|
What do I need to change about a plane in FAR to make it able to reach 20km? My early planes seem to consistently stall around 12km.nielsm posted:I tried that and couldn't get it working. I had an old station with 5 kerbal capacity (hitchhiker can + cupola), and a new contract called for a similar station but with a research lab. So I tried docking a brand new research lab to the old station, but it wasn't getting accepted as a new station. Maybe try re-categorizing the existing station as a probe and your new piece as a station? That way when you dock them together, KSP'll merge the old station into the new piece as opposed to the new piece into the old station? Someone suggested this a few pages back. Jackson Taus fucked around with this message at 14:44 on Dec 23, 2014 |
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 08:27 |
|
|
More wing or go faster. I suggest the latter, because going faster is also more intake air.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
nielsm posted:I tried that and couldn't get it working. I had an old station with 5 kerbal capacity (hitchhiker can + cupola), and a new contract called for a similar station but with a research lab. So I tried docking a brand new research lab to the old station, but it wasn't getting accepted as a new station. It’s finicky. It seems to depend on which craft is dominant. Someone suggested that craft flagged as stations or bases have higher priority than probes or ships, so classifying the new craft as a station and the old craft as something else might help.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 14:43
|
|
|
Tenebrais posted:There's a stock part that does that, the HubMax. You get it at the end of the tech tree, under Metamaterials. As far as I can tell the purpose of the 4-way hubs is so you can arrange space stations before you get that far, while not making the part totally useless by just letting you do it 6-way anyway. The hubmax is 1.25m, though (and ugly as sin).
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 15:33
|
|
|
ToxicFrog posted:The hubmax is 1.25m, though (and ugly as sin). Yeah the USI ones are way better. I just use the 4 ports and go on my merry way. Makes me put of extra thought into construction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
ToxicFrog posted:The hubmax is 1.25m, though (and ugly as sin). Tweakscale fixes the size at least.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted:Just had my first major hardmode disaster. Had a Mun lander that didn't quite have enough delta-v to make it back to Kerbin. Hastily put together a rescue ship, sent it to rendezvous with the lander in Mun orbit, EVA'd the lander crew over to the rescue vessel...and then they all died on the way back to Kerbin, because in my haste I had forgotten to put solar panels or additional batteries on the rescue vessel. Sorry but I laughed way too hard at this (it's the sort of thing I did so often I wrote a mod to cover charge things). Out of interest though, how much of a rep hit did that little massacre cost you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 16:13
|
|
They all froze to death a few hours after the batteries died, when the last of the heat radiated away. Lost the whole crew and the rescue pilot.
|
Truga posted:More wing or go faster. I suggest the latter, because going faster is also more intake air. Running out of air in Ferram works about the same as stock really, so similar rules apply. Some ideas to consider, in order: -Go faster. In stock, the atmosphere is actually thicker and more uniform than Ferram. As you pass 12km in FAR, the atmosphere thins greatly, which is more realistic but different if you're used to stock. So instead of just throwing a plane above 13km like in stock, you need to be much more gradual and build up as much speed as possible as you transition through the atmosphere. -More intakes will buy you some altitude, but increase drag, so only apply them if you have plenty of fuel left and need altitude. -More wing. Generally, SSTO craft should have supersonic wing design- short wings that run a long way down the body of the craft- try to copy designs that exist in life. And again, do #1 and #2 first. Other ideas: -Make sure your intakes are getting clean air. I think Ferram tries to model putting parts in front of an intake so it blocks the flow. -If you have them unlocked, use the upgraded (turbo)jet engine and intake, they're meant for higher altitudes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 16:41
|
|
ME
|
Jackson Taus posted:What do I need to change about a plane in FAR to make it able to reach 20km? My early planes seem to consistently stall around 12km. As other people have said: more wing, more speed. My most successful high-altitude designs can't cut it at that altitude without going at least Mach 3. Basic jet engines simply won't work for this, you'll have to use turbojets; this is an intentional rebalancing by ferram.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
