|
Haha jesus did I just get offered a ridiculously brutal mission. Solar orbit of 60' inclination, 3 billion mile apoapsis, 3 million mile periapsis. And on top of that it wants it the pe/ap in certain locations. Bring out the NASA mission planners for that one. Worth half a million!
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
Alaan posted:Haha jesus did I just get offered a ridiculously brutal mission. Solar orbit of 60' inclination, 3 billion mile apoapsis, 3 million mile periapsis. And on top of that it wants it the pe/ap in certain locations. Bring out the NASA mission planners for that one. Worth half a million! Unless I'm reading you wrong (is that meters or km), that's within the orbit of Eeloo. 6-7000 m/s dV once in LKO might do it (wild rear end guess based on estimated round-trip to Eeloo). The time to do it would suck though. Get the apo/peri close first, the other adjustments are easy once you get way out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 07:48
|
|
|
Splode posted:Yeah agreed, though I don't even use the graphs: I just press "test", make sure the numbers are green, set it to a higher speed, press "test" again, and make sure only one or two numbers are red. If it fails this test, I make it look more like a plane. That's about all I do with the stability derivatives too. Sometimes I try to puzzle out what specific characteristic of my plane the red ones are measuring (angular y acceleration with respect to sideslip angle probably means yawing my nose out of prograde makes my plane pitch up?), but 99% of the time it does indeed boil down to "make it look more like a plane," which is something most people can handle. I don't know that FAR rocket launches are much harder once you understand the basics, mainly it's just different. There can be a learning curve coming over from stock though, it's true. (The lower fuel requirements don't really bother me; just means more of my time is spent making cool payloads instead of giant launch vehicles.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 07:54
|
|
|
EightBit posted:Level 5 engineers ought to be able to wizard up some extra resources like RCS or electric charge, a limited amount of times per flight. Engineers should at higher levels be able to compensate for your lovely design, especially while docking (i.e. RCS not aligned with center of mass). Push X key to enter "calibration mode," virtual-COM icon pops up and you pull arrows to align where you'd like center mass to be, then each RCS's thrust is increased or mitigated to allow for easier translation maneuvers. That explanation is kinda lovely but what I want is to be able to use RCS without inducing a rotation ('cause I either decoupled a thing or did a poor job in general).
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 09:01
|
|
Uh, Bob, we're out of maneuvering power and about to re-enter sideways 
No problem man, I'll just wire my headlamp into the control board and tape my eva pack to the door
|
Is the money to science perk broken? I set it at 20% for one mission (testing the S3 KS-25x4 Engine Cluster on a suborbital flight) and i got 4500 science from it? Is this normal?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 09:19
|
|
|
mustard_tiger posted:Is the money to science perk broken? I set it at 20% for one mission (testing the S3 KS-25x4 Engine Cluster on a suborbital flight) and i got 4500 science from it? Is this normal? The strategy system significantly over-values funds. Take the rep->funds or science->funds and you'll get pocket change. Honestly they could probably multiply the relative value of funds by 10 and it'd be better balanced.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 09:27
|
|
|
Yeah, rep->funds and science->funds are pointless. I mean rep is pretty much pointless already, but the conversion rate is so bad that it feels like a ripoff anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 09:34
|
|
|
Hmm, did the "disable surface attachment" thingy from the editor in 0.25 go away? I didn't play much of 0.25, but I remember finding that pretty useful for working with cargo bays. Is there an alternative, or am I just stupid or something? EDIT: Maybe it's because I'm trying to do this with the 6S parts and not something in stock... (yeah it is, I just had to hack in some extra nodes to match how the cargo bays are implemented). Avenging Dentist fucked around with this message at 10:14 on Dec 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 09:59
|
|
|
mustard_tiger posted:Is the money to science perk broken? I set it at 20% for one mission (testing the S3 KS-25x4 Engine Cluster on a suborbital flight) and i got 4500 science from it? Is this normal? I’d been ignoring the administration building. Now I’m set for life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 12:49
|
|
|
