• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5315 Excellent

About Snark

  • Rank
    E Pluribus Boojum

Recent Profile Visitors

6535 profile views
  1. I expect probe control should be just fine. Reason: The game always tries to find a path. I don't think that that's bugged. I think the only bug is that when it's deciding which path, it ignores other options when a direct KSC link happens to be available. So if you get far enough away that KSC can't be connected to, the game will route elsewhere, if there's a path. For example, in my current game, I've got "extra ground stations" turned off, which means signals to KSC need to go straight to KSC itself, not just Kerbin in general. My ships on the outskirts of the system have two "choices" when talking to Kerbin: A JX2 in high polar Kerbin orbit, which is always visible KSC itself, which is visible half the time (if the correct side of Kerbin is facing towards the ship) I find that when KSC is facing away from my ship, I've got a nice strong 100% signal, since the path is forced to go through the JX2. But when KSC is facing me, my signal strength drops to a feeble remnant, because my ship ignores the Kerbin JX2 and goes straight to the (weaker) KSC.
  2. Nope, in stock CommNet everything is automatic. The game just automatically picks the best path. In RemoteTech terminology, every single antenna is an omni.
  3. Yes, but not everyone who reads the challenge is necessarily going to know that. And even if they know it, it's a pretty inconvenient way to specify things-- for example, I have "include stock vessels" turned off for all of my games, and always have, since buying the game-- to me, they're just useless clutter in the VAB. So to look at one I'd have to go tinker with my game settings so that I can load it up. And there's still the ambiguity about what "size" means.
  4. Yeah, it's annoying. I see the same thing myself in my own games-- any ship that can link directly to KSC will do so, even if another path provides better signal strength. Frankly, it looks like a bug to me. I suspect someone just hard-coded "go straight to KSC if possible" on the assumption that "KSC will always be stronger than the best antenna", which mostly holds true in the stock game. Other than getting Squad to fix the bug (assuming that's what it is), I don't know of any workaround.
  5. Looks like you've got it sorted out. I'll go ahead and lock this, looks like we're done here. That's it, nothing to see here. Go about your business, citizens.
  6. Moving to Gameplay Questions. (Technical support is for "game doesn't work", rather than "how do I X?")
  7. Yes, I understand that "primary" is a synonym for "main", thanks. However, you're missing my point. Replacing one vague, subjective word with another vague, subjective, equivalent word doesn't really accomplish anything. What do you actually mean? Be specific. People doing a challenge need specifically stated, objective rules to follow, lest they put in a bunch of effort to do the challenge and then get embroiled in a hand-wavy argument over the meaning of a subjective term. This seems like a good idea. Again, though, "low" is subjective. Suggestion: Update the OP to reflect this requirement Make it specific what "low Kerbol orbit" means (e.g. "Pe no higher than <some height>, Ap no higher than <some height>"). Or you can leave it open-ended and let the lowness of the orbit be the "score", i.e. "the goal is to get the smallest possible semimajor axis for your Kerbol orbit, with a ship meeting all the conditions specified here." "Size" is vague, too. Do you mean mass? Length? Maximum dimension on any axis? Also, size changes over time as stages are ejected. Size when? On the launchpad? In LKO? In low Kerbol orbit? Also, not everyone will know what "Kerbal 2" means. Better to use actual numbers. Suggestion: Just keep it simple and unambiguous, such as "mustn't be larger than N tons on the launch pad".
  8. Well, you might not be sure, but I am, because I use them all the time and they're right there. Nobody ever said that two different mod authors can't add similar parts to their mods...
  9. Certainly, it's by no means impossible. But the "path of least resistance"-- i.e. slapping together a ship that looks just like the shuttle, in the simplest and most straightforward way-- tends not to work. The problem is further exacerbated by the rather misleading nature of the CoM and CoL markers in the SPH. A simplistic shuttle design often puts the CoL in the back, behind the CoM... which is also in the back. That leads players astray, because they've heard the oft-repeated but misleading mantra "CoL behind CoM means stability." So they get really frustrated and confused: "Why does it keep flipping? My CoL is behind the CoM!" Add the difficulties with shifting CoM as fuel drains (another tendency of simplistic shuttle designs), and it's a recipe for failure. Yes, you can build a shuttle that flies. But you practically have to trick KSP into making it work, and you really have to know what you're doing. Which is a pity, because the shuttle is such an iconic spacecraft that it's one of the first things that many new players want to rush out and build... and the presence of all those specialized shuttle-mimicking Mk3 parts can fool newbies into thinking it's easier than it is.
  10. Me neither. But I'm talking about a little hop, not a sustained hover. For example, stick an engine on the belly of the little rover and a quick blip will make it go straight up a little ways; not much control needed, especially if all you're doing is raising it a meter or less. Also, Minmus is awfully forgiving in this regard. Everything happens in slow motion. My solution to that problem is to put an engine on my rovers. If I end up shooting off a cliff or something, I just flip SAS to "hold retrograde" and activate the engine to slow down. Lowers it gently as a feather to the ground. Main thing for roving around Minmus is to have a decent amount of reaction-wheel torque; keeps the rover from flipping/tumbling in the low gravity.
  11. It's also not a challenge if it was 6.5 years ago and the game's completely different since then. Since this thread is ancient enough to be no longer relevant, locking to prevent further confusion.
  12. ...the obvious bug fix: tweak the runway so it bends slightly to the left... (sorry, couldn't resist)
  13. Hard to tell for sure from that screenshot-- could you post one from the SPH (preferably with the CoM displayed)? Or sitting intact on the runway? In general, an unstable airplane is some combination (one or more) of the following: Your CoM is in the back, so it wants to fly backwards. Your control surfaces are right next to the CoM, so they have no lever arm to work with and might as well not be there. Less of a problem than the above two, but a smaller contributing factor: roll authority isn't turned off on the vertical stabilizer. The solution to the above problems: make sure the CoM isn't way at the back make sure you have plenty of control surface as far as possible from the CoM make sure that your vertical stabilizer has only yaw enabled. That's very general advice, though-- hard to say for sure without seeing a better screenshot of the craft.
  14. There are a few answers, depending on how adventurous you are: No. Maybe #1. Maybe #2. The "no" answer: Craft files are saved separately from the game file itself. Doing a save-game only saves the ships that are in flight, not the design in the VAB or SPH. So it's just gone. The "maybe #1" answer: Check the SPH, see if it might be listed there under "Auto-saved Ship". If you've since launched another ship, though, I suspect that's gone, now, so you'd be out of luck. The "maybe #2" answer: A "ship in flight" isn't the same as "ship in SPH or VAB" ... but it's pretty similar. I seem to recall that someone, somewhere, made some tool that could extract craft from a save file and write them as a .craft file that you can bring into the editor. I've never used it, though, so I don't know how easy it is to use. Nor do I recall who wrote it, or what the name of the tool was. Nor do I know whether it's been kept up-to-date across KSP versions and still works. So, unless some helpful person chimes in here and provides all the necessary info all nicely gift-wrapped for us... maybe easier just to re-build the plane. (And get in the knee-jerk habit of always, always saving the plane before launching.)
  15. I'll assume you mean winter solstice, not equinox, unless you're making a joke there. That's fine, as long as you don't mind moving your celebration by a day once every 70 years or so, due to precession of the equinoxes (and, therefore, solstices).