|
Platonicsolid posted:Pretty sure biomes for additional planets are on the list! Something that would make rovers actually useful might be nice.
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 18:37 |
|
|
Crusader posted:Wow, Kerbin's orbit has become a shooting gallery:
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 22:48
|
|
|
The Green Calx posted:Interesting idea. You could choose to carry out your missions yourself, or send some Kerbals to do it for you with a percent chance (say 20% or so) to crash and you having to go fix their ship/rescue them. A possible use for the "stupidity" stat, haha. Acquire Currency! posted:Actually Maxmaps said that was exactly the plan in the last thread I hope they also "build" a randomly generated rocket, "launch" it, and actually carry out the mission, visible on the tracking station, rather than just saying "Yay, it was successful!" Because it would be interesting to be able to take-over the mission if necessary to either save the crew or finish the mission even with a failure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 22:57
|
|
|
This will justify all my reusable spacecraft schemes! You're my new best friend.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
So I was testing a new rocket design and for some reason jettisoning my SRBs blew up...the central stack... ...but not the rest of the rocket.  I successfully made it to orbit, albeit without a nice full tank of fuel. Glad to see physics can still be pretty wonky. e: What it's supposed to look like. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 23:26
|
|
|
If I were to guess, the decouplers aren't giving the SRBs enough of a push to get them clear of the wider engine cluster, so it gets destroyed
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Steelion posted:If I were to guess, the decouplers aren't giving the SRBs enough of a push to get them clear of the wider engine cluster, so it gets destroyed Yeah, it hosed things up, so I added some separatrons to move the boosters away. That caused the issue; now the SRBs blow up the central stack on separation instead of occasionally destroying a liquid booster. It's the weirdest thing, maybe I'm using separatrons wrong.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
PerrineClostermann posted:Yeah, it hosed things up, so I added some separatrons to move the boosters away. That caused the issue; now the SRBs blow up the central stack on separation instead of occasionally destroying a liquid booster. It's the weirdest thing, maybe I'm using separatrons wrong. Are you mounting them at the top and bottom or just one or the other? If you don't position them right they tumble instead of blowing clear and can whip around and break something.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
PerrineClostermann posted:Yeah, it hosed things up, so I added some separatrons to move the boosters away. That caused the issue; now the SRBs blow up the central stack on separation instead of occasionally destroying a liquid booster. It's the weirdest thing, maybe I'm using separatrons wrong. With this version I've taken to sticking modular girders to the central stack and sticking the radial separators on to them. I've been having waaay too many problems with mysterious invisible lipping in the VAB, and radial stages eating the central ones alive when they are jettisoned even though there was no sign of physical contact. My suspicion is the new ...uh double engine thingy has a slight problem with the collision mesh.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 23:39
|
|
|
If the sepratrons are pointed right at the center stack they can damage it
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
LunarShadow posted:Are you mounting them at the top and bottom or just one or the other? If you don't position them right they tumble instead of blowing clear and can whip around and break something. I have them at both, pointed away from the stack. General_Failure posted:With this version I've taken to sticking modular girders to the central stack and sticking the radial separators on to them. I've been having waaay too many problems with mysterious invisible lipping in the VAB, and radial stages eating the central ones alive when they are jettisoned even though there was no sign of physical contact. My suspicion is the new ...uh double engine thingy has a slight problem with the collision mesh. I'll have to keep that in mind. MattD1zzl3 posted:If the sepratrons are pointed right at the center stack they can damage it That might be it. I do have a pair pointed directly at the stack section that tends to die. I did a redesign removing the SRBs and instead use 6 liquid boosters; it works beautifully. I would like to try that compact SRB design though, so I'll keep toying with it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 23:43
|
|
|
Use the flight log too (hit F3 during a mission). It may at least give you a clue as to what the first step of a (hopefully not) cascading failure chain is. "(Part) was damaged by exhaust from (engine)" is a good clue as to why something in particular is exploding.
Icon Of Sin fucked around with this message at 23:58 on Apr 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
PerrineClostermann posted:That might be it. I do have a pair pointed directly at the stack section that tends to die. I've also seen Overheating problems where the half second of extra heat from the sepratrons on the engine/tank puts it over the edge and causes it to blow.
|
|
#
?
