|
Lprsti99 posted:Speaking of FAR/MechJeb, I've gotten the ascent guidance working with it, close to true grav turns and whatnot, but I do have an issue with the Limit to Terminal Velocity function, it just doesn't seem to work. Anyone know of a fix?
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 22:10 |
|
|
revdrkevind posted:For rovers? This gets covered every once in a while. Common tips: This is good advice, especially the last one. You will flip, and at speed, so harden your rover against it. Solar panel arrays are the easiest thing to gently caress up, so use singles or cover them well. The lower-tier wheels are rather fragile, so six of them is better than four. Have enough SAS torque to flip the rover back upright when you inevitably end up in the dead cockroach position..
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Not getting reentry effects on the way up is opposite to the  way.  Clark Nova posted:This is good advice, especially the last one. You will flip, and at speed, so harden your rover against it. Solar panel arrays are the easiest thing to gently caress up, so use singles or cover them well. The lower-tier wheels are rather fragile, so six of them is better than four. Have enough SAS torque to flip the rover back upright when you inevitably end up in the dead cockroach position..
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:33
|
|
|
Groetgaffel posted:Or you could just put wheels on the roof so you can drive upside down. Wow, that's an excellent idea. I'm still going to gently caress this up, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
Groetgaffel posted:Or you could just put wheels on the roof so you can drive upside down.  
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
Flagrant Abuse posted:Are you sure it's not working, or are you just not reaching terminal velocity in the first place? It's a lot higher with FAR/NEAR than in stock. Problem is mechjeb will see that's it's not at terminal velocity and think everything is fine, happily keeping the craft fully throttled up. Then it pitches over just a little too much and the craft tears apart in the airstream.  My workaround when I was still messing with FAR was to set the thrust limiter on the first stage to where the TWR was about 1.2, so it wouldn't be going that fast until it cleared the thicker atmosphere anyway. Also, set my gravity turn to start really early (0.2km, just off the launchpad, like a real space launch) and use a steeper turn of around 55%. That way there's no immediate 45 degree pitchover at 8km that tears your rocket apart. I'm not using FAR at the moment though, because I like using mechjeb's aerobrake nodes. Hoping the new stock aerodynamics allow mechjeb to calculate drag at different AoAs, or some other way to make aerobrake maneuvers practical.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 17:50
|
|
|
This was my favorite rover so far: Notice the mono engines pointing up on the front wheels - I thankfully didn't need to fire off those engines, but they were there incase I became inverted. Each wheel is attached to a .625 reaction wheel, making this thing INCREDIBLY stable, even during jumps. I designed it so that it was also the return vehicle, as you can see from this early version Kerbin test: You can see the orbiter (center stage) from the launch screenshot: Best part, is the RCS thrusters were enough for my rover to become a hopper as long as I kept an eye on the fuel levels for my return. Visited a few sites :3 Otacon fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Apr 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
I think the Mechjeb Ascent guidance module should have an option to unlock the throttle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Just put rockets on the rover pointing straight down
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
No you fools, this how you make a rover. It can drive no matter which orientation it's in. Like face down, or on it's side:  
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Groetgaffel posted:No you fools, this how you make a rover. Until it goes airborne when it inevitably hits a bump and falls into a chasm. (sweet ride though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 18:57
|
|
|
Silver Alicorn posted:Problem is mechjeb will see that's it's not at terminal velocity and think everything is fine, happily keeping the craft fully throttled up. Then it pitches over just a little too much and the craft tears apart in the airstream. If it still has stability problems, the solutions I do in order are adding winglets, adding high-gimbal-range (5°+) vernier engines, making the turn less severe in 5% increments, increasing booster engine gimbal range (if it has any), and increasing main engine gimbal range.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
Groetgaffel posted:No you fools, this how you make a rover. Why rove when you can roll https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxu0qL4TuTg
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:Why rove when you can roll The soundtrack makes this. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
2Jets posted:It's a slippery slope. If you don't let players trap their kerbels, what's next? Not letting people put their parachute in the wrong stage? You appear not to have read about the build checker they're putting into 1.0. It prevents nothing, it simply tells the builder (if desired? it wasn't clear if it was always shown or had to be activated) about possible design gently caress ups before they launch it. From this article quote:Engineer’s Report: A new panel in the VAB and SPH which will warn you of crucial (and generally frustrating) issues in your design, such as a lack of fuel tanks, engines or landing gear, among many other advanced concepts like those.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 20:09
|
|
|
for people who like making goofy mistakes, this actually enhances the experience because you get to ignore warnings which is extremely Kerbal
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 20:11
|
|
|
Thesoro posted:for people who like making goofy mistakes, this actually enhances the experience because you get to ignore warnings which is extremely Kerbal We don't like making mistakes, we like the challenge of dealing with unforeseen events. I get why you would want to be warned about blocked hatches or not having solar panels. I guess for you this game is about flying rockets, but for me its about rescue missions and taking off in tipped over landers. It's cool I'll just put a sticky note over that part of my monitor if I have to.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Back from a long long break from the game and i was wondering three things. 1: Have there been any optimization changes to the game that allows largeish and complicated space stations/crafts or any word on if this will be in 1.0 or near to that? 2: The game had a upper range limit on stuff where it got deleted or started behaving weirdly, has this seen some change/is planned for 1.0 or in the area? 3: 64bit version still terrible?
