It is already here, with real distances. New update coming soon with four additional stars and more planets. Van Maanen's Star, Teegarden's Star, 61 Cygni, and Epsilon Indi. Thats 15 star systems, over 100 planets to explore including the solar system all within 15 ly.
I deleted my VTOL spaceplane guide because it was drawn out, hard to follow, and more complex than necessary. It wasn't concise and to the point and wasted the reader's time. So, three options: one, I can revise the guide, repost it, and you can read it and get a general idea of my design methodology. The updated guide would cut out all the unnecessary information and include thrust vectoring and possibly tilt engines, in addition to the basics. Two, you can pick one of the spaceplanes I've published and I'll make it VTOL for you. Or three, use an existing VTOL I have posted. Daggerback VTOL, TAV Valkyrie, and Tidebreaker VTOL would be all great for cargo. Valkyrie and Tidebreaker are crewed, but I've been thinking about a crewed Daggerback. All of those need a revision though, so I'll try and update them this week. I don't really have any plans to build something from the ground up because I don't have anything in mind at the moment.
The revamp made parachutes completely unusable for me. Maybe it's realistic that they tear off when used on a 4,000 ton vehicle? I don't know. They just rip off no matter what I try.
For working in circular or low eccentricity orbits, radial in/out does not get much use. It is useful when trying to adjust an intercept with a target closer while in similar orbits.
However, radial in/out is important for working with hyperbolic trajectories, and beyond, like brachistochrones. In other words, at relatively high velocities, it is most effective to burn radial in/out to adjust your course (adjust your closest approach to an object) rather than prograde or retrograde.
The wing area on one side should equal the opposite otherwise a rolling moment is produced. Sweeping the entire wing assembly on a middle pivot point won't adversely affect the CoL location, at least not by a significant margin. That assumes that one side is swept forward and the other sweeps backward
You can use a PID control loop in Vizzy and the logic of the controller would look something like:
Kp = proportional value
Ki = integral value
Kd = derivative value
I = 0
target _ roll = roll _ limit * input (roll)
P = target _ roll - nav (roll)
I = I + ( target _ roll - nav ( roll ) ) * ( time (frame delta time) )
d1 = target _ roll - nav (roll)
wait (frame delta time) seconds
d2 = target _ roll - nav (roll)
D = d2 - d1 / time (frame delta time)
Roll = min of 1 and max of -1 and Kp * P + Ki * I + Kd * D
Some tuning would be needed for Kp, Ki, and Kd to achieve the desired output response and settling time. Then you'd use that output and put your aileron input to [CommandPodName].FlightProgram.Roll
Not sure if it has been changed but the way we had to do it is to edit the .ini file on PC. You find the line in the text file which has the body you want to modify and just enter the semi-major axis value in meters to what you want. For example, 4.35 light-years would be 41150000000000000 meters. Or in scientific notation, 4.115 * 10^16 meters.
I figured it out. I have been trying to create a trimming program for Vizzy which pumps fuel either aft or forward to reduce CM (moment coefficient) to a range in which the vehicle does not rotate with minimal input. That is, trimmed. To do this I had to find the instantaneous distance of CoL and VTOL CoT between the CoM. CoL and CoT location are non-issues as they do not change in a simplified model. CoM however does. To find this distance I attached a part named CoT and CoL on their respective positions and did [ { [part {} PCI to Local {part ID of {VTOL CoT}} position]} {y} ] and [ { [part {} PCI to Local {part ID of {CoL}} position]} {y} ] then subtracted that by [ { [part {} PCI to Local { nav position } {y} ]. x seems to be the lateral axis, y the longitudinal axis, and z the vertical axis. That is for the default airplane orientation.
@SamTheFox Yes, but the other problem is the lift coefficient. It's a complex variable dependent on many factors, but the closest I got is C_L = 2 * pi * sin (AoA), which isn't ideal when using high-lift devices.
@Sonofbigdog Should be as simple as hitting the download button and running the executable if you're on PC. The downloaded file will automatically open SR2 and download the relevant files. If you're on mobile, it's the same thing, but you don't have to open the executable in your files. Once it's downloaded, you need to start a new game with the planet pack selected.
@Zenithspeed Does the plume persist through timewarp?? What I'm trying to do is make a plume for my "fusion engine" (xml edited ion engine) for my interstellar vehicle, but I can't find a rocket in which the plume persists through timwarp. So far I've been using a long line of transparent RCS thrusters. Those plume do persist through time warp burn.
