|
Mister Bates posted:I'm still playing on 0.25 because I don't want to lose my progress on this campaign, but does 0.90 fix the radial decouplers launching things inwards instead of outwards? I've lost so many rockets because I go to separate the empty SRBs and they promptly slam into my main stage and destroy it. Even multiple Seperatrons aren't enough to counteract the force (a few of KW Rocketry's Large Uliage Motors usually are, but not always). Nope, but this mod fixes it perfectly: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/97285-KSP-v0-90-Stock-Bug-Fix-Modules-%28Release-v0-1-6-20-Dec-14%29
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 06:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 11:19 |
|
|
Tried my hand at going from orbit to the mun, and while I was trying to figure out how to make an orbit, I crashed right into the mun. RIP kerbal man.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
fosborb posted:Anyone else's CKAN repository hosed/unavailable? I got this earlier and fixed it by downloading the latest version of CKAN.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
HogX posted:Tried my hand at going from orbit to the mun, and while I was trying to figure out how to make an orbit, I crashed right into the mun. RIP kerbal man. You want to do your munar encounter such that you have as low a periapsis as possible (but still 10km or higher so you don't crash) and then at the periapsis you burn retrograde until your orbit goes from parabolic (open) to elliptical (closed) and an apoapsis appears. Now you're in orbit around the Mun, and you should keep burning retro until you're happy with your orbit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 07:17
|
|
|
Does it ever make sense to put wing pieces on rockets?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 07:40
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:Does it ever make sense to put wing pieces on rockets? It does sometimes, if your symmetry is unavoidably unbalanced in some way. Especially when your rockets get bigger it becomes really helpful to have wings to help make a gravity turn.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 07:47
|
|
|
With FAR, adding wings tends to make my rocket vibrate and rotate erratically as it goes transonic, so I usually just leave them off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
With FAR if you have a top heavy rocket with low TWR or insufficient gimballed control of the thrust then adding winglets helps keep the rocket pointing at space so you can go to space today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 11:00
|
|
|
Is there any way to move something from the spaceplane hanger to the rocket one? I want to be sure my spaceplane can actually fly on a runway before I strap a rocket to the bottom and shoot it upwards space shuttle style.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 13:14
|
|
|
Alternatively you can save your entire craft as a subassembly, since subassemblies are shared between both buildings. vvv Do that instead.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 13:28
|
|
|
massive spider posted:Is there any way to move something from the spaceplane hanger to the rocket one? I want to be sure my spaceplane can actually fly on a runway before I strap a rocket to the bottom and shoot it upwards space shuttle style. When you hit 'Load' there are 2 buttons up top now so you can select which design pool to load from. So go to your SPH, hit load, pick VAB and then the design in question. You'll need to turn it 90 degrees but that's no real hassle right. Nevets posted:One of the biggest changes I've made since 0.90 is trying to use solid boosters as much as possible since they are so much cheaper. After I got Ion engines I spent half an hour launch/revert/changing a design that would let me put a probe in orbit using just one large booster, with no expensive reaction wheels or RCS, but seperatrons at 5% thrust to tilt the rocket over at the right altitude. I finally got the thrust/fuel/timing mix just right. Gimballed engines are for quitters. Same here, I make the payload first so I know how much of the cost is fixed then I build or load some launch assemblies. SRBs are just so much cheaper I end up going with them. I'm using FAR so I put wings on for some control through the lower atmosphere. With Novapunch, modular rockets and sounding rockets, I have a nice selection of sizes to play around with too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 13:28
|
|
|
While I would solid boost myself into the future if I could, the launch weight restrictions are a killer early on for that strategy, I find myself using liquid engines just because you need the absolute most efficient use of reaction mass you can get.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 13:33
|
|
|
I'll tell you what is a complete bastard: trying to put satellites up for cash when you're too poor to afford the 500k for upgraded science. No extending, tracking solar panels means lots of parts wasted on static panels extended on struts. I've just wasted about 50k on 3 attempts to put satellites into decent orbits, but keep ending up in a position where my panels get into the shadow of the probe and leave it drifting. Noi extendable panels and no conics make early-game satellites a really risky proposition for me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
Nevets posted:One of the biggest changes I've made since 0.90 is trying to use solid boosters as much as possible since they are so much cheaper. After I got Ion engines I spent half an hour launch/revert/changing a design that would let me put a probe in orbit using just one large booster, with no expensive reaction wheels or RCS, but seperatrons at 5% thrust to tilt the rocket over at the right altitude. I finally got the thrust/fuel/timing mix just right. Gimballed engines are for quitters. My current minimal probe design features a single 1.25‐m monopropellant tank, 2 monoprop engines, and RCS thruster blocks for sole attitude control. It’s 5000 Δv in a single stage, and I refill it once in orbit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 15:47
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:I'll tell you what is a complete bastard: trying to put satellites up for cash when you're too poor to afford the 500k for upgraded science. No extending, tracking solar panels means lots of parts wasted on static panels extended on struts. I've just wasted about 50k on 3 attempts to put satellites into decent orbits, but keep ending up in a position where my panels get into the shadow of the probe and leave it drifting. Usually for sat contracts a triple panel will be enough to keep at least a trickle of power coming in, and a single battery should let it power through the shadow. When not doing your burns, rotate the sat so you're sure you're getting sun. The only annoying part about early sats is having to take advantage of the timewarp stabilization and no SAS.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
I usually do 2 batteries and 2 panels on a 45* angle for those contracts. First order of business is to forbid one of the batteries in case I do something dumb like time warp with the panels facing away from Kerbol. Another thing is to make sure SAS is off before you use time warp as it uses a lot of power over long periods of time. Avoid the trap of using mechjeb's automatic time warp because it will rotate your craft into the burn position before doing the time warp. Frequently this has your craft facing in a way that keeps the panels from charging and drains your batteries as if SAS was still on, cue several hours or days worth of time warp and you come back to a dead craft. It's better to orient your rocket for the panels to stay charging and do most/all of the time warping yourself. Only do an orientation change for a burn/turn on mechjeb when you're a few minutes away from the burn.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
