|
I don't know what horrible bullshit is going on outside these forums in the kerbal world, but this animation is amazing.
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 13:51 |
|
|
Luneshot posted:I hope we have an orange-suited female trio like Bill, Jeb, and Bob and one of them is named Sally. Piper Kerman is famous for wearing an orange suit. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 19:25
|
|
ROCKET SCIENCE
|
That Gif is amazing ^ Edit: the misandry one.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
BombermanX posted:I don't know what horrible bullshit is going on outside these forums in the kerbal world, but this animation is amazing. http://vimeo.com/64941331
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
^ Was going to link it, but you beat me to it.  Still, the description is gold, and fits perfectly for the manbabies throwing a tantrum over female kerbals. quote:A quick vid about just the worst dudes and just the worst culture.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
illectro posted:Piper Kerman is famous for wearing an orange suit.  I'm glad I'm not the only one who kept thinking that.N/r: my sister is going to be an extra in the next season 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Nth Doctor posted:
My headcanon is still that jeb/bill/bob are prisoners used for testing highly unstable rockets, hence why they're always the first ones each career 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Ugh. Sent Jeb to the Mun, but blew way over my fuel budget on the way out because I didn't realize the level 1 tracking center wouldn't show SoI changes. I spent a huge amount of fuel adjusting the location of my apoapsis to try and get the encounter marker to show up. Eventually gave up, flew out to apoapsis anyways, and realized I was actually not just going to encounter the Mun, but I was basically on a direct course straight through its center. Suicide burning my entire remaining fuel load bought me a manageable 30 m/s landing that destroyed the engine but otherwise left everything intact. I used the contract money from landing to upgrade the tracking center and then launched a rescue mission that used basically the same rocket, with the science experiments stripped and a probe core to fly an empty crew capsule out there. Landed it next to Jeb with more than enough dV to return him to home. Switched to Jeb's lander, had him EVA, and as he jumped down to the surface to walk across to the rescue vehicle...the kraken ate everything. The entire screen went black, and I couldn't even return to the space center. Restarted the game, and where I previously had 2 landers and Jeb there was now a slew of debris on an escape trajectory from Kerbin. Even the flag.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Mr. Peepers posted:Ugh. Sent Jeb to the Mun, but blew way over my fuel budget on the way out because I didn't realize the level 1 tracking center wouldn't show SoI changes. I spent a huge amount of fuel adjusting the location of my apoapsis to try and get the encounter marker to show up. Eventually gave up, flew out to apoapsis anyways, and realized I was actually not just going to encounter the Mun, but I was basically on a direct course straight through its center. Suicide burning my entire remaining fuel load bought me a manageable 30 m/s landing that destroyed the engine but otherwise left everything intact. Something something, Final Destination. You can run from death, but there is no escape.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
I don't have screenshots, but before I figured out how to unlock maneuver nodes in Career I winged a mission to explore the Mun, landed, satisfied my contract requirements, and burned back to Kerbin with literally less than 0.3 units of fuel in the tanks. Easily my closest shave ever! And after an hour of trying to fulfill a satellite contract last night, I went and upgraded the building to get maneuver nodes and it was so ridiculously easy I could have hit myself. You never know how much you need these things till they're gone.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
        
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Yeah that'll happen.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
What exactly were you trying to do there?