Supraluminal posted:To the point, I'd suggest that people not be too intimidated by FAR. I think it gets over-hyped as a super-difficult mode full of impenetrable numbers. In my experience it doesn't really make things much harder - some things are actually easier - and while there are impenetrable numbers available if you're interested in trying to, uh, penetrate them, you can actually get by while almost completely ignoring them. There are two graphs (which are really the same graph) that it's handy to be able to use, and that's usually enough. Oh, and put your CoL behind and above your CoM. Yeah. I used to use NEAR, was terrified of FAR. Turns out it's pretty normal, stalls aside. e: Also, Max, what happened to having icons for the buildings on the KSC screen? e2: Also seriously, is noone else getting very low framerates on the VAB/SPH? This is seriously ruining the game for me marumaru fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Dec 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 14:14
|
|
|
I'm trying Karbonite mod for the first time. I have a satellite in orbit around Kerbin, with a Karbonite detector, at about 250km. It seems to be doing... nothing in particular?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 14:46
|
|
|
Supraluminal posted:Yeah, rep->funds and science->funds are pointless. I mean rep is pretty much pointless already, but the conversion rate is so bad that it feels like a ripoff anyway. I've been trying to save up for building upgrade with this method, and yeah its pretty crummy. The thing is I think science is pretty balanced; I'm getting enough close to home and progressing through the tech tree in a slow but rewarding way. They money though, bah. I might just cheat myself some cash once I get a Mun landing/return mission completed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:They money though, bah. I might just cheat myself some cash once I get a Mun landing/return mission completed. Money is really slow at the start, but starts flowing once you get satellite contracts + thermometer. That and "Explore Duna/Eve/Whatever" types of contracts is how you get 200k+ per mission. Visual Survey contracts are (sometimes) worth doing, though they generally take longer than a simple sat launch. Also, cancel the worthless contracts until you get something that pays well. How anyone could have though that a contract to test a part that rewards you way less than the part itself costs was a good idea is beyond me. A keyboard shortcut to cancel the selected contract and select the new one would be extremely handy, considering how many times you usually have to click to get a better one. mustard_tiger posted:Is the money to science perk broken? I set it at 20% for one mission (testing the S3 KS-25x4 Engine Cluster on a suborbital flight) and i got 4500 science from it? Is this normal? It's normal for whatever reason. It's weird how every other option in the administration building feels useless... and then there's this, which can unlock the tech tree in a launch or two.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
Unlocked the basic plane parts. Took a survey contract that looked simple at first glance. Fly below 16KM just to the south of the spaceport, done. Fly below 14KM just to the west of the spaceport, done. Fly over 19KM to the north  Guess we find out if JATO works at altitude now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
Is it just me, or have we returned to the bad old days of rockets sticking to the launchpad unless you put a decoupler on the bottom?Inacio posted:e2: Also seriously, is noone else getting very low framerates on the VAB/SPH? This is seriously ruining the game for me It gets super stuttery when I'm moving the camera around in the VAB, which is new, but when I'm not moving the camera it's fine so I just put up with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
 Public Service AnnouncementThe starting command pod with the first probe core and no pilot can send crew reports. I was testing a survey plane design and stumbled upon this. sckye posted:How anyone could have though that a contract to test a part that rewards you way less than the part itself costs was a good idea is beyond me. Sometimes the part is something you haven't unlocked yet, so you have access to that part for the duration of the contract.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
Holy poo poo, I hadn't realized how dependent I am on SAS these days and how hard getting into orbit with FAR and without SAS is. I've disintegrated two lunar probes below 10km. I was planning to make my first flyby of the Mun an unmanned one, but I may have to scrap that plan just so that I can send Jeb up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
ToxicFrog posted:Holy poo poo, I hadn't realized how dependent I am on SAS these days and how hard getting into orbit with FAR and without SAS is. I've disintegrated two lunar probes below 10km. Just put some fins on the bottom and start turning slightly. As long as you time it right, it should be able to do the gravity turn without any control inputs. I've also found spin-stabilization to be pretty useful. Also, started getting a crash after clicking the button to exit the Mission Control building. code:
