[Stock Helicopters & Turboprops] Non DLC Will Always Be More Fun!

[Gman_builder]

4 minutes ago, Jon144 said:

Pardon this. But aren't we playing in the science fiction world of KSP? So isn't it best that we build our designs accordingly? What works IRL works horribly in-game.

Ya exactly. When KSP finally gets fluid dynamics and we can build real jet engines it will be a day for celebration. I'll bring the alcohol.

Side note: When they do finally add fluid dynamics they will also have to completely redo all the collision meshes for parts, the wheel system, the friction system, the part expansion system, and the RPM system.

So that day is a long way away. We can hope though! I'm pretty sure the dev team consists of like 6 guys sitting in a room coding so if they had a bigger employment down-line stuff might get done way faster. 

Edited August 10, 2016 by Gman_builder

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

All I have to add is this:Out of curiosity, how many other helicopters here can do aerobatics?

[Gman_builder]

Just now, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

All I have to add is this:Out of curiosity, how many other helicopters here can do aerobatics?

Azimech's most recent one can.

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

3 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

Azimech's most recent one can.

I thought it blew up when he tried to loop?

[Gman_builder]

1 minute ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

I thought it blew up when he tried to loop?

I dunno could probably do some stuff. Aerobatics is one of the reason i was pursuing a collective pitch swash. So you could give the blades negative pitch and fly inverted and to tick tocks and some other ridiculous stuff.

 

[Azimech]

17 minutes ago, Jon144 said:

Pardon this. But aren't we playing in the science fiction (friction) world of KSP? So isn't it best that we build our designs accordingly? What works IRL works horribly in-game.

 

And vice-versa. If physics and parts would permit me to build at kerbal or IRL level, I would do so immediately. Frankly, everything we do in this program is in the realm of science friction. I'm a strong proponent of realistic physics and proper materials with joints, crash tolerance and breaking limits in line with IRL. We don't have those and it's outside the scope of this game, we'll never have it in KSP 1.x because it will liquid off the casual gamer who doesn't have a grasp of material science, real thermodynamics (materials in KSP don't expand with heat or lose structural integrity, two craft even an inch apart won't transmit heat with each other) or wear & tear.

What we do have is a chance to inspire each other within this limited realm and we create our own ideas accordingly. We like engineering on a different level and in this we're a small subculture in the KSP user base. Call me an arrogant hick when I propose the ideas for my own subculture as having invented the turboshaft engine and a lot of different things, I won't try to set them as rules.

[sdj64]

29 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

Ya exactly. When KSP finally gets fluid dynamics and we can build real jet engines it will be a day for celebration. I'll bring the alcohol.

Side note: When they do finally add fluid dynamics they will also have to completely redo all the collision meshes for parts, the wheel system, the friction system, the part expansion system, and the RPM system.

So that day is a long way away. We can hope though! I'm pretty sure the dev team consists of like 6 guys sitting in a room coding so if they had a bigger employment down-line stuff might get done way faster. 

You say "when" like it's a sure thing that real fluid dynamics will happen someday.  But an official, Squad-supported way to build your own engines will never happen in KSP.  We already have jet engines that only consist of one part, look good on aircraft, are the correct size, and take all of 10 seconds to select and place on an aircraft.  Though it would be cool to build jets for this turbomachinery side-game, it's not a superior game for the majority of people if jet engines are 300 parts, 4 times the size they should be, and take hours to build and tweak.

While you're at it (probably before you're at it, this is Kerbal SPACE Program) let us build our own turbopumps and engine bells for rockets.  Giant rocket motors bigger and more unreliable than the N1? Yes please.

[mrmcp1]

30 minutes ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

All I have to add is this:Out of curiosity, how many other helicopters here can do aerobatics?

Does this count? 

I call it the rotor detach maneuver 

This was during testing of my coaxial helicopter design

[Gman_builder]

5 minutes ago, sdj64 said:

You say "when" like it's a sure thing that real fluid dynamics will happen someday.  But an official, Squad-supported way to build your own engines will never happen in KSP.  We already have jet engines that only consist of one part, look good on aircraft, are the correct size, and take all of 10 seconds to select and place on an aircraft.  Though it would be cool to build jets for this turbomachinery side-game, it's not a superior game for the majority of people if jet engines are 300 parts, 4 times the size they should be, and take hours to build and tweak.

While you're at it (probably before you're at it, this is Kerbal SPACE Program) let us build our own turbopumps and engine bells for rockets.  Giant rocket motors bigger and more unreliable than the N1? Yes please.

I said that as a joke. I was hoping the "I'll bring the alcohol" comment would elude to that. Plus i even stated how they would have to completely redo the game, making fluid dynamics a impossibility. You said K"S"P jet engines would be 300 parts and take hours to build. Well real jet engine are composed of thousands of parts, take decades to develop, and cost a ton of money to built and develop. Take the Rolls Royce Olympus for example. R&R spent 10 years and 20 million dollars just to get the thing to run for the first time. SO by those standards, i think 300 parts and a couple of hours is absolutely reasonable for a game.

Edited August 10, 2016 by Gman_builder

[Azimech]

31 minutes ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

I thought it blew up when he tried to loop?

Nope, just ran out of speed.

[Gman_builder]

Just now, Azimech said:

Nope, just ran out of speed.

two words

collective

pitch

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

20 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

two words

collective

pitch

mine doesn't have collective and it worked fine lol... anyways, perhaps that same KOS script for the constant speed propeller could work for collective on a helicopter?

[Gman_builder]

1 minute ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

mine doesn't have collective and it worked fine lol... anyways, perhaps that same KOS script for the constant speed propeller could work for collective on a helicopter?

