NathanKell changed the topic of #RO to: Welcome to the discussion channel for the Realism Overhaul (meta)mod for KSP! Realism Overhaul Main Thread https://goo.gl/wH7Dzb ! RO Spreadsheet http://goo.gl/Oem3g0 ! Code of Conduct http://goo.gl/wOSv2M ! | [15:01] <soundnfury> Straight Eight Stronk (and) RP-0/1 is basically "Space Agency Spreadsheet Simulator" with a rocket-flying minigame
<soundnfury>
there was a config at about the same tech as the -NA-6 that was airlightable, then the RS-68-OSA was too.
<schnobs>
If you wanted a powerful upper stage without hypergolics, staged combustion, or hydrolox, the LR105 makes a good template.
<Rokker>
so i gotta wholeheartedly disagree
<soundnfury>
But maybe the -7.x should have also been
<Rokker>
anyways
<soundnfury>
schnobs: Agreed. But it shouldn't come free as that, you should have to at least do a *little* bit of R&D.
<Rokker>
Bornholio: wish me luck, im flying cross country with a WWII style bomber
<Rokker>
cape to white sands
<soundnfury>
Rokker: pics?
<Bornholio>
yeah
* soundnfury
bets it looks more like a B17 than a Stirling.
<schnobs>
soundnfury: agreed, too. Both gameplay and education-wise, it would be neat to enforce it. R-7 too.
<soundnfury>
yup
<schnobs>
not sure how tank masses play out these days, but my first R-7 had enough oomph to use the center stack as an upper...
<Rokker>
soundnfury: more like a B-25 with a ju-88 nose
<Rokker>
actually, id say its more of a twin engined b-29 i guess
<schnobs>
Just btw... I find that SXT cockpits leave much to be desired.
<schnobs>
Didn't try in RP-0, but in stock many have misaligned hatches and stuff.
<Rokker>
gonna stick some science payload in the cargo bay to get that sweet sweet desert science
<soundnfury>
what kind of asshat image hosting site requires Javascript
<Bornholio>
lately the Mk 1.3 spreadsheet is averaging about 30 people in it at any time
<soundnfury>
oh that's right ALL OF THEM BECAUSE THE WEB IS A CESSPIT
<schnobs>
Airplane plus has similar-looking cockpits that work. If it wasn't for a bazillion of other parts into the bargain, I'd suggest to use these instead.
<soundnfury>
Rokker: umm, are those wings about three feet thick?
<soundnfury>
(also ewwww tricycle undercarriage)
<Bornholio>
snoobs just hand pick some
<Bornholio>
schnobs
<Bornholio>
oh and the engine things looks kool
stupid_chris has joined #RO
<Bornholio>
very useful
<schnobs>
Bornholio: Is that a viable solution? Add 150+ parts and use perhaps a dozen?
stupid_chris has quit [Read error: -0x7880: SSL - The peer notified us that the connection is going to be closed]
<Bornholio>
so delete the others
<Bornholio>
some people delete whole squad folder
stupid_chris has joined #RO
<schnobs>
Bornholio: don't expect quick results, but I'm likely to look into it.
<Bornholio>
I might steal your config and put it in my Boxy (the MJ part for model)
<Rokker>
soundnfury: eh, a little thick, but meh, gotta get that fuel in there somehow
<soundnfury>
so increase span and chord.
<schnobs>
It even comes with a prefab craft file for B-29 + X-1...
<soundnfury>
thick wings are why all Sydney Camm's planes were slow ;)
<Rokker>
never
<Rokker>
soundnfury: the B-29 has thicc wings
<Bornholio>
MK1.4 two new additions, CC and Stage Recovery
<soundnfury>
Rokker: you do realise that when I compare any of these planes to (say) the Vulcan I lose all respect for you, right?
<Bornholio>
look its the concrete crusher
<Rokker>
the vulcan sucked tho
<Rokker>
so
<schnobs>
Bornholio: I meant more in the sense that it's one of the items one should try in a dev build.
<Bornholio>
sure, test!
<soundnfury>
Rokker: Operation Skyshield II says otherwise :P
<soundnfury>
*I and II
<ProjectThoth>
Did we ever recover a V-2 back in the White Sands days?
<Bornholio>
they added dynamite to make sure they didn't do too much damage
<schnobs>
As in whole and unharmed? no.
<Bornholio>
plew up on descent'
<Rokker>
soundnfury: operation kiss my ass would say otherwise to your otherwise
<Rokker>
soundnfury: if its so great then there would be one at my museum
<Rokker>
and yet there isnt
<soundnfury>
Rokker: now you're not even trying.
