[1.0.5] Advanced Jet Engine v2.6.1 - Feb 1

[cagataypasa]

That is probably a MM problem. I tested with 2.1.4 version. Do you have RF and FAR latest version installed?

I have FAR but not RF.

[AndreyATGB]

I have FAR but not RF.

You need RF since the engines all use Kerosene/Hydrolox. If you don't want it you need to edit the config files and change the resources to LiquidFuel.

[Drew Kerman]

the cfg for the KAX electric props results in an absurd amount of EC usage. Here I have 4 engines at full throttle asking for 804/s EC! And once again this goes completely against what the stats window in the SPH shows - 15/s of charge per engine.

If this is intended then might as well stick this higher up in the tech tree where people will have beamed power or something 0_o

[camlost]

First you should always ignore what 'stats' tell you because ksp is full of lies. Second, in my dictionary 'absurd' means unreal and against physics. RF and KSPI's definition is 1 EC = 1 kJ. So you know how absurd it is to fly with 3000 EC. Tesla roadster has 200,000 EC

[NonWonderDog]

First you should always ignore what 'stats' tell you because ksp is full of lies. Second, in my dictionary 'absurd' means unreal and against physics. RF and KSPI's definition is 1 EC = 1 kJ. So you know how absurd it is to fly with 3000 EC. Tesla roadster has 200,000 EC

It's just that it looks like the motor from the Sunseeker, and the newest biggest one has 25 kW max output (the original was around 3 kW I think). No one has ever put a 200 kW motor on a plane--certainly not a solar-powered plane.

The 15 kW in the SPH would be pretty reasonable (and godawful slow, but reasonable).

The Tesla S might have a 60 kWh battery, but you'd never put that on a solar plane, either. Sunseeker Duo is somewhere around 6-8 kWh (20000-30000 EC) I think, and there really were solar planes in the '90s with 1-3 kWh (3600-10800 EC) batteries.

Edited May 25, 2014 by NonWonderDog

[camlost]

It's just that it looks like the motor from the Sunseeker, and the newest biggest one has 25 kW max output (the original was around 3 kW I think). No one has ever put a 200 kW motor on a plane--certainly not a solar-powered plane.

The 15 kW in the SPH would be pretty reasonable (and godawful slow, but reasonable).

Solar powered-plane is just impossible with KSP, because the lack of ultra-light material. The wings of the same area weighs at least 10 times more than what a real solar plane is. With this much weight a 15kW motor is utterly useless. A 15kW propeller will never have 6kN thrust, that's just another eye-balled 10-fold overpowering number.

[NathanKell]

camlost, those prop engine stats I posted earlier (from dirt_merchant and me) any use?

[camlost]

camlost, those prop engine stats I posted earlier (from dirt_merchant and me) any use?

I'll put them in the next release, TYVM

[Drew Kerman]

First you should always ignore what 'stats' tell you because ksp is full of lies. Second, in my dictionary 'absurd' means unreal and against physics. RF and KSPI's definition is 1 EC = 1 kJ. So you know how absurd it is to fly with 3000 EC. Tesla roadster has 200,000 EC

Well again, I respectfully suggest if this is intended use then AJE should also move the part to a level of the tech tree where this kind of power is available. It should also use the description field to let ppl know about the right amount of power usage. Seriously, how are we supposed to build anything in the VAB/SPH with these engines if we don't have the proper idea of how they actually perform??

[White Owl]

You know why making an airplane with realistic proportions is more difficult than it seems like it should be? It's because our jet engines - even these much improved engines - are the size of mere exhaust nozzles. Sure, you can add simple structural parts to represent the entire length of the engine, but most of the mass will still be concentrated waaay back at the exhaust nozzle.

I like these engines a lot. What kind of effort would it take to make the overall proportions and center of mass as accurate as the performance stats? I mean, we have the SR-71's engine here, and it's less than a meter long, while the real deal is closer to 5 1/2 meters... about 3 1/2m at kerbal scale.

[Taverius]

You know why making an airplane with realistic proportions is more difficult than it seems like it should be? It's because our jet engines - even these much improved engines - are the size of mere exhaust nozzles. Sure, you can add simple structural parts to represent the entire length of the engine, but most of the mass will still be concentrated waaay back at the exhaust nozzle.

I like these engines a lot. What kind of effort would it take to make the overall proportions and center of mass as accurate as the performance stats? I mean, we have the SR-71's engine here, and it's less than a meter long, while the real deal is closer to 5 1/2 meters... about 3 1/2m at kerbal scale.

You have to do stuff like KSPi and bypass the resource system, because you really want to split the engine and the nozzle, and you want more data than the 'amount' of exhaust, you want volume/density/speed/temperature.

Then you do new models (pretty simple, they're just cylinders) and textures for all engines. Redo the masses for nozzles and engines.

Would definitely be a lot more interesting to be able to choose fixed/variable/2d/3d vectoring nozzles separate from the engine.

Well, you don't have to split every engine - the B9 civilian turbofans and SABREs obviously don't need it, but most do.

Edited May 26, 2014 by Taverius

[White Owl]

LOL I wasn't even going to mention the fun of designing intake geometry and whatnot!