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Be cool to his forum pals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
Cubey posted:Decided to fiddle with spaceplanes and uh...well now I see why people bitch about aerodynamics in this game, christ I personally prefer NEAR. You get all the sensible aerodynamic fixes and none of the  .Here's a copy paste of the differences: quote:What it does that is similar to FAR:
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
Met posted:I personally prefer NEAR. You get all the sensible aerodynamic fixes and none of the Here's the important things: quote:What it doesn't do, that FAR does: FAR sounds way more scary than it actually is. I used to use NEAR and was terrified of FAR, but the transition is super smooth.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
I used FAR before switching to NEAR. I didn't find it particularly fun to guess and check every design and still have things break up by random chance one time after working flawlessly in the same situation before. I look for other challenges in my gameplay than an unforgiving aerodynamic model. I just want something that's more sensible than stock. That's the difference between NEAR and FAR to me. It doesn't bother me if someone prefers FAR, I'm just presenting all the options available. Zesty fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Jan 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
I'm just presenting my point of view. In my experience I've never had any issue if everything was green on my aero analysis and I didn't do any crazy maneuvers (of course planes will be torn apart if you pitch up 90º after having lots of horizontal momentum)
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
I've never had a plane, space or otherwise, break apart without hitting the ground. Most crashes are due to spinning out of control then hitting the ground and I'm not exactly gentle with the controls so what are you even doing to those poor planes, guy
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
You two are a little defensive of FAR there. Offering an alternative aerodynamic model doesn't need to be met with, "What are you doing wrong that you can't handle FAR?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 00:18
|
|
|
I had a rocket snap in two with FAR because it was going 700m/s at about 8km and I tried to turn it over. It was pretty excellent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Met posted:You two are a little defensive of FAR there. Offering an alternative aerodynamic model doesn't need to be met with, "What are you doing wrong that you can't handle FAR?" They're not defending FAR, they're attacking your piloting.  I haven't used NEAR but I will agree with them that the scariness of FAR is overhyped. Use whatever you want, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
Jet Jaguar posted:This is really cool, the logistics of the various engines and lander assemblies make my brain hurt just to even figure out where to begin. How long did this take to plan? A couple of months, starting out with the Jool 5 section and then Eve lander. The rest of the landings were a lot easier, I was surprised how many bodies just need a FLT-100 (plus a smidge more fuel) and a 48-7s to land on them! Regarding the slingshots, for Moho I used Arrowstar's KSPTOT: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/36476-WIN-MAC-KSP-Trajectory-Optimization-Tool-v1-1-9-Many-New-Features! to work out when to do the Eve transfers and then worked out the rest as I flew them. Using Moho to lower your Solar AP if you mess them up can really save your rear end. For the Eeloo, Jool and Dres slingshots the trick is to look for Kerbin being in the right position with respect to Eve on it's DN, which happens every few orbits or so. This gives you the Eve/Kerbin boost, after that it's a question of seeing if the following Kerbin encounter is close to your target transfer window, or Kerbin/Duna for another boost. The Eeloo trip isn't the lowest I've seen either, Plad (who has also written a tool to work this out) in the forums knocked a couple of hundred off this at least. To be honest unless you need to send a huge ship to Jool or Eeloo the time it takes to work these out is probably not worth the fuel savings, unless you are playing extra hard career mode.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 01:00
|
|
|
Met posted:You two are a little defensive of FAR there. Offering an alternative aerodynamic model doesn't need to be met with, "What are you doing wrong that you can't handle FAR?" When did I say that? I'm just trying to show my side of the discussion. Ironically you seem to be on the defensive. It's okay, buddy, nobody's going to judge you by the mods you use. unless it's made by flowerchild we'll still judge you for your bad piloting, though
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
