@AndrewGarrison The equations that I used are: Fp = (F * Ve ) / 2 and Isp = Ve / g0, where Fp is the thrust power measured in watts, F is thrust in Newtons, Ve is effective exhaust velocity in m/s, Isp is specific impulse in seconds, g0 is gravitational acceleration in m/s^2 (I assumed 9.81m/s^2)
I have an idea for costumizable Solid rocket boosters. We could determine its diameter, height, and maybe thrust curve as an advance setting. The diameter will determine baseline thrust (as it affects the grain size) and mass (as it affects total fuel stored, but maybe not affect burn time as thrust and fuel consumptions increases the same time as more fuel gets stored in the wider tank). The height will affect mass and obviously burn time. The thrust curve could allow us to tweak the thrust from its baseline thrust from 100% to maybe 50% of the booster over its burn time in 10 seconds intervals. The thrust curve setting could be reserved as an advance setting, but it will be extremely helpful and competitive against KSP as all of us KSP players had struggled with SRBs not having variable thrust for Space Shuttle builds. Thank you!
@AndrewGarrison Also, could we have a proper gravity turn tutorial in this game? Like initiate the turn at 1000m and gradually turn to 45 degrees at 10000m, and then follow the prograde mark. (I am assuming a 70000m tall atmosphere with a 38000m tall Karman line). Also, could we have a thrust to weight ratio displayed for each stage and a tutorial introducing the concept to players. In SR1 a lot of people were very confused and followed the very inefficient gravity turn.
@AndrewGarrison Still...The engine is consuming Waaaaay tooo little power than it should. Maybe increase mass flow rate in order to drastically decrease Isp. I calculated a 100kW engine with 50N thrust will have an Isp of about 407s emmmm. To achieve the same ISP under 100kW, we will be stuck with 1.77N thrust. So, if we do not increase its power consumption, we will be stuck with a very useless / impossible engine. Also, for all the calculations, I assumed 100% efficiency.
Hi I have a question
In the post you said the exhaust velocity of the engine is 40000m/s, but then you said that the specific impulse is 11515s. But according to the equation about the relationship between exhaust velocity and specific impulse, the specific impulse should be 40000 / 9.81 = 4077s instead of the 11515s. Also, the engine wattage does not match up with its electrical consumption (since this engine does not involve chemical reactions, all its energy input must come in as electricity) . If the engine operates at 11515s (which is 112962m/s of exhaust velocity) and 50N of thrust the wattage of the engine will be 112962 * 50 / 2 = 2824kW, which meant that the engine does not obey the law of the conservation of energy. Even if it’s exhaust velocity is only 40000m/s, it’s wattage still reaches 1000kW, 10 times it’s ennergy input. I hope the engine could be nerfed or it’s power consumption increases by tenfold. Thank you. @AndrewGarrison
Hi Andrew. I know it is busy with the whole festival thing, but I sent the thumbnail of Simplerockets2 from the Pixel Pop official website to my local Chinese community in a reddit-like Chinese app. A few of them replied that the thumbnail just doesn’t look right (a bit like what a game that copied Space Agency used). I hope that the thumbnail could made less SpaceX-ish and more original, thank you!
@Venus Same (I’m not American) Lol
As of your questions...
About side boosters. Since parts could be placed anywhere any fuel tank and engine combination could be moved aside and become a side booster, although SR2 does not have solid rocket boosters yet.
About RCS ports
When placed in a craft they usually face outwards, which means when eight of them are placed on the craft’s fore and aft (four on each end), yaw and pitch rotations could be achieves. Roll could be done by placing four pairs of RCS ports (two RCS ports facing opposite directions) on the surface of the craft, all rotations could be done.
About motions sickness.
From my own experience, any 3D game played too long will cause motion sickness.
@Thepilot172 There is probably one as simpleplanes does have this feature on the PC version (I wonder if it will be extended to the mobile version though)
@Venus If you consider your questions ‘fixed’ then I will tell you there are spelling and grammar errors in your questions. It’s hard to understand what you are trying to say with all the errors.
@AndrewGarrison Plz no. I have to wait till Christmas for my parents to buy me the game after tons of arguing and reasoning (she told me that I have to behave well during the waiting). I can’t bare waiting five months again if I want a DLC.
@AndrewGarrison I want to mention something quite important...
