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

[EVA_Reentry]

3 minutes ago, qzgy said:

@V7 Aerospace showed me a 3 view for a Handley page Victor, one of the three British V Bombers designed for nuclear bomber. I am trying to make something similar, but for dropping fuel (or anything, really).

  Hide contents

Takeoff. Yeah, it doesn't have 6 engines. Through the magic of part clipping, it has.... 18 wheesleys, or about 6 goliaths.

Goes supersonic.

Back view.

Front view. I think it looks quite okay.

Bombing test.

Missed the target. If this wasn't KSP, it would probably have been a nuke, making dead precision unnecessary. But it got a nice trajectory.

Landing is .... an issue.

 

 

Hey, that's nice. You got that unique British Cold War aesthetic perfectly.

[Torquimedes]

On 4/24/2017 at 0:18 AM, Abastro said:

Hi, I tried to make a streamlined VTOL cargo SSTO, but there was an issues in my mk3 engine design:

Mk3 to 2.5m adapter holds too much LF+Ox, so it's going to be horribly big..

(Besides I just can't make anything look aesthetic. Begging for advice, please help me!)

I have couple more questions:

1. Is there heavier and reliable hinge than Thermometer-OscarB hinge? I think it reached its limit.

2. I'm using airbrakes to swivel the engine-wing section, but it seems that it is pretty generous with clipping, resulting in pendulum motion. Is there something which can hold the engine? I want ones which can move 90 degrees, and strong enough.

Added pics for more explanation.

A Mk3-3.75m adapter holds as much fuel as the Mk3-2.5m at half the length.  On the fore end, add a 3.75m fairing, put the shock cone on whichever fairing node you want, and shape the fairing to fit.  This will be shorter but at least 0.5 tons heavier than your current nacelles.  Depending on the shape of the fairing, you might sneak another fuel tank inside that space.  

You can fight oscillation by adding more torque to the main craft (assume you're always controlling that section), which can stabilize flight while the wing is moving, and make docking more reliable.

1. I haven't tried hinging something that heavy. I hit the limit of the thermo-RCS hinges I was using recently, trying to use large drills as wingtip lasers on my X-wing, because they look really cool there.  They look less cool flapping about on broken wings.  You might have better luck with dockingport Senior since larger ports have a sturdier dock.

2. Hard to tell without a craft file... are the docking positions setup so that the wing assembly can't rotate past where you intend it to dock?  I had a similar problem until I strictly limited the rotation, then had to tweak the placement, rotation and range of the airbrakes down to the pixel for reliable operation.  You'll have to learn the physics mesh of your hinge levers.  The RCS ball is actually smaller than it looks, for instance, so the airbrakes visibly sink into it a bit.  I also put RCS on either side of the airbrake to reduce oscillation, similar to @Servo's XB70 wing actuators.

You can see the inner workings here: 

For more hinge options, check here:

 

Edited April 29, 2017 by Torquimedes

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

I've been reworking the descent stage on my LM replica to try to make it less of a jumble of parts and more of an organized machine.

So far I've changed the side panels to be movable in bulk as opposed to individually, allowing me to move them all off and access the internals without fear of messing up the octagonal prism shape. While I was at it, I disabled power production on them. Maybe my lander will look like it has solar panels, but it won't be using them!

I've also replaced the quadruple set of fuel tanks with one clipped into the top of the engine. I'm hoping for this to be temporary, as I want to keep hacks to a minimum so I can maybe enter this thing into stock challenges later.

Anyways, I'm also reconnecting the struts, so that they all attach to the decoupler at the core, making it easier to move active parts like the leg mountings around, and just in general know what is attached to what. 

Lastly, I replaced a couple of fixed leg struts with fixed radial antennas, as they're lighter, and have the convenience of not disappearing if you touch the part next to them wrong.

The goal is to eventually get the legs smoothly deploying and make the descent stage easy enough to modify that say, if I wanted I could just pull off a side panel and fit in a rover* or ALSEP or whatever.

*I might try to make a lunar roving vehicle. No promises. Going to finish the rocket first at least.

Edited April 26, 2017 by EpicSpaceTroll139

[V7 Aerospace]

7 hours ago, qzgy said:

@V7 Aerospace showed me a 3 view for a Handley page Victor, one of the three British V Bombers designed for nuclear bomber. I am trying to make something similar, but for dropping fuel (or anything, really).

  Reveal hidden contents

Takeoff. Yeah, it doesn't have 6 engines. Through the magic of part clipping, it has.... 18 wheesleys, or about 6 goliaths.

Goes supersonic.

Back view.

Front view. I think it looks quite okay.

Bombing test.

Missed the target. If this wasn't KSP, it would probably have been a nuke, making dead precision unnecessary. But it got a nice trajectory.

Landing is .... an issue.

 

 

That's awesome! I was planning on making a Victor myself, but I never find the time.