Latest update for Editor Extensions fixes the Surface and Radial Attach hotkey messing up that setting globally and re-introduces Vertical and Horizontal snap!  http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/38768
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
Woot. Also I don't understand the offset tool.. I select a part and click the arrows and the part moves in the opposite direction? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:Woot. It works in pretty large steps by default. If you turn off angle snapping (C key) it'll move in pixel increments. If you do have snapping on, holding Shift will make the steps smaller. Also, remember to use F to toggle between moving in part-relative (rotated) coordinates or global coordinates.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Zaran posted:Latest update for Editor Extensions fixes the Surface and Radial Attach hotkey messing up that setting globally and re-introduces Vertical and Horizontal snap! Time to start playing again. I simply couldn't build without this being updated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
Anyone have a nice design for some rover or jeep I can drive around the KSC with? I want to gather some science data from all the biomes and walking is far too slow. I made something with the HERP Jumpseat as the command thing and bunch of Packrat rover parts that works for driving around (even though it looks like poo poo because the seat has to hang from the front for easy entry/exit), but when I board it again I have to dump all the science data, making it fairly useless for gathering said data.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 18:08
|
|
|
EightBit posted:As other people have said: more wing, more speed. My most successful high-altitude designs can't cut it at that altitude without going at least Mach 3. Basic jet engines simply won't work for this, you'll have to use turbojets; this is an intentional rebalancing by ferram. So I can't do all these atmospheric reading contracts until I unlock turbo jets and crap? Shoot, that's super-frustrating.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
I made a really fancy drop ship. http://youtu.be/U11o3T0zgGY
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:So I can't do all these atmospheric reading contracts until I unlock turbo jets and crap? Shoot, that's super-frustrating. You can reach high-altitude locations with rockets. Or rocket-assisted regular jet aircraft. Turbojets just make it easier.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
TomR posted:I made a really fancy drop ship. I can't believe you loving landed it. Even if you broke it a little. You bastard. I was waiting the entire video to go "well it certainly dropped  " and it loving landed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 18:56
|
|
|
Ha ha! Here I put a thing on the Mun with it. http://youtu.be/9u3_iLTx1VU
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 19:03
|
|
|
Is the Pods tab just plain missing for anybody else? I get it when I make a new craft, but can't ever select it again. (Also, saw Interstellar the other night, that part where Cooper has to match spin with the Endurance and boost it back up into orbit was premium KSP.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
This is the most what the christ ship I've made that technically flew Only screen shot I have of it, probably because it took about three hands to pilot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
OK, I'll ask.... What? And Why?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
I'm loving playing KSP anew and even figured out the foibles of running CKAN on mac (and CL only, can't get the GUI to run) But it's an exercise in frustration: The game is more unstable than ever on OSX. Tried with, and without mods, with, and without Active Texture Management and/or DDSLoader, and without fail it will crash at least once every mission attempt. Really annoying, because the game is too fun not to keep trying to play. In addition, FirespitterCore won't let me start up the game - goes through the rigamarole of loading up then crashes before the menu screen. Rules out a lot of awesome mods DaveP fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Dec 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 21:03
|
|
|
Basically to see if i could. If I remember right the cockpit was sideways because keeping the forward thrust from flipping the whole thing end over end was much easier if they were above and below the cockpit. I'm...not fully sure on the engines front and back. Maybe just for "precise" front and back  That was from months to a year ago.Edit: oh hey a screen of a less ridiculous version flying. 