The Money->Sci strategy is way overpowered. Even at low commitment (10% in my case). After about the 4th or 5th manned launch (and having never gone to the Mun or Minimus) I already had the un-upgraded tech tree maxed (4th tier I think... the 100 science points level) with about 1500 science left over. When I ungraded the R&D building I was able to buy out the entire next tier in one go.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Drinking rather heavily today, what with it being the season and all, and I just slotted a heap of junk satellite into a perfect geosynchronous orbit. I should try this drunk rocket science more often.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 18:01
|
|
|
Re: Mun landers: The tiny RCS tanks and engines are from RLA Stockalike, and there's a mini-size RTG (Also from RLA) underneath the probe core. After deorbiting and landing from 10k altitude it still has almost half of its fuel left, plenty enough to take off and rendezvous with the return stage in orbit.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:Re: Mun landers: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 18:43
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:Re: Mun landers: Reminds me of those really cool ion scooters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:I'll tell you what is a complete bastard: trying to put satellites up for cash when you're too poor to afford the 500k for upgraded science. No extending, tracking solar panels means lots of parts wasted on static panels extended on struts. I've just wasted about 50k on 3 attempts to put satellites into decent orbits, but keep ending up in a position where my panels get into the shadow of the probe and leave it drifting. You want to use the RLA stockalike pack (0.625m parts) here and/or the Box Sat pack here. When fully built sat payload weighs less than a single lv-909 things are a bit simpler. Stock KSP is very poorly provisioned for probes and small unmanned vessels.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
also grab BTSM when it gets updated for 0.90 (which is going to be awhile, as it is basically a re-write of the career)
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
Kilonum posted:also grab BTSM when it gets updated for 0.90 (which is going to be awhile, as it is basically a re-write of the career) Please do not support FlowerChild mods 
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
Ciaphas posted:Please do not support FlowerChild mods Yeah, I would never download anything from that dude.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Is that Community Tech Tree mod that was supposed to be a mod-friendly tech tree overhaul out yet?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted:Is that Community Tech Tree mod that was supposed to be a mod-friendly tech tree overhaul out yet? http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/100385-Community-Tech-Tree-1-0 Although this doesn't really "overhaul" the tech tree, it just adds common nodes for modders to put their parts in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Luneshot posted:Yeah, I would never download anything from that dude. What's he done?
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:What's he done? Remember all the minecraft drama? 100% started by that dude.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
I believe he was the guy who made it so his Minecraft mod would intentionally gently caress up your save if his mod detected other mods made by people he didn't like.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Naming his mods "Better Than [developer's design choices]" should be a hint.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 20:14
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:What's he done? He's the guy who started Minecraft's modding community to become the way it is today.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 20:20
|
|
|
Derailing the FC hate train with an awesome mod: In-flight waypoints for survey contracts. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
sckye posted:Derailing the FC hate train with an awesome mod: Not only that, but it's also available through CKAN (at least as of v1.5.0) so you can just grab it and go! Fantastic!
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted:Is that Community Tech Tree mod that was supposed to be a mod-friendly tech tree overhaul out yet? A couple of forms of it are on offer that I know of: a stockish version and at least 2 real size types. I've not tried them yet as they appear to still be struggling with some problems but they're getting there. The biggest problem with BTSM (disregarding the whole author thing) is the mindless grind element and sheer masochistic joy it takes in making things harder for the sake of being harder.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:I'll tell you what is a complete bastard: trying to put satellites up for cash when you're too poor to afford the 500k for upgraded science. No extending, tracking solar panels means lots of parts wasted on static panels extended on struts. I've just wasted about 50k on 3 attempts to put satellites into decent orbits, but keep ending up in a position where my panels get into the shadow of the probe and leave it drifting. My approach to this early on is to build probes that have enough panels on one or two sides, depending on my part count budget, and just orient them so one side is facing the sun. Make sure they have a battery or two to execute burns as needed and then turn back to face the sun and it'll work well enough for getting them into position for the contract. Eventually they'll drift out of alignment and fail, but by then the contract is complete and I should have other, better sats to replace them. Once I raise the part limit to 255, I just plaster my sats with solar panels:  You can't see it well from this angle, but there's also four panels surrounding the camera on the front and four surrounding the engine bell. (I happen to think it looks pretty snazzy, too.) This design gets enough power to drive the probe core and all five antennae no matter what orientation it's in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 25, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
Okay what the hell. Every time I load the game and load my save file, I get presented with the Kerbal Space Center as normal, but I can't even click on anything. No matter how many times I click on any of the structures, nothing happens. I'm not even running any mods. What is going on?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
Kilonum posted:also grab BTSM when it gets updated for 0.90 (which is going to be awhile, as it is basically a re-write of the career) If you read the last few pages it sounds like he's not going to update for 0.25
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
Elukka posted:Little Duna rocket Hey this is tight. Is there any chance you could post a craft file?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 11:19 |
|
|
Is there a goon server on the multiplayer mod?
|
|
#
?
Dec 26, 2014 05:08
|
|