So, in the share & download page of the website, could you add a tag that is called "xml modified", which will be displayed very clearly on the download page so to notify gamers that the craft was xml modified and its performance might not reflect true possibilities. This will prevent people from cheating the game and earning false fame.
Even more stuff now
Using RP-1's density as 810kg / m^3
Time it by the fuel's ideal volume of 1.77m^3 (The value that I got) to get mass of 1434kg
Subtract that from the fuel tank's total mass of 1797kg to get 363kg as the fuel tank's dry mass.
However, this is not accurate, since I assumed that all volume in the fuel tank is fuel, which is not true (as we now know that the fuel tank has mass), but it will make for quite a good estimation.
Now,
The volume of the tank is 1.77m^3, we divide mass by volume to get the fuel tank's empty density as 205kg / m^3
However, the mass of the fuel tank should be determined by its surface area, not its volume (since it is a container). So, dividing the mass by the tank's surface area (2 * 0.75^2 * 3.14 + 1.5 * 3.14 * 1.17 = 9m^2) to get mass per surface area as 40kg / m^2
40 is a much nicer value than 205, so I think that the mass of an empty tank is determined by its surface area, not volume.
So...
Using the height you gave in your post: 1.17m
The radius of the command pod is 0.75m
I got a volume of 1.77m^3 (I have no idea how you got such a large number)
Assuming that all is fuel, density is 1797 / 1.77 = 1186kg / m^3
Quite close to RP-1's 810kg / m^3
You are wrong
Fuel consumption of Apex 1: 1350L / s
Specific Impulse of Apex 1: 298s
Thrust of Apex 1: 3200000N
gravitational acceleration at surface of planet: 9.81m/s
We could get exhaust velocity of the engine as 298 * 9.81 = 2923m/s
Then we could get mass flow rate as 3200000 / 2923 = 1095kg / s
We divide mass flow rate by fuel flow rate to get density 0.81kg / L, or 810kg / m^3
Density of RP-1 is 810kg / m^3
Jundroo did get the density right.
You might've got the volume wrong then.
Just remove smoke from space and probably add realistic rocket exhaust to it (either a bunch realtime simulated exhaust particles or an umbrella shaped slightly transparent 3D model). It's the best game ever!
@AndrewGarrison
So I have a serious request that I think no one else cares.
In Simple Planes XML modified engines had become so popular that it's simply impossible to find a fighter jet whose max speed is under 1000 mph. This is not a huge problem in Simple Planes though since the players are more concerned about the looks than the performance.
This will be a problem in Simple Rockets 2 though. After a player worked so hard to build a rocket that can go from Smearth to Smars, he will notice hundreds of other crafts having XML modified engines arriving at Smupiter with much less fuel or non at all. This destroys the principle that "Going to space is hard", and a rocket building game is not supposed to be supported by a bunch of unscientific craft constructors. It is supposed to be supported by realistic performance concerning players. This is the reason why Simple Rockets and Kerbal Space Program survived so long. New games swarm over, but a loyal group of players remain. In these games, there are always records to be broken without hacking the game, so people will try their best to build crafts that will break the record.
To counteract this situation, I hope that there will be a very visible sign on an uploaded craft's profile on the web page that will tell all the players if the craft uses XML modified engines and is not indented to compete for performance. The website could know if a craft had its engines XML modified just by comparing the XML code from the craft with the default XML code, so it's obvious if a craft used XML modification or not.
Thank You!
@AndrewGarrison The equations that I used are: Fp = (F * Ve ) / 2 and Isp = Ve / g0, where Fp is the thrust power measured in watts, F is thrust in Newtons, Ve is effective exhaust velocity in m/s, Isp is specific impulse in seconds, g0 is gravitational acceleration in m/s^2 (I assumed 9.81m/s^2)
6.3 years agoI have an idea for costumizable Solid rocket boosters. We could determine its diameter, height, and maybe thrust curve as an advance setting. The diameter will determine baseline thrust (as it affects the grain size) and mass (as it affects total fuel stored, but maybe not affect burn time as thrust and fuel consumptions increases the same time as more fuel gets stored in the wider tank). The height will affect mass and obviously burn time. The thrust curve could allow us to tweak the thrust from its baseline thrust from 100% to maybe 50% of the booster over its burn time in 10 seconds intervals. The thrust curve setting could be reserved as an advance setting, but it will be extremely helpful and competitive against KSP as all of us KSP players had struggled with SRBs not having variable thrust for Space Shuttle builds. Thank you!
