@KraZIvan - to make RCS less sensitive, you can edit the properties of each nozzle. Set the thrust lower (or maybe it's fuel consumption?)
I think there may also be a control power adjustment. You might get stuck trying to set different thrust levels for rotation vs. translation, depending on your lever arm lengths. Remember to put your RCS as far from the CoM as you can.
@KraZIvan - well, one thing that annoys me to no end is that the RCS in rotation mode fires all the way up to the commanded pointing direction. That is, it doesn't anticipate stopping on the heading and pitch angle. Therefore, it overshoots many times, wasting huge amounts of monopropellent.
I'm really eager for the modding API to open up. I haven't designed a bang-bang controller for a Type II system since I was a grad student, but it would a fun refresher.
I think it's a fairly narrow fanbase that will enjoy what is almost purely a sandbox game. As the gamification increases with updates, and the fundamentals get more solid (mod API, customizable engines, docking, etc.) then I think more of the famous YouTubers, etc. will give more time and attention to SR2.
I think you could use my Wind Tunnel suggestion: https://www.simplerockets.com/Feedback/View/b6LbCH/Wind-Tunnel
Even though you might not have "wind"... you could still look at the forces and moments resulting from firing the RCS, and tune them to have the right thrust or positioning to be balanced.
Once you design the maneuver you want, click the lock icon. Then click the engine icon to enable automatic burn. Then click the triangle/line button to warp to the burn time.
Something I haven't fixed on SimpleAirways, yet. It seems about 90% of the fuel is not connected to the engines. When I fly about a 100km out and back, I see my "current stage" fuel gets down to 15%, but my "all stages" fuel is still 90%.
Landing a 747 Classic, I'd like to be at a mass more like 180,000 kg, not 306,000 kg!
@weebabyseamus - please consider some changes I made to SimpleAirways to make it more like Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA):
https://www.simplerockets.com/c/NWpa7W/SCA-905
I like the SimpleAirways model. However, it had some problems. I made some changes:
1) rotated the Command Chip so the nose is pointed forward. Now the NavSphere can be used for glideslope tracking.
2) Added rotators to the horizontal tail on Slider2. Now Slider2 can be used to trim in pitch.
3) Aesthetics. The original Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA) came from American Airlines and was unpainted shiny aluminum. Also, it was a Classic 747 (no winglets). Finally, I added struts on the spine. (Place Orbiter here, black side down.)
When I tried Wasp 2.0, I didn't have any aileron control with Q/E (I'm using the default mapping.) I found the Control Chip buried in the fuselage, but I was surprised by the orientation of the chip -- which I think defines the orientation of the control axes. I thought the chip would be flat on one of the fuselage stations -- so the longitudinal axis would be normal to the chip, like in a rocket design (flat on top of a fuel tank.) Any diagrams or documentation about how the control axes are defined?
@pedro16797 - absolutely. In a sandbox, any player can decide for themselves if they want magic thermal protection, or something more realistic. Eventually I think that there should be a standard parametric weight penalty, though, for the challenge missions, etc. Then it's more of a design contest or game. Some people may like that aspect.
It would be great to type in the parameters of the orbit. For example, to test a lander on another planet so you know the payload mass for your launcher.
I would like the astronaut characters to have specializations that improve as they gain experience. I never liked the KSP pilot/engineer/scientist categories, stars, and special abilities.
Piloting skills can be developed in aircraft, suborbital flights, near-Droo docking, etc. High-skill pilots can stabilize unstable vehicles, optimize launch-to-orbit trajectories, learn to avoid overshooting when pointing the craft in a different direction, precisely landing on a selected place on a surface (runway, pad, or just a flat spot with no boulders), or do "automatic" docking like Mechjeb in KSP. Maybe the button to slow down time should only be available when a skilled pilot is on board.
Astrodynamics skills can be developed by planning multiple maneuver nodes, flying to different SOIs, and rendezvous with other craft. Highly skilled astrodynamicists can take user instructions like "launch to rendezvous with target", "Hohmann transfer to target", "deorbit to land here", etc. The higher their skill level, the more optimal their plans become (combining plane-changes with apoapsis changes).
Science and instrument specializations could be in categories like geology, radars, spectroscopy, biomedical, cryovulcanism, etc. Skills in these areas increase each time a scientific survey is made. Highly skilled scientists will recognize opportunities for science and highlight them. That means picking more productive landing spots, more efficient global surveys, picking better surface samples, and more breakthrough discoveries (orange soil on the moon!)
New recruits come with random skill levels, but skills can be increased in any category. Natural pilots can learn science. Scientists can learn astrodynamics. And so on...
I'm hoping for parametric sliders to modify the engines. E.g. adjust the bell for a design altitude.
