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

[Gman_builder]

Just now, Majorjim! said:

Boats man.

Ahh dang. What kind of boats?

[Azimech]

Trivial but I just described us stock proppers as "turboheads". Like it?

[Gman_builder]

Just now, Azimech said:

Trivial but I just described us stock proppers as "turboheads". Like it?

I would describe us as "nerds" but turboheads works too.

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Gman_builder said:

I would describe us as "nerds" but turboheads works too.

Turbo-nerds?

[Gman_builder]

Just now, Majorjim! said:

Turbo-nerds?

bingo

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Gman_builder said:

Ahh dang. What kind of boats?

Class V passenger vessels from a 12pax 700BHP jet RIB to a 600pax M3 riverliner.

 I mostly crew the 200pax single screw vessels. All on the Thames here in London, hence my 'Waterman' display name thing.

[Gman_builder]

Just now, Majorjim! said:

Class V passenger vessels from a 12pax 700BHP jet RIB to a 600pax M3 riverliner.

 I mostly crew the 200pax single screw vessels. All on the Thames here in London, hence my 'Waterman' display name thing.

Cool

Check that out. 94 rad/s.

[Ozin]

Hey. I'm working on a kOS program that automatically adjusts all propeller blades/controlsurfaces' authority limiters to maintain a target angular velocity. I already have the basics working, as listed here https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/4wjsac/first_flight_around_kerbin_in_a_stock_turboprop/d67tv02 .

But since I'm new to this branch of krakentech I was wondering what else would be needed to make it work for most of your designs. Should the user be able to set a max and min value for the limiters or is -150 to 150 okay? Would an additional throttle limiter be useful?

[Azimech]

20 minutes ago, Ozin said:

Hey. I'm working on a kOS program that automatically adjusts all propeller blades/controlsurfaces' authority limiters to maintain a target angular velocity. I already have the basics working, as listed here https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/4wjsac/first_flight_around_kerbin_in_a_stock_turboprop/d67tv02 .

But since I'm new to this branch of krakentech I was wondering what else would be needed to make it work for most of your designs. Should the user be able to set a max and min value for the limiters or is -150 to 150 okay? Would an additional throttle limiter be useful?

I was going to write it on Reddit when I suddenly heard *BLEEP* :-D
Going to post this on Reddit as well or it might seem I'm ignoring you.

A feature that would be excellent is the possibility to set it to max course (feathering), useful when you're out of fuel or having an engine failure.

Same with fine, for aerobraking ... but maintaining a max angular velocity of 49 (safety margin).

Imagine multiple engines ... most planes have a synchronizing feature ... not important but I think in the future a lot of people would like to build twin or even quad turboprops (like the C130 Hercules).

And a throttle limiter to prevent overrevving ... excellent!

-150 to 150 is fine I guess ... usually we use the whole range. All control surfaces have the same min/max setting, oddly enough Squad chose this scale instead of degrees.

If I could choose ... we're pretty much used to rad/s but me personally I always preferred RPM.

 

Hey ... these are just ideas ... I'd like to learn C# one day. The only programming I've done is using scripts to build the ignition of my piston engines mod.

You know what's so terrific about an automatic constant speed propeller? 

Dogfights!

5 hours ago, Gman_builder said:

Cool

Check that out. 94 rad/s.

How the ....!

Edited August 7, 2016 by Azimech

[Ozin]

Here is the first version of the program (unzip into main game folder). Would you mind taking it for a spin and give me some feedback?

What you need:

1. Download and install kOS 1.0.0-pre-1
2. In the SPH editor, find the kOS parts in the Control section.
3. Add a kOS part of your choice to the plane, add another to the element that will become the propeller vessel.
4. Right click the CPU on the plane and set the boot file to "boot_plane.ks"
5. Right click the CPU on the propeller and set the boot file to "boot_propeller.ks"
6. Right click on any part on the propeller (preferably one with a low risk of disassembling) and select the name tag option. Add this nametag: `propeller`.
7. Launch the vessel and press the actiongroup 1 button to have the script activate and automatically undock (no need to add undock/decouple to actions/staging).

The rest of the commands are listed at the top of the kOS terminal window. There is no need to switch to the propeller vessel in either automatic or manual mode.

A video of it in action:

 

[Azimech]

Making another backup of my KSP folder, just in case. I'll probably have some test results in 45 minutes.

Edited August 7, 2016 by Azimech

[Ozin]

In your case (I assume you haven't used kOS before) it would be sufficient to backup your save folder, as your script folder is empty. It should be fairly stable though, there have been no reports of any data being lost or corrupted for the last month. But of course it never hurts to be on the safe side

 

Hopefully the stable version of kOS 1.0 will be released soon.

[Gman_builder]

@Ozin Wow! Some great work your doing with that script! I had been watching the Matrix series since this morning and had no idea what was going on until now.

