Turns out this design is controllable at 100m/s and perhaps even slower. I was fooled because of the bug where the elevons don't work until Stage 1 is triggered. The rotators and hinges were working, but not the winglet control surfaces, so I was underestimating the control power at low speed.
Landing at 140m/s is quite hard to do.
One could use the X, Y, and Z offsets from the CoM and tune the thruster throttles to balance an asymmetrical vehicle. But your CoM changes as fuel is burned.
@mjdfx150529 - but the devs organize the suggestions and bugs by what's actively being worked vs what's potentially later. I was just pointing out where it was on the page, not trying to predict when it would be done.
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.)
@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'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.
Did the plus sign go back the left edge where it is when no sliders are open?
5.8 years agoTurns out this design is controllable at 100m/s and perhaps even slower. I was fooled because of the bug where the elevons don't work until Stage 1 is triggered. The rotators and hinges were working, but not the winglet control surfaces, so I was underestimating the control power at low speed.
5.8 years agoLanding at 140m/s is quite hard to do.
One could use the X, Y, and Z offsets from the CoM and tune the thruster throttles to balance an asymmetrical vehicle. But your CoM changes as fuel is burned.
5.8 years agoThis works as a site search bar
For example, the top hit for "search bar" is this:
5.8 years agoPlease-add-a-search-bar
Just use a chip and make your own cockpit.
5.8 years ago@mjdfx150529 - but the devs organize the suggestions and bugs by what's actively being worked vs what's potentially later. I was just pointing out where it was on the page, not trying to predict when it would be done.
5.8 years agoRoadmap
Note that mod support is at the top of the R&D board.
5.8 years agoStart with something simpler.
Here's a fighter I did: https://youtu.be/8d-WLo_piSo
Keep a close eye on center of mass, center of lift, and center of thrust. CoL should be just a little behind CoM.
5.8 years ago@WeSeekANARCHY - have you tried using the suspension settings on the wheel parts themselves?
5.8 years agoI saw the settings, but I've been doing other things.
I have fewer problems when using shocks.
5.8 years agoI have problems with this, too.
5.8 years agoAnother challenge... Land two things on Luna within 100m of each other.
5.8 years ago@Oski - yes.
5.8 years agoOr use Steam for a screenshot. Default is F12. Also, F10 is default for hiding the HUD.
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 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 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!
5.9 years agoSecond attempt to launch was fine.
5.9 years agoOne failure to launch this morning.
5.9 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%.
5.9 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):
5.9 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
5.9 years agoNo issues today. I guess the updated video drivers made the difference.
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 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 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 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