Maybe in campaign mode there should be some R&D cost for a new engine, but once it's in your catalog, you can buy copies for some lesser cost. Also, small tweaks to an engine already in your catalog is less expensive than a clean-sheet design.
Or use Steam for a screenshot. Default is F12. Also, F10 is default for hiding the HUD.
5.8 years agoHere's my example: https://youtu.be/Dc6ZM6cADow
Usually you want to do a translunar injection burn just before Luna rises over the horizon.
+1 5.8 years agoTake a capsule to Luna's surface and back on a craft costing less than $6m
5.8 years agoTakeoff and land like an airplane, but orbit in between.
5.8 years agoMaybe it was just too small to notice. The aileroms are relatively small, with big stabs.
5.8 years agoI made an F-16ish plane in 0.6.9.x and it was fine in roll with the navsphere engaged. Semi-symmetric airfoils on the wings. Symmetric on the stabs.
5.8 years ago@KraZIvan - to make RCS less sensitive, you can edit the properties of each nozzle. Set the thrust lower (or maybe it's fuel consumption?)
+1 5.8 years agoI think there may also be a control power adjustment. You might get stuck trying to set different thrust levels for rotation vs. translation, depending on your lever arm lengths. Remember to put your RCS as far from the CoM as you can.
@KraZIvan - well, one thing that annoys me to no end is that the RCS in rotation mode fires all the way up to the commanded pointing direction. That is, it doesn't anticipate stopping on the heading and pitch angle. Therefore, it overshoots many times, wasting huge amounts of monopropellent.
+1 5.8 years agoI'm really eager for the modding API to open up. I haven't designed a bang-bang controller for a Type II system since I was a grad student, but it would a fun refresher.
I think it's a fairly narrow fanbase that will enjoy what is almost purely a sandbox game. As the gamification increases with updates, and the fundamentals get more solid (mod API, customizable engines, docking, etc.) then I think more of the famous YouTubers, etc. will give more time and attention to SR2.
+4 5.8 years agoI think you could use my Wind Tunnel suggestion: https://www.simplerockets.com/Feedback/View/b6LbCH/Wind-Tunnel
Even though you might not have "wind"... you could still look at the forces and moments resulting from firing the RCS, and tune them to have the right thrust or positioning to be balanced.
+1 5.8 years agohttps://photos.app.goo.gl/4sdpV9xf3y1QPj169
5.8 years ago@DerekSP that looks a lot like a C-20 I know well...
5.8 years agoSomeone turned on the hidden lights part?
5.8 years ago@AndrewGarrison - maybe "overall pressure ratio" could be added to the analysis panel as an output.
5.8 years agoI'm pretty sure the far side if the Sun looks almost the same as the half we can see.
5.8 years agoIs "compression ratio" in the engine settings synonymous with "overall pressure ratio" or is it meant to be only input to the exit of the compressor?
5.8 years agoModding support it the top suggestion:
https://www.simplerockets.com/Feedback/View/y1Bgz8/Modding-Support
The status is "in progress". So hold on tight!
5.8 years agoMake sure you have jet fuel on board.
5.8 years ago@Akali - which language would you prefer?
5.8 years agoI use this tool in my video:
https://youtu.be/Dc6ZM6cADow
For example, circularizing the orbit at 2:10.
+1 5.8 years agoOnce you design the maneuver you want, click the lock icon. Then click the engine icon to enable automatic burn. Then click the triangle/line button to warp to the burn time.
5.8 years agoCongratulations?
5.8 years ago@weebabyseamus - I made a video about flying big jets in SR2:
https://youtu.be/ua5CjMrfkMk
I welcome your critical comments!
5.8 years agoSecond attempt to launch was fine.
5.8 years agoOne failure to launch this morning.
5.8 years agoSomething I haven't fixed on SimpleAirways, yet. It seems about 90% of the fuel is not connected to the engines. When I fly about a 100km out and back, I see my "current stage" fuel gets down to 15%, but my "all stages" fuel is still 90%.
5.8 years agoLanding a 747 Classic, I'd like to be at a mass more like 180,000 kg, not 306,000 kg!
@weebabyseamus - please consider some changes I made to SimpleAirways to make it more like Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA):
5.8 years agohttps://www.simplerockets.com/c/NWpa7W/SCA-905
I like the SimpleAirways model. However, it had some problems. I made some changes:
1) rotated the Command Chip so the nose is pointed forward. Now the NavSphere can be used for glideslope tracking.
2) Added rotators to the horizontal tail on Slider2. Now Slider2 can be used to trim in pitch.
