Technical Ben Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 On 05 December 2015, EladDv said: nope the new scatterer by blackrack. here Mind blown. Wow that is amazing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Columbia Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 Good god, escorting is hard. I need to throttle down the bomber by around 45% just to maintain a decent velocity with the "defending" fighters. Hell, the bombers night as well be the escorts. But it is not false, though, that once you pull it off, the results are amazing: Spitfire and Lancaster: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pTrevTrevs Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 (edited) On December 7, 2015 at 07:29:15, Columbia said: Good god, escorting is hard. I need to throttle down the bomber by around 45% just to maintain a decent velocity with the "defending" fighters. Hell, the bombers night as well be the escorts. But it is not false, though, that once you pull it off, the results are amazing: Spitfire and Lancaster: Fighter escorts would often fly higher up and slightly behind the bombers, weaving back and forth so that the bombers could fly at their max speed, and the extra altitude of the fighters allowed them to dive on any attackers (BoomNZoom in War Thunder). But yeah, close formations like that look cool as hell. Now do it with two fighters and a bomber! Edited December 15, 2015 by pTrevTrevs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Columbia Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 2 minutes ago, pTrevTrevs said: Fighter escorts would often fly higher up and slightly behind the bombers, weaving back and forth so that the bombers could fly at their max speed, and the extra altitude of the fighters allowed them to dive on any attackers (BoomNZoom in War Thunder). But yeah, close formations like that look cool as hell. Now do it with two fighters and a bomber! Oh, thanks for the info. I will take note of that next time.. but I still gotta admit, having a fighter this close to a bomber is still anticlimactic for me, especially avoiding collisions! (Until the time comes when I decide I've taken enough photos and it's time to ram the bomber) Two fighters?! My computer can just barely take a bomber and one fighter.. Imagine the lag! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selfish_meme Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 Got no idea how to get a gif on these new forums, Gfycat has changed and I can't find the gif link, imgur gifv don't work, and the forums don't accept any kind of image url that does not have an image extension it understands. Anywhoo, been working on a tank, after the recent brahaha, found out it's not easy making a turret bearing for a tank, tanks are heavy and wheeled bearings do not like heavy! I modelled it after a T-54/55 and it's about 1:1 scale. I tried a second bearing for the vetical component but it just gets too wobbly and the bearings have to be really small, unless you want to build tanks that are much larger than their real life counterparts. What do you people think, is it worth continuing? is this any improvement at all over the regular bearings? It is useable all the time and does not fall out or through like some turrets I have seen. I have put more hours than I care to admit into getting this bearing solid enough to actually carry the turret, and only then if it is well balanced and not too heavy. See gif below http://gfycat.com/MealyFloweryBlackcrappie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlipNascar Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 (edited) 1 hour ago, selfish_meme said: Got no idea how to get a gif on these new forums, Gfycat has changed and I can't find the gif link, imgur gifv don't work, and the forums don't accept any kind of image url that does not have an image extension it understands. Anywhoo, been working on a tank, after the recent brahaha, found out it's not easy making a turret bearing for a tank, tanks are heavy and wheeled bearings do not like heavy! I modelled it after a T-54/55 and it's about 1:1 scale. I tried a second bearing for the vetical component but it just gets too wobbly and the bearings have to be really small, unless you want to build tanks that are much larger than their real life counterparts. What do you people think, is it worth continuing? is this any improvement at all over the regular bearings? It is useable all the time and does not fall out or through like some turrets I have seen. I have put more hours than I care to admit into getting this bearing solid enough to actually carry the turret, and only then if it is well balanced and not too heavy. See gif below http://gfycat.com/MealyFloweryBlackcrappie Looks smooth! For the vertical you could just forgo a wheeled bearing... Just build a track and let a round monoprop tank or something roll around in it. That ought to be a bit easier, and the vertical motion won't be as often so you can get away with it being much simpler. Oooh use a structural fuselage? Now that they're hollow...? Edited December 7, 2015 by FlipNascar Typo :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majorjim! Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 38 minutes ago, selfish_meme said: Got no idea how to get a gif on these new forums, Gfycat has changed and I can't find the gif link, imgur gifv don't work, and the forums don't accept any kind of image url that does not have an image extension it understands. Anywhoo, been working on a tank, after the recent brahaha, found out it's not easy making a turret bearing for a tank, tanks are heavy and wheeled bearings do not like heavy! I modelled it after a T-54/55 and it's about 1:1 scale. I tried a second bearing for the vetical component but it just gets too wobbly and the bearings have to be really small, unless you want to build tanks that are much larger than their real life counterparts. What do you people think, is it worth continuing? is this any improvement at all over the regular bearings? It is useable all the time and does not fall out or through like some turrets I have seen. I have put more hours than I care to