@crowxe The video also says Space Shuttle's ascent guidance system doesn't take the atmosphere into account at all, which means it started to pitch down from the very beginning. This implies he didn't make the follow prograde phase with an algorithm. I guess you can just pick a random altitude high enough to start pitch down.
Basically speaking gravity, air density, TWR would be the main factors. Air density wouldn't be the first factor however. To calculate the efficiency you have to learn gravity loss.
If you want to make something happens more than once, you need "while" block. Without it the program would run your code only for once. Put any condition you want in while block and set the code inside of it. If you want the code run perpetually, set "while=true".
I just don't like the idea of gimbaling RCS. There's actually no point doing that. Big Rocket Engines has big nozzles which you really can't carry more than one per a combustion chamber and you don't need that much time-precise control, thus gimbal. In RCSs case their nozzle is measured in a few centimeters (shorter than your finger!) and they have to be controlled precisely, thus multi-nozzle. Even in case of Orion's LAS attitude control motors they decided not to rotate their solid attitude control rocket but to have multiple nozzles
If you're still interested in making the program tho, take a reference of this craft.
Basic Idea is starting the suicide burn at DistanceTravel, adjusting your throttle by comparing AGL and DistanceLeft, and turning off your engine at DistanceTerminal. I tested it with the electric engine(almost instant throttle) and gas generator engine(2 seconds thtottle) and they all worked fine.
It might crash or not land for the slight error, smaller than few meters. it's because in SR2 height is measured from your craft's CoM and CoM changes as you burn the fuel.
I have the exact program dealing with this. Believe me, this is harder than you think. this is a part of the formulas I made to make the program work.
However, when it comes to your problem:
set Throttle to 0
set "throttleTime0" to timeSinceLaunch
set Throttle to 1
wait until engine thrust = max engine thrust
set "throttleTime1" to timeSinceLaunch
set "throttleTime" to "ThrottleTime1 - ThrottleTime0"
@crowxe True, that's why I said it's the matter of philosophy. There's not a lot of thing we're missing. They're in game but we don't get them without extra efforts.
@pedro16797 In this case the roll axis is not really roll axis but the craft's should-be nose direction. We already have the roll axis Vizzy block so the game doesn't take care of that. If your engines aren't pointing that way, they're misaligned. We don't need true TWR regardless of the nose axis.
@pedro16797 multiply cos(theta) for that. theta here is the angle between craft's roll axis and the engine's thrust vector. In this case however you don't need to calculate the angles between two vectors since we already know the value from designer.
Your 1st class was what I tried to suggest, awesome. I agree with Pedro. Vizzy is amazing. The relation between engine thrust and expansion ratio(engine bell length/engine throat radius) with given atmospheric density would also be a good program, considering engine customization is one of the best implemented part of this game. You should teach them the real basics of theories to them beforehand tho.
@zzazza I haven't because I understand these are less important than what they're doing now.
@AstronautPlanes As I wrote, they're not complex. We should understand that simple is not equal to the not-yet-polished.
@pedro16797 I agree. They did a lot more than what they have expected to. When it comes to the TWR calculation, you don't need vectors since the only direction we care is the craft's roll axis. Project the thrust vector to the axis by multiplying them with Cos(theta) and just add them.
@AndrewGarrison always appreciating you and your team's effort. The lists I wrote above is something I must expect without asking when I play the game as a rocket sim sandbox, not a building game. For example, if a game with a spaceship lacks the Newtonian dynamics, I would play the game as something else, rather than a rocket sim. I'm not saying lacking this kind of features are bad. There's a lot of space games without the idea of dV, apoapsis, periapsis and Isp but still great. It just disappoints me who is nobody but a single player.
@Mod I don't ask for the fancy pants n-body sims or the fluid mechanics, because they're not simple. Newtonian Dynamics, however, is simple on it's full fledged form. The things we don't have I listed are all simple things. They're even already in-game, but not in the way we can easily check. That's why I say it's a matter of philosophy.
@disisto4433 Still not possible, since this kind of game has physical rendering range. You can however put second/third command chips on the booster and run the landing program on the core. Multiple crafts with respective command pod with programs are currently possible.
- Nope 2. Nope 3. Nope :(
+1 4.8 years ago@Vanillavehcompany I made Real Solar System a year ago, so this is LEO
+1 4.8 years agohttps://www.simplerockets.com/Feedback/View/RGYEJ7/EVA-Chair
4.8 years agoBasically speaking something changes your input screws things up
4.8 years ago@crowxe Yup, because 1970's computers were not fast enough to consider atmospheric parameters.
+1 4.8 years ago@OldCoach camera change key
4.8 years ago@crowxe The video also says Space Shuttle's ascent guidance system doesn't take the atmosphere into account at all, which means it started to pitch down from the very beginning. This implies he didn't make the follow prograde phase with an algorithm. I guess you can just pick a random altitude high enough to start pitch down.
4.8 years ago@crowxe I believe you misunderstood the concept. Maybe watching this would help you.
4.8 years agoSorry but not funny
+6 4.8 years agoVt + (gt^2)/2 = D
4.8 years agosolve for t
t = (-V ± √ (V^2+2gD))/g
Basically speaking gravity, air density, TWR would be the main factors. Air density wouldn't be the first factor however. To calculate the efficiency you have to learn
+1 4.8 years agogravity loss.Submarines under way
+1 4.8 years agowrite it here
4.8 years ago@OldCoach with pressure fed engines?
4.8 years agoWhy don't you make tiny engines yourself
4.8 years ago@AndrewGarrison thanks, then I have to look at my code to find out what I did wrong ;)
4.8 years agoIf you want to make something happens more than once, you need "while" block. Without it the program would run your code only for once. Put any condition you want in while block and set the code inside of it. If you want the code run perpetually, set "while=true".