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Unlocked the basic plane parts. Took a survey contract that looked simple at first glance. Fly below 16KM just to the south of the spaceport, done. Fly below 14KM just to the west of the spaceport, done. Fly over 19KM to the north With stock aero: I screwed up and brought a plane that only had two intakes and one standard engine on one of these. If you just make a practice run estimating distance to target and throw your plane upwards at the right time it's pretty easy to do, even if you didn't plan for it. And with stock aero, you can be incredibly lazy about recovery (or use parachutes). I also found out my plane had too little wing and was basically incapable of gliding so I had to do a powered landing. Thank goodness for quicksaves. Also, only Engineers can repack parachutes. Damnit. Points: -The launch pad part/weight limits give an incentive for unmanned missions. My first Mun science mission *had* to be unmanned, whereas I could just fit a Kerbal for planting a flag if I -The survey missions are a good excuse to build planes or hoppers. It feels like every aspect of the game has its place now. -Building upgrades are pretty freaking cool. Having to get to Mun/Minmus without maneuver nodes and with part limits is both challenging and incredibly rewarding. Or, I could grind out part contracts if I wanted to, I get to choose when to take these risks and that's cool. IMHO: The first R&D hurdle seems high, I've gone to Mun twice and I haven't broken through? Although it may just be super rewarding once I get there, with a bunch of science built up to spend. And Kerbals not being able to do soil samples until you do a bunch of upgrades is a little odd, although I'm guessing that's to protect against some form of science spamming, so it's not a problem it just seems odd they can't scoop up some soil and bring it home. And the science lab unlocks really early, before any docking ports and while you're still way down on part/weight limit? I don't know if I can possibly make use of the lab right now. PUT SOME ROVER PARTS IN THE FIRST TIER. *ahem* ToxicFrog posted:Is it just me, or have we returned to the bad old days of rockets sticking to the launchpad unless you put a decoupler on the bottom? Zero issues for me. ToxicFrog posted:Holy poo poo, I hadn't realized how dependent I am on SAS these days and how hard getting into orbit with FAR and without SAS is. I've disintegrated two lunar probes below 10km. Are you going full-throttle past 200m/s or something? My only problem with FAR was when I'd forget about supersonic transitions and end up with a craft that liked to backflip at some point in the upper atmosphere. At one point I just build a ship that took this into account. Throttle off, backflip, continue on. All readings normal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 17:13
|
|
ME
|
Are any of the map mods working? Im having a blast in Career but I hate not having ScanSats maps and hi-def terrian to choose a landing site.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 17:19
|
|
|
Anyone else having a problem with the VAB save/load buttons not working properly? I've totally removed everything and reinstalled and "load" doesn't do anything at all while "Save" seems flaky.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
Bootcha posted:So, has anyone figured out how to do these experiments? (Kerbin Shores aside) A) Have your Kerbal jump while standing on the feature in question, and do a crew report mid-jump B) Land on top of the indicated feature, EVA your Kerbal, and do a crew report while still holding onto the ladder (probably a bug, but the game counts this as 'flying')
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:A) Have your Kerbal jump while standing on the feature in question, and do a crew report mid-jump Those would be EVA reports, not crew reports. The main problem is whenever you're in the air above KSC it counts as "flying over shores" and not the individual buildings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
Okay why are the tiny fuel tanks together with tiny engines so poo poo? Compared to RCS at the same scale. Satellite weighing 155 kg without propulsion added. Add an Oscar-B fuel tank and LV-1 engine, you get 787 m/s of dV and TWR of 1.55. Instead add an FL-R10 small inline RCS tank and two O-10 radially attached monoprop engines, and you get 2678 m/s of dV and TWR of 7.77. Those tiny fuel tanks SUCK. By the way, those O-10 engines have the same Isp as LV-1 but weigh 3 times as much. The only difference is that the small FL-R10 tank has much better fuel capacity. You would still get similar numbers (apart from TWR) if you used regular RCS engines rather than O-10's: 2398 m/s with two inline RCS ports with Isp of 260s.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Freudian posted:I'm trying Karbonite mod for the first time. I have a satellite in orbit around Kerbin, with a Karbonite detector, at about 250km. It seems to be doing... nothing in particular? Remembered to get the drat thing on a polar orbit, but even that seems to be doing squat. I feel like I'm missing something really obvious here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 18:05
|
|
|
Karbonite is everywhere, the detector just shows hotspots where there's more an abundance of it. It shows this on the celestial body itself, and not on any map or anything like that, and only while you're flying over the hotspots.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
Freudian posted:Remembered to get the drat thing on a polar orbit, but even that seems to be doing squat. I feel like I'm missing something really obvious here. Have you set it to display what it finds? If you're not using ScanSat, I think you need to right click on the detector and check "display karbonite concentrations" or some such thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 18:07
