DarkOwl57 Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 Just now, qzgy said: Ok, that's bad. Just out of curiosity, on KSP is frames per second or seconds per frame? Depends on the day and how many ships I've got Here's the album Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Servo Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 I began work on my KC-46's cockpit today. I'm using a variety of techniques new to me (and possibly some of you). The first was framing the cockpit in octagonals. At the cost of temporarily doubling the part count, I now have a really solid frame from which to work. Second, I've never seen people use shielded solar panels as a structural element. I may find a reason why, but for now, they are smaller, cleaner, and smoother than elevons + wing plates. It's not finished, but it's progress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heckspress Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 3 hours ago, DarkOwl57 said: It once took 10 minutes to go 5 seconds into a YouTube video... Because Internet Explorer "Stopped responding" or something stupid like that The internets surprisingly lived; album coming in a few just use chrome, you plebeian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Servo Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 Not sure I like the radiators on the front half. I may go 100% solar panels. After that, all I have to do is add a tailplane and landing gear and flight testing should be underway. This is the first plane that I've equipped with full on flaps+spoilers (I may do slats as well, because why not?), so hopefully they will serve their purpose. Also, another thought - I could replace the radiators around the cabin and aft section to go completely radiator-free. That should make everything a lot cleaner lines-wise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qzgy Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 2 hours ago, Servo said: I may find a reason why I think the main reason is part count. Also, less fiddling since toe radiators are naturally curved Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EpicSpaceTroll139 Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 (edited) I did some testing of my previously shown grand tour vacuum lander at Tylo. On stage separation (it needed a partial descent stage for Tylo), the Kraken hurled it into a violent spin (I think there was possibly some non-visual clipping between the stages), which spelled boom when skimming along 200m above the surface at 800m/s. I ended up coming to the conclusion that the design was sub-optimal anyways. The ion engine, which I thought would be great for landing on most other non-atmospheric bodies, was just too much dead weight during the Tylo landing. It was also going to be hard to keep it running long enough during landings on any of the outer Joolian moons and Eeloo without adding more batteries, further increasing mass. So, I did a complete redesign, shaving off anything I wouldn't absolutely need for a Tylo landing. The lander can be seen here sitting upside-down on top of a prototype mothership. The part that will be used for Tylo includes all of the Oscar-B tanks. It uses all of its power system components as landing gear, since they actually have better impact tolerance than the cubic struts. I hope I don't regret this abuse later. Anyways, the mothership is an atrocity. It has FIFTEEN FLIPPITY FLARPING HOURS OF BURN TIME and around 16km/s of Delta v in the xenon tanks with fully fueled vacuum lander attached and full LfOx storages. I'm thinking of redesigning it so that the LfOx storages can be detached from the drive section, so I don't have to decelerate all that mass for Moho capture and then re-accelerate it again when I head out to Duna. Instead with a decoupling version I could detach from fuel storage, decelerate just the ion drive and lander at Moho, land take off again, grab the ion drive, and accelerate again. If done right, I should be able to catch up with outbound fuel storage, and then proceed to Duna. Also been working on a "lightweight" Eve lander. It's got a bit over 6000 vacuum Delta v and 3000something at Eve sea level. Not sure how comfortable I feel about that. Might need more boosters. Also might be able to get rid of the drag + mass of the docking port if the vacuum lander proves capable of working on Laythe. Although it might be useful to have the pod later for landing back at Kerbin. Then again, there's always the heatshield + seat trick. Once again I got the "High Transonic and Supersonic Drag!" warning, which is kind of the whole idea of having a giant inflatable heatshield. Edit: @Servo iirc from working on my LM replica, those solar panels are high poly and / or have multiple collision meshes (presumably one for for each square panel) or something, resulting in noticeable lag when large numbers are used. Though once the panels are broken the lag reduces to as if they're any other part. If need be I might be able to figure out a way to get rid of the panels by poking around in the craft file. Probably something along the lines of setting the status to "BROKEN". Edited April 23, 2017 by EpicSpaceTroll139 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Majorjim! Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 1 hour ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said: Once again I got the "High Transonic and Supersonic Drag!" warning, which is kind of the whole idea of having a giant inflatable heatshield. LOL yup. The engineers report is garbage, I have never used it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triop Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 Continuing my attempt to build a replica T-50... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triop Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 Not finished yet, but the flight test went amazingly well ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triop Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 Restarting the whole project, looks a bit cleaner. Not 100% happy with the shape... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qzgy Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 @Triop Why Xenon tanks? Balance thing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triop Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 3 minutes ago, qzgy said: @Triop Why Xenon tanks? Balance thing? Nope, just for the look. (the are empty) Finished the first flying prototype. Not going to work on it further today, I usually overengineer when staying too long on a single project... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qzgy Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 Hmm. Personally not my style, but if you like it, go for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triop Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 6 minutes ago, qzgy said: Hmm. Personally not my style, but if you like it, go for it. But they are so shiny.