Nice
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 01:14
|
|
|
Met posted:You two are a little defensive of FAR there. Offering an alternative aerodynamic model doesn't need to be met with, "What are you doing wrong that you can't handle FAR?" I think it's more along the lines that FAR gets a bad reputation from players who haven't tried it. I used to think it was hard and scary, and post that it was hard and scary, but when I actually tried it it made the game much less arcane and wasn't nearly as difficult as I thought. I would highly recommend it, and I'll be interested to see the differences when 1.0 comes out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
FAR (maybe NEAR too?) also has the benefit of making getting to orbit much easier due to the lower dV needs, which can lead to some interesting stage designs. It's probably too complex for most people, but stock should address that once the release hits and there will likely be an updated FAR for the rest of us.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Can someone explain why someone would want to use FAR? I was able to fly the very first plane I designed without any trouble and shaving a few dv off of launches doesn't seem worth the trade off of having to shield everything you launch with fairings and being super precise with gravity turns. I kind of like just shooting dumb hunks of poo poo into space. Is the big appeal of FAR that it adds design challenge for people who are bored with stock or for people who want the most realisms? Because it doesn't seem like a fun addition to the game or a QoL improvement to me but I'm totally open to being wrong about that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 03:58
|
|
|
It's a little of both. Stock aerodynamics is extremely unrealistic in a lot of ways, to the point that a plane designed to work in KSP probably wouldn't work in real life and vice versa. FAR goes a long way towards unifying them and making the design process and its goals more like reality at the cost of making the hilariously clumsy monstrosities a lot of players would rather build unworkable. I don't use it myself but I can definitely see the appeal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 04:05
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Can someone explain why someone would want to use FAR? I was able to fly the very first plane I designed without any trouble and shaving a few dv off of launches doesn't seem worth the trade off of having to shield everything you launch with fairings and being super precise with gravity turns. I kind of like just shooting dumb hunks of poo poo into space. Is the big appeal of FAR that it adds design challenge for people who are bored with stock or for people who want the most realisms? Because it doesn't seem like a fun addition to the game or a QoL improvement to me but I'm totally open to being wrong about that. The biggest problem with stock aero is that it's unintuitive as poo poo and people have to unlearn common sense to build an efficient rocket. Expecting people with no aerospace knowledge to know about stability and stalling and lifting bodies is a bit much but all FAR really requires you to know is "make it look like a rocket" and "don't turn too quickly" and you can safely ignore everything else that goes on until you start building planes. NEAR ultimately does the same thing when it comes to rockets.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 04:34
|
|
|
.
Hadlock fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Jan 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Can someone explain why someone would want to use FAR? I was able to fly the very first plane I designed without any trouble and shaving a few dv off of launches doesn't seem worth the trade off of having to shield everything you launch with fairings and being super precise with gravity turns. I kind of like just shooting dumb hunks of poo poo into space. Is the big appeal of FAR that it adds design challenge for people who are bored with stock or for people who want the most realisms? Because it doesn't seem like a fun addition to the game or a QoL improvement to me but I'm totally open to being wrong about that. Because I know how aeroplanes work, but a logical one built in KSP with stock aerodynamics doesn't really work well. I disabled the breaking up from stress bit because that poo poo is dumb, but otherwise flying an aircraft has been way more intuitive and making one that can fly well doesn't require crazy amounts of wings and flaps. Actually even with a lot of wings and control surfaces, planes still don't fly 'well' stock, they just fly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
 300 kilograms is still not light enough for one parachute to land on Duna without bouncing and falling over (but it is light enough for the Okto core to torque upright).