<Bornholio>
I have one
<Rokker>
can you tell me why there isnt a Vulcan in the largest military aerospace museum in the world?
<Rokker>
because its not notable enough
<soundnfury>
Rokker: s/notable/damnyankee
<Qboid>
soundnfury thinks Rokker meant to say: because its not damnyankee enough
<Rokker>
soundnfury: we have plenty of british planes
<Rokker>
like at least... 7
<soundnfury>
if Newark Air Museum can have one...
<schnobs>
ProjectThoth: why were you asking?
<ProjectThoth>
schnobs: Just curious about it.
<Rokker>
soundnfury: i will admit, i wish the NMUSAF had a few more british planes but as we have never fought an air war against eachother and never flown some of these britplanes, they wont show up here soon
<ProjectThoth>
Imagining an alternate universe where the rocket isn't militarized, and space exploration remains the domain of civilians and scientists.
<Rokker>
schnobs: i didnt hadnt een seen a lightning until a week and ahalf ago
<Bornholio>
Limited success was achieved with parachute recovery of instrumentation, but some of the more durable instruments or recordings within the rocket airframe could withstand impact with the earth at subsonic velocities.
<schnobs>
I've seen people on the web proudly displaying bent A-4 engines recovered after impact.
<ProjectThoth>
I'd imagine that it might have begun with attempts to recover a V-2 type vehicle plus a passenger cabin in the nose.
<schnobs>
ProjectThoth: Ever been near a A-4?
<ProjectThoth>
Don't think we would have gotten von Braun's ferry rocket out of the deal. Maybe lots of solid upper stages before, eventually, switching to liquid.
<ProjectThoth>
schnobs: I have.
<schnobs>
It makes sense to discard the rocket and recover only the pilot, becaue that thing is just so heavy.
<Rokker>
soundnfury: Pima was cool, they had a decent number of british planes
<ProjectThoth>
I suppose, but if you're a cash-strapped organization in, say, the 1950s, it'd be worth it to at least attempt bringing the engines back.
<schnobs>
It even looks as if made from cast iron...
<soundnfury>
Rokker: you ever been to Ducksford? We even have some yankee planes...
<Rokker>
soundnfury: i also saw a Vickers Viscount and a Hawker Hunter at Pima
<Rokker>
so, the only good plane hawker ever made
<schnobs>
ProjectThoth: not at all, if you ask me. Too much obvious room for improvement (though it might be obvious only in hindsight)
<Starman4308>
ProjectThoth I'm honestly unsure. The civilian applications of rocketry largely depend on pretty much already being there at orbital rocketry.
<Starman4308>
(assuming you meant "how might it come about int he first place").
<ProjectThoth>
I mean, von Braun's team grew out of passionate civilian engineers. This is just extrapolating that over the span of decades.
<Starman4308>
Didn't they need tons of military funding to do more than dream, though?
<Rokker>
ProjectThoth: the V-2 engine absolutely would not have been worth bringing back
<Rokker>
it wouldnt be reusable because it wasnt designed to be at all, it would have been pretty hard and expensive to do, and it was a shit engine
<soundnfury>
Rokker: ummm, are you claiming that the Harrier wasn't good? I think we're done here.
<schnobs>
ProjectThoth: what the Verein für Raumschiffahrt did was on the same scale as Goddard.
<Rokker>
soundnfury: first off, calling the hawker siddeley the same thing as hawker would be like calling the DC-3 a boeing plane
<Rokker>
secondly, im calling the hurricane and sea fury crap
<Rokker>
not the harrier
<schnobs>
Frankly, I don't know how they got from there to the A-4.
<Rokker>
altho the harrier was certainly pretty awful
<Rokker>
and crash prone
<soundnfury>
Rokker: no, calling the Vulcan Hawker would be like calling the DC-3 a Boeing.
<soundnfury>
The Harrier definitely came out of the Hawkers design team, regardless of corporate changes.
<schnobs>
Some took up the offer from the military, vanished from the surface of the earth for all I know, and then in 1942 or something the A-4 was ready for flight tests.
<soundnfury>
and the hurricane was exactly the rugged machine that was needed in 1938.
<Bornholio>
having personally watch a harrier pilot ground his plane, i think its a tad bit
ProjectThoth_ has joined #RO
<soundnfury>
Imagine if ADGB had instead been ⅓ Spitfires and ⅔ Gladiators.
