|
I find it extremely silly that Squad are trying to make smaller changes just because current planes (read: planes built using the sucky aerodynamics system) wouldn't be compatible. That's silly.
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 12:47 |
|
|
I’m going to miss the days of lifting space stations by strapping a booster to each corner.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
Yeah, I have to say if there's going to be any point where you go "welp, stuff built before this patch just ain't gonna work right. Sorry." it would be fixing/changing the aero model. That said, I wouldn't set a goal to break older planes, but if it came about that the older stuff didn't work I wouldn't lose sleep over it so long as the new model is more intuitive/fun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 04:53
|
|
|
I've never built a single successful, working spaceplane and they seem impossible to control, so hey, I wouldn't be too devastated at such an update.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
Inacio posted:I find it extremely silly that Squad are trying to make smaller changes just because current planes (read: planes built using the sucky aerodynamics system) wouldn't be compatible. I doubt all designs will maintain present flight characteristics. Maybe the changes simply won't disturb CoM and CoL too much, is all?  What sort of changes were/are you hoping?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
Joda posted:I haven't bothered with rendezvous (I know I'll have to look into it to do a return trip to Eve though,) but going to Duna and back is pretty doable. One thing that really helped me was finding out about asparagus staging, so if you haven't looked into this, you should prob watch Scott Manley's video explaining it. Nuclear engines also help a whole lot, since (iirc) a single big tank combined with one engine is enough to do all the transfer burns you need to get there and back. Other than that all you need is enough boosters on your lander to get into Duna orbit if you want to return, and you can reuse the nuclear engine you used to get there in the first place (remember to turn it off for the boost off Duna's surface.) It sounds like you're talking about taking a nuclear engine down on your lander, which you really never want to do if you're concerned about doing things efficiently. They're super-heavy and have low thrust, and they have terrible fuel efficiency in atmosphere to boot which actually matters on Duna. This is where using docking ports and leaving your transfer stage in orbit is extremely useful. Not to say it can't be done or that it's playing the game wrong to put a nuke on a single-stage there-and-back-again craft if that's what you want to do. Just that it generally makes things harder and more fuel-intensive than necessary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:I’m going to miss the days of lifting space stations by strapping a booster to each corner. One of the reasons I only ever play with FAR is because I ended up making a universal launcher design. It was just a huge spiral of asparagus staging. Not at all aerodynamic, held together with struts, could be repeated forever until you had enough dV to put literally anything into orbit. At that point there's not much of a design challenge, and the design looks ridiculous as it's considerably wider than it is tall, but KSP doesn't care.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 06:06
|
|
|
Synnr posted:Yeah thats what I meant by the gantry. Was a no-go. Set your root part to your command pod. It doesn't have to specifically be the command pod but last time I ran into this bug, I'm pretty sure I had either a radial part, an engine, or both as the root, and the command pod is neither of these things and also not other things that might gently caress it up as well. You also haven't lived until your rocket glitches out and puts your center of mass 500m behind your engine then flips out and disintegrates while your view looks at nothing at all, courtesy of RealChutes messing with some of my saved rocket designs having old parachutes on them. e: Thesoro posted:A lot of KSP is in doing things in the most efficient ways. There's a zillion ways to go about it, but a few things: Setting things as your target makes rendezvous and transfers a lot easier too since it gives you important information like position of your target when you intercept their orbit, in case you want to do things the easy boring way. Control Volume fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 06:25
|
|
|
Inacio posted:I find it extremely silly that Squad are trying to make smaller changes just because current planes (read: planes built using the sucky aerodynamics system) wouldn't be compatible. It doesn't seem like that's what Harvester is saying. There are basically two parts: 1) more realistic lift calculations make existing planes more airworthy, giving Squad some breathing room to change other parts of the aerodynamics model (e.g. the drag model), and 2) ideally, a drag model would be lenient enough that you could still launch a horse into space.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
Supraluminal posted:It sounds like you're talking about taking a nuclear engine down on your lander, which you really never want to do if you're concerned about doing things efficiently. They're super-heavy and have low thrust, and they have terrible fuel efficiency in atmosphere Nuclear engine Isp hits 400 somewhere around 1km, or shortly after (edit: on Kerbin, that is). Not terrible at all for Duna's thin atmosphere. You are right about engine TWR, though. If orbital rendezvous isn't palatable, perhaps some high TWR engines working in concert with the LV-N that you can toggle with a hotkey would be the way to go. Or if budget isn't important, enough fuel and LV-Ns for everything after LKO. Corky Romanovsky fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 06:36
|
|
|
Just tried out making a tiny separating probe on my lander. Got some extra data out of a crater!     