Apr 3, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
First order of business in the new patch: Apollo(ish) mission. Here's the rocket just after ditching the SRBs, I'm using procedural fairings, but otherwise its all stock. Then the transfer stage, which got me all the way to the Mun: Super dark and lovely screen, but I  Here's a better picture of the two docked together: ....And I just realized I forgot to take any screens of the landing, the site, and the ascent back to the command module... Also, are there any parts packs that add 2.5m crew tanks, liquid fuel, or just plain old fuselage? I've been making Kerbal airliners with B9, and it seems like these are the only parts that pack doesn't have. I've made a few "737" style ones, a few Embraer jet types, and a MD-11 that all fly like dreams, I just don't have any 2.5M parts to make one more along the lines of a 777. Also, I am very excited that dihedral wing design actually does add positive stability to your aircraft! "MD-11" (totally going to slap FedEx decals on it when craft painting is a thing. Smaller, 737 and Embraer type planes and finally, the "Kairbus K340" Final thought: The B9 airbrakes will kiiiiinda function like flaps when you mount them on the underside of wings. I was able to maintain stable flight at 40m/s but only with my engines at full throttle, and the downward pitch caused by the drag was offset by my engines also being under the wings.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
Yeah there's definitely some wonkiness. I just had a 4m engine explode when the decoupler tried to go off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 01:23
|
|
|
HOTDOG posted:Final thought: The B9 airbrakes will kiiiiinda function like flaps when you mount them on the underside of wings. I was able to maintain stable flight at 40m/s but only with my engines at full throttle, and the downward pitch caused by the drag was offset by my engines also being under the wings. Did you try it without the airbrakes and trimming out the pitch? It should be able to maintain a bit higher speed that way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
I dont have the Claw yet but I still sent a satellite on a mission to explore our new neighbor Hes only a class A but I love him all the same.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
Just captured this: It's a class C, which I'm pretty happy with for a first attempt. I used the technique where you rendezvous with the asteroid in Kerbol SOI, as this one had a really high inclination and was going to impact. Holy balls some of the floating point errors are fixed in Kerbol SOI but not all of them. It's fine when you're really close now, but when you're encounter is between 20,000km and 5,000km the distance jumps very strangely. It's now sitting in a 300x300 orbit with 0.1 degrees inclination. Time to send up a crew to investigate! Also maxmaps, could we get some sort of indicator for which way along our trajectory we're going? It's alright when you're on an escape trajectory as one end will have the little escape symbol, but it can be tricky when you're in a stable orbit. I was paranoid I was burning all my fuel and changing inclination in the wrong direction the whole time. It wasn't really a problem before, but now asteroids often come in retrograde, it'd be a handy thing to have. Splode fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Apr 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:Did you try it without the airbrakes and trimming out the pitch? It should be able to maintain a bit higher speed that way. Well they are currently all trimmed for level flight without flaps, and the point of the flaps is to add drag and reduce speed (and increase lift, but its not really modeled that way unless the airbrakes are actually redirecting airflow?). Without the flaps they cruise around 190-250m/s (except for the md11 which cruises at around 120 cause its so drat heavy (speeds at ~5km altitude). If i had the knowhow/patience/software i'd make a video of it in action, its actually quite awesome to watch a big lumbering Kairplane gracefully touch down on the runway. I usually aim for an approach speed of 60-70m/s anyway, so 40 is right about where it should be. The pitch down comes from the airbrakes being mounted on the bottom of the wing, but since they are just barely behind the CoL it is not unmanageable at idle throttle. The downwards pitch is negated at full throttle due to the CoT being below the CoM which causes a pitch up force. I think i explained it poorly the first time, so hopefully this clarifies. e: run on sentence from hell fixed HOTDOG fucked around with this message at 02:58 on Apr 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
I just went to visit the asteroid I caught and painstakingly put in a nice parking orbit. It was the first asteroid my tracking station spotted and it is an E type that was planning to hit Kerbin dead-on. I've lovingly named it Big Bertha. Then I found out that I get High Kerbin science and my periapsis isn't low enough to get Near Kerbin.  On the subject of science, 60 really isn't very much for a sample you have to do this much work for. Especially if I can hop over to the Mun or Minmus and get 500+ in a single trip with minimum effort.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
Geemer posted:
60? Should be 600! Thanks for the heads up with the high orbit/low orbit science, I may need to burn some more of my fuel yet... Also congratulations on catching a class E!
