|
What is the best orbit to get the most coverage with a SCANsat? Polar?
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 15:31 |
|
|
queeb posted:What is the best orbit to get the most coverage with a SCANsat? Polar? Polar is the only orbit that will get 100% coverage. It doesn't have to be perfectly polar if you don't care about getting maps of the north and south poles, but the closer to polar your orbit is, the better.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted: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. In order to get your coffee mug, you have to reach over the huge ABORT button. Love it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
I like that the espresso art is in the shape of the KSP logo, too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:33
|
|
|
I'd also love to see contracts that rely on already existing stations. "The crew of Ike Station 1 is getting cramped and bored. Dock a new module with capacity for eight kerbals and an orbital tug with at least 900d/v for joyrides." "The Pol Mobile Research Station crew has been in space for {time}. Bring them home and bring four fresh kerbals to take their place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Thesoro posted:I'd also love to see contracts that rely on already existing stations. Yes yes yes. NPC craft I think are an important step for the contract system, and generally making the game more interesting and increasing its longevity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:07
|
|
|
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. Or just update the stock planes to fit the new aero model with it? It's the same plane and it still flies right? Or are you concerned about people having save file compatibility for in flight planes?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Ratzap posted:Or just update the stock planes to fit the new aero model with it? It's the same plane and it still flies right? Or are you concerned about people having save file compatibility for in flight planes? I also don't get the concern for backwards compatibility with craft at all. Why would this impact decisions about the new aero system?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Supraluminal posted:I also don't get the concern for backwards compatibility with craft at all. Why would this impact decisions about the new aero system? Their stock planes are pretty cool? I also find it curious.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
They may mean that they want to be able to keep the basic stock plane parts the same. So you can still take a stock cockpit, engine, fuselage, two wings, and a tail and have something that can fly. If the updated aerodynamic model makes it so the stock wings are too small (for instance) then they also would have to update all of the parts accordingly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Supraluminal posted:I also don't get the concern for backwards compatibility with craft at all. Why would this impact decisions about the new aero system? Stock craft held as control during experimentation with aerodynamics probably. ie 'All stock craft must maintain favorable flight characteristics under aerodynamic variations' Redesigning physics based on poor stock design aesthetics? lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 19:41
|
|
|
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. Surely it is orders of magnitude easier to adjust the stock planes to the new aero system rather than the other way around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Wouldn't you want to rebuild the stock planes around the new aero rules as an example of good design practices, rather than have the stock airplanes as an omage to how the old broken aero rules were? It seems like you have an excellent chance to do a proper, clean sheet design of the aero model, and you're hamstringing yourself over something trivial like stock planes. Did you guys add in a particularly good B-2 bomber or an X-Wing or something to the stock airplanes worth keeping? Not to hurt anyone's feelings but I never saw anything in there that was particularly memorable or worth keeping besides as a general reference model.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
 Only my second or third manned Laythe landing ever. I think I nailed it.  That Karbonite landing rig is hella nice, though.Know what else I nailed?    It needs a little more tweaking, and the stage separation is a bit more violent than I'd like since I had to abuse clipping on the AIES strutted decoupler, but it totally flies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Did it not explode violently on the pad? Lame.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
How did you get the visual enhancement mod working on 0.90? Everything I saw said that it should just drop in but when I tried that the game wouldn't launch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
 Successful launch of my orbital station seed module - it's a workshop filled with resources, along with a resource tank with fuel/oxidizer/life support/etc. Was planning on using this to build a few tug-like drones and then start working on more OKS modules to build the station out with. The problem: Now that I've switched back to KSC, I can't go back and fly the workshop section. It has a command module so I should be able to, right? Am I missing something here?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Which mod gives you all those nice cloud effects?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Lord Yod posted:
Does it show up in the list of vessel in the tracking station? It could be in a disabled category (like debris) so enable everything and have a look. Then again, there have been reports in this thread recently of ships/probes just vanishing for no reason...