4.8 years agoI just don't like the idea of gimbaling RCS. There's actually no point doing that. Big Rocket Engines has big nozzles which you really can't carry more than one per a combustion chamber and you don't need that much time-precise control, thus gimbal. In RCSs case their nozzle is measured in a few centimeters (shorter than your finger!) and they have to be controlled precisely, thus multi-nozzle. Even in case of Orion's LAS attitude control motors they decided not to rotate their solid attitude control rocket but to have multiple nozzles
+1 4.8 years agoCan you give me a simple teaching @AndrewGarrison
4.8 years agolol I'm just making RCS block with RocketEngines using Vizzy or InputController
4.8 years agoAm about sure the thrust linearly increases to reach max thrust
+1 4.8 years ago@GrayStar yeah, I can consider it's an alternate form of an astronaut seat
+1 4.8 years ago...command chips hold some astronauts and I don't think this is good
+2 4.8 years ago@Loboindustries They're controllable, that's why they've worked on it. If you read the post, you'll know they're even get wire launchers.
+3 4.8 years ago@Kell Ooops our capsule fits three??! I've always thought it's just for 1
4.8 years ago@Kell Isn't the Mercury pod as small as this one?
4.8 years agoF i n a l l y
4.8 years agoWe have had some. You can make your own and post it here.
4.8 years agoIf you're still interested in making the program tho, take a reference of this craft.
Basic Idea is starting the suicide burn at
DistanceTravel, adjusting your throttle by comparing AGL andDistanceLeft, and turning off your engine atDistanceTerminal. I tested it with the electric engine(almost instant throttle) and gas generator engine(2 seconds thtottle) and they all worked fine.It might crash or not land for the slight error, smaller than few meters. it's because in SR2 height is measured from your craft's CoM and CoM changes as you burn the fuel.
+1 4.8 years agoI have the exact program dealing with this. Believe me, this is harder than you think. this is a part of the formulas I made to make the program work.
However, when it comes to your problem:
+1 4.8 years agoset Throttle to 0
set "throttleTime0" to timeSinceLaunch
set Throttle to 1
wait until engine thrust = max engine thrust
set "throttleTime1" to timeSinceLaunch
set "throttleTime" to "ThrottleTime1 - ThrottleTime0"
There's G force related inspector panel on Dummy so it wouldn't be hard to implement.
4.8 years agoOverload is certainly stock-worthy.
4.8 years agoOne possibility is making a mod yourself of it, if you have this game on desktop.
+1 4.8 years ago@ComposerFreak let laugh with you
4.8 years agoThat's called equinox. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equinox(celestialcoordinates)
+1 4.8 years ago@crowxe There will be the new Vizzy blocks to transfrom global vector to local vector so it would be much easier soon.
+1 4.8 years ago@crowxe True, that's why I said it's the matter of philosophy. There's not a lot of thing we're missing. They're in game but we don't get them without extra efforts.
4.8 years agoThat remind me of the dead Boeing spaceplane
+1 4.8 years ago@pedro16797 In this case the roll axis is not really roll axis but the craft's should-be nose direction. We already have the roll axis Vizzy block so the game doesn't take care of that. If your engines aren't pointing that way, they're misaligned. We don't need true TWR regardless of the nose axis.
+1 4.8 years ago@pedro16797 multiply cos(theta) for that. theta here is the angle between craft's roll axis and the engine's thrust vector. In this case however you don't need to calculate the angles between two vectors since we already know the value from designer.
4.8 years agoYour 1st class was what I tried to suggest, awesome. I agree with Pedro. Vizzy is amazing. The relation between engine thrust and expansion ratio(engine bell length/engine throat radius) with given atmospheric density would also be a good program, considering engine customization is one of the best implemented part of this game. You should teach them the real basics of theories to them beforehand tho.
+1 4.8 years ago@zzazza I haven't because I understand these are less important than what they're doing now.
@AstronautPlanes As I wrote, they're not complex. We should understand that simple is not equal to the not-yet-polished.
@pedro16797 I agree. They did a lot more than what they have expected to. When it comes to the TWR calculation, you don't need vectors since the only direction we care is the craft's roll axis. Project the thrust vector to the axis by multiplying them with Cos(theta) and just add them.
4.8 years ago@AndrewGarrison always appreciating you and your team's effort. The lists I wrote above is something I must expect without asking when I play the game as a rocket sim sandbox, not a building game. For example, if a game with a spaceship lacks the Newtonian dynamics, I would play the game as something else, rather than a rocket sim. I'm not saying lacking this kind of features are bad. There's a lot of space games without the idea of dV, apoapsis, periapsis and Isp but still great. It just disappoints me who is nobody but a single player.
4.8 years ago@Mod I don't ask for the fancy pants n-body sims or the fluid mechanics, because they're not simple. Newtonian Dynamics, however, is simple on it's full fledged form. The things we don't have I listed are all simple things. They're even already in-game, but not in the way we can easily check. That's why I say it's a matter of philosophy.
+2 4.8 years ago@Mastercam Just do what you want, and that was the point of my comment.
4.8 years agoWhy do you ever cares others' opinion?
4.8 years agoWhy no surface velocity acceleration why
4.8 years agoWho cares
4.8 years ago@disisto4433 Still not possible, since this kind of game has physical rendering range. You can however put second/third command chips on the booster and run the landing program on the core. Multiple crafts with respective command pod with programs are currently possible.
+1 4.8 years agoA generalized suicidal burn code can deal with throttling response.
4.8 years ago