Aerodynamics (10.6)

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Coreador, Nov 10, 2019.

  1. Coreador

    Coreador Lieutenant

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    94
    I've read through the info on Aerodynamics in the experimental thread, and it all makes a decent amount of sense. But I still have a few question; does anyone know the answers?

    1. Is aerodynamics (drag/lift) affected by block shape, or just by the location of blocks?
    2. Is lift/drag based only on the visual cross section from a specific direction? In other words, if I look dead-on from the front, is the drag for going forward linearly proportional (basically) to the number of blocks I can see? Do the blocks behind the blocks I can see matter at all? (other than mass)
    3. Does raising/lowering things like turrets and landing gears affect drag?

    Thanks!
     
    #1
    daddychillin likes this.
  2. Vermillion

    Vermillion Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2018
    Messages:
    2,189
    Likes Received:
    6,001
    From my tests... I have no idea how drag works or whether it's being changed or not with such vague information on it. Seemingly low-drag designs vary in drag by massive amounts; but apparently certain block shapes affect drag. Pyramid shapes slapped on the front supposedly reduce drag, but there's no way in hell i'd use a pyramid shape. Anything you put a pyramid on is gonna be square, blocky and ugly.
    Just from my latest glider SVs, i'd say that flat/square blocks on the front are the opposite with heavy drag.

    As for lift, it's dependant on atmospheric density, the total mass of the ship and the size of the ship's cross-section as viewed from above/below. The wider and flatter your ship, the better; but the heavier and taller it is, the worse.
    I don't think the blocks behind the ones at the front of the direction of movement affect drag/lift, otherwise the drag would greatly overpower the lift as every block would be subjected to drag, but only downward facing blocks on the bottom would be affected by lift.

    Retractable Turrets and Landing Gears don't seem to affect drag/lift. Their block hitbox/bounding box is what's being measured, so whether they're open or not doesn't seem to matter.

    Also, the same lift/drag mechanics apply to CVs as they do to SVs, so you can make an aerial CV provided it has big enough wings. The advantage of high lift ships is that they don't need to VTOL off heavy loads. With just the rear drive thrusters, atmosphere and a big enough wingspan you can have an extremely lightweight ship move impossibly heavy loads.
    A ship with no vertical thrusters and high lift will descend at between 1.2 and 2.5m/s while stationary, from the orbital transition that takes it about 4 minutes to gently land on the ground. Any forward movement, no matter how small will keep it airborne until it runs out of fuel, which without constant VTOL use and a single S-Thruster on a full fuel tank is about 5 hours of flight time. Very fuel efficient.
    They do have a problem with rolling though. Big wingspan makes a ship hard to roll.
    16 Desertdawn_2019-11-09_15-17-23.png 16 Desertdawn_2019-11-11_01-20-19.png
    High-lift Aerial CV (left) and Aerial SV (right)
     
    #2
  3. Coreador

    Coreador Lieutenant

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    94
    Is lift applied up relative to the planet or up relative to the ship orientation?
     
    #3
  4. Vermillion

    Vermillion Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2018
    Messages:
    2,189
    Likes Received:
    6,001
    Relative to the planet i'd guess.
    If you roll a high-lift SV, it'll start to drop when it tilts too far onto it's edge. But once it's upside-down, it will lift like normal.
     
    #4
    ravien_ff likes this.
  5. ravien_ff

    ravien_ff Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,203
    Likes Received:
    8,743
    You can make a flyable CV with just 1 small thruster, 1 rcs, and of course a core, fuel tank, and generator. As long as your planet has a decently thick atmosphere (default temperate or arid starting planets work fine), it'll fly very easily. You can even add on extras like cargo boxes, a large constructor, medical bay, etc. I did not test it with mass and volume enabled though but it can probably lift quite a bit of cargo.

    It should be possible to design a CV like this, with spots to add extra thrusters and other equipment to make it space worthy once you obtain the resources needed. Would make a great starting CV. Would just need to keep it off airless moons until you can add enough down thrusters to it.
     
    #5
    Vermillion likes this.
  6. Vermillion

    Vermillion Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2018
    Messages:
    2,189
    Likes Received:
    6,001
    CV torque is so overpowered (buggy?) that you don't even need an expensive RCS. Just a single thruster in each direction is enough to give you better rotation than an RCS. Even just thrusters in 2 directions is enough.
     
    #6
    ravien_ff likes this.
  7. krazzykid2006

    krazzykid2006 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    1,420
    Yes, but it's cheaper on materials to use only a single thruster and one RCS.
    The issue is that then it's extremely uncontrollable due to insanely high torque values.

    Which is kind of strange since the devs are the ones that pointed out we can make flyable craft now with only thrust in one direction.
    They definitely didn't spend much time testing this.
    This is with both CV's and SV's.
     
    #7
  8. Hummel-o-War

    Hummel-o-War Administrator
    Staff Member Community Manager

    • Developer
    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2015
    Messages:
    9,994
    Likes Received:
    14,836
    Torque-gain by thrusters on CV might change/be decreased.
     
    #8
    Vermillion likes this.
  9. Vermillion

    Vermillion Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2018
    Messages:
    2,189
    Likes Received:
    6,001
    I hope RCS is made cheaper too. Because 75k is almost half Tier 1's limit for the equivalent of 6 thrusters' worth of torque worth 30k. Only you don't gain any directional mobility with it.
     
    #9
  10. geostar1024

    geostar1024 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2016
    Messages:
    6,222
    Likes Received:
    8,866
    The underlying physics of the system needs to be looked at, particularly in the cases where thrusters are close to a rotation axis. Based on my testing, I'm not at all convinced that thrusters are doing what they're supposed to be doing (sometimes it seems like a thruster simply won't cause rotation in a direction it should about one axis, but it will about the other axis, for example).
     
    #10
    Raswayare and krazzykid2006 like this.
  11. krazzykid2006

    krazzykid2006 Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,282
    Likes Received:
    1,420
    And how about with SV's?
    CV's aren't the only one with issues here.

    As @geostar1024 just pointed out there are issues with the entire system as a whole, not just one vessel type.
     
    #11
    Arrclyde and geostar1024 like this.
  12. Coreador

    Coreador Lieutenant

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    98
    Likes Received:
    94
    Well, for SVs please don't nerf rotational torque unless RCS CPU is adjusted down a bit as well. I don't want to go back to the days of 10-20 RCS on an SV, but needing 1 for reasonable performance on a small SV and 2-3 for reasonable performance on a mid-size SV wouldn't be horrible.

    I do like the fact that torque introduces design challenges (make your engines off center for better performance). If it is nerfed too much, people will not even bother anymore and just go back to depending solely on RCS.

    I don't mind CVs being a bit sluggish but if SVs get too sluggish it's going to be a headache... You do so much flying, exploring, landing, docking, and other activities in SVs that if they need to be T4 to be comfortable it won't be good for gameplay.
     
    #12
    xelthor likes this.

Share This Page