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
EpicPhoton posted:I hope they also "build" a randomly generated rocket, "launch" it, and actually carry out the mission, visible on the tracking station, rather than just saying "Yay, it was successful!" Because it would be interesting to be able to take-over the mission if necessary to either save the crew or finish the mission even with a failure. IIRC, the plan was to have them handle maneuvers, not missions. You'd still build the rocket, but you could tell the crew to handle a maneuver much as you would MechJeb today. With increased experience (and decreased stupidity), you can tell them to attempt more complicated maneuvers, and the odds of them loving it up go down. Geemer posted:On the subject of science, 60 really isn't very much for a sample you have to do this much work for. Especially if I can hop over to the Mun or Minmus and get 500+ in a single trip with minimum effort. You only get 60 science for asteroid samples? Dafuq? I'm just gearing up for my first (attempted) asteroid intercept, not even a full capture, and I've already got an expedition on Minmus that has transmitted back three times that already and will be bringing back a few thousand when they return to Kerbin.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
The problem is that they get the same multipliers as any other science "experiment" so by bringing the asteroids into stable, near-Kerbin orbits, you're reducing the multiplier. That's my assumption at least.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
Splode posted:Also maxmaps, could we get some sort of indicator for which way along our trajectory we're going? It's alright when you're on an escape trajectory as one end will have the little escape symbol, but it can be tricky when you're in a stable orbit. I was paranoid I was burning all my fuel and changing inclination in the wrong direction the whole time. It wasn't really a problem before, but now asteroids often come in retrograde, it'd be a handy thing to have. The something like prograde marker on the navball perhaps?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
Steelion posted:The problem is that they get the same multipliers as any other science "experiment" so by bringing the asteroids into stable, near-Kerbin orbits, you're reducing the multiplier. That's my assumption at least. Well, that's annoying. I've missed out on a bunch of science by not sticking a pod on my asteroid-getter. This science system does not appear to make much sense for asteroids. Is it possible for them to disable the multiplier for asteroid sample missions and then give it a big value? Shanakin posted:The something like prograde marker on the navball perhaps? That works but it's not quite as clear as it could be. Sometimes you can't see the prograde marker on the navball, for example.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
Can you just keep getting asteroids and getting that science or once you collect 1 thats it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
Splode posted:That works but it's not quite as clear as it could be. Sometimes you can't see the prograde marker on the navball, for example. You should give this a shot: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/50524-Plugin-Enhanced-Navball-1-1
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
I seem to have lost the ability to plot maneuvers on my pre-encounter orbit. The selection dot only shows up on the later purple one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
haveblue posted:I seem to have lost the ability to plot maneuvers on my pre-encounter orbit. The selection dot only shows up on the later purple one. Yeah, I was running into that too. It's really annoying. I was at the point of using Mechjeb's maneuver planner just to put nodes where I want them.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
 The heavy lifter subassembly I built was a little more powerful than I actually needed. Makes a great lander though! Now that I delivered a rover and a smaller biome hopper there's several gigantic liquid boosters rocking slowly on the flats of Minmus.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
So because the claw means you and the asteroid/spacedebris/kerbal all become one ship, you can transfer fuel out of a tank you grab. This was a feature they advertised. It also means you can transfer fuel between two ships, via an asteroid. Weird, but handy! Headline news: NASA discovers asteroids full of intricate adaptable pipework! So asteroid samples "high over kerbin" and "near kerbin" are both 60 points. Are asteroids not affected by biome multipliers after all or is the multiplier for low and high kerbin orbit the same?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
A run-in with a strange bug:  The cockpit wasn't being effected by physics after time warping. It just floated there. Restarting the game fixed it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
Splode posted:So because the claw means you and the asteroid/spacedebris/kerbal all become one ship, you can transfer fuel out of a tank you grab. This was a feature they advertised. Clearly they're very porous.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
rhoga posted:A run-in with a strange bug: Thanks Obama  I've been noticing some really weird physics interactions too since the patch. Those new joints are haunted, I tell ya.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
This is the coolest loving gif.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 07:27
|
|
|
PerrineClostermann posted:Thanks Obama I have a problem with kerbals sliding down ladders. It's a pain when you're trying to pull data out of 5 different experiments and Jeb has decided to slowly slide off. It happens consistently for me, anyone else noticed this since the patch?
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 07:34
|
|
|
I just wanted to say I enjoyed the chat about female kerbals and am thrilled that Squad is taking a chance on sensible design even if it may mean disappointing some sexist manbabies on the internet. Katherine Kerman's tutorial on maneuver nodes would be an amazing tribute to an amazing person. Working the phrase in "I'll have to check with Katherine" would be neat too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
rhoga posted:The cockpit wasn't being effected by physics after time warping. It just floated there. Restarting the game fixed it. There used to be (still is? Is again?) a bug where if a cubic octagonal strut is the target of a quantum strut, the craft would be immovable. This could be a symptom of the same underlying issue. Is the bug repeatable if you launch the same ship again? If so you should send the .craft file to squad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 07:38
|
|
|
rhoga posted:A run-in with a strange bug: Do you have Kerbal Joint Reinforcement installed? There is a bug currently where exiting time warp will leave a vessel unable to be affected by physics at all. I've hit that bug myself, and removing KJR resolved the problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 07:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 18:37 |
|
|
Just carried out my first planetary body landing and Kerbin return. In this monstrosity Not only did it get into Orbit, I made it to Minmus (originally was going to Mun but I mistimed the launch window)  And made it back  Jesus is Minmus so much easier to land on, dropped my massive transit stage from 3-4km and it bounced. Edit: Un hosed the pictures. LunarShadow fucked around with this message at 08:09 on Apr 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 08:03
|
|