So, basically t = d/v as credited to Galileo Galilei and many others before his time way back when? Not trying to burst your bubble, but I just got to say it. Anyways, you can take this a step forward to make it also useful for sub-light travel. Add the length of burn time for the acceleration and deceleration burns using a variation from Tsiolkovsky's classical rocket equation. This equation is t = ( (M_initial * Exhaust Velocity) / Thrust ) * (1 - e ^ ( - Velocity of Burn / Exhaust Velocity ) ).
Realistic Engine Overhaul (not sure about Stock Engine Overhaul) gets you pretty close to theoretical metallic hydrogen rockets. Metallic hydrogen is said to be around 1,700 seconds at knows how many kN (a lot). Although. a metallic hydrogen rocket's ISP ranges between 467 to 1700 seconds due to the chamber temperatures at play here. On the high end, things get really hot. Anyways, I'm looking at one of my spaceplanes, all of which use nuclear gas core rockets on liquid ammonia, and I've got 1,784 seconds at 56,694 kN between the three rockets on my Aurora. On the same plane, each has got chamber pressure 7 MPa. 100% nozzle throat size and 160% nozzle length. I use cone nozzles to maximize thrust (as my spaceplanes usually weigh 4,000 tons) and again, they run on liquid ammonia. Check out the nuclear thermal gas core rockets on the Realistic Engine Overhaul mod. What do you mean by electromagnetic engine cycle?
XML editing on PC. Make an AG group with a distinct name, go to the craft's XML in Appdata>Local Low, open it and search for that word in the XML. Find the line for AGs and just a new one by adding its name to where it has the AGs in " " and adding true/false to the end of that line also inside " ". Make sure to use Notepad and save the file when done.
Docking ports are just exceptionally weak, especially once you start scaling things up. Forget about burning engines on docked vehicles with physics on, things will only work out in time warp with physics disabled. I deal with this issue very frequently. Changing any of the physics performance options does not help this. It is certainly an issue the devs need to look into. The connection between two docked vehicles just breaks too easily.
Yeah, I am on the same page as you, but unfortunately not. Like already said, there is Realistic Engine Overhaul mod, which adds new propellants, nozzles, chemical engine cycles, VASIMR, and NTRs (solid, liquid, and gas core). Gas core is of course best, but the cool thing is that with the NTRs is that Lqd Ammonia and LOX is added in addition to LH2 and Water. The former two give you a significant boost in thrust at higher energy density and a reasonable ISP loss which is great for powerful, small spaceplanes and landers. Till a mod comes out for more far-future tech, you can create nozzles/engines out of intakes, use an XML edited ion engine, and just pretend it is a fusion engine. That's what I've been doing for interstellar travel. I have made a guide for how to do that.
@t4zcomz Thanks! Low CoL is what causes roll instability, not necessarily the position of CoM. In some cases, it is actually desirable. This is one reason why I employ variable angle wingtips.
@Hannah1212 I currently have something custom I put together, but I'll be releasing another, new interstellar planet pack with lordvader0219. 70 planetary bodies. We collabed on it. Should be out within the week.
@DrexxVolv I wrote the guide in two days, but yeah, I've been doing interstellar colonization with spaceplanes in KSP and SR2 for 2 years at this point. Racked up 7000 hrs in KSP at this point. So I've been doing this for a little bit so far... lol
@DrexxVolv You can probably just give my propulsion bus a go. It can haul something like 60,000 tons of cargo. Or I can release that demo craft that I used in the guide if you want to design something more unique. Neither requires mods.
It is already here, with real distances. New update coming soon with four additional stars and more planets. Van Maanen's Star, Teegarden's Star, 61 Cygni, and Epsilon Indi. Thats 15 star systems, over 100 planets to explore including the solar system all within 15 ly.
https://www.simplerockets.com/PlanetarySystems/View/bgl73U/Update-Stellar-Neighborhood-v1-7-94-Bodies
+4 2.4 years agoMan... here I thought that it was only me thinking exactly this.
+3 2.8 years agoI deleted my VTOL spaceplane guide because it was drawn out, hard to follow, and more complex than necessary. It wasn't concise and to the point and wasted the reader's time. So, three options: one, I can revise the guide, repost it, and you can read it and get a general idea of my design methodology. The updated guide would cut out all the unnecessary information and include thrust vectoring and possibly tilt engines, in addition to the basics. Two, you can pick one of the spaceplanes I've published and I'll make it VTOL for you. Or three, use an existing VTOL I have posted. Daggerback VTOL, TAV Valkyrie, and Tidebreaker VTOL would be all great for cargo. Valkyrie and Tidebreaker are crewed, but I've been thinking about a crewed Daggerback. All of those need a revision though, so I'll try and update them this week. I don't really have any plans to build something from the ground up because I don't have anything in mind at the moment.
