• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

300 Excellent

About damerell

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

1420 profile views
  1. Inasmuch as this means anything, it's wrong. There's no particular reason to suppose the force will be "1G", assuming that is meant to mean 9.8 N per kg of hand. Once the car is at cruising speed, there is no "constant acceleration"; there's no acceleration at all if it travels in a straight line. Your complaint is also very unclear but: If the rocket is turning end for end, that's because there's more rocket (drag-wise) in front of the centre of mass than behind it, so as soon as it gets slightly off-axis it keeps turning. This is very likely when a first stage is dropped, when suddenly a large empty section behind the centre of mass is lost, eliminating a lot of drag at the rear but hardly moving the centre of mass. If the rocket seems to drag across the landscape unexpectedly, this may be down to Coriolis effects or confusion between surface-relative and orbital-relative measurement.
  2. I checked, because that would be a bit excessive, but you don't. A 3.75m container will do it (with 8000 Material Kits left over) and that is clearly considerably smaller than the volume of the inflated ring.
  3. That's where you're going wrong; Ferram doesn't want to see the "product" be used. He's said before he develops FAR for him and only desires other users inasmuch as they can give useful bug reports and otherwise aid development. I think it's entirely possible this "hidden builds" situation, which serves that aim, will continue forever. (Possible, not certain, to forestall some replies). Since it's GPLed, of course, someone else could distribute it openly, but I suspect that would just result in one of these "ah, when I said GPL, I didn't actually want people to use all the rights the GPL grants" situations.
  4. People have done it like that. It does raise the question of how big the jumps get, especially if you keep thrusting when not touching the ground and pointed upwards after leaving it.
  5. You can probably use Action Groups Extended to tie them all to an arbitary key, which is better than mod-provided hotkeys because if there's a clash you can just change it to something else.
  6. Whoops! I don't mean to be Captain Obvious, but surely the converters should never violate conservation of mass?
  7. I've only quoted the bit I disagree with, but it's a good point about fuel flow, etc; I appreciate now it's a harder problem than it looks like. (That said, batching might cause problems but the alternative is batching into 6-hour chunks...) But that is the same thing. One might quite literally say that FixedUpdate runs on a 50Hz clock. ETA: Perhaps this is a purely terminological thing, in which case, who cares? I think the interesting questions are both whether it's practical to do unfocussed processing every tick (Kerbalism thinks yes) and whether it can sensibly be done every second or few seconds.
  8. 50 times per second _is_ a 50Hz clock, so I'm not quite clear what you mean. If running converters on that clock is really prohibitive (and while I recognise you know a lot more about this, it does on the face of it seem remarkable that the simple arithmetic that converters do can occupy more than a miniscule fraction of the CPU cycles available every 1/50 second, and that seems to be the import of @ShotgunNinja's comments) then doing background updates once a second or once every ten seconds or whatever (obviously avoiding the naive implementation that does it for every part on the same tick) should sort that out.
  9. There's a bit of a false dichotomy here between a 50Hz clock and catch-up processing.
  10. Well, no, it isn't. It's the physics that's CPU-intensive, not running converters. I see why KSP did the catch-up processing (after all, in stock you generally don't care unless you have the vessel focussed) but the idea that it's unfeasible to do it any other way doesn't really hold up.
  11. But can you make NPUs for Orion (perhaps you mean that you can...)?
  12. Neither will anyone else without, for example, the logfile.
  13. Yes and no. I can well see how naively one might assume that the no-supplies limit is the limit for a mission with no life support planning, given we're not in a TACLS world where all crewed parts have some life support.
  14. What? Unless I seriously misread it, blue is a perfectly good polar circumnavigation. We've had lots of those.