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 06:14
|
|
|
haveblue posted:
I like this lander
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Can someone explain why someone would want to use FAR? I was able to fly the very first plane I designed without any trouble and shaving a few dv off of launches doesn't seem worth the trade off of having to shield everything you launch with fairings and being super precise with gravity turns. I kind of like just shooting dumb hunks of poo poo into space. Is the big appeal of FAR that it adds design challenge for people who are bored with stock or for people who want the most realisms? Because it doesn't seem like a fun addition to the game or a QoL improvement to me but I'm totally open to being wrong about that. Car metaphor: The debate of FAR/NEAR versus stock is a lot like car games and manual/auto (at least if you're in the US). Automatic players will talk all day long about how they actually drive faster with auto, and they can appreciate car feel just fine with auto, and why are these asshats insisting on manual transmission when it drives people away from the game. Manual people shake their head into their facepalm and try to humor those delusions. Eventually the auto person dedicates some time to making the switch, and generally results in someone going "oooooh, so THAT'S what I was missing, gotcha". KSP doesn't have to have aero as detail as FAR, but it needs to get better. Stock aero is so dumb, stuff that should work doesn't (space shuttle), and stuff that shouldn't work does (suddenly flipping 90 degrees over going mach 3). If stock aero can get good enough to make planes fly well enough that I as a flight sim fan don't feel completely disconnected from my craft, I'll quit complaining. Right now that is not the case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 07:40
|
|
ME
|
Acquire Currency! posted:I like this lander Seriously. My probe landers are way too big, apparently. E: I prefer NEAR but I actually don't have a logical reason for it. I think it's because I was bad at aerodynamics when I used FAR (probably because I was also using DE), but I did better like three months later when I reinstalled KSP with NEAR. I think the only thing to really be concerned about are mach effects, but I can't even remember how much of an issue that is. E2: This weird picture is like my smallest unmanned lander over Minmus: 
Solid Poopsnake fucked around with this message at 08:38 on Jan 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 08:26
|
|
|
haveblue posted:
Apparently we think alike!    (was supposed to be an Eve lander before I realized I forgot a parachute. Whoops) Currently have two more in transit, one to Pol and one to Bop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
Cubey posted:Because I know how aeroplanes work, but a logical one built in KSP with stock aerodynamics doesn't really work well. I disabled the breaking up from stress bit because that poo poo is dumb, but otherwise flying an aircraft has been way more intuitive and making one that can fly well doesn't require crazy amounts of wings and flaps. Actually even with a lot of wings and control surfaces, planes still don't fly 'well' stock, they just fly. Yeah, I don't know how airplanes work and I kind of don't care. Of course, I didn't get KSP as a lego flight sim so that's just preference. I've built a few planes and if they don't immediately shake apart or flip over on the runway they seem to work ok but maybe they could be way better? I guess I've just never run into those situations where I was all "ugh stupid aerodynamics gently caress kerbal forever" that seem to plague some people, especially over at the official forums. revdrkevind posted:
You're probably right, which is kind of why I was asking. I'm curious to see how Squad changes the aero profile in the 1.0 update - hopefully its not too rough on dummies like me who like to throw chunks of garbage into LKO with a bunch of strutted up orange tanks.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 08:43
|
|
"oooooh, so THAT'S what I was missing, gotcha".
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:I'm curious to see how Squad changes the aero profile in the 1.0 update - hopefully its not too rough on dummies like me who like to throw chunks of garbage into LKO with a bunch of strutted up orange tanks. Well the problem a lot of people have with the stock aero model is that planes are harder to fly than they should be. I really doubt that the new model could do anything but help people who want to get into aircraft, whether they know how they work or not. Even FAR is easier to build a good plane in, and whatever Squad's plan is surely won't involve making it as punishing as FAR is. That said, I'm not sold on FAR yet, mostly because of what it is doing to my rockets. I might just bin it and wait for Squad to update the aero instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 08:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 13:51 |
|
|
800peepee51doodoo posted:Can someone explain why someone would want to use FAR? I was able to fly the very first plane I designed without any trouble and shaving a few dv off of launches doesn't seem worth the trade off of having to shield everything you launch with fairings and being super precise with gravity turns. I kind of like just shooting dumb hunks of poo poo into space. Is the big appeal of FAR that it adds design challenge for people who are bored with stock or for people who want the most realisms? Because it doesn't seem like a fun addition to the game or a QoL improvement to me but I'm totally open to being wrong about that. If you like paying lots of attention to the design of your planes, it allows you to make things that work incredibly well compared to stock KSP. It also fixes some silly things that the stock aerodynamics model lets you do that can be a bit exploity/irritating when you don't want your plane to do that. It also makes flying stuff generally more interesting in the sense that there is a lot more to take into account. As well as making things that look like good planes/rockets actually work better, which again stock KSP doesn't. That said, I use NEAR because it does most of that without modeling the weirdness that is transonic flight. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 09:04 on Jan 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 09:01
|
|