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

Sometimes the strut logic leaves me baffled.

Those long struts crossing the structure should be in the same relative places as the one in the upper right.

[Castille7]

Seahorse
Update 4.26.17

Seahorse has been long over due for release as are a few of my craft because some Bridge building that was not working for me. I was hoping to reach an Island with a Bridge and this took Months to realize it's not going to be happening in KSP yet.......I hope! I intended to release a few Water Craft with the completion of the Camelback Bridge but the Bridge never was completed over water. Hopefully one day these type Bridges can be built with stock parts and reduced physics damage.

Seahorse will be released as Seahorse Exploration, it will have these two ROV's as part of the craft, I will also release them separately for those who prefer small craft.

Watson

 

Sherlock will have a more useful forward view, here is an underwater view

 

Flying is ok and considering landing gear at the moment

[Azimech]

Aaaaand ... I couldn't fight. The urge. To build. Another. Stock Helicopter.

First prototype flight, not the finished product. Engine is from the Archon II.

 

 

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

FINALLY IT WORKS!

IT *bleep*-ING WORKS!

YES! YES! YES!

 

It's 294 parts tho... without the big A rocket attached... I might have some ideas for how to reduce part count, but not by a significant amount.

[qzgy]

8 hours ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

FINALLY IT WORKS!

Cool! Mind giving us a gif? or video?

 

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

15 hours ago, qzgy said:

Cool! Mind giving us a gif? or video?

 

I might do that. I recently got fraps, I need to learn how to use it.

Edit: Aaaannndd... just realized I have to get the paid version to record more than 30 seconds and without a giant watermark... and it costs more than twice what I paid for KSP. I'm going to do some looking around, but anyone got some suggestions for free screen capture/vid software?

Edited April 27, 2017 by EpicSpaceTroll139
:/

[Rune]

20 hours ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

FINALLY IT WORKS!

 

IT *bleep*-ING WORKS!

 

YES! YES! YES!

 

It's 294 parts tho... without the big A rocket attached... I might have some ideas for how to reduce part count, but not by a significant amount.

If that does what I think it does... dude. That's complicated. How many independent craft while on operation?

 

Rune. Totally useless, but in a very spectacular way.

Edited April 27, 2017 by Rune

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

14 minutes ago, Rune said:

If that does what I think it does... dude. That's complicated. How many independent craft while on operation?

 

Rune. Totally useless, but in a very spectacular way.

It's not actually that complicated. Each leg is an independent craft, so that's 1 lander + 4 legs = 5 parts. Though it is only like that for a couple seconds, during the time it takes between the legs being decoupled and the docking port magnets locking them in the extended position.

The hard part was dealing with non-visual collisions and clipping between parts.

[Azimech]

Changed the appearance and improved handling at high speeds with a trick. I think it's close to release. What do you guys think of it?

 

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

10 minutes ago, Azimech said:

Changed the appearance and improved handling at high speeds with a trick. I think it's close to release. What do you guys think of it?

Looks kind of blocky and gunshippy. Reminds me of a Mil Mi-24 Hind. Could almost just move the stub wings up and tilt them a bit, add some "rocket pods" and a couple doodads call it the Azi Ki-24 or something lol

Spoiler

 

[Azimech]

1 minute ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

Looks kind of blocky and gunshippy. Reminds me of a Mil Mi-24 Hind. Could almost just move the stub wings up and tilt them a bit, add some "rocket pods" and a couple doodads call it the Azi Ki-24 or something lol

 

The Hind is my favorite helicopter ... but I won't call this one a Hind because the appearance is too far off. I do have a Hind replica btw.

Now if only some wizard could make KerbPaint really work.

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

1 minute ago, Azimech said:

The Hind is my favorite helicopter ... but I won't call this one a Hind because the appearance is too far off. I do have a Hind replica btw.

<snip>

Now if only some wizard could make KerbPaint really work.

Yep it's a cool replica. Tail rotor seems a bit small though.

I think KerbPaint kind of works for some parts. Then again, I haven't used it in a while. 

[HunHarcos]

1 minute ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

Yep it's a cool replica. Tail rotor seems a bit small though.

I think KerbPaint kind of works for some parts. Then again, I haven't used it in a while. 

Wont work, at all, Tried repainting my battleships. Their shadow dissapears.

[Azimech]

3 minutes ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

Yep it's a cool replica. Tail rotor seems a bit small though.

I think KerbPaint kind of works for some parts. Then again, I haven't used it in a while. 

It works for all parts you write a config for. I've made these configs and they're available for download.

The only problem with KerbPaint today is the shaders: painted parts do not produce shadows and unpaintable parts are visible behind paintable parts.

 

Edit: Ninja'd.

Edited April 27, 2017 by Azimech

[Mad Rocket Scientist]

9 hours ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

I might do that. I recently got fraps, I need to learn how to use it.