Alaan fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Dec 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 21:04
|
|
|
You need to reduce the brightness of your screen. Those screenshots are basically a square of black. Take screenshots during the day. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 21:23
|
|
|
DaveP posted:I'm loving playing KSP anew and even figured out the foibles of running CKAN on mac (and CL only, can't get the GUI to run) I have the exact same issues. .90 is way way more unstable on OSX. Lots of texture and lighting bugs, crashes left right and center. Transitioning into or out of any of the buildings at KSC is like rolling dice to see find out if you are the building you wanted or Force Quitting KSP. I've been too busy to look up if there are fixes or work arounds. I wonder if we should expect a mac stability patch anytime soon? Also, KSP needs a menus flow usability pass at some point. Everything in the start game menu should be on the main menu. Quit game should be on pretty much every menu, we should be able to switch to and from all the KSC buildings directly without going out to the KSC overview, and so on an whine whine whine god I hate myself just for typing this. Whatever happened to Abyssal Lurker? I miss his update overviews where he complained about the pointlessness/inferiority of various parts, and his rants about this and that, while also doing amazing stuff. At least when he whined about stuff, he brought crazy cool things along to keep his post out of the shitheap.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
I've spent the last couple of hours trying to get KSP to run on my macbook.. It works mostly fine stock, but even just a few mods destabilizes it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
I play on Mac OSX about half the time and haven't had any issues. I have graphics turned all the way down though due to it being a notebook with an underpowered gpu. Is there anything in particular that sets it off (I'm mostly doing Mun and Minimus missions now) Edit: this is vanilla ksp
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure I'm doing orbit entirely wrong. How do all of you get to Kerbin orbit in the most efficient way possible?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 22:51
|
|
|
Hermsgervørden posted:Whatever happened to Abyssal Lurker? I miss his update overviews where he complained about the pointlessness/inferiority of various parts, and his rants about this and that, while also doing amazing stuff. At least when he whined about stuff, he brought crazy cool things along to keep his post out of the shitheap. The majority of part balance lament is out the window with the implementation of the tech tree and economy. The last were "Two Ships, One Tree" and a companion post for minor changes in 0.25. There probably aren't many game-breaking features left to post about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:I'm pretty sure I'm doing orbit entirely wrong. How do all of you get to Kerbin orbit in the most efficient way possible? 1. Make sure your rocket is even theoretically capable of making orbit, meaning a total DV comfortably over 4500 (I aim for 4800 in vacuum) and a TWR comfortably above 1 (say, 1.5). Install a mod to give you these values if you want to be sure; otherwise just add engines and fuel (within reason). Put the rocket on the launch pad. 2. Switch to the map view and tilt and zoom in until the camera is as close to Kerbin as it can get and looking up at the space center from below. Do this now so when you quickly check map view later it's already in a good place. 3. Take off and fly straight up for 10 km 4. Slowly and carefully tilt down to 45 degrees pitch due east (towards the 90 degree mark on the navball). For a basic rocket try to take about ten seconds to reach this point. You'll probably have dropped a stage by now or be about to. 5. Once the prograde indicator has settled around the same 45 degree mark, switch to map view and check your periapsis. It's probably around 40-50km by now. Watch it until it rises to 60. Switch back to normal view often to check your fuel and stage if necessary. 6. When the periapsis is 60, rotate the rocket down to almost completely horizontal (maybe 5 degrees/1 tick mark up), facing due east. The periapsis will rise much slower now but you will be gaining horizontal speed. Watch until the periapsis starts to move much faster and rise into the 90-100km range. 7. When the periapsis is that high, cut the engine. Wait for the rocket to coast up to where the periapsis is, then tilt down to completely horizontal due east and turn the engine back on. Watch in map view until your orbit circularizes (the apoapsis emerges from the planet and the peri and apo quickly swap places). Cut the engine again and you should be in a stable orbit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:I'm pretty sure I'm doing orbit entirely wrong. How do all of you get to Kerbin orbit in the most efficient way possible? I'm by no means an expert, but maybe the opinion of somebody only semi-competent will be better for a newer player. 1: big loving solid fuel rocket at the bottom 2: liquid fuel engine (LT 45 or something?) with a couple fuel tanks above that 3: capsule at the top with a single fuel tank and a low power engine (the 90 one) Bottom stage gets me to c.10km, drop that gentle angle over to 45 degrees as middle stage throttles up. Then switch to map-view, keep throttle maxed out until the apsis is at about 75km, then cut engines Around 70-73KM up I tilt over fully to the east and throttle up again, burning out the mid stage to get orbital velocity as high as possible. Once the mid stage has burned out I dump it and circularise the orbit with the low-power engine, which can do a lot at that altitiude with very little fuel. Velocity needed is something like 2300m/s optional step: save enough fuel to burn retrograde and get back to kerbin