Well your worked well because you use reaction wheels to control your attitude. When i say collective pitch i mean a helicopter that has it's attitude controlled solely by the angle of the blades. I think it would be more useful to script something that used the control surfaces in the swash to keep the craft level, because i am pretty sure SAS would do it pretty poorly. Also, that would give the craft auto-leveling which all other helis ATM don't have or don't have intentionally. Auto-level is a great learning tool for beginner RC Heli pilots so i dont see how it wouldn't help us flying in the game.

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

1 minute ago, Gman_builder said:

Well your worked well because you use reaction wheels to control your attitude. When i say collective pitch i mean a helicopter that has it's attitude controlled solely by the angle of the blades. I think it would be more useful to script something that used the control surfaces in the swash to keep the craft level, because i am pretty sure SAS would do it pretty poorly. Also, that would give the craft auto-leveling which all other helis ATM don't have or don't have intentionally. Auto-level is a great learning tool for beginner RC Heli pilots so i dont see how it wouldn't help us flying in the game.

Cyclic controls attitude in a helicopter, not collective.

 

 

[Gman_builder]

1 minute ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

Cyclic controls attitude in a helicopter, not collective.

 

 

Yes i know. My mistake. Collective refers to throttle though. So you need it to do loops and fly inverted.

[The Optimist]

Who says electric engines are underpowered? 

[Gman_builder]

me

[The Optimist]

4 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

me

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[Gman_builder]

I had a ASCII text art thing up a little while ago and a mod removed it ;-;

Edited August 10, 2016 by Gman_builder

[Jon144]

5 hours ago, Gman_builder said:

Yes i know. My mistake. Collective refers to throttle though. So you need it to do loops and fly inverted.

Collective doesn't really refer to the throttle alone in all situations but also the pitch of the rotor blades themselves. But vertical power yeah basically. 

6 hours ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

All I have to add is this:Out of curiosity, how many other helicopters here can do aerobatics?

I don't know. The Kinchook for a cargo helicopter is pretty good at doing some crazy maneuvers. It's usually too powerful to do loops unless at a very high altitude. Need to record one on my next video. And with wheel-less bearings that apparently don't work according to someone.

 

5 hours ago, The Optimist said:

Who says electric engines are underpowered? 

I'll be real edgy and say no more than turboshafts are ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

And of course wheels aren't broken. But they do break if you sneeze on them. Which is why only the hugest wheels work for bearings. Which means making house sized bearings. Size, part-count and compactness are the staples of good designs. Trust me all of my bearings used to use wheels before the update broke them.

Also mrmcp I think the problem with your coaxial might be the rotors hitting each-other in flight since they are spaced so close to each other.

 

Edited August 11, 2016 by Jon144

[Jon144]

6 hours ago, sdj64 said:

You say "when" like it's a sure thing that real fluid dynamics will happen someday.  But an official, Squad-supported way to build your own engines will never happen in KSP.  We already have jet engines that only consist of one part, look good on aircraft, are the correct size, and take all of 10 seconds to select and place on an aircraft.  Though it would be cool to build jets for this turbomachinery side-game, it's not a superior game for the majority of people if jet engines are 300 parts, 4 times the size they should be, and take hours to build and tweak.

And of course. You just summarized my entire design principle. It's obvious building your own engines and stuff like Azimech does is downright amazing to say the least but is very impractical in all aspects within the game unfortunately. So I try to take the best of both worlds in making my designs. Stock helicopters and propellars, rotors and etc. are all amazing in their own right and can be made simpler and smaller for general practical use within game. Trying to get the best of both worlds as they say and build something that everyone can appreciate by flying and using themselves without doing any modifications to the game. I don't see what isn't inspiring about that. 

Ack. Sorry for double-posting. 

And as far as the forum battle goes between turboshafts, jet-rotors and electric engines I might make an engine that is all three just for the fun of it. A year ago I built a hybrid engine that was half turbo-shaft and half SAS-powered. Was under-performing due to only using two blowers. Might revive the concept for the laughs.

But yeah. We all need a collab. project to do here. We are stronger together than apart.

An idea for an engine we all put our efforts into can use jet-rotors as the main source of propulsion with some SAS modules to use the electricity the jets produce to further increase RPMs so no liquid fuel is put to waste, and then maybe use 2 blowers with thrust-reversing capabilities to increase or decrease the throttle of the engine so you dont have to switch back and fourth between craft while still getting great fuel efficiency benefits while having the SAS and jet-rotors to give the engine idling power.

 

Edited August 11, 2016 by Jon144

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

12 minutes ago, Jon144 said:

 

And as far as the forum battle goes between turboshafts, jet-rotors and electric engines I might make an engine that is all three just for the fun of it. A year ago I built a hybrid engine that was half turbo-shaft and half SAS-powered. Was under-performing due to only using two blowers. Might revive the concept for the laughs.

That thing looks like it could have worked well if the blade angle was lower!

[Jon144]

2 minutes ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

That thing looks like it could have worked well if the blade angle was lower!

You underestimate how old this is. This was made far before the 1.0 aero-update so the same blade angling logic that applies now did not apply then. 

Edited August 11, 2016 by Jon144

[EpicSpaceTroll139]

Just now, Jon144 said:

You underestimate how old this is. This was made before the aero-update so the same blade angling logic that applies now did not apply then. 

Oh yah forgot about that. I didn't work much with helicopters back then

[Jon144]

10 minutes ago, EpicSpaceTroll139 said:

Oh yah forgot about that. I didn't work much with helicopters back then

Yeah. It was literally the dark ages compared to what we have to work with now. This was the first helicopter I shared on the forums more than a year ago. So if you see how this looks you can only imagine how bad my even older helicopters looked like.  I think this was even before Azimech started sharing his own stuff correct me if i'm wrong. I'm so happy with how far we have come with all our bearing technology since then. My aesthetics were also disgusting.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Jon144