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Castille7 Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 At the moment I am working on the completion of Seahorse which will be released as Seahorse Exploration, it will sport two ROV's. Also planning to finish the Cantilever Bridge which will be another land base Bridge. As you know I often began other little projects between larger projects and the latest small craft I am working on are the Mini SR-71 and now this one. Battle Axe Verticle Test Flight with 10 Juno Engines Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EpicSpaceTroll139 Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 (edited) 6 hours ago, Triop said: But they are so shiny.... I might have to steal that xenon-tanks-for-engines idea in some of my future planes. I followed up on my idea to redesign my grand tour drive to not haul unessential mass to Moho, and wow did it pay off. Now just one of the xenon tanks gives me plenty of ∆v for the operations there. I'm guessing the Moho operations will probably use about 3/4ths of the tank, possibly a little less if I can empty one of the Oscar-B tanks. The rest of the design has also been changed, with MOAR STAGING! The 12,191m/s of ∆v is an underestimate, as LfOx and the relevant empty tanks will be dropped off as they are used. I don't know exactly when those will happen, so I left them last in the stack. Still need to determine if the vacuum lander can handle Laythe. I'm mostly worried about atmospheric entry and landing. If it can make it through that, it should have enough fuel and power to brute force it's way to orbit. I'm completely redoing the Eve lander. I knew it had looked strangely small for an Eve lander, but had payed more attention to the KER readout. When I loaded it this morning, it turned out I had the readout set up wrong. With proper setup, it told the hard truth. The TWR started at 0.49, and didn't go above 1.0 until part way through the penultimate stage burn. Hopefully the vacuum lander will do well on Laythe, so I don't have to worry about keeping the core of the Eve lander intact. If so, I might just use the EVA pack to complete Eve orbit. Though it might be nice to keep the pod so I can use the EVA pack more than once. Say, for Gilly, Bop, and Minmus, and also have pack fuel to spare for any unforeseen incidents requiring "get out and push" shenanigans. Edited April 24, 2017 by EpicSpaceTroll139 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qzgy Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 1 hour ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said: I cant help but think that your craft is doing a split... (crappy internet picture incoming) Spoiler Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reusables Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azimech Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 On 4/23/2017 at 2:16 AM, Servo said: I began work on my KC-46's cockpit today. I'm using a variety of techniques new to me (and possibly some of you). The first was framing the cockpit in octagonals. At the cost of temporarily doubling the part count, I now have a really solid frame from which to work. Second, I've never seen people use shielded solar panels as a structural element. I may find a reason why, but for now, they are smaller, cleaner, and smoother than elevons + wing plates. It's not finished, but it's progress. I've used those solar panels on my USS Excelsior, so yeah, I agree. I never use octagonal struts in such a way though, the radiator panels are strong enough themselves. Again on the Excelsior I've used them as hull plating, building long strips out of them. If you're interested, you'll find the Excelsior on KerbalX. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EpicSpaceTroll139 Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 (edited) 13 hours ago, qzgy said: I cant help but think that your craft is doing a split... <snip> I may now have a theme for my grand tour lol. DISCLAIMER: Commercial video is obviously owned by Volvo, not me. Edited April 24, 2017 by EpicSpaceTroll139 adjustment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triop Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 (edited) Need more lights... So enemy pilots can bomb the * out of me... Edited April 24, 2017 by Triop Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Servo Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 17 hours ago, Azimech said: I've used those solar panels on my USS Excelsior, so yeah, I agree. I never use octagonal struts in such a way though, the radiator panels are strong enough themselves. Again on the Excelsior I've used them as hull plating, building long strips out of them. If you're interested, you'll find the Excelsior on KerbalX. I was using the octagonals to get an idea of the nose shape, and then once I built the solar panels around them, I removed the frame. It was extremely helpful for getting the shape down. The KC-46 is pretty much finished. I still have a few minor tweaks I want to make before I release it at the end of the week. It's got working flaps and spoilers (I couldn't get slats to look good, so I omitted them), plus the probe and drogue that is the main interest (IMO) of the design. Unfortunately, you have to turn on "no crash damage" to make it work, but that's the price to pay for a stock PnD system. In theory, this system is easier to use than a boom system (you can fly into it rather than up onto it), but it's still really hard. Also, it's harder to incorporate the docking port for PnD than for boom systems. I may wind up putting a boom on this; I'm not sure. There's space for it, but I really don't want to add that complexity to it. I also revamped my YF-23 (updated wing + engine housing + tail). Of the two, the F-22 is a much better dogfighter (both IRL and in KSP), which was the main reason the -22 got the contract instead of the -23. I still maintain that the YF-23 is a cooler airplane for what that's worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triop Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 Working on a light tank design. I'm new with tanks + BDArmory, lots of tests need to be done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torquimedes Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 (edited) I wondered how hard it would be to convert my hypersonic Monoplane from the "Mastery of One" challenge into an SSTO. Stripped off the nacelles and all but the RAPIER engine, added rocket fuel, and off we go. Here it is after deorbiting, overshooting KSC a bit. I suspect a Mk1 single-stack is the simplest SSTO thanks to the RAPIER, but it's limited how much mass it can carry to orbit. I hit that limit pretty fast trying to craft a Mk2-3 SSTO out of unique parts. Thus far it allllmost makes orbit. Biggest problem is getting it from the runway up to speed where the Whiplash and/or RAPIER can carry it to the stratosphere. The nose reminds me of STNG Romulan ships. I'm gonna need a lot of green paint... Edited April 25, 2017 by Torquimedes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qzgy Posted April 26, 2017 Share Posted April 26, 2017 @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). Spoiler 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. 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.