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 22:59
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:I'm pretty sure I'm doing orbit entirely wrong. How do all of you get to Kerbin orbit in the most efficient way possible? Assuming you're playing stock, and without getting mired down in TWR/dV for the moment: 1) Launch straight up to 10km 2) Heel right (east) to about 45 degrees 3) Open your map and pull up the navball, mouse over your apoapsis (AP on the map), do as follows: - If apoapsis is less than 45 seconds or so away, keep your current angle of attack (or increase it if necessary, i.e. you're too heavy/slow to make it to 70k) - As it approaches and goes above 45 seconds away, continue heeling over to the navball horizon; you should probably be aimed at the horizon near the end - Cut engines soon as your apoapsis gets to 75-80k (hit X) 4) Set a maneuver node at apoapsis, pull it prograde until your predicted orbit circularizes (predicted apoapsis and periapsis will start to switch places at this point) 5) Follow that maneuver node 6) Grats you're in space 6a) Send a rescue mission for Jeb because you ran out of fuel, oops edit youse all motherfuckers 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:I'm pretty sure I'm doing orbit entirely wrong. How do all of you get to Kerbin orbit in the most efficient way possible? Build a rocket that's basically the following: capsule, 1 fuel tank, small rocket motor, decoupler, several fuel tanks, larger rocket motor. Go straight up for 15km, then turn left gradually until you are horizontal (about 35-40km). Keep thrusting until your apoapsis is above 80km. Wait until you are at apoapsis, point prograde, burn to lift your periapsis above the atmosphere (~70km). Edit: The thread is helpful today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 23:00
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:I'm pretty sure I'm doing orbit entirely wrong. How do all of you get to Kerbin orbit in the most efficient way possible? Without aerodynamic mods like FAR or NEAR, your rocket should accelerate to about 100m/s as soon as possible and then gradually approach 250m/s or so around 10km going straight up. After that, full speed ahead. Start to turn sideways to heading 90 around 10km, hitting 45degrees at 15-20km. You want horizontal speed, but you also want to get out of the atmosphere. Once your trajectory takes you out of the atmosphere, you can coast closer to the top before firing for circularization. e: point is to go fast to minimize time spent pointing the rocket up (gravity sucks), but if you are low and faster than the speed I wrote, your fuel is exponentially going to shoving air out of the way (drag sucks). Orbit is 99% moving sideways, 1% not hitting mountains or air. Corky Romanovsky fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Dec 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Thanks everyone! Like a complete idiot I was just going straight up past the atmosphere and not even turning until I was in space. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:Thanks everyone! Like a complete idiot I was just going straight up past the atmosphere and not even turning until I was in space. Just in case you're wondering why this is a thing - you have to expend more fuel to fight directly against gravity by going straight up. Angling over sideways (once you're out of the worst air resistance) means you're spending less energy fighting gravity, and more of it is getting put directly into velocity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:Thanks everyone! Like a complete idiot I was just going straight up past the atmosphere and not even turning until I was in space. Yep, fighting gravity should be done as little as possible, since it uselessly wastes energy. Riding perpendicular to it lets it pull you in a circle instead. In fact, the only reason we all say fly to 10km before heeling over is that the lower atmospheres in stock KSP are an incredibly thick pea soup. If that's overridden--say by taking off from an atmosphere-free body, or by using FAR/NEAR mods--you start heeling over almost right away for efficiency.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 23:11
|
|
|
What can be done if a small rocket lands sideways on the Mun? If I try to roll it down a hill or take off from the ground I just explode. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 08:27 |
|
|
Can you see space stations and such from Kerbin if you've got them in a Low-Kerbin Orbit?
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 01:42
|
|