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 08:03
|
|
|
I hope they add stock Airbrakes while working on the aerodynamic model.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 10:02
|
|
|
Met posted:I hope they add stock Airbrakes while working on the aerodynamic model. They'd make for some  seperatron replacements, too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 10:08
|
|
|
What I brought back from devnote Tuesday is that the tail of a plane is used for pushing the nose up. So a couple of minor revisions later and I have a plane with its wings nearly all the way back and an angled tail that flies totally differently to anything I've ever built. Holy crap! Thanks Squad!
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 13:12
|
|
|
General_Failure posted:What I brought back from devnote Tuesday is that the tail of a plane is used for pushing the nose up. So a couple of minor revisions later and I have a plane with its wings nearly all the way back and an angled tail that flies totally differently to anything I've ever built. Holy crap! Thanks Squad! Something that really helped me was looking at the different ww2 planes in warthunder and doing test flights to see how they flew.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 13:38
|
|
|
Palicgofueniczekt posted:What sort of changes were/are you hoping? Like, considering how much the current system sucks, I just hoped they wouldn't care about old planes anymore and made the changes ignoring them. If they're limiting themselves because they don't want to break existing planes, that's silly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:Set your root part to your command pod. It doesn't have to specifically be the command pod but last time I ran into this bug, I'm pretty sure I had either a radial part, an engine, or both as the root, and the command pod is neither of these things and also not other things that might gently caress it up as well. Can I ask what you mean, exactly? Can you designate a different root now or something? I just started with the command pod and stuck on some tanks and an engine and the test parts. I re-installed and the same ship file is still screwy and I could only replicate it once more so I dunno what I must have done those two times. e; Welp nevermind it seems to be the wedge module science things from universal storage. Wouldn't lift and immediately crashed. Synnr fucked around with this message at 15:30 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
Inacio posted:Like, considering how much the current system sucks, I just hoped they wouldn't care about old planes anymore and made the changes ignoring them. Kinda like KSP Stockholm Syndrome on a larger scale (add another stage of SRBs, still not to space; tweak the seperatrons, nope; scrapping the SRBs for another set of mainsails...) That would be a bummer.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 15:41
|
|
|
We care about existing stock planes. If the new model means some playermade planes just don't fly anymore, then so be it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 15:49
|
|
|
Maxmaps posted:We care about existing stock planes. If the new model means some playermade planes just don't fly anymore, then so be it. Thanks, Max, I love you
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
Apparently I'm just not allowed to go to Jool. First probe disappeared completely without explanation, game crashed while launching a second one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
Is there any way to use the numbers in Kerbal Engineer to know when to launch into an inclined orbit? I'm using kOS to try to write a program to autolaunch satellites into contract orbits. It's easy if it's an equatorial orbit, but inclined orbits are trickier. I can do it pretty easily if I manually sit on the launch pad and time warp until things look approximately correct in map view, but how could I calculate a launch window? The orbit I'm trying to fulfill in my current contract is apoapsis 3.2Mm, periapsis 2.4Mm, inclination 27.7 degrees, longitude of ascending node 175.5 degrees, and argument of periapsis 29.1 degrees. I guess basically what I'd like to do is automatically time warp until I should be launching.