@AzimechThat RPM was achieved by a control surface that went spinning off after engine exploded. It seems like the more parts you have on your driveshaft that are lined up linearly. I.E. not the prop or blades. The more likely it is to become kraken bait at high RPM. So theoretically if we had a 2 or 3 part driveshaft, it would reach much higher RPM.

[Ozin]

Btw, I'm not sure if this is interesting to you, but I noticed that I was able to achieve higher RPM when going into slow motion with the Time Control mod. At the end of the video you can see it go up to like 55 rad/s despite low thrust and the script trying to compensate.

[Azimech]

2 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

@Ozin Wow! Some great work your doing with that script! I had been watching the Matrix series since this morning and had no idea what was going on until now.

@AzimechThat RPM was achieved by a control surface that went spinning off after engine exploded. It seems like the more parts you have on your driveshaft that are lined up linearly. I.E. not the prop or blades. The more likely it is to become kraken bait at high RPM. So theoretically if we had a 2 or 3 part driveshaft, it would reach much higher RPM.

That's interesting! Won't help much though ... hopefully Squad can take a look at it in the future. Who knows, seems 1.2 will have a lot of optimizations ... maybe the timing will improve.

[Gman_builder]

3 minutes ago, Ozin said:

Btw, I'm not sure if this is interesting to you, but I noticed that I was able to achieve higher RPM when going into slow motion with the Time Control mod. At the end of the video you can see it go up to like 55 rad/s despite low thrust and the script trying to compensate.

Hmmmm. Will have to look into that. I was testing a 3 bladed prop to replace the 5 bladed one on my Gremlin Mk3 yesterday and saw it maintain 55 rad/s for a solid 10 seconds IRL time. So like 3 seconds in game time. Before the vibration got so intense that the engine frame came apart.

[Azimech]

Report: I'm very impressed with the kOS constant speed prop! I did note that when setting pitch to 150 in manual mode, it went to -150 when switching back to automatic and it overrevved the engine for a short while (52 rad/s) without RUD or joint instability.

Later I went to the toilet during a speedrun. I came back and the shaft had exploded. Cause: unknown. I'll need more testing.

Ozin, you're a wizard!

[Ozin]

Ah yeah, going from manual to automatic kind of screws it up at the moment. I'll take a look at it, need to play around with the controller anyways. Glad you found it useful. Oh it shouldn't be hard to add support for multiple propellers I think. Same with toggling the blades to max and min pitch (if I understood your suggestions correctly)

Edited August 8, 2016 by Ozin

[The Optimist]

Tests of my stayputnik bearing shows that the bearing itself can handle upwards of 55 RAD/S easily, but all propellers are shredded at around the 45 rad/s mark.

[Gman_builder]

10 minutes ago, The Optimist said:

Tests of my stayputnik bearing shows that the bearing itself can handle upwards of 55 RAD/S easily, but all propellers are shredded at around the 45 rad/s mark.

Why? A prop should hold up fine up to 51 rad/s if you strut it. The speed of the bearing without a prop on it is not indicative of the speed WITH a prop on it. My bearing sustained 62 rad/s without a prop and made 52 rad/s max with a prop on at 250 m/s.

Without a prop, the bearing is "unloaded." meaning there is almost zero drag on it, especially with the slider set to minimum. Drag gets applied once you add the propeller.

[The Optimist]

Just now, Gman_builder said:

Why? A prop should hold up fine up to 51 rad/s if you strut it. The speed of the bearing without a prop on it is not indicative of the speed WITH a prop on it. My bearing sustained 62 rad/s without a prop and made 52 rad/s max with a prop on at 250 m/s.

Without a prop, the bearing is "unloaded." meaning there is almost zero drag on it, especially with the slider set to minimum. Drag gets applied once you add the propeller.

The propeller is fine, but the SAS modules are getting completely ripped off. Sorry if the earlier message was misleading.

[Gman_builder]

Just now, The Optimist said:

The propeller is fine, but the SAS modules are getting completely ripped off. Sorry if the earlier message was misleading.

'Twas

 

I told you, electric bearings are unreliable and underperforming.

[The Optimist]

17 minutes ago, Gman_builder said:

'Twas

 

I told you, electric bearings are unreliable and underperforming.

No, I don't think so. Changing the position of the SAS module into the stayputnik shaft itself seems to solve the issue quite nicely.

[The Optimist]

Also, one would think that the "vastly superior" turboprop engines would be able to fly easily without bending the laws of physics.

[Jon144]

1 hour ago, Gman_builder said:

'Twas

 

I told you, electric bearings are unreliable and underperforming.

Yep. Said it better than I would. The best and only attempt I had on a functioning electric aircraft was my ancient electrocopter. Which was pretty well performing. But of course the bearings it used don't work in KSP currently. Turboprops are far better performing besides their horrible fuel efficiency. I am stubborn when it comes to efficiency and part count so I just use jet tipped blades. Good for helicopters.

Edited August 8, 2016 by Jon144