For me stats all the way, specifically how accurate thrust and Isp in both SL and vacuum are in the replica as to the real engine. Aesthetics second, although I like an accurate visual representation as well, sometimes certain details cannot be accurately reproduced (i.e. thermal protectve foil on Rocketdyne F1) and due to view angles and the jet of flames going out of them most details on engine are hidden or lost in the noise anyway.
However, I do appreciate aesthetics over stats on certain occasions, such as the engine replicas you have made, since they are on a test stand it is nice to play with them and look at the detail of the plumbing and other parts on the engine as well as on the stand.
@swope I can vouch for that, I tried to land 2 boosters and the core but even with slow motion and pausing a bunch of times it is basically impossible to land 3 craft plus keep flying the payload into orbit. Best scenario is landing only the core with expendable boosters and getting the payload to orbit but you would have to pause then switch craft a few hundred times and a ton of patience.
I tried making a pseudo-skycrane using the pistons but my build suffers form oscillations and just about tears itself apart (hence why I only shared the rover and not the sky crane I built for it). There are other curiosity-type rovers in the "crafts " section complete with skycrane/landers of their own, I can't speak for their real-life accuracy but you may want to check them out and see if you like them, from the pictures I saw they looked very detailed and may have what you're looking for
That's a beautiful plane! as for the critiques on the color and look I would say the plane is going to look different during the build due to lighting effects, I'm sure it will look just as gorgeous if you fly it around droo!
@laweacosmica Deberias ver q te gusta en el mundo de aviacion, o hasta en otras cosas como ingenieria, carros, trenes, etc. Y tratar the construir algo de aquellas, asi es q yo me paso el tiempo construllendo cosas. Que clase d cosas te gustan?
@swope @SupremeDorian Iit seems I have a lot to play around with and test, I'll look at drag settings and furelages and how they will affect lift on airfoils. thank you guys!
I also find SSTOs very challenging to make. Some suggestions I have would be to start with your payload plus 10% and then add your tank and engine combination that gives you a delta-v of at least 6000 and twr over 1.1, this gives you enough fudge factor. If you want jet engines and wings then consider all their weight part of your dry mass.
Lastly I would recommend paying close attention to your engine's specific twr as well as their performance at both sea level and in vacuum.
I recently learned that using the first time warp helps to dock way faster. Also make sure your docking post does not have collisions turned off which I also learned the hard way will prevent you from docking
I think SpaceX need to slow down a bit and develop better welding techniques and work on their proprietary steel alloy before continuing on, I feel theyre just buring money doing these tests
@jopaslona I would recommend nuclear engines with liquid hydrogen then. It will get you a high amount of delta-v and lower weight, although the TWR might not be higher than 1, although as you said this craft is not taking off from the surface so it should work well in space. I made a very extreme craft with 13 max size (50x25) fuel tanks and about 30 nuclear engines, this had low TWR but the delta-v was high at 18k.
I think you can get it to have less mass by using nuclear engines & liquid hydrogen, and should have a decent amount of delta-v. Is it a must that your craft be that heavy? (At 270 000 tons that sounds like a generation ship). What is the delta-v number you want to be at?
How many stages is your craft? Are you looking for 7-10 mins burn time of the first stage? If so I would suggest splitting the 1st stage into 2 stages (each with 3 mins burn time) but depending on your set up 7-10 minites burn sounds high. Maybe try adding SRBs to the first stage as well.
This suggestion has already been put forward, you can find it here. Don't forget to check the suggestions area before posting a new suggestion to avoid repeats.
What are the requirements to be able to acquire an educational copy? would flight instructors meet the "educational" requirements
+1 5.1 years ago@MarioG that would be awesome
+1 5.1 years agoawesome! don't forget to put links to all of them in a post when you're done!
+1 5.1 years agoyes of course lol
+1 5.1 years agoThis is a good idea, you should suggest it on the suggestions page
+1 5.1 years ago@diegoavion84 enjoy your time away from the game and I hope to see you around again, I really enjoyed your builds!
+1 5.1 years agoFor me stats all the way, specifically how accurate thrust and Isp in both SL and vacuum are in the replica as to the real engine. Aesthetics second, although I like an accurate visual representation as well, sometimes certain details cannot be accurately reproduced (i.e. thermal protectve foil on Rocketdyne F1) and due to view angles and the jet of flames going out of them most details on engine are hidden or lost in the noise anyway.
However, I do appreciate aesthetics over stats on certain occasions, such as the engine replicas you have made, since they are on a test stand it is nice to play with them and look at the detail of the plumbing and other parts on the engine as well as on the stand.
+1 5.1 years agoAwesome! I started working on a Saturn V replica for the 50th anniversary of Apollo 11 so this challenge is very welcome!
+1 5.1 years agoYes! I made a similar test stand but it is very crude and not worth sharing
+1 5.1 years ago@swope I can vouch for that, I tried to land 2 boosters and the core but even with slow motion and pausing a bunch of times it is basically impossible to land 3 craft plus keep flying the payload into orbit. Best scenario is landing only the core with expendable boosters and getting the payload to orbit but you would have to pause then switch craft a few hundred times and a ton of patience.