fart simpson fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Apparently I'm just not allowed to go to Jool. First probe disappeared completely without explanation, game crashed while launching a second one. I think you know why... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38EDhpxzn2g#t=115
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:00
|
|
|
A part of me wonders if satellite contracts should be used to give players funds over time for X amount of time. Once you've launched a few of them you get the hang of it, and there's little incentive to keep them around or launch new ones (unless they give a big ol' chunk of cash). Another interesting option is to require players to launch a pre-made satellite subassembly. It's up to the player to do so cheaply and effectively, and also teaches players about loading subassemblies in general. Or, institute a weight / part limit on the satellites themselves. Sometime after being launched into orbit, spawn a new contract that requires an orbit adjustment. Requires players to return to it, dock, and move it. Or have one of those contract satellites break down, requiring you to send an engineer to fix the damned thing. Also, now that you've added custom part sorting for the VAB, please allow a custom sorting option for the Tracking Station, or at least allow sorting by alphabet, planet, or launch date. Trivia fucked around with this message at 16:12 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
nimper posted:I think you know why... I'm not sending a lander 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Supraluminal posted:It sounds like you're talking about taking a nuclear engine down on your lander, which you really never want to do if you're concerned about doing things efficiently. They're super-heavy and have low thrust, and they have terrible fuel efficiency in atmosphere to boot which actually matters on Duna. This is where using docking ports and leaving your transfer stage in orbit is extremely useful. Oh I'm entirely aware it was inefficient as hell. I was just saying it's possible without having to use rendezvous, even if rendezvous are hugely preferable. Also, I didn't burn the nuclear engine on Duna, but turned it off for the boost and then used it to do all the transfer burns needed to return.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
fart simpson posted:Is there any way to use the numbers in Kerbal Engineer to know when to launch into an inclined orbit? I'm using kOS to try to write a program to autolaunch satellites into contract orbits. It's easy if it's an equatorial orbit, but inclined orbits are trickier. I can do it pretty easily if I manually sit on the launch pad and time warp until things look approximately correct in map view, but how could I calculate a launch window? The orbit I'm trying to fulfill in my current contract is apoapsis 3.2Mm, periapsis 2.4Mm, inclination 27.7 degrees, longitude of ascending node 175.5 degrees, and argument of periapsis 29.1 degrees. I guess basically what I'd like to do is automatically time warp until I should be launching. http://pastebin.com/5BZ2ygFT This is how MechJeb calculates the time to launch to a given orbital inclination. You may be able to adapt it to kOS code.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
Inacio posted:I find it extremely silly that Squad are trying to make smaller changes just because current planes (read: planes built using the sucky aerodynamics system) wouldn't be compatible. Have you seen the number of people who will install FAR/NEAR and immediately whine that their stock-based designs don't work anymore? Not that they should be catered to, but there will be tears. Synnr posted:Can I ask what you mean, exactly? Can you designate a different root now or something? Just so it's said, yes .9 allows selection of the root part. It's in the advanced tools (the brightly-colored little icons beside the parts menu that I keep forgetting are there).