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Dongattack posted:Back from a long long break from the game and i was wondering three things. 1. Not unless you count upgrading to new versions of Unity and PhysX. The need for huge numbers of struts has been greatly reduced, though. 2. Not sure what you mean. The outer bounds of the solar system are still in the same place. 3. So terrible that it's being left out of 1.0.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Dongattack posted:2: The game had a upper range limit on stuff where it got deleted or started behaving weirdly, has this seen some change/is planned for 1.0 or in the area? If you're thinking of the 2.5 km physics simulation range, it's being reworked for the 1.0 release. One of the recent dev notes talked about making it dynamic so stages dropped during ascent would all be simulated all the way to exploding on ground (maybe except if parachuted), and things might also be different between attempting to dock and when just cruising alone waiting for capture by another body.
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 21:49
|
|
|
nielsm posted:If you're thinking of the 2.5 km physics simulation range, it's being reworked for the 1.0 release. One of the recent dev notes talked about making it dynamic so stages dropped during ascent would all be simulated all the way to exploding on ground (maybe except if parachuted), and things might also be different between attempting to dock and when just cruising alone waiting for capture by another body. Yeah, this is what i meant. That's good to hear. haveblue posted:1. Not unless you count upgrading to new versions of Unity and PhysX. The need for huge numbers of struts has been greatly reduced, though. Wow, well, i'll continue waiting then. Thanks for the replies!
|
|
#
?
Apr 22, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
2Jets posted:We don't like making mistakes, we like the challenge of dealing with unforeseen events. I get why you would want to be warned about blocked hatches or not having solar panels. I guess for you this game is about flying rockets, but for me its about rescue missions and taking off in tipped over landers. It's cool I'll just put a sticky note over that part of my monitor if I have to. I pretty much agree to be honest, my personal interest in having the hatch checking is because you can't always tell from looking if it's blocked. For example, I remember getting a flight all the way to Val only to be told 'hatch blocked'. The mesh for an object defines the space it counts as occupying, not the actual visible item. So the part I had at the edge of the hatch was visibly clear of the seam but the mesh made KSP believe it was on it. A checker panel that says 'kerbals can get in and out' beats trying to second guess where the mesh ends or launching just to test clearance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
Dongattack posted:Back from a long long break from the game and i was wondering three things. There are mods that will allow you to fuse parts so the game considers them one physics object. Aside from that, unless the Unity team can get their x64 act together, this isn't a Squad problem.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 01:19
|
|
ME
|
Unless I've missed it somehow, this hasn't been posted yet. D5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXAkepo5YS8
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
Unimpressed posted:Unless I've missed it somehow, this hasn't been posted yet. D5: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXAkepo5YS8 I think that's also showing the camera shake!
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
What is the x64 version for?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 07:08
|
|
|
Dalael posted:What is the x64 version for? 64-bit allows usage of more than (roughly) 4GB of RAM, meaning more mods.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 07:10
|
|
|
Dalael posted:What is the x64 version for? Nerds
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 07:10
|
|
|
Dalael posted:What is the x64 version for? Ultimately, performance increase. e:f;b It should go beyond memory improvements.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
PerrineClostermann posted:64-bit allows usage of more than (roughly) 4GB of RAM, meaning more mods. Oh! Cool! Will they also make it so that loading all these mods does not take 5 minutes? I have maybe.. 30 mods installed (Thats what Ckan tells me anyways) and I can definitely go make a sandwich while I am waiting for the game to load. Also.. Why da gently caress does Ckan says I'm using 30+ mods when in reality I only chose the ones the OP suggests. Does it automatically gets other mods that are needed to go with the ones I chose?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 07:17
|
|
|
Dalael posted:Oh! Cool! Will they also make it so that loading all these mods does not take 5 minutes? I have maybe.. 30 mods installed (Thats what Ckan tells me anyways) and I can definitely go make a sandwich while I am waiting for the game to load. The 64 bit version is very unstable and prone to crashing and glitching on Windows. There's a reason Squad is removing the option for 64 bit again in 1.0, it just doesn't work. It won't improve loading times either. And yes, CKAN will automatically get dependencies for mods. That's half the point of using it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 07:32
|
|
|
Dalael posted:Oh! Cool! Will they also make it so that loading all these mods does not take 5 minutes? I have maybe.. 30 mods installed (Thats what Ckan tells me anyways) and I can definitely go make a sandwich while I am waiting for the game to load. Slowest part is usually the textures, using atm or ddsloader you can make KSP load crazy fast and decrease the memory footprint (letting you use more mods in 32bit. Using Linux 64bit is the superior solution though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 08:07
|
|
|
DDS textures on an SSD. poo poo loads crazy fast.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 12:09
|
|
|
I run KSP from an older SATA2 SSD, and with DDSLoader it starts up in less than a minute. A modern faster SSD with SATA3 would probably reduce that even more.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 12:23
|
|
|
Is Squad moving to native DDS in 1.0?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 15:51
|
|
|
Why I love the Karbonundrum fusion drive: ridiculously wasteful maneuvers like this Jool to Eeloo transfer: Took ~7,000 dv to execute, entered Eeloo's SOI doing about 13.5 km/s, took 12,000+ dv to circularize. But only about 300 days journey! edit: wooot 
stuart scott fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Apr 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
Zero One posted:Is Squad moving to native DDS in 1.0? Did something similar to it along several other optimizations. To give an example, my stock only rig went from 44 seconds to load to a bit under 11.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
Maxmaps posted:Did something similar to it along several other optimizations. To give an example, my stock only rig went from 44 seconds to load to a bit under 11. And what are these tweets I'm seeing about multiplayer? I'm assuming it's not 1.0-ready, but I'd still love to see a post on what you've done so far. I'm super interested in how you guys are going to be handling that!
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
yeah, do they all have their own kerbal space base and or launchpads? or do you take turns?
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 22:10 |
|
|
Twibbit posted:yeah, do they all have their own kerbal space base and or launchpads? or do you take turns? Let's be honest, the only way to do multi-player would be ten people working on the same ship at once. With no communication whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2015 17:06
|
|