Actually, I realized I can fake the proportions myself. Edit the exhaust nozzle mass so it's almost nothing, grab some procedural structural parts and test weights, then make a subassembly of the appropriate length and width, with the mass in the center. Save that assembly, and use it in place of the engine. Easy.

[Guest]

What about detecting if the engine is connected to a structural part, then adding mass to that part via plugin? You could list parts that can conduct air and hold engines, and certain engines would requite more than one such part (SR-71 ones, for instance, would need to structural parts in line). That would allow bicouplers and such to work. Also, you could do very basic intake simulation by requiring each engine to have at least one intake attached somewhere to it, and not via a fuel tank. For example, surf-attached on a part, or stack-mounted on the nose. So, to build an SR-71 engine you would have to place the nozzle, stack two fuselages on it, and then an intake... look realistic to me.

[camlost]

I like these engines a lot. What kind of effort would it take to make the overall proportions and center of mass as accurate as the performance stats? I mean, we have the SR-71's engine here, and it's less than a meter long, while the real deal is closer to 5 1/2 meters... about 3 1/2m at kerbal scale.

It's there already. The J57 for example has CoMOffset=0, 2.5, 0 something like that

My dev plan is 1) Inlets

2) Numerical model for SABRE, SCRAMJET and whatever

Finally 3) Procedural Engine, the coding shouldn't be that hard, but I need an artist to make some parts: a fan, a compressor, a burner+turbine.

[CSVoltage]

So I currently use MFT, not RealFuels, and you can only use one or the other. Will this mod work with MFT? Or is there a way to make it work without RF in general? I'd also be ok with a way of installing components of RF so long as it doesn't start doing what it does, so to speak.

[camlost]

You can open a cfg and replace all "Kerosene" with "LiquidFuel"

[White Owl]

It's there already. The J57 for example has CoMOffset=0, 2.5, 0 something like that

My dev plan is 1) Inlets

2) Numerical model for SABRE, SCRAMJET and whatever

Finally 3) Procedural Engine, the coding shouldn't be that hard, but I need an artist to make some parts: a fan, a compressor, a burner+turbine.

Aha! I've been making false assumptions and complaining about a problem you already fixed. Sorry about that.

Edited May 27, 2014 by White Owl

[TeeGee]

AWESOME SPECTACULAR MOD!!!! YEAH This makes jet engines NORMAL!

Has anybody made an ssto with stock parts yet?? I'm still working on it!

The problem is HEAT. I have DRE and the plane keeps exploding when it reaches mach 4.5 at ceiling height with ramjets.

Solution, I need to ascend quicker and use less powerful engines with less ceiling height limitation. As opposed to using turbojets then shifting to rockets, I thought why not use the rapier?

(3 rapier)

(2 rapier)

(2 rapier 2 kerbal)

Yay!

The rapier airbreathing mode cuts out at the same height as the turbojets and rockets the rest of the way.

I jet realized that the rapier is still not balanced. I'm going to wait until this plugin is extended to that engine. Until then, discard my above craft.

Edited May 31, 2014 by TeeGee

[epicfacecanada]

Why do the fire spitter helicopter rotors have there mass offset behind the rotor?

[AndreyATGB]

Why do the fire spitter helicopter rotors have there mass offset behind the rotor?

I'm guessing it's because jet engines and rotors in ksp don't really have the engine part, so this is simulated by moving the mass towards the body of the aircraft.

[epicfacecanada]

I'm guessing it's because jet engines and rotors in ksp don't really have the engine part, so this is simulated by moving the mass towards the body of the aircraft.

But why is it that the mass of the aircraft goes so towards the rear of the air craft when the heli rotor is on top

[camlost]

@TeeGee, the stock "turbofan" is J57 not ramjet now. The heating problem is the result of intake air being too hot at high mach number, which destroys the engine's compressor. It's not DRE's effect. What you should do is turn off the J57 at Mach 4.5 and use rockets. Also I have no converted the RAPIER: I don't know what it is

@epicfacecanada, they should have an offset because usually the helicopter's turboshaft engines are installed behind the rotor's axis

[TeeGee]

@TeeGee, the stock "turbofan" is J57 not ramjet now. The heating problem is the result of intake air being too hot at high mach number, which destroys the engine's compressor. It's not DRE's effect. What you should do is turn off the J57 at Mach 4.5 and use rockets. Also I have no converted the RAPIER: I don't know what it is

No no, I stated that my craft are overheating and exploding, NOT THE ENGINES! That's DRE.

So as of right now the RAPIER engines are OP'd then. Ok, I'll refrain from using them for now until they are balanced properly.

[NathanKell]

camlost: the RAPIER is a SABRE with the serial number filed off. I'd suggest treating it like one. Just smaller/lower thrust than the big B9 SABREs since it's 1.25m.

[TeeGee]

camlost: the RAPIER is a SABRE with the serial number filed off. I'd suggest treating it like one. Just smaller/lower thrust than the big B9 SABREs since it's 1.25m.

Right. But the airbreathing engine is a turbojet engine, which switches to rocket powered at around mach 5. I think the RAPIER should be given the same treatment.