+1 5.1 years ago@pedro16797 we're on the same boat :D
+1 5.1 years agoF
Good luck and we look forward to your return and future builds
+1 5.1 years agoCongratulations! I also felt ecstatic the first time I landed on Luna
+1 5.1 years agoOops sorry I didn't know you posted this already, didn't mean to try to steal your thunder
+1 5.1 years agoDelayed again due to weather (i's cloudy and gloomy in FL right now). I'm debating whether to go to the launch or not :P
+1 5.1 years agoCongratulations! i've only landed a couple of rovers there so far, but I can imagine how challenging it must have been to also have a return mission
+1 5.1 years agoI'm really stoked with the procedural engines, I also hope the rest of the community continues to make builds and grow!
+1 5.1 years agoI tried making a pseudo-skycrane using the pistons but my build suffers form oscillations and just about tears itself apart (hence why I only shared the rover and not the sky crane I built for it). There are other curiosity-type rovers in the "crafts " section complete with skycrane/landers of their own, I can't speak for their real-life accuracy but you may want to check them out and see if you like them, from the pictures I saw they looked very detailed and may have what you're looking for
+1 5.1 years agoI freaked out for a second
+1 5.1 years agoThat's a beautiful plane! as for the critiques on the color and look I would say the plane is going to look different during the build due to lighting effects, I'm sure it will look just as gorgeous if you fly it around droo!
+1 5.2 years agoI have had similar problems with land vehicles disappearing and/or falling into the planet, I also made a report.
+1 5.2 years ago@laweacosmica Deberias ver q te gusta en el mundo de aviacion, o hasta en otras cosas como ingenieria, carros, trenes, etc. Y tratar the construir algo de aquellas, asi es q yo me paso el tiempo construllendo cosas. Que clase d cosas te gustan?
+1 5.2 years ago@Chancey21 thank you!
+1 5.2 years ago@swope @SupremeDorian Iit seems I have a lot to play around with and test, I'll look at drag settings and furelages and how they will affect lift on airfoils. thank you guys!
+1 5.3 years agoThe spacecraft is looking pretty good! also not a bad landing btw
+1 5.3 years ago@swope You're very helpful, thank you!
+1 5.3 years ago@swope Ty for the suggestion, I will play with the settings. Also an RCS mod for stabilization would be awesome!
+1 5.3 years ago@pedro16797 Thank you pedro, I will try this, thank you!
+1 5.3 years ago@TopGottem101fly thanks! I really appreciate that :D
3.5 years agoI have a halfway finished forklift, if this post gets more upvotes I will work faster on it
3.5 years ago@pedro16797 Congratulations!
3.8 years ago@Clory @sflanker Congratulations!
3.8 years agoWhat kind of topics would be good to cover?
3.9 years agoI also find SSTOs very challenging to make. Some suggestions I have would be to start with your payload plus 10% and then add your tank and engine combination that gives you a delta-v of at least 6000 and twr over 1.1, this gives you enough fudge factor. If you want jet engines and wings then consider all their weight part of your dry mass.
Lastly I would recommend paying close attention to your engine's specific twr as well as their performance at both sea level and in vacuum.
4.0 years agoThat ducted tiltrotor is looking mighty fine
4.0 years agoI recently learned that using the first time warp helps to dock way faster. Also make sure your docking post does not have collisions turned off which I also learned the hard way will prevent you from docking
4.1 years agoThe era of cockpits has begun
4.1 years agoI vote for "Shackleton Base", after this guy.
4.1 years agoNo worries and hope you get access to a device soon :D
4.1 years agoI think SpaceX need to slow down a bit and develop better welding techniques and work on their proprietary steel alloy before continuing on, I feel theyre just buring money doing these tests
4.1 years agoThis would be a great suggestion for the suggestions area
4.2 years ago@jopaslona I would recommend nuclear engines with liquid hydrogen then. It will get you a high amount of delta-v and lower weight, although the TWR might not be higher than 1, although as you said this craft is not taking off from the surface so it should work well in space. I made a very extreme craft with 13 max size (50x25) fuel tanks and about 30 nuclear engines, this had low TWR but the delta-v was high at 18k.
4.2 years agoI think you can get it to have less mass by using nuclear engines & liquid hydrogen, and should have a decent amount of delta-v. Is it a must that your craft be that heavy? (At 270 000 tons that sounds like a generation ship). What is the delta-v number you want to be at?
4.2 years agoHow many stages is your craft? Are you looking for 7-10 mins burn time of the first stage? If so I would suggest splitting the 1st stage into 2 stages (each with 3 mins burn time) but depending on your set up 7-10 minites burn sounds high. Maybe try adding SRBs to the first stage as well.
4.2 years agoMy Comrade
4.2 years ago@pedro16797 haha i saw that too
4.2 years ago@socialist you're right its been there a while but some suggestions are there for a while before the devs implement them
4.2 years ago@sflanker Dude that's too funny, I was actually thinking of suggesting that XD
4.2 years agobruh those fighters look sick
4.2 years agoThis suggestion has already been put forward, you can find it here. Don't forget to check the suggestions area before posting a new suggestion to avoid repeats.
4.2 years ago