Jump to content

damerell

Members
  • Posts

    1,311
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

669 Excellent

Profile Information

  • About me
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

8,349 profile views
  1. I didn't have Breaking Ground installed at the time; apparently I own it by virtue of having bought KSP in the pre-Steam days. Kerbal Foundries wheels use a different wheel physics model, KSPWheel. They do have a maximum speed, but not in a helpful way; they break if they are run too fast for too long. They don't provide torque at that speed, so they won't break themselves, but you have to watch it downhill. I used a kOS script to brake as necessary. However, it's the physics model that comes to mind - earlier Tylo circumnavigators noted weird glitches that just shoved them up into the sky, and I had none of that.
  2. Added @king of nowhere's Tylo to the scoreboard. I found it was a pretty interesting read, quite different from my experience of Tylo other than it being an excessively long way. I wonder if that's down to Kerbal Foundries versus stock wheels? I've also been fixing the old links and putting in the old challenge administrators' comments... at a glacial pace, but eventually I hope the first post will be more use to would-be circumnavigators.
  3. I'm reading this Tylo now. You seem to have been a little faster than me - my rover capped out around 43 m/s, and of course I shun quickloading on the surface - but it's still a long way, and for whatever reason my Mk VII was very stable on Tylo where you seem to have had more trouble roving. (I was worried about random pinging up into the sky earlier circumnavigators had reported, but had no issues - maybe you did?) The idea of landing mostly manually by a procedure like "I started from roughly 4 km altitude and am angling the thrust upwards to keep vertical speed (Vel. ascesa in the italian interface) between 40 and 50 m/s" - is interesting. I experimented on the Mk II with a camera boom (to look down at the landscape like your cupola) but I found it would inevitably get knocked off in a roll. I also had to stop midway up one of the crater rims on Tylo for a brew-up of electricity, and I can't help but feel that I just dodged some terrible terrain by pure luck, where you had the misfortune to rove right through it. I'll add this to the scoreboard in the next few days, but for now, congratulations. Tylo is a hell of a slog.
  4. I just found https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/topic/81420-am-i-the-first-one-to-circumnavigate-kerbin-by-land/#comment-1332409 and as such that it is possible to resurrect some (maybe most) of the forum links lost in the forumapocalypse some years ago.
  5. Nice to see more KSP2 action, and I can't help but feel the rover looks more elegant compared to even a similar design in KSP1. You write "the Elcano just took too long and required too much personal attention while running it" - I infer it was heavier going than in KSP1 - is that so, and how much? (Also marked up king's modded planet submissions as stock/modded, apologies if I've got that wrong _again_, and found that somewhere in the mists of time Sharpy's Duna thread link had been lost; restored it).
  6. I remain a bit boggled by wheels inside the rover body, but there's no denying that little cylinder is quite adorable.
  7. Error on my part, is all. (In general it would help me out if each claim said explicitly modded or not, my memory is not all it could be...) Were your OPM/Whirligigs modded other than the planet mod?
  8. Done @king of nowherearound Pol, a report I particularly enjoyed. It strikes me that technically an Elcano around a modded planet is "modded", but I think it should be classified as stock if the only mod was the planet mod.
  9. Done Didd. The curse of the Elcano challenge hasn't quite claimed me yet. I'll do Pol too when I have time to review it. Another thing I've noticed is that the comments from earlier organisers seem to have got lost somewhere over the years. I think this is a pity and I'll see about replacing them. Also, some of the links are bust after the forum apocalypse and it would be useful to indicate to the reader which of them actually work.
  10. Update for the corrections to the planet sizes and to give @king of nowhere credit for Ammenon.
  11. Oh, damn. I'm not sure what went wrong there (or where I even got the sizes from). In future it'd be most helpful if you continued to just tell me the dimensions. I'll fix this up and review the most recent when I get a chance.
  12. It's been a little while - although I have a design for the Hangarmoth II - but I wanted to say that while I see what you mean, I think intent is the best way to express it; it's unavoidably subjective, so give as much guidance as I can in the OP.
  13. Hangar puts a toolbar item up with which you can eject a stored craft from the hangar. I don't use the docking port, but AFAIK it's for convenience - you can use it to hold a ship unmoving inside the hangar.
×
×
  • Create New...