ProjectThoth has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
<Rokker>
soundnfury: ok then fine, i am calling the harrier bad
<Rokker>
also a Ruhrstahl X-4, but everyone has one of those
<Bornholio>
strangle me and my son are watching this before topic started
<Bornholio>
strange
<schnobs>
Nah, seriously: A "Meiler" is a pile / pyre / fireplace. "Meiller" is something a dipshit once heard or read and now enforces as the one true spelling.
ProjectThoth_ is now known as ProjectThoth
<Rokker>
schnobs: wrong
<Rokker>
schnobs: its called a Meillerwagen because the supplier was Meiller-Kipper GmbH
<awang>
Rokker: I'm planning on mine being derwents + XLR-11
<awang>
Spent all my research points on rocket stuff
<awang>
Either that or stuck the plane nodes at the bottom of KCT's research queue
<Rokker>
awang: uses an axial compressor instead of a centrifugal. lot more efficient, a lot more radially compact, but longer
<awang>
Rokker: Ah, cross-branch ribbing
<awang>
Always fun to read
<awang>
Rokker: Ah, I see. Is that the second turbojet that's unlocked?
<Rokker>
awang: I believe so
<Rokker>
awang: you can make a solid mach 1 aircraft using 2 Derwents you don't really need the XLR-11
<awang>
wat
<awang>
Really?
<awang>
Just go into a dive or something?
<Rokker>
awang: no
<Rokker>
awang: the craft I linked is 2 Derwents and it can hit mach 1 at like... a 5 degree climb
<awang>
.....what
<Rokker>
awang: it's a bit unstable at lower speeds if you don't increase the rear surface pitch controls
<awang>
I've always assumed that Mach 1 was more difficult to pass
<awang>
So you needed the extra push
<Rokker>
but it lands pretty well too, because it's all wing
<awang>
So much for needing a X-1 + B-52 recreation :(
<Rokker>
awang: my plane might be a bit of an exception since it's relatively small and light
<Rokker>
all wing no fuselage
<awang>
Hmmm
<awang>
I'll have to experiment with that whenever FAR + RO is ready for 1.4
<soundnfury>
awang: for the record, you _could_ probably take that design supersonic with Derwents... note the two AJ10-27 boosters on the sides of the fuselage
<soundnfury>
(which I _actually_ added so I could break 600m/s and 40km)
<awang>
Ah
<soundnfury>
also, yes those lumps work; they're fillets, surface-attached and then clipped in with offset tool. No discontinuities.
<awang>
Man I could have gone supersonic so much earlier if I knew I only needed Derwents
<awang>
By the time the X-1 + launcher was ready I had advanced far enough to break Mach 4 + 30km
<awang>
Hmmm... I experimented with clipping things, but they never seemed to yield good results
<awang>
Guess I have to try harder
<awang>
Is there a way to estimate the drag difference if you area-rule properly vs if you don't?
<soundnfury>
then if we assume Cd{wave} is a constant (probably not a valid assumption, but who cares)
<soundnfury>
yup
<awang>
ferram4: Is assuming Cd{save} a valid assumption?
<awang>
Hm
<awang>
Well now I know I'm going to be spending even more time on my next X-1 recreation
<awang>
Also, B9 proc wings don't get thin enough
<soundnfury>
and I never worry too much about Critical Mach Number, because I'm not entirely sure it matters here
<X>
Recréât me.
<soundnfury>
awang: btw it should be possible to do the sound barrier with an X-1 taking off under its own power.
<awang>
Critical Mach number is the speed at which airflow over the plane starts to go supersonic?
<soundnfury>
The launcher isn't absolutely necessary.
<soundnfury>
yeah, fastest point of the airflow
<awang>
soundnfury: ....Man I'm doing a lot of unnecessary work apparently
<awang>
I thought the engine was too weak to get enough speed by the end of the runway
<awang>
That and the runway is not nice
<soundnfury>
awang: that's why you give your X-1 some totally unhistorical flaps ;)
<awang>
lol
<soundnfury>
(you can't do it in an accurate replica, sure. But why would you?)
<awang>
I got flaps, but never actually tried to use them on the X-1 by itself
<awang>
I was just aiming for accuracy in the dimensional sense
<awang>
Used fancy features whenever I could
<soundnfury>
you definitely want to put flaps on every plane you build
<soundnfury>
if only to increase the glide slope when you're trying to get the bugger down ;)
<awang>
Yeah, I've been doing that
<awang>
That and spoilers
<awang>
Started doing it because landing in KSP is bleh
<soundnfury>
yeah, I've given up on expecting it to work, I always have a 'chute on just in case and I always F5 before trying to land
<soundnfury>
if it doesn't work after about three tries, fuckit, just pop the 'chute over the runway.