|
|
|
revdrkevind posted:With stock aero: I screwed up and brought a plane that only had two intakes and one standard engine on one of these. If you just make a practice run estimating distance to target and throw your plane upwards at the right time it's pretty easy to do, even if you didn't plan for it. And with stock aero, you can be incredibly lazy about recovery (or use parachutes). I also found out my plane had too little wing and was basically incapable of gliding so I had to do a powered landing. Thank goodness for quicksaves. My intake air was too low and rapidly falling long before I got to 19, and it was a twin-engine plane so a flameout would have been fatal. I'm just going to stick an SRB on the rear end end and see what happens.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Thanks to ze revolutionary new space-age teknology known as... ZE VEEL! I have achieved AERODYNAMIC FLIGHT. ... I don't really have anything to add, I just wanted to call the wheel 'revolutionary new space-age technology'.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
Palicgofueniczekt posted:
This was in 0.25 as well, and is the same for the Hitchhiker capsule. For contracts I made several Mun bases that had crew capacity but no actual crew.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
nielsm posted:By the way, those O-10 engines have the same Isp as LV-1 but weigh 3 times as much. The only difference is that the small FL-R10 tank has much better fuel capacity. You would still get similar numbers (apart from TWR) if you used regular RCS engines rather than O-10's: 2398 m/s with two inline RCS ports with Isp of 260s. Actually, the O-10 engines are massless. They, plus a bunch of small radial parts (and the largest decoupler, for some weird reason), have their physics significance turned off. But yeah, even ignoring that, the Ant and the OSCAR tank are quite bad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
eth0.n posted:Actually, the O-10 engines are massless. They, plus a bunch of small radial parts (and the largest decoupler, for some weird reason), have their physics significance turned off. A big part of beta is rebalancing everything. We literally allocated someone in the team for that singular task. Like, that is his job til Beta is over.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 19:00
|
|
|
Maxmaps posted:A big part of beta is rebalancing everything. We literally allocated someone in the team for that singular task. Like, that is his job til Beta is over. Here's looking forward to a grand tech-tree shuffle in 0.91 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 19:15
|
|
|
haveblue posted:My intake air was too low and rapidly falling long before I got to 19, and it was a twin-engine plane so a flameout would have been fatal. I'm just going to stick an SRB on the rear end end and see what happens. Doesn't the game balance flameouts now? I thought that was a thing. I try to build single-engine designs just to be safe, so I haven't tested it in a while.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
It's better about balancing them, but not perfect, and a second off puts you into a flat spin at those altitudes. Still, just save the high altitude survey for last, ballistic trajectory up and pop the chutes if the spin is unrecoverable. I managed to do this once and land in one of my ground survey areas for the combo bonus, but I'm pretty sure I couldn't do that again if I tried.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
revdrkevind posted:Doesn't the game balance flameouts now? I thought that was a thing. I try to build single-engine designs just to be safe, so I haven't tested it in a while. Build your planes using this method and flat spins will become a very rare thing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
This is a beautiful thing, and once I unlock the bi-coupler I'm totally making an F-14.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Medicinal Penguin posted:It's better about balancing them, but not perfect, and a second off puts you into a flat spin at those altitudes. Still, just save the high altitude survey for last, ballistic trajectory up and pop the chutes if the spin is unrecoverable. I'm going to put the chutes on the booster and then once it stabilizes head-down drop off the entire assembly and restart the jets. Either I pull out of the resulting suicide dive or it lives up to its name. Also, is it normal for the survey missions to not require me to transmit or recover the data? The moment I hit Crew Report it gave me the rewards and then I could delete it and fly to the next one and the same thing happened.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
revdrkevind posted:This is a beautiful thing, and once I unlock the bi-coupler I'm totally making an F-14. But… without flat spins, how will you be able to cite Top Gun properly? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
 And now I can't click on buildings on the KSC screen, except for R&D. And then no buttons work. This version is not my favourite version.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 20:28
|
|