admit into getting this bearing solid enough to actually carry the turret, and only then if it is well balanced and not too heavy. See gif below http://gfycat.com/MealyFloweryBlackcrappie What you have seems ok man. Bearing are limited by their size but they are not hard to make strong. Also the turret does not have to be very heavy. you just have to build smart. Check out Jon144s turret bearing he made for Zekes tanks. That works beautifully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frozen_Heart Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 Had this for a few versions as a fighter but it works well when converted into a Duna lander. Can make a VTOL landing and then return to orbit and dock. I'm finding it strangely satisfying converting all my military craft into useful civilian ones. It has 2900m/s of dV so can go quite a long way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Rocket Scientist Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 7 hours ago, Columbia said: Good god, escorting is hard. I need to throttle down the bomber by around 45% just to maintain a decent velocity with the "defending" fighters. Hell, the bombers night as well be the escorts. But it is not false, though, that once you pull it off, the results are amazing: Spitfire and Lancaster: Your escorting seems to damage your air force more than any of your enemies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selfish_meme Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 5 hours ago, FlipNascar said: Looks smooth! For the vertical you could just forgo a wheeled bearing... Just build a track and let a round monoprop tank or something roll around in it. That ought to be a bit easier, and the vertical motion won't be as often so you can get away with it being much simpler. Oooh use a structural fuselage? Now that they're hollow...? Yeah, I tried a .625 no wheeled bearing, it's just too sloppy for the heavy barrel, and I am already using a light barrel, the 1.25 structural fuselage would necessitate scaling up the whole thing. 5 hours ago, Majorjim said: What you have seems ok man. Bearing are limited by their size but they are not hard to make strong. Also the turret does not have to be very heavy. you just have to build smart. Check out Jon144s turret bearing he made for Zekes tanks. That works beautifully. I am currently using radiator parts on the turret itself, the structural plates are just too heavy, there is no way a bearing of this size can stay steady when using them. I did try one of Jon144's tanks before, not sure if it has the bearing you are talking about, but the turret sank into the deck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubbadevlin Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 Hmm, yea, it you just add some fuel tanks to counter balance the gun, its really easy to just make a cage around a fuel tank. Not the best, and not the smoothest, but it tends to work quite well. Remember too, you dont need anything holding the turret down, gravity will do that for you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majorjim! Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 Just now, selfish_meme said: Yeah, I tried a .625 no wheeled bearing, it's just too sloppy for the heavy barrel, and I am already using a light barrel, the 1.25 structural fuselage would necessitate scaling up the whole thing. I am currently using radiator parts on the turret itself, the structural plates are just too heavy, there is no way a bearing of this size can stay steady when using them. I did try one of Jon144's tanks before, not sure if it has the bearing you are talking about, but the turret sank into the deck. As I said, it is Zekes tank, Jon144 made the bearing. Maybe the panther. It works perfectly, I posted a video showing this. Bearings with the landing gear are strong because the wheels are strong. If you make them correctly they can hold a decent weight. What i would do is a combination of the two types. Use the wheels just for the bottom of the structural part with a strong base for the wheels to run on. Have the wheels inline with the rotation of the turret. The build a simple cage to stop it from wobbling. and popping out. The you could make it as heavy as you want. Within reason of course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selfish_meme Posted December 7, 2015 Share Posted December 7, 2015 Tried Jon144's Relentless E3 and the bearing is much better than any of the previous tanks I had ever tested, better than mine. I can see how to improve mine to be as good as Jon144's (supporting turret with wheels rather than just suspending it from bearing) but apart from being a bit smaller, neater and requiring less parts it won't be any improvement on strength, still it might be worth it, I am building it in a small box that can be separated and used as the turret mount for any tank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selfish_meme Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 (edited) OK I have a 2 ton turret bearing box that can accommodate turrets from 3.6t up to 17t (must use large SAS to move) width is 1.6m, length 2.4m and height is 1.4m , it has a probe core and lots of batteries, all you need to add is your tank, turret, probe core and SAS. If anyone wants it I will upload later. 32 parts. Edited December 8, 2015 by selfish_meme Changes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Giggleplex777 Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 On 12/6/2015, 10:36:49, RocketPilot573 said: I'm working on a fully reusable space shuttle. I plan to put this on Laythe so I can ferry crew from the surface to orbit (once i get a base up and running). Normally I would use an SSTO but I am sick and tired of dealing with those. The rocket can be reattached to the shuttle via docking ports. I'll design some equipment for handling the launch and reuse operations later. Good luck! Sounds like a very ambitious project. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selfish_meme Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 (edited) 700+ms, 5.2km from source, almost flat trajectory, just before it splashed down, this is a tank round, I can't believe how stable it is It's not going to knock down any buildings, but at close range it can obliterate structural plate That's well before maximum velocity too Edited December 8, 2015 by selfish_meme Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selfish_meme Posted December 8, 2015 Share Posted December 8, 2015 Oh, yes that tank gun has a vertical bearing that is small and quite resilient, fits inside a 1.25 structural fuselage, I am working on a brake for it, I have one for the main turret, so you can set and hold vertical and horizontal angles. In fact I might stick it in inside a structural fuselage and brake against that.....that should work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaturnianBlue Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 This laptop was out for repairs on the weekend, so I didn't get much done. However, I got my PT Boat almost to the Airstrip island, but then my laptop crashed. About 800 units of liquid fuel was spent on the voyage (Out of ~2700 initial), at top speed. I changed the initial ore ballast arrangements to use small ore tanks. I also got vessel mover, which has proved to be somewhat more useful than hyper edit. The Asteroid Sentinels MOL+Titan IIIC is still being tested, but I think I may be able to get another entry done tomorrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Sierra Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 (edited) I need some opinions on how to send something. THis is my standard deep space mission package: It was originally designed to be operated with a puller-type propulsion stage such as this example: Pullers in KSP arent exactly the greatest solution due to the game engine not properly handling gimbal on the 'top' side of the CoM. Looking for some solutions to this and running into a lack of ideas. I guess 4 months of not really playing and avoiding the community does that to you. Note that those two extended docking ports are there for spaceplanes. When dispatched to Laythe, or select other atmospheric planets, it brings along planes as landing craft rather than a dedicated rocket lander. Far more efficient. Being able to carry the aircraft is another design consideration (it always carries two for emergency redundancy and balance). Edited December 9, 2015 by Captain Sierra THis new editor tries to auto-parse anything with http:// as a url rather than letting me tell it to parse as an image. Grrr. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubbadevlin Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 Well... I know for one thing, your going to need some radiators. The nuke's heat production has gone way up, to where it will actually explode. Also they added exhaust heating, so be careful to space those nukes plenty far away! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RocketPilot573 Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 (edited) Alright so I have a shuttle and a booster sitting next to the runway, and somehow I need to reattach them and launch it. Assuming the booster has just landed after a flight, I made this rover to bring the booster to a horizontal position and transport it back to base for processing. AKA it's an Mk3 Cargo Bay on wheels. I retracted one of the legs on the rokcet to let it fall over. Something broke... Err I mean, you saw nothing! The cargo bay can close for storage. Edited December 9, 2015 by RocketPilot573 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selfish_meme Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 (edited) So a very slight addition to the stock bearing toolbox, a bearing brake, the small bearing on the inside has a couple of wheels facing out and touching the outside cylinder, when the brakes are applied the bearing stops rotating even though my finger is still on the q button. Releasing sometimes needs a stop and start on the q button to get it going again. Useful if you want to rotate something into position and then have it stay there until you want to disengage it again. Maybe a gear drive? http://fat.gfycat.com/LimitedPlaintiveAfricanaugurbuzzard.mp4 Trying to make it shorter using a decoupler instead of the fuselage but proving problematic so far, maybe a fairing....bing! Not sure what happened with the gif above, the link turned into a huge image with huge whitespace after it Edited December 10, 2015 by selfish_meme Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rune Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 5 hours ago, Captain Sierra said: Pullers in KSP arent exactly the greatest solution due to the game engine not properly handling gimbal on the 'top' side of the CoM. Looking for some solutions to this and running into a lack of ideas. I guess 4 months of not really playing and avoiding the community does that to you. Note that those two extended docking ports are there for spaceplanes. When dispatched to Laythe, or select other atmospheric planets, it brings along planes as landing craft rather than a dedicated rocket lander. Far more efficient. Being able to carry the aircraft is another design consideration (it always carries two for emergency redundancy and balance). Actually, that bug was solved in 1.05, and now puller designs will gimbal their engines the right way. Which is awesome. Then again, nukes have no gimbal, so that puller arrangement will have to be controlled in some other fashion. I recommend making it very rigid in the first place, and then having a few reaction wheels. You wont need that many to keep it in check if you use the non-advanced SAS setting and take things slowly. Rune. Now our "upper stages" can literally be on top of the rocket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon0009 Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 Stuff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
selfish_meme Posted December 9, 2015 Share Posted December 9, 2015 13 minutes ago, Yukon0009 said: Stuff The top ship looks a bit like the Normandy I completed the braked bearing with a fairing and only the width of the fairing base in height difference, working but stiff. 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.