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:Which mod gives you all those nice cloud effects? Environmental Visual Enhancements (install via CKAN) in conjunction with Atronomer's previous visual pack, Edge of Oblivion, available here (which seems to work a lot better in 0.90 running in opengl). Apoffys posted:Does it show up in the list of vessel in the tracking station? It could be in a disabled category (like debris) so enable everything and have a look. It was set to Debris for some reason. I edited the persistence file and switched it to Station, still can't fly it. Wondering if it has a fake command module that doesn't actually let you command it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 22:47
|
|
|
Lord Yod posted:Environmental Visual Enhancements (install via CKAN) in conjunction with Atronomer's previous visual pack, Edge of Oblivion, available here (which seems to work a lot better in 0.90 running in opengl). Do you have any kerbals inside? Do you have a probe body on it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Even Debris can be "flown" Make sure the tracking station isn't filtering it away? (Tool bar on top)
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 22:54
|
|
|
It's got 6 kerbals on it, but no probe core. It's this part, for reference: I don't understand what's causing this. I was able to fly it up there and dump booster stages along the way, but as soon as I switched away it became uncontrollable. edit: I switched it from debris to station and it's still not flyable: 
Lord Yod fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted: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.  Max, can we please get this in the stock game? Tie it into campaign difficulty level and make it the only way to fly unmanned craft at the highest difficulty. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Is there a method with, say Kerbal Attachment System and universal storage, to remove an engine from a fuel tank, and then replace it with a docking port that I lift up separately? I have a nascent station in orbit with the final stage of the lifter still attached via a docking port. I'll eventually want a fuel tank up there anyway, so if I can just remove the engine it'll save me a "wasted" launch spent carrying nothing but a replacement tank.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Is there a method with, say Kerbal Attachment System and universal storage, to remove an engine from a fuel tank, and then replace it with a docking port that I lift up separately? I have a nascent station in orbit with the final stage of the lifter still attached via a docking port. I'll eventually want a fuel tank up there anyway, so if I can just remove the engine it'll save me a "wasted" launch spent carrying nothing but a replacement tank. Is the tank currently in orbit full? If you have to boost fuel to refill it anyway you're not losing much by just replacing the whole tank.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Supraluminal posted:Is the tank currently in orbit full? If you have to boost fuel to refill it anyway you're not losing much by just replacing the whole tank. It's about a quarter full, but it's a pretty heavy tank. The craft I use to carry kerbs up and down, and the one I intend to use for resource resupply (i'm using life support) is smaller with a much lower payload. If I can save the tank that's there I'm hoping to gradually top if off with repeat visits on other business, and then use it for refueling in orbit for more ambitious missions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
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. If you're only ever launching from Kerbin, you can also use the clock. It's the Kerbin sidereal day that's exactly 6 hours long, so you can find the right launch time by a simple conversion. KSC isn't exactly on the prime meridian, though, plus it takes a few minutes for an inclined launch to add the necessary north/south velocity, so the best way to get the offset value is to create a new sandbox game and launch a test satellite immediately. Once you have this offset, just write it down somewhere. To launch into the inclined orbit, add this offset to the specified LAN, then turn it into the launch time. I think the offset's about -74 degrees, but I forget where I wrote it down. Anyway, assuming that's the right value, and a specified LAN of 175.5 degrees: Northward Launch: 175.5 deg - 74 deg = 101.5 deg. 101.5 / 360 * 6 = 1.692 hours. 1.692 hours = 1 hour 41 minutes 30 seconds. Southward Launch: Add/subtract 3 hours, so 4 hours 31 minutes 30 seconds. All you have to do is launch when the UT reaches that time. It should be pretty trivial to write a kOS script that does that, too. But the offset will vary a little bit depending on how your launch profile works, (plus I'm not sure I remember it correctly) so test it out first with a test satellite in sandbox as soon to zero seconds UT as possible. Psawhn fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Jan 14, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2015 23:26
|
|
|
Lord Yod posted:It's got 6 kerbals on it, but no probe core. It's this part, for reference: Not one of mine, looks like one of the projects that forks off my stuff - probably a good idea to ask in it's relevant thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
Which goon works for Squad and what do they do?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:Surely it is orders of magnitude easier to adjust the stock planes to the new aero system rather than the other way around. Yep, but what we mean is that we want the stock planes (that look reasonable and very plane-like) to be the kind of craft style that we are 100% sure will still work (and be even better!) after the update.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
Karl, meet Maxmaps.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 00:47
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:Which goon works for Squad and what do they do? I think he organizes dance parties.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
Be careful when capitalizing his name, though. More than one goon found out the hard way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 00:51
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:Which goon works for Squad and what do they do? Hi, I'm KSP's producer and PR manager. Indie houses are fun as hell. Maxmaps fucked around with this message at 01:02 on Jan 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
Palicgofueniczekt posted:Be careful when capitalizing his name, though. More than one goon found out the hard way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
Maxmaps posted:Hi, I'm KSP's producer and PR manager. Indie houses are fun as hell. Oh, cool! I do that for another large indie (free/open source) game project. Would love to share experiences/perspectives/etc over PM if you'd ever want to.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
Are inclination changes more efficient close to a body, or further away from it? I feel like it should be further away but I'm not sure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
Does the Oberth effect help or hinder inclination changes? Maybe it depends on the degree of the change. Thinking about it, I'm going to guess that a higher altitude makes adjustments easier.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 15:31 |
|
|
Count Roland posted:Are inclination changes more efficient close to a body, or further away from it? I feel like it should be further away but I'm not sure. Your intuition is correct, they require less dV higher up. You have to change the direction of your velocity vector, and the smaller its magnitude, the less dV is required to change the direction. Trivia posted:Does the Oberth effect help or hinder inclination changes? Maybe it depends on the degree of the change. The Oberth Effect hinders inclination changes, as you have more kinetic energy to push around.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2015 01:26
|
|