totm june 2018 Work-in-Progress [WIP] Design Thread

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

16 hours ago, Gman_builder said:

Why don't you make them 100% scale? Like mine. After all you can just add more detail and make it look better. Check out the 777 I'm making!

To make a long story short, when I started, I never dreamed I would be making a series of planes. I just started trying to build a big passenger plane, with 2 mk3 fuselages side by side. I ended up thinking "hey, this is kinda starting to look like an A-380!" So I went to Wikipedia and used data to make my plane into an A-380 replica. The fuselage size ended up resulting in a 5/6ths scale plane. When I decided to make more replicas I wanted them to have accurate relative sizes, but I didn't feel like rebuilding the 430 something part A-380    I have thought at times about making full scale, but I've got like 1...2... *counting*  12? At least 12 replicas I would have to redo. Besides, Kerbin is 1/10th real scale, I don't see why their planes would be full size... that's my excuse.

 

[Gman_builder]

3 hours ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

To make a long story short, when I started, I never dreamed I would be making a series of planes. I just started trying to build a big passenger plane, with 2 mk3 fuselages side by side. I ended up thinking "hey, this is kinda starting to look like an A-380!" So I went to Wikipedia and used data to make my plane into an A-380 replica. The fuselage size ended up resulting in a 5/6ths scale plane. When I decided to make more replicas I wanted them to have accurate relative sizes, but I didn't feel like rebuilding the 430 something part A-380    I have thought at times about making full scale, but I've got like 1...2... *counting*  12? At least 12 replicas I would have to redo. Besides, Kerbin is 1/10th real scale, I don't see why their planes would be full size... that's my excuse.

 

That's definitely a good point. But 1.1.3 has given unprecedented support for high part count vehicles. That plane I made is completely flyable at 10 FPS when you consider how many parts there are. On any single 450 part craft I will get anywhere from 25 to 40 FPS in 1.1.3. Which is impressive for my notebook laptop.

[pTrevTrevs]

Das Reboot dive tests. It passed, although the sub takes longer than I expected to submerge and surface.

Somehow the shaders that usually appear when underwater are gone. I don't know if this is a Scatterer problem or what, but it sure is ugly

Still working on getting the hatches on the deck to not be obstructed and practicing manual ballast control.

Speed is slow, maneuverability is bad, dive time is bad, part count is not ideal, but it looks more like a Type VII U-boat than any of my other attempts, and it can dive and resurface as many times as you want!

[Gman_builder]

@pTrevTrevsHave you considered that it actually is maneuverable and dives fast but lag makes it look slower?

[pTrevTrevs]

6 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

@pTrevTrevsHave you considered that it actually is maneuverable and dives fast but lag makes it look slower?

Possibly, although the rudder doesn't work at all, and the dive planes don't seem to work very well either, I've been controlling the attitude of the boat by shifting ballast around manually. 

The dive time may actually be artificially lengthened, since I never get a very high FPS on KSP anyway, and I believe the boat was around 460 (?) parts last I checked.

[Gman_builder]

1 minute ago, pTrevTrevs said:

Possibly, although the rudder doesn't work at all, and the dive planes don't seem to work very well either, I've been controlling the attitude of the boat by shifting ballast around manually. 

The dive time may actually be artificially lengthened, since I never get a very high FPS on KSP anyway, and I believe the boat was around 460 (?) parts last I checked.

When I googled dive plane is just gave me a bunch of pictures of underwater aircraft crashes lol. But I am assuming they are the underwater elevator things on the top of submarines and U boats. KSP doesn't have fluid dynamics and aerodynamic stuff for underwater so control surfaces function minimally if at all underwater.

[pTrevTrevs]

2 hours ago, Gman_builder said:

KSP doesn't have fluid dynamics and aerodynamic stuff for underwater so control surfaces function minimally if at all underwater.

Yeah, that might be it for the dive planes, but I've built boats before that had rudders that worked very well, I don't understand why this one would be so hard, unless it happens to be extraordinarily heavier than the others, which might be the case, since the entire inner hull is built of Mk 2 liquid fuel tanks.

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

3 hours ago, Gman_builder said:

That's definitely a good point. But 1.1.3 has given unprecedented support for high part count vehicles. That plane I made is completely flyable at 10 FPS when you consider how many parts there are. On any single 450 part craft I will get anywhere from 25 to 40 FPS in 1.1.3. Which is impressive for my notebook laptop.

The reason I mentioned the part count wasn't because I was worried about performance problems when rebuilding it larger, but rather because of the complexity of the build. It took me something like three weeks to a month to build the thing and get it working, and then another two weeks or so to get it working again in 1.1 (when the gear changed size, started clipping through the ground, and everything from the wings to tail started exploding off). I don't want to make my brain hurt rebuilding it larger and having to go through all the trouble of getting it to work again. Let alone doing it on all of them.

[Castille7]

Omega 7 Project Update

Omega Transit One

After very tedious testing I was able to dock Omega Transit One with a new Dual Adapter idea that seemed to be what was needed for the fuselage design of the craft. The first docking was an accidental single port docking then after a second go at it I docked with the Dual Ports. After a few more test with The Matador's Launcher and docking the Omega 7 Project should be complete.

Imgur Album Here

 

 

 

 

Edited August 11, 2016 by Castille7

[Gman_builder]

2 hours ago, pTrevTrevs said:

Yeah, that might be it for the dive planes, but I've built boats before that had rudders that worked very well, I don't understand why this one would be so hard, unless it happens to be extraordinarily heavier than the others, which might be the case, since the entire inner hull is built of Mk 2 liquid fuel tanks.

Try taking fuel out of the tanks then. If that doesn't work just add a bigger rudder. But that depends on if you want to sacrifice looks for functionality.

