swjr-swis

Members
  • Content count

    1239
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1195 Excellent

3 Followers

About swjr-swis

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/members/156316-swjr-swis

Recent Profile Visitors

4285 profile views
  1. I don't think this is what @Speeding Mullet means with 'thickness': it's not about the diameter, it's about the distance between top and bottom of the base plate. The base plate being marginally wider than their cross-section profile doesn't bug me nearly as much, it still maintains a very acceptably flush aspect. In fact, not being completely flush is helpful for mitigating the weak joint problem sometimes, since it allows external struts to reinforce the joint, whereas if it were fully flush it would make it very hard to keep struts connected (struts that seem to connect ok at first, but end up disconnected or pointing 'into the void' when reconnecting a section or reverting an edit).
  2. Agreed. If there is a way to make the medium and especially the small fairing base a good bit thinner, I would be all for it. Possible explanation, and a suggestion if this is the case: I think the main problem blocking this is that parts that are much wider than high/long cause problems for the Unity engine joint system (or at least at one point that was the explanation of why the 3.5m decoupler needed to be made 'physicsless'). As it is, the joint at the bottom of fairings with a relatively heavy payload inside them has a tendency to break during physics load; this might become worse if the base is made thinner. I have a suggestion though, if that problem is still in effect and preventing the fairing base from being made thinner: visually 'hollow' out the base piece (making it like a bowl of sorts) and adapt it so everything up to the very bottom of it is counted as shielded by the fairing when closed. That way the 'technical thickness' of the base plate can be left at whatever size it needs to mitigate the Unity issue, but it doesn't feel as much wasted as we get to fill the space with payload/parts. While we're on the subject: please please add a 0.625m fairing... even if it requires the ungainly thick base plate (hopefully adapted as I suggest above).
  3. When they cure the wet noodleness of joints in the game and a craft acts like it's actually been physically assembled into one structural unit instead of stuck together with cheap glue, rubber bands and magnets, they can do whatever they want with the autostruts. Or the regular struts for that matter. In the meantime, it's the only mitigation we have, and limited at that, with problems all of their own. It doesn't require any further 'punishment' for use, it's a pain in the rear that we need them in the first place.
  4. The 0.625m shield could also help a kerbal make it back to the surface from orbit:
  5. I confirmed it for you and added a screenshot. Btw, you ended up posting the issue on the regular tracker, instead of the pre-release one I linked you; they are not the same. Nothing lost, but as I understand it they prefer the reports in the pre-release tracker in this phase.
  6. Neither: you should create a report on the prerelease tracker. That is, if you wish it to be seen by those who can correct them.
  7. You forgot to round it up to two decimals, which is in his favour. And the SSTO spaceplanes are still ahead.
  8. The challenge rules do not stipulate anything on that regard, so it's up to the contester to decide what their payload it going to be. My D1/D2 payload included small ore tanks, filled to 'top off' the mass when I noticed there was still margin to be gained, but it is mostly LFO and monoprop, and a fully functional orbital refueling station. Besides, one could make a case for ore pods being a very dense form of fuel for a refuelable interplanetary vehicle, if one includes an ISRU in the configuration...
  9. That's it. Up to you to give it any kind of value or significance you want. Feel good, or bad, or blasé about them. Watch how they develop or try to glean some sort of indication of what crafts/techniques gets more points, or what day of the week is the best to publish a craft, or whether the phase of the moon has any relation. Or you could ignore them entirely and silently shake your head at anyone who even gives them more than a passing thought. The points won't care what you decide to do with them. They're just there, adding up. Or not.
  10. Registered site users can (dis)like each others' crafts (green arrow up, red arrow down, top of the craft pages).
  11. If you're using kerbals: a pilot with 3 stars (level 3). If you're using probe cores, the probe core needs to have 'Maneuver Hold' in its SAS capabilities... not all do; rightclick on them in the part list to see the details and scroll down. Or, add a CH-J3 avionics hub somewhere on your craft to automatically add all SAS capabilities to your pilots or probe cores.
  12. Save a copy of those files somewhere else though: not everything might transfer intact.
  13. Open the in-game 'cheat' menu (Alt-F12 on Windows), go to the Physics tab, Aero, Display Aero Data GUI. The window that enables in the Flight scene shows a 'Total Drag' value (along with a whole lot other useful information).
  14. An entry for the Rocket category (non-recoverable), the D1b, a single-stage non-recoverable lifter reusing the D2 concept: 21.19% mass fraction, with some room for improvement (the fuel remaining probably means the X200-8 tank can be removed, which would shorten/lighten the fairing as well, although I'd likely have to accept leaving a huge piece of debris in orbit).
  15. Nothing a bit of trial & error can't help us perfect. I am managing to land the rocket on the KSC area now with pretty good accuracy. So I was curious how well my D2 would fare compared to the top performer of the same category in the last iteration of this challenge, @Nefrums RLS Mk1. Since the old rules allowed a minimum orbit of 70x70km, I was able to shave off total launch mass by removing one tank and shortening the fairing, and at the same time topping up the payload ore tanks. The D2b was able to put 101.537t of payload into a 70x70km orbit with a 478.373t launch mass, which puts it at a 21.23% mass fraction. Not a bad result for a single-stage rocket vs a two-stage one... I was pleased. I'll have to find some time this weekend to remake it in 1.0.5 and see if it maintains that performance with the exact same physics too.