+4 6.3 years ago@AndrewGarrison Also, could we have a proper gravity turn tutorial in this game? Like initiate the turn at 1000m and gradually turn to 45 degrees at 10000m, and then follow the prograde mark. (I am assuming a 70000m tall atmosphere with a 38000m tall Karman line). Also, could we have a thrust to weight ratio displayed for each stage and a tutorial introducing the concept to players. In SR1 a lot of people were very confused and followed the very inefficient gravity turn.
+2 6.3 years ago@AndrewGarrison if I was designing the engine, I will go with a 4000s 20N engine, which will use 392kW of power.
6.3 years ago@AndrewGarrison I used information and equations from http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/appequations.php
6.3 years ago@AndrewGarrison Still...The engine is consuming Waaaaay tooo little power than it should. Maybe increase mass flow rate in order to drastically decrease Isp. I calculated a 100kW engine with 50N thrust will have an Isp of about 407s emmmm. To achieve the same ISP under 100kW, we will be stuck with 1.77N thrust. So, if we do not increase its power consumption, we will be stuck with a very useless / impossible engine. Also, for all the calculations, I assumed 100% efficiency.
6.3 years agoHi I have a question
+12 6.3 years agoIn the post you said the exhaust velocity of the engine is 40000m/s, but then you said that the specific impulse is 11515s. But according to the equation about the relationship between exhaust velocity and specific impulse, the specific impulse should be 40000 / 9.81 = 4077s instead of the 11515s. Also, the engine wattage does not match up with its electrical consumption (since this engine does not involve chemical reactions, all its energy input must come in as electricity) . If the engine operates at 11515s (which is 112962m/s of exhaust velocity) and 50N of thrust the wattage of the engine will be 112962 * 50 / 2 = 2824kW, which meant that the engine does not obey the law of the conservation of energy. Even if it’s exhaust velocity is only 40000m/s, it’s wattage still reaches 1000kW, 10 times it’s ennergy input. I hope the engine could be nerfed or it’s power consumption increases by tenfold. Thank you. @AndrewGarrison
That time warp speed though
+3 6.3 years agoShould I expect Spaghettification?
@realluochen9999 tieba?
6.4 years agoHi Andrew. I know it is busy with the whole festival thing, but I sent the thumbnail of Simplerockets2 from the Pixel Pop official website to my local Chinese community in a reddit-like Chinese app. A few of them replied that the thumbnail just doesn’t look right (a bit like what a game that copied Space Agency used). I hope that the thumbnail could made less SpaceX-ish and more original, thank you!
+2 6.4 years ago@Jetliner101 Mobile will be released next year, and wings are already available
6.4 years ago@Venus Same (I’m not American) Lol
As of your questions...
About side boosters. Since parts could be placed anywhere any fuel tank and engine combination could be moved aside and become a side booster, although SR2 does not have solid rocket boosters yet.
About RCS ports
When placed in a craft they usually face outwards, which means when eight of them are placed on the craft’s fore and aft (four on each end), yaw and pitch rotations could be achieves. Roll could be done by placing four pairs of RCS ports (two RCS ports facing opposite directions) on the surface of the craft, all rotations could be done.
About motions sickness.
From my own experience, any 3D game played too long will cause motion sickness.
About separators,
+1 6.4 years agoThey could be costumized
@Thepilot172 There is probably one as simpleplanes does have this feature on the PC version (I wonder if it will be extended to the mobile version though)
6.4 years ago@Venus If you consider your questions ‘fixed’ then I will tell you there are spelling and grammar errors in your questions. It’s hard to understand what you are trying to say with all the errors.
6.4 years ago@Buizer We quickly begin demanding faster physical warps :D
6.4 years ago@Jerba Practice practice practice
+1 6.4 years ago@AndrewGarrison Plz no. I have to wait till Christmas for my parents to buy me the game after tons of arguing and reasoning (she told me that I have to behave well during the waiting). I can’t bare waiting five months again if I want a DLC.
6.4 years agoWhile I’m in China and about to move to Utah...
