• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

268 Excellent


About Archgeek

  • Rank
    Xenon Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

1596 profile views
  1. Nope, the idea is that we want to see the whole hemisphere at once with our little 10° field o' view by varying our semi-major axis - or the length of that centreline. We want that right angle right where it is, so we can use trig. Also, the other angle will always be 85°, because triangles gotta add up to 180. Don't rely on the graphic too much -- that half FoV angle's well over 5° ('looks around 12 to me), and the lines are very not to scale. Also, you'll find the degree of penetration is amusingly proportional to the thickness of lines, as the line o' sight is kind of centred in the line describing the planet surface, instead of attop it.
  2. Shouldn't it measure centripetal force, then?
  3. Hehe, sort of. More like 3.6 gigs or so, mostly due to the old AGP aperture (graphics card protocol from before PCIe) and some other IO stuff windows liked to map to high RAM. Though the limit's more for a 32b OS -- a 32b application on a 64b OS can gleefully use all 4 gigs, as the MMIO stuff is way the heck up on $FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF and down a bit, instead of $FFFFFFFF down to nearly $8FFFFFFF. Unless of course some reflection of the limitation has been written into the application itself for some reason instead of just letting the OS handle memory relocation like usual. Not that any of that matters hugely for me, because while I may be quietly running the game on exactly 4 gigs, my win7 box is indeed 64b -- the mobo's just from nearly a decade ago and only supports 2 gig ram sticks, and 2 of the 4 slots do not work due to suspected cracked traces from a startling amount of flex the board underwent on its first mounting when the RAM sticks were pushed in. In defense of not wanting to fire up steam for games, though, I will note that sometimes the steam webhelper process will get a pretty nasty memory leak, and it likes to run two of itself for some reason, so I've usually got steam not hanging out in the tray. Not that that matters much for KSP, which I keep multiple folders for so as to have clean and modded versions running around.
  4. *Quietly runs the game on a win7 box with exactly 4 gigs* Admittedly, I do have to close browsers and/or restart a rogue servicehost (300+ megs, really?) to stop my box going swap-crazy on me.
  5. Isn't that usually a tiny little RCS tug, especially if there are RCS ports on the modules being assembled?
  6. Things like the tilt-wing concept are entirely doable (Hazardish's needs moar engines and fuel, though), and neat, but inherently wasteful if you've got wings, a runway, and don't need a high-precision landing. Why hurl dv straight at the ground when you could let your wings do the work while you pick up the first bit of your orbital velocity on your nice expensive runway? You didn't leave it at level 1 as a rover training ground, did you?
  7. Oooh, is that written in LabView? I've dealt with LabView in college and some...thing about how that interface is structured just kinda screeches LabView, at a frequency that's kinda hurting my mind's ear.
  8. ...Can you imagine the complete madness of trying to operate the VAB on a touchscreen? Various gestures like pinching and turning would help, a lot, but I'd be driven to insanity trying to use such a thing. The VAB already controls best on a 3d mouse with a keyboard, and most of us already make do with just a normal mouse and keyboard. Trying to do precision placement and rotation on a touchscreen sounds like a pretty doomed endeavour.
  9. Nah, I'm sure that one intends to disect it, isolate the mechanism, and try and stabilize to capitalize on the effect. Krakendrives are big research.
  10. That reads like an ad underwritten by Big Cetacean.
  11. Perhaps they were brunk. or drored.
  12. 3.12 gigs in the main steam install, and 54.4 gigs in the swarm of (pre)release/gameplay backups I've been collecting since .235 So a comparatively reasonable 57.52 gigs all told. Probably because most of those folders are either unmodded or have some subset of HotRockets, KER, the old Enhanced Navball, and KAC. One day they'll probably start having KAS and KCT, but with only 4 gigs of system RAM to work with, that's not yet. 'Keeps my disk consumption down at least.
  13. Oh, indeed. Those little tanks are just great -- beautiful droptanks for LV-N systems designed to use droptanks, amusing fuel density, and drained of fuel, the lightest structural part per unit length that isn't the cubic octag. Great for the panel-mounting spine on ion ships or solar arrays on stations, with a nicer look than girders or I-beams, too.
  14. 'Just me using variables again. I meant the stock FL-800, 400, 200, and co. 1.25m fuel tanks. Edit: well, well, I'd forgotten there was a 'T' in those. I meant the stock FL-T(8|4|2|1(00)) tanks. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yup, hence the tomfoolery with attaching Oscar-B stacks around your first FL-2/4/8(00) or so. Also of interest, research into insane delta-v shenanigans in stock with the ion engine led to math that indicated that optimal staging for a given amount of fuel (assuming constant mass ratio in the tankage) is found when each stage brings the same delta-v to the party, up to the point where the decouplers become too much (for xenon this doesn't even come up, due to the heavy tanks, but for the Oscar-B, things could be different and rocket tanks are about the same, with the tiny decoupler weighing in at less than half a single empty tank). So depending on how that shakes out, your stages could go 1 tank, 1 again, 2, 3, 3 again, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 16... until you wind up with enough fuel that you may as well use a bigger tank instead of several long Oscar-B stacks (20 Oscar-Bs is exactly as much fuel as the FL-T800, the largest 1.25m tank). (If decoupler mass is too close to tank dry mass, you'd just have more tanks in the top stage and on down.) The mass ratio gets worse at this point, so that point's slightly higher than one would think. Of course, that's if you're not switching tankage earlier to reduce noodlage or for part count. You'd technically still be better off dv-wise to stick with the tiny tanks all the way, but no one's going to do that, for obvious practical reasons. Edit mk2: Well, nevermind that then -- it turns out every rocket tank has the same mass ratio of 9, even the toroidal one. The tiny tanks just get you better resolution in trying match stage dv, plus the smaller decoupler if you're matching node sizes. The main thing to abuse is that it lets you put side stacks of tiny droptanks around a 1.25m upper core, increasing fuel density per unit ship length.
  15. I've also never used ISRU. I've got my ISRU test rig from 1.0 launch day still en route to minmus, having intended to join in on the community's attempts to figure out how it worked, but things got in the way and I never actually got it where it was going.