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:19
|
|
ME
|
nimper posted:http://pastebin.com/5BZ2ygFT Cool thanks, I'll start by looking at this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
In the comments on the DevNote, Harvester notes plans to switch drag from a uniform acceleration (i.e., effectively proportional to mass) to a force (how drag really works). I actually think this would be a mistake. That approach is central to how forgiving the current game is of absurd rocket monstrosities, and of aggressive flying (e.g., hard turns at high velocity in-atmo), which seems to be what the devs want to keep. By making the drag model more realistic, those "mistakes" would be punished by high instability, and likely outright unflyability, as they are in FAR. I think this unfun. It leads to catastrophic problems that are hard to diagnose and understand, being the result of invisible forces. What I think is the better outcome is if those kinds of mistakes are simply less delta-V efficient than "correct" approaches. To do this, I suggest the following: Model occlusion (including fairings/cargo-bays), and rough shapes (nosecones pointed prograde have less drag than tops of fuel tanks, etc.) to come up with an overall drag. Then apply that drag, uniformly, as an acceleration, as the current stock game does. This results in a system that encourages "correct" rockets by making them more efficient, but doesn't introduce the new instabilities that FAR/NEAR do. It's a gentler push towards efficiency that doesn't punish gonzo creativity as harshly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
revdrkevind posted:Just so it's said, yes .9 allows selection of the root part. It's in the advanced tools (the brightly-colored little icons beside the parts menu that I keep forgetting are there). Oh thats pretty cool, I guess that would make creating probes or whatever parts with their own root things easier when you stick them onto junk. Anyone know if B9 parts are going to work at all with stock drag model or is it just going to break something? Their post on the ksp forums said it was required but I didn't like dealing with the crap in FAR or NEAR in my try-out even if I wanted to make SSTO spaceplanes so... Adventures in modding so far: -Universal storage wedge things seem to lock my first stage in place, but I can dance around that with a 0 fuel first stage, maybe fiddling with root stuff will fix it? -scaling down parts for testing can flip forces apparently, so the couplers I scaled down went into negative force and continued to exert force upon my test craft and the SAS was insufficient to fight it, so its just spinning off into space. The ship itself doesn't accelerate, but the orbits continue to slowly shift. RIP Jeb. I'll self-destruct him if I can't fix it and hope he comes back with all his ribbons.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
I'm doing a play through where I'm setting up a mining base outside the KSC and will use that for all of my missions. I'm going to make money by mining and selling rocket parts back to the KSC. The end goal is for me to clear the tech tree and upgrade all the buildings without any contracts after I unlock all the mining parts and the launchpad parts I need.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
I've been gone from KSP for a while, but have tried to keep up with the thread. Is the 64-bit career mode still screwed up? Or is it good to go?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
It's a bit better. Or maybe 32 bit is a bit worse...either way, you'll have limited mod support for x64 at this time so it's not as nice. Most will still work, but they can't promise you won't see wonky things. Unity 5 will hopefully be the final nail in the x64 issues, but that's a ways off yet.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
And hopefully they'll support 64-bit on OS X now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
Trivia posted:A part of me wonders if satellite contracts should be used to give players funds over time for X amount of time. Once you've launched a few of them you get the hang of it, and there's little incentive to keep them around or launch new ones (unless they give a big ol' chunk of cash). I like this idea, because right now the easiest and most efficient way to deal with these contracts is to build a small probe with an ion engine, lots of batteries and solar panels, and then take as many satellite contracts as possible and fulfil them all, one after the other, with just the one probe. If you get money over time, it means you need to have it there, and it means the more probes you have in orbit the more money you end up making.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
So just did my most hectic orbital docking yet. Only because I made so many mistakes. I built an Apollo style moon lander, nice and simple. Launch stage put me in an elliptical orbit about 70Dv from my planned moon encounter. Come time to reconfigure them after launch and I'm scrambling to do it to make that last nudge. Decouple and I realize how bad I screwed myself. I was using the monoprop engines for both the lander and the return stage. Because of that I completely omitted any other RCS. Thrust limit my engines down to their minimum 5.5%, tiny little jets to get me to the other side of the lander. Brake, turn around and send myself inching back toward its docking port on the reverse side. Jetpack a Kerbal over to it to spin it to the proper orientation just in time for them to connect and dock. Only then did I realize I could have just flipped the module over in the first place and saved myself all that trouble. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:41
|
|
|
Trivia posted:A part of me wonders if satellite contracts should be used to give players funds over time for X amount of time. Once you've launched a few of them you get the hang of it, and there's little incentive to keep them around or launch new ones (unless they give a big ol' chunk of cash). These are good ideas
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:These are good ideas Agreed, those sound awesome.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 12:47 |
|
|
I wanted to get a SCANSAT altimetry map of the Mun before I landed on it, and for the hell of it I decided to go ahead and do the mission all-IVA with Probe Control Room and a bunch of external camera feeds.      Now to do the same thing with a lander. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:13
|
|