Edit: Aaaannndd... just realized I have to get the paid version to record more than 30 seconds and without a giant watermark... and it costs more than twice what I paid for KSP. I'm going to do some looking around, but anyone got some suggestions for free screen capture/vid software?

OBS is great. Free and open source. 

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

I'm sitting here scratching my head over the Δv of my LM.

So I have 700m/s of ∆v in the ascent stage, which is perhaps a bit of overkill, but I figured I would just leave it like that for now. But the descent stage, as you may recall, for now has only that dinky little 1/8 size 1.25m tank (I forget what it's called), and so only had 60m/s or so of ∆v. I decided that for testing, I would also put 700m/s in the descent stage, and I could better optimize it as I figured out how the thing handles.

So with descent tanks dry, the thing weighs in at 17092kg. It uses a Reliant engine with 310 vacuum isp.

Tsiolkovsky tells me that: ∆v = v_eln(m₀/m_f).
v_e = isp*9.81

So, using this I can set up an equation to find the fuel mass I need to get the ∆v I want.

∆v = isp*9.81*ln[(m_f + x) / m_f], where x = the fuel mass I need in kilograms.

So I solve for x and get:

x = m_f(e^{∆v/(isp*9.81)} -1)

Now that I have my equation, I can plug in my dry mass, isp, and desired ∆v.

So my needed fuel mass is 17092(e^{700/(310*9.81)} -1) ≈ 4420kg

Rocket engines in KSP use a ratio of 9 parts liquidfuel to 11 parts oxidizer, each at 5kg/unit, so I can now calculate the fuel units using that.

Lf = 4420*(9/(9+11))/5 = 4420*(9/20)/5 = 397.8u   Ox = 4420*(11/(9+11))/5 = 4420*(11/20)/5 = 486.2u

So I went into the craft file and put this much LfOx into the descent tank, and was expecting there to be about 700m/s in the descent stage, probably a m/s or so less as I rounded down the needed fuel mass by about 3kg. KER is telling me I have only 560m/s. So either I messed up or KER messed up. I guess there's only one way to find out which.

[Munbro Kerman]

With the talk of starting a X-Plane thread I decided to try recreating the whole program personally and privately*. I started out with the creation of the B-29, which was the drop-ship for both the X-1 and X-2 research craft. I tried my best at scaling her down, but things look to be out of proportion (only a bit, not enough to alter the aesthetics of the craft). So far I am pretty happy with the outcome and especially the performance, meaning it acts more like a super maneuverable fighter than a heavy bomber. Because of this, I was able to *almost* achieve a Pugachev's Cobra. What do you think?

Windows still need to be added and (of course) the X-Planes themselves. 

*Privately meaning I'm only going to release these if anyone requests them.

_EDIT- Yes, I know the B-50 was used to drop the X-2, but the B-50 and B-29 are almost exactly the same, besides more powerful engines.

Edited April 28, 2017 by Munbro Kerman

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

3 minutes ago, Munbro Kerman said:

With the talk of starting a X-Plane thread I decided to try recreating the whole program personally and privately*. I started out with the creating the B-29, which was the drop-ship for both the X-1 and X-2 research craft. I tried my best at scaling her down, but things look to be out of proportion (only a bit, not enough to alter the aesthetics of the craft). I'm still working on it, as you can see. So far I am pretty happy with the outcome and especially the performance, meaning it acts more like a super maneuverable fighter than a heavy bomber. Because of this, I was able to *almost* achieve a Pugachev's Cobra. What do you think?

 

*Privately meaning I'm only going to release these if anyone requests them.

<snip>

Yes, I know the B-50 was used to drop the X-2, but the B-50 and B-29 are almost exactly the same, besides more powerful engines.

Z fighting! My eyes! They burn!

jk I like the build. Looks quite accurate. Might be able to reduce part count a bit by using those fairings bit more for and aft of the bomb bay instead of what looks like 48-56 or so structural or Lf fuselages. But whatever's your style.

[Munbro Kerman]

14 minutes ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

Z fighting! My eyes! They burn!

jk I like the build. Looks quite accurate. Might be able to reduce part count a bit by using those fairings bit more for and aft of the bomb bay instead of what looks like 48-56 or so structural or Lf fuselages. But whatever's your style.

All easy fixes, I guess I need to be more attentive in finding z-fighting. 

[qzgy]

About z-fighting - is there any ure fire way to get rid of it besides offsetting the part slightly?

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

14 minutes ago, qzgy said:

About z-fighting - is there any ure fire way to get rid of it besides offsetting the part slightly?

Not that I'm aware of, but really, why not offset? If you zoom all the way in and move it by a pixel, that is enough to fix it, and the difference will be unnoticeable when flying.

Most of my replica aircraft feature this at least somehwer in their design. My Saturn V undoubtedly will too when it's finished.