<soundnfury>
the only thing I could reliably land every time in KSP was that time I built a biplane
<awang>
brb, sorry
<soundnfury>
ttyl
<taniwha>
soundnfury: awang: no joystick?
<soundnfury>
taniwha: I have a joystick
<taniwha>
I've gotten moderatly good at landing slower planes
<soundnfury>
doesn't help when the runway's made of trololol.
<taniwha>
oh, right, you're still on 1.2
<soundnfury>
*1.3.1
<taniwha>
runway in 1.3 is usable
<soundnfury>
oh yes, it's the wheels that are made of wtf now
ferram4 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
ferram4 has joined #RO
<taniwha>
so configure the wheels correctly
<soundnfury>
If only it were that simple.
<taniwha>
getting the friction right helps a lot
<taniwha>
(had to double the adhesion to get legs to stay put on Mun)
<soundnfury>
Hmmm.
<awang>
Back
<awang>
Yeah, I've tried chutes, but I've found getting them balanced right is tricky
<awang>
Usually end up breaking something when landing
<awang>
taniwha: No joystick, but I do use atmosphere autopilot
<awang>
I move around a bit too much for a joystick to really be feasible
<awang>
taniwha: The runway in 1.3 are usable? TIL
<awang>
There's always that one V-shaped seam that ruins things
<awang>
And sometimes the second seam
<taniwha>
yeah, they finilly fixed the first runway
<awang>
Oh, wheel configuration?
<taniwha>
and wheel configs are just nuts
<awang>
taniwha: RO/RP-0 uses the tier 2/3 runways for everything though, right?
<taniwha>
I don't know
<awang>
What tweaks to the wheel should I be making by default?
<taniwha>
only experimentation I've done so far is adhesion on stock landing legs
<taniwha>
(the big ones)
<taniwha>
(it should take more than a 20 degree slope to make landing legs slide)
<awang>
Agreed on the slope
<awang>
Haven't gotten far enough in the tech tree to try out landing legs though
<Pap>
awang: There is a wheel mod from the maker of SSTU, changes how they work fundamentally, I have heard good things
<taniwha>
I suspect HarvesteR (and arsonide?) was more concerned about preventing vehicles from flipping than making sure the friction was reasonable
<taniwha>
there are a LOT of knobs in the wheel modules
<taniwha>
poor arsonide was pulling his hair out trying to just get the wheels to not bounce insanely
<awang>
Pap: Didn't ShadowMage say he was quitting?
<awang>
Or does he do that every time?
<taniwha>
awang: while I suspect there were other factors, I think me pointing out my blender addon gave him some hope
<taniwha>
(he now knows he's not beholden to PartTool)
<awang>
Too many knobs, not enough documentation :(
<taniwha>
still gotta get skins/bones working, though
<awang>
Where was the bouncing coming from, anyways?
<awang>
Unity quirk?
<awang>
taniwha: You're the savior we all need :P
<taniwha>
that scares me
<awang>
Why?
BadRocketsCo has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
<taniwha>
means everyone's relying on /me/
<taniwha>
on a separate note, I'm currently trying to decide whether it's worth continuing to use stock converters for EL or whether I should roll my own
<taniwha>
(too many annoying compiler enforced restrictions)
<taniwha>
things like the inability to update a single field in a resource ratio
<taniwha>
(can't do that because the ratio data is a struct and so ratiolist[i].ratio can't be written)
BadRocketsCo has joined #RO
<Pap>
awang: he says that every new version. At some point he won't be lying, but we'll see
BadRocketsCo has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
<awang>
taniwha: True, unless you get a group of hardcore supporters to help out
<awang>
Just like RO-- wait a second...
<awang>
:P
<awang>
Wait, you can't write to C# structs?
<awang>
...What?
<awang>
Or am I misunderstanding something
<awang>
Pap: Ah, I see. There seem to have been quite a few of those people over the years
<taniwha>
awang: you can't when they're accessed via a this[index] property
<taniwha>
(or maybe via any property)
<taniwha>
you have to read to a temp var, modify, then write(?)
<awang>
taniwha: That's weird...
<awang>
Sounds more like a tuple than a struct
<awang>
Then again, I'm thinking in C++ terms, so it's likely my intuition is off
<taniwha>
it would be fine if it was a class rather than a struct
<taniwha>
it's because classes are passed by reference but structs are copied
<taniwha>
whereas in C++, you'd just return a reference
<awang>
Oh
<awang>
That'd certainly explain it
<awang>
No way to "box" a struct?
