAR be more understanding of the autogyro, and would you have more rpm with less mast angle? 'spose I'll add to list of experiments.I'll test/crash it. Stock cyclic/collective experiment was done in February, with 0.90 mindset and knowledge. I'll put it on KerbalX. FAR might give you better rpm, but is even more a strain on the parts, choose your strength-per-part wisely. Oh and a vortex ring state does not exist in KSP, we need fluid dynamics for that.- - - Updated - - -I have a feeling I am unable to resurrect the 747 again...It flies, barely, it's definitely a long way from cruising at 10,000 m...I think the wings are too small for a 200t+ aircraft...Looks more like an Ekranoplan with those engines up front. Other people have built successful 747's, maybe take a look at those? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david50517 Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 (edited) only 100 Parts Edited September 29, 2015 by david50517 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clouds Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 http://i.imgur.com/zzo71rA.pngWoah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azimech Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 Yeah, not the ship, just the flight deck. Smart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Lazarus Posted September 29, 2015 Share Posted September 29, 2015 Orion inspired mun-missionrework of the EUS is finished with seperation srb's, RCS, probecore, bat.-power and payload interfacenow i have to decide, if i use the Orion MK II with the "bigger" service module for munmisisons, or the other one. which is a standard orion with normal service module, but additional munar braking/return stage. (like in the Chaka monkey SLS pack, great mod pack!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pTrevTrevs Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slam_Jones Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 The kolonization of Duna is underway. So far, I'm up to 6 bases, all built from one original landing. (No MechJeb, HyperEdit, etc.)Still need names for two of the outposts... any ideas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenya Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 I recorded a couple silly videos Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik_601 Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 After a long break I'm here again And I even have something to show:This beauty is MiG-29. It's pretty maneuverable and controlable, but I'm looking forward to the next update to make it more accurate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guerra Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 (edited) Working on something from good ol' Jonny QuestJavascript is disabled. View full album Edited October 1, 2015 by Guerra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Columbia Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 God, the part count is real.. and most of it is massless solar panels. And it's not even done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Columbia Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Huzzah! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pTrevTrevs Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 God, the part count is real.. and most of it is massless solar panels. And it's not even done.http://i.imgur.com/1sNyzYd.jpgBah, my Typhoon submarine has more parts than that! An don't even get me started on the U-Boat. Come back when it gets above 600! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Columbia Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 (edited) Bah, my Typhoon submarine has more parts than that! An don't even get me started on the U-Boat. Come back when it gets above 600!But those are water craft, with extreme detail crammed in it. This is a B-29 based hunk of fat that can barely fly, and these things aren't supposed to go beyond at least 250 ​parts.It's not the same. Edited October 1, 2015 by Columbia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Rocket Scientist Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Huzzah!http://i.imgur.com/NoLAd6p.pngHold it, you've already made a B-29, I used it for inspiration for mine.Bah, my Typhoon submarine has more parts than that! An don't even get me started on the U-Boat. Come back when it gets above 600!Come back here when you 600+ part count vessel is completely useless and incapable of movement without the debug menu: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KSACheese Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Hold it, you've already made a B-29, I used it for inspiration for mine.Come back here when you 600+ part count vessel is completely useless and incapable of movement without the debug menu: I'd say that's still pretty impressive, even if it can't move Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Rocket Scientist Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 I'd say that's still pretty impressive, even if it can't move Thanks, it's available from my sig, the AMRSD picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pTrevTrevs Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Come back here when you 600+ part count vessel is completely useless and incapable of movement without the debug menu: http://i.imgur.com/f8qEYmD.pngU-boat=860 partsHighest Achieved Speed=0.5m/sPractical Uses= none, really.Well, I guess you can make cool screenshots and do some role play, but the FPS is so low you probably wouldn't want to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Rocket Scientist Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 U-boat=860 partsHighest Achieved Speed=0.5m/sPractical Uses= none, really.Well, I guess you can make cool screenshots and do some role play, but the FPS is so low you probably wouldn't want to.0.5m/s Without infinite fuel and hack gravity! Stupendous! This will revolutionize... um... something. But okay, 860 parts wins. Phooey. Time for a kerbal-scale death star with interior. Actually, what is the highest part count released craft? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubbadevlin Posted October 1, 2015 Share Posted October 1, 2015 Actually 860 parts has not won!, my full sized Apollo mission is at 880 right now.... God help my CPU. Its almost done though. (just need to actually fly it to the Mun) 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.