+1 1.4 years agoWe haven't solved this issue, but interstellar planet packs on light-years distance scales do exist:
https://www.simplerockets.com/PlanetarySystems/View/8t6NSi/137-Bodies-Stellar-Neighborhood-v2-0-Real-Lava-Update
The pseudo-workaround we've found is to design atmospheres so that their lighting inherits to the wavelength of light that their host star emits.
+1 2.2 years agoThe revamp made parachutes completely unusable for me. Maybe it's realistic that they tear off when used on a 4,000 ton vehicle? I don't know. They just rip off no matter what I try.
+1 2.4 years agoFor working in circular or low eccentricity orbits, radial in/out does not get much use. It is useful when trying to adjust an intercept with a target closer while in similar orbits.
However, radial in/out is important for working with hyperbolic trajectories, and beyond, like brachistochrones. In other words, at relatively high velocities, it is most effective to burn radial in/out to adjust your course (adjust your closest approach to an object) rather than prograde or retrograde.
+1 3.1 years agoThe wing area on one side should equal the opposite otherwise a rolling moment is produced. Sweeping the entire wing assembly on a middle pivot point won't adversely affect the CoL location, at least not by a significant margin. That assumes that one side is swept forward and the other sweeps backward
one month agoYou can use a PID control loop in Vizzy and the logic of the controller would look something like:
7 months agoKp = proportional value
Ki = integral value
Kd = derivative value
I = 0
target _ roll = roll _ limit * input (roll)
P = target _ roll - nav (roll)
I = I + ( target _ roll - nav ( roll ) ) * ( time (frame delta time) )
d1 = target _ roll - nav (roll)
wait (frame delta time) seconds
d2 = target _ roll - nav (roll)
D = d2 - d1 / time (frame delta time)
Roll = min of 1 and max of -1 and Kp * P + Ki * I + Kd * D
Some tuning would be needed for Kp, Ki, and Kd to achieve the desired output response and settling time. Then you'd use that output and put your aileron input to [CommandPodName].FlightProgram.Roll
Only those in the cool cats club are allowed to upload craft thumbnails. I'm not one of them either.
Where else do you think all those upvotes come from?
10 months ago@JanusIndustries Default location should be AppData/LocalLow/Jundroo/Simple Rockets 2/UserData/CelestialDatabase/PlanetarySystems
Also its an XML file, not .ini. Not sure where I got that from sorry.
1.3 years agoNot sure if it has been changed but the way we had to do it is to edit the .ini file on PC. You find the line in the text file which has the body you want to modify and just enter the semi-major axis value in meters to what you want. For example, 4.35 light-years would be 41150000000000000 meters. Or in scientific notation, 4.115 * 10^16 meters.
1.3 years agoI figured it out. I have been trying to create a trimming program for Vizzy which pumps fuel either aft or forward to reduce CM (moment coefficient) to a range in which the vehicle does not rotate with minimal input. That is, trimmed. To do this I had to find the instantaneous distance of CoL and VTOL CoT between the CoM. CoL and CoT location are non-issues as they do not change in a simplified model. CoM however does. To find this distance I attached a part named CoT and CoL on their respective positions and did
1.3 years ago[ { [part {} PCI to Local {part ID of {VTOL CoT}} position]} {y} ]and[ { [part {} PCI to Local {part ID of {CoL}} position]} {y} ]then subtracted that by[ { [part {} PCI to Local { nav position } {y} ].xseems to be the lateral axis,ythe longitudinal axis, andzthe vertical axis. That is for the default airplane orientation.The lift coefficient can be approximated by thin airfoil theory. That is, CL ~= 2 * pi * alpha for alpha in radians.
2.0 years ago@YaMomzBox420 That's a very good suggestion. I definitely looked into it but didn't quite figure it out yet.
2.1 years ago@SamTheFox Yes, but the other problem is the lift coefficient. It's a complex variable dependent on many factors, but the closest I got is C_L = 2 * pi * sin (AoA), which isn't ideal when using high-lift devices.
2.1 years ago@Samps0n Nah, I just made a build to test the phenomenon because it works in KSP. Not in SR2 though.
2.1 years agocool.
2.1 years agoWill landing gear get driving physics on other parts too? Right now only rover wheels seem to work.
2.1 years agoDrivable parts is HUGE! Thanks Devs!
2.2 years ago@Sonofbigdog Should be as simple as hitting the download button and running the executable if you're on PC. The downloaded file will automatically open SR2 and download the relevant files. If you're on mobile, it's the same thing, but you don't have to open the executable in your files. Once it's downloaded, you need to start a new game with the planet pack selected.
2.4 years ago@ZimpelRaum Voyager probes are not interstellar capable and were not remotely designed for an interstellar transfer. You need to go much faster.