3) Aesthetics. The original Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (SCA) came from American Airlines and was unpainted shiny aluminum. Also, it was a Classic 747 (no winglets). Finally, I added struts on the spine. (Place Orbiter here, black side down.)
https://www.simplerockets.com/c/NWpa7W/SCA-905
5.8 years agoNo issues today. I guess the updated video drivers made the difference.
5.8 years ago@AndrewGarrison - Thanks. I will let you know if it happens more.
I'd love to give my PC a challenge if you want to throw in more (optional) eye-candy into SR2!
+1 5.9 years ago@AndrewGarrison - Just one computer. Specs:
Processor Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-8700 CPU @ 3.20GHz, 3192 Mhz, 6 Core(s), 12 Logical Processor(s);
Installed Physical Memory (RAM) 16.0 GB;
Adapter Description NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080;
I've been using NVIDIA driver:
Driver Version 25.21.14.1735;
I see there is a new driver dated 15 January 2019. Updating now to Driver Version 22.20.16.4758.
5.9 years agotab?
5.9 years agoAnyone else having a problem where the SR2 sometimes doesn't start?
I get an all-white window, not responding.
+1 5.9 years agoI was thinking git might work well with this. Keep the old versions of the craft. See the diffs between versions. Get contributions from other users.
+1 5.9 years agoWhen I tried Wasp 2.0, I didn't have any aileron control with Q/E (I'm using the default mapping.) I found the Control Chip buried in the fuselage, but I was surprised by the orientation of the chip -- which I think defines the orientation of the control axes. I thought the chip would be flat on one of the fuselage stations -- so the longitudinal axis would be normal to the chip, like in a rocket design (flat on top of a fuel tank.) Any diagrams or documentation about how the control axes are defined?
+1 5.9 years ago@pedro16797 - absolutely. In a sandbox, any player can decide for themselves if they want magic thermal protection, or something more realistic. Eventually I think that there should be a standard parametric weight penalty, though, for the challenge missions, etc. Then it's more of a design contest or game. Some people may like that aspect.
5.9 years ago@pedro16797 - there should be a "fair" weight penalty for added heat resistance / tps.
5.9 years agoI want an X-43 and X-51!
I want a Blackswift!
+1 5.9 years agoSo no ramjets, scramjets, or combined-cycle hybrids? 😮
+1 5.9 years agoIt would be great to type in the parameters of the orbit. For example, to test a lander on another planet so you know the payload mass for your launcher.
5.9 years agoI think default is 's' key for reverse?
In translation mode, w/s is forward/back (x-axis), a/d is left/right (y-axis), and q/e is up/down (z-axis).
Did I misunderstand the question?
5.9 years agohttps://www.jpl.nasa.gov/edu/teach/activity/lets-go-to-mars-calculating-launch-windows/
5.9 years ago"Translation" in this context means to move through space, as opposed to rotation.
5.9 years agoI would like the astronaut characters to have specializations that improve as they gain experience. I never liked the KSP pilot/engineer/scientist categories, stars, and special abilities.
Piloting skills can be developed in aircraft, suborbital flights, near-Droo docking, etc. High-skill pilots can stabilize unstable vehicles, optimize launch-to-orbit trajectories, learn to avoid overshooting when pointing the craft in a different direction, precisely landing on a selected place on a surface (runway, pad, or just a flat spot with no boulders), or do "automatic" docking like Mechjeb in KSP. Maybe the button to slow down time should only be available when a skilled pilot is on board.
Astrodynamics skills can be developed by planning multiple maneuver nodes, flying to different SOIs, and rendezvous with other craft. Highly skilled astrodynamicists can take user instructions like "launch to rendezvous with target", "Hohmann transfer to target", "deorbit to land here", etc. The higher their skill level, the more optimal their plans become (combining plane-changes with apoapsis changes).
Science and instrument specializations could be in categories like geology, radars, spectroscopy, biomedical, cryovulcanism, etc. Skills in these areas increase each time a scientific survey is made. Highly skilled scientists will recognize opportunities for science and highlight them. That means picking more productive landing spots, more efficient global surveys, picking better surface samples, and more breakthrough discoveries (orange soil on the moon!)
New recruits come with random skill levels, but skills can be increased in any category. Natural pilots can learn science. Scientists can learn astrodynamics. And so on...
+2 5.9 years agoIs there a way to log the flight data to a CSV or HDF5 file?
5.9 years agoI'm hoping for parametric sliders to modify the engines. E.g. adjust the bell for a design altitude.
Maybe in campaign mode there should be some R&D cost for a new engine, but once it's in your catalog, you can buy copies for some lesser cost. Also, small tweaks to an engine already in your catalog is less expensive than a clean-sheet design.
5.9 years agoStill working on this?
I'll beta-test.
5.9 years ago