1 hour ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

The reason I mentioned the part count wasn't because I was worried about performance problems when rebuilding it larger, but rather because of the complexity of the build. It took me something like three weeks to a month to build the thing and get it working, and then another two weeks or so to get it working again in 1.1 (when the gear changed size, started clipping through the ground, and everything from the wings to tail started exploding off). I don't want to make my brain hurt rebuilding it larger and having to go through all the trouble of getting it to work again. Let alone doing it on all of them.

Ya that makes sense.

It is your craft so build it how you want. I am the kind of person who makes sacrifices to achieve maximum beauty, detail, and functionality.

[Yukon0009]

:3

My first SSTO that has actual usage. 4K dV on orbit, can do Minmus landings with ease. 

[Columbia]

15 hours ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

To make a long story short, when I started, I never dreamed I would be making a series of planes. I just started trying to build a big passenger plane, with 2 mk3 fuselages side by side. I ended up thinking "hey, this is kinda starting to look like an A-380!" So I went to Wikipedia and used data to make my plane into an A-380 replica. The fuselage size ended up resulting in a 5/6ths scale plane. When I decided to make more replicas I wanted them to have accurate relative sizes, but I didn't feel like rebuilding the 430 something part A-380    I have thought at times about making full scale, but I've got like 1...2... *counting*  12? At least 12 replicas I would have to redo. Besides, Kerbin is 1/10th real scale, I don't see why their planes would be full size... that's my excuse.

 

Hey, I have a similar story! Built the B-17, didn't bother looking at data (wasn't exactly a full-fledged WW2 enthusiast a year ago) and ended up building it way bigger than it should be. B-29 followed, then Bf 109..

And also, the "Kerbal scale hurr durr" thing probably irritates me way more than it should. If it's close enough, it's close enough. No questions asked.

I've been mostly enjoying War Thunder 1.61 (that new Heinkel 111 is gorgeous) and so all I've accomplished is a photoshoot of a pushback truck I built.

 

[Majorjim!]

57 minutes ago, Yukon0009 said:

:3

My first SSTO that has actual usage. 4K dV on orbit, can do Minmus landings with ease. 

Is that clipped radiator to stop the nose over heating? If so just add a small antenna to the tip of the nose and you will have no issues with over heating. It will look better and have less drag too. :-)

[Yukon0009]

 

Just now, Majorjim! said:

Is that clipped radiator to stop the nose over heating? If so just add a small antenna to the tip of the nose and you will have no issues with over heating. It will look better and have less drag too. :-)

Interesting. I'll give that a try.

[Majorjim!]

1 minute ago, Yukon0009 said:

 

Interesting. I'll give that a try.

It works a treat! Make sure it's in the exact Center though.

[Gman_builder]

54 minutes ago, Columbia said:

 

What plane is that?

looks familiar lol

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

3 hours ago, Gman_builder said:

What plane is that?

looks familiar lol

I'm guessing it's a Boeing 777, but I'm not sure.

[david50517]

[mrmcp1]

2 hours ago, david50517 said:

snip

I don't know what it is but it looks good. Is it some kind of bulldozer?

Edited August 4, 2016 by mrmcp1

[Frozen_Heart]

Trying to build a rocket only SSTO and struggling. It can limp up to a 75km orbit and return on fumes but can't take any payload at all. Not sure how to improve it from here to make it actually useful.

[Gman_builder]

2 hours ago, Frozen_Heart said:

Trying to build a rocket only SSTO and struggling. It can limp up to a 75km orbit and return on fumes but can't take any payload at all. Not sure how to improve it from here to make it actually useful.

 

Make it a vertical SSTO and use Vectors. If it is shaped more like a rocket it will be easier to get to orbit. I made one here: https://kerbalx.com/Gman_builder/Vertical-Spear-SSTO

There's not much info on the actual page so here you go, It can definitely make it to orbit on the first stage with a light payload, but there is a upper stage incase it doesn't quite work out. There is usually fuel to spare for a descent if you prefer that. If you don't waste any fuel in the upper stage it can take you to Duna and get you into a orbit if your really conservative with your DV.

[Frozen_Heart]

33 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

Make it a vertical SSTO and use Vectors. If it is shaped more like a rocket it will be easier to get to orbit. I made one here: https://kerbalx.com/Gman_builder/Vertical-Spear-SSTO

There's not much info on the actual page so here you go, It can definitely make it to orbit on the first stage with a light payload, but there is a upper stage incase it doesn't quite work out. There is usually fuel to spare for a descent if you prefer that. If you don't waste any fuel in the upper stage it can take you to Duna and get you into a orbit if your really conservative with your DV.

It is vertical take off but gliding landing. Means I don't have to use fuel and can hit the runway. I'm aiming for something like the Venture Star SSTO.

[Exothermos]

12 hours ago, Frozen_Heart said:

Not sure how to improve it from here to make it actually useful.

Yeah, think bigger.  Here's how I big I had to go (with your basic aesthetics) to get a full orange can to orbit, and even then margins are very tight.

5x vectors (though I think 4 would be better) and LOTS of fuel.  Reentry and landing can be entertaining too. 

Edit: Of course you don't have to go anywhere near as big for lighter payloads, I just went kinda extreme to illustrate the point.

Edited August 5, 2016 by Exothermos

[Columbia]

21 hours ago, Gman_builder said:

What plane is that?

looks familiar lol

B777, of course.

It's kind of depressing that it wasn't obvious enough. ;-;

[Gman_builder]

4 minutes ago, Columbia said:

B777, of course.

It's kind of depressing that it wasn't obvious enough. ;-;

Heck ya home boy you take after the master