2.4 years agoSubsonic speeds, same thing.
2.4 years ago@Zenithspeed Does the plume persist through timewarp?? What I'm trying to do is make a plume for my "fusion engine" (xml edited ion engine) for my interstellar vehicle, but I can't find a rocket in which the plume persists through timwarp. So far I've been using a long line of transparent RCS thrusters. Those plume do persist through time warp burn.
2.7 years ago@Zenithspeed Yeah, I tested with the Apex, and still no behavior as intended. I guess that functionality was removed for the overhaul.
2.7 years ago@Zenithspeed Which would be the legacy rocket engines?
2.7 years agoSo, basically t = d/v as credited to Galileo Galilei and many others before his time way back when? Not trying to burst your bubble, but I just got to say it. Anyways, you can take this a step forward to make it also useful for sub-light travel. Add the length of burn time for the acceleration and deceleration burns using a variation from Tsiolkovsky's classical rocket equation. This equation is t = ( (M_initial * Exhaust Velocity) / Thrust ) * (1 - e ^ ( - Velocity of Burn / Exhaust Velocity ) ).
2.8 years agoRealistic Engine Overhaul (not sure about Stock Engine Overhaul) gets you pretty close to theoretical metallic hydrogen rockets. Metallic hydrogen is said to be around 1,700 seconds at knows how many kN (a lot). Although. a metallic hydrogen rocket's ISP ranges between 467 to 1700 seconds due to the chamber temperatures at play here. On the high end, things get really hot. Anyways, I'm looking at one of my spaceplanes, all of which use nuclear gas core rockets on liquid ammonia, and I've got 1,784 seconds at 56,694 kN between the three rockets on my Aurora. On the same plane, each has got chamber pressure 7 MPa. 100% nozzle throat size and 160% nozzle length. I use cone nozzles to maximize thrust (as my spaceplanes usually weigh 4,000 tons) and again, they run on liquid ammonia. Check out the nuclear thermal gas core rockets on the Realistic Engine Overhaul mod. What do you mean by electromagnetic engine cycle?
2.9 years agoXML editing on PC. Make an AG group with a distinct name, go to the craft's XML in Appdata>Local Low, open it and search for that word in the XML. Find the line for AGs and just a new one by adding its name to where it has the AGs in " " and adding true/false to the end of that line also inside " ". Make sure to use Notepad and save the file when done.
2.9 years agoDocking ports are just exceptionally weak, especially once you start scaling things up. Forget about burning engines on docked vehicles with physics on, things will only work out in time warp with physics disabled. I deal with this issue very frequently. Changing any of the physics performance options does not help this. It is certainly an issue the devs need to look into. The connection between two docked vehicles just breaks too easily.
3.1 years agoYeah, I am on the same page as you, but unfortunately not. Like already said, there is Realistic Engine Overhaul mod, which adds new propellants, nozzles, chemical engine cycles, VASIMR, and NTRs (solid, liquid, and gas core). Gas core is of course best, but the cool thing is that with the NTRs is that Lqd Ammonia and LOX is added in addition to LH2 and Water. The former two give you a significant boost in thrust at higher energy density and a reasonable ISP loss which is great for powerful, small spaceplanes and landers. Till a mod comes out for more far-future tech, you can create nozzles/engines out of intakes, use an XML edited ion engine, and just pretend it is a fusion engine. That's what I've been doing for interstellar travel. I have made a guide for how to do that.
3.2 years ago@ChalxAerospace Got it, thanks!
3.2 years ago@t4zcomz Thanks! Low CoL is what causes roll instability, not necessarily the position of CoM. In some cases, it is actually desirable. This is one reason why I employ variable angle wingtips.
3.2 years agoIt is long, but I intended something comprehensive and complete instead of quick and dirty. Thanks for reading though.
3.3 years ago@Hannah1212 I currently have something custom I put together, but I'll be releasing another, new interstellar planet pack with lordvader0219. 70 planetary bodies. We collabed on it. Should be out within the week.
3.3 years ago@DrexxVolv It's horribly unoptimized. My modded install averages 8 fps. In SR2 I do the same exact things in KSP as SR2 at 6 times the FPS.
3.3 years ago@DrexxVolv I wrote the guide in two days, but yeah, I've been doing interstellar colonization with spaceplanes in KSP and SR2 for 2 years at this point. Racked up 7000 hrs in KSP at this point. So I've been doing this for a little bit so far... lol
3.3 years ago@DrexxVolv You can probably just give my propulsion bus a go. It can haul something like 60,000 tons of cargo. Or I can release that demo craft that I used in the guide if you want to design something more unique. Neither requires mods.
3.3 years ago