<taniwha>
oh, there might be, but pointless when you have no control over the code
<awang>
Was just about to say that
TM1978m has joined #RO
BadRocketsCo has joined #RO
BadRocketsCo has quit [Ping timeout: 198 seconds]
BadRocketsCo has joined #RO
Senshi has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
qwertyy_ has joined #RO
qwertyy has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
<awang>
Isn't the 1.4.1 release supposed to drop sometime today?
<taniwha>
yeah
<taniwha>
likely 10CST (mexico)
<awang>
!wa 10CST to EST
<Qboid>
awang: convert 10:00 am CST | 13. March 2018 to Eastern Time (United States) (standard): 10:00:00 pm EDT | Monday, March 12, 2018
<awang>
Um
<awang>
I don't think Mexico is 12 hours off from the US...
<awang>
!wa 10 mexico time zone to EST
<Qboid>
awang: Seems that Wolfram is unable to understand that.
<awang>
:(
<awang>
taniwha: Also, why 10CST?
<awang>
Just been the pattern for previous releases?
<taniwha>
yeah
<awang>
I see
BadRocketsCo has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
TM1978m has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
BadRocketsCo has joined #RO
BadRocketsCo has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
Hypergolic_Skunk has joined #RO
Luciano has joined #RO
stupid_chris has joined #RO
Senshi has joined #RO
Luciano has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
Luciano has joined #RO
Hypergolic_Skunk has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
schnobs has joined #RO
<schnobs>
o/
ProjectThoth has joined #RO
saabstory88 has joined #RO
Bornholio has joined #RO
<Probus>
Well, downloaded 1.4.1 and the new expansion. Lets see...
<Bornholio>
Hey
leudaimon has joined #RO
<schnobs>
Deep into RP-1 right now. Depending on how fast they roll out the hotfixes, it might be 1.4.3 by the time I have my first look...
<leudaimon>
Just had the first sat contract not completing... any idea why?
<leudaimon>
I don't remember it being bugged in other playthroughs
<soundnfury>
leudaimon: pe > 150km? waited two minutes (it has a hidden timer :( )
<soundnfury>
?
<schnobs>
leudaimon: was no problem for me. What do the checkboxes say?
<leudaimon>
oh, it has a hidden timer?!
<leudaimon>
all other contracts with a timer show it
<schnobs>
Well, there is a checkbox saying "stability two minutes" or somesuch. Timer doesn't click down, though, it just checks when the time has passed.
<schnobs>
hmmm. might have been capcom where I've seen the box.
<leudaimon>
oh well, I completed the contract through debug menu, can't check if it was going to complete after 2min
<soundnfury>
schnobs: yeah, I think it appears there
<leudaimon>
I think I waited some time though
<leudaimon>
I don't see much of a reason for the 2 minute timer for this contract... if you manage 150km Perigee, you have a sat... there isn't much of a way to have it as a transition and then lose the orbit, is there?
ferram4 has quit [Ping timeout: 190 seconds]
<schnobs>
maybe with a long-burning tumbling thing... would be really bad luck though.
<leudaimon>
hehe, yeah...
<schnobs>
now, what would be a better way of doing vehicle assembly? Better than KCT I mean.
<schnobs>
The only thing I can think of would be full-on BARIS, with pre-ordering parts for assembly. Don't see that going over well, though.
leudaimon has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<schnobs>
Current part list with (un)researched parts is bad enough (yay for Janitor), somehow adding a list of parts in stock can't possibly make it better.
ferram4 has joined #RO
awang has quit [Ping timeout: 190 seconds]
<Pap>
schnobs: BARIS would be great, but that means RP-0 is rewritten from the ground up
<schnobs>
Not merely RP-0, but KSP itself.
<schnobs>
in the editor we pick parts from a list -- unless there's a convenient way of toggling between lists, the pre-order thing will be pretty hard to implement.
<schnobs>
Also, Baris gives you only a few complex prefab items to chose from, while KSP is a little more atomic. Keeping track of your stocks and what you need might become a rather unenjoyable mini-game of itself.
* soundnfury
is not quite sure what he did
<Bornholio>
fury?
<Bornholio>
ooh pap ^^^ linky picture
<soundnfury>
Bornholio: I appear to have incurred ovoid wrath
awang has joined #RO
<Pap>
Nice Bornholio! If it isn't a Tesla self driving semi then it would be a shame.