6.4 years ago@Pikapilot If you want to ofcrs
6.5 years ago@ShadowPlane Haste makes waste. Give the devs some time, they are on the finals.
+2 6.5 years ago@AndrewGarrison I want to mention something quite important...
6.5 years agoSo, in the share & download page of the website, could you add a tag that is called "xml modified", which will be displayed very clearly on the download page so to notify gamers that the craft was xml modified and its performance might not reflect true possibilities. This will prevent people from cheating the game and earning false fame.
@unfortunately there are only probes now
6.5 years agoHad the team removed smoke from the exhaust yet?
6.5 years agoHi Andrew could you check out my calculations about fuels and fuel tanks in SR 2! https://www.simplerockets.com/Forums/View/1155
+2 6.5 years ago@MyMessage Check out my post:
+1 6.5 years agohttps://www.simplerockets.com/Forums/View/1155/Density-of-RP-1-fuel-and-dry-mass-of-fuel-tanks
_
Even more stuff now
6.5 years agoUsing RP-1's density as 810kg / m^3
Time it by the fuel's ideal volume of 1.77m^3 (The value that I got) to get mass of 1434kg
Subtract that from the fuel tank's total mass of 1797kg to get 363kg as the fuel tank's dry mass.
However, this is not accurate, since I assumed that all volume in the fuel tank is fuel, which is not true (as we now know that the fuel tank has mass), but it will make for quite a good estimation.
Now,
The volume of the tank is 1.77m^3, we divide mass by volume to get the fuel tank's empty density as 205kg / m^3
However, the mass of the fuel tank should be determined by its surface area, not its volume (since it is a container). So, dividing the mass by the tank's surface area (2 * 0.75^2 * 3.14 + 1.5 * 3.14 * 1.17 = 9m^2) to get mass per surface area as 40kg / m^2
40 is a much nicer value than 205, so I think that the mass of an empty tank is determined by its surface area, not volume.
So...
6.5 years agoUsing the height you gave in your post: 1.17m
The radius of the command pod is 0.75m
I got a volume of 1.77m^3 (I have no idea how you got such a large number)
Assuming that all is fuel, density is 1797 / 1.77 = 1186kg / m^3
Quite close to RP-1's 810kg / m^3
You are wrong
Fuel consumption of Apex 1: 1350L / s
Specific Impulse of Apex 1: 298s
Thrust of Apex 1: 3200000N
gravitational acceleration at surface of planet: 9.81m/s
We could get exhaust velocity of the engine as 298 * 9.81 = 2923m/s
Then we could get mass flow rate as 3200000 / 2923 = 1095kg / s
We divide mass flow rate by fuel flow rate to get density 0.81kg / L, or 810kg / m^3
Density of RP-1 is 810kg / m^3
Jundroo did get the density right.
6.5 years agoYou might've got the volume wrong then.
@InternationalAircraftCompany No it's a Kerbodyne KE-1 "Mastodon"
+2 6.5 years agoJust remove smoke from space and probably add realistic rocket exhaust to it (either a bunch realtime simulated exhaust particles or an umbrella shaped slightly transparent 3D model). It's the best game ever!
+2 6.6 years ago@AndrewGarrison
+12 6.8 years agoSo I have a serious request that I think no one else cares.
In Simple Planes XML modified engines had become so popular that it's simply impossible to find a fighter jet whose max speed is under 1000 mph. This is not a huge problem in Simple Planes though since the players are more concerned about the looks than the performance.
This will be a problem in Simple Rockets 2 though. After a player worked so hard to build a rocket that can go from Smearth to Smars, he will notice hundreds of other crafts having XML modified engines arriving at Smupiter with much less fuel or non at all. This destroys the principle that "Going to space is hard", and a rocket building game is not supposed to be supported by a bunch of unscientific craft constructors. It is supposed to be supported by realistic performance concerning players. This is the reason why Simple Rockets and Kerbal Space Program survived so long. New games swarm over, but a loyal group of players remain. In these games, there are always records to be broken without hacking the game, so people will try their best to build crafts that will break the record.
To counteract this situation, I hope that there will be a very visible sign on an uploaded craft's profile on the web page that will tell all the players if the craft uses XML modified engines and is not indented to compete for performance. The website could know if a craft had its engines XML modified just by comparing the XML code from the craft with the default XML code, so it's obvious if a craft used XML modification or not.
Thank You!