• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1373 Excellent


About swjr-swis

  • Rank
    Self-proclaimed Groomer of the Orbits

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Interests KSP

Recent Profile Visitors

4556 profile views
  1. (All rights of the original 1960 'Spartacus' movie belong to Universal. Watch it... it's still the best version.)
  2. Sigh... really? Is this 'protection' something I can turn off at my own risk, preferably with a toggle of some kind? Fairings are the only procedural enclosure option we have in the stock game... don't just take that away.
  3. Pure stock. I enjoy the game as is. Don't get me wrong: I have nothing against mods. Some of my best friends are mods...
  4. More reasons I've noticed for myself: When doing forum challenges, creating and screencapturing the circularization maneuver nodes is part of the/my documentation of challenge attempts. How much is the circularization going to be, in time or dV, if you follow 'my' ascent profile? It's a handy bit of information to be able give when putting a craft up for download. Since I don't use mods I can't rely on KER or MJ to show that, making a maneuver node is the quick stock alternative.
  5. I tried to be as clear as I could on the screenshots, even circled the locations. I guess a video might be clearer: Am I guessing correctly that you imported this craft from a previous version of KSP? It might explain why I wasn't able to reproduce it by simply creating new endpoint-less struts in 1.3.0. Just a FYI: you don't need a single strut for this plane. Remove all the struts, enable autostruts on a few key places (ends of stacks and wing sections) and you get a cleaner, less draggy build with much less mach effect 'polution' in flight. For that matter, the fuel ducts don't appear to have much of a function either; you could remove those too (rocket engines draw fuel the same way as jet engines now). Also, a pair of canards at the nose would improve pitch handling... the FAT control surfaces are almost useless for pitch, being so close to the CoM (you get almost all of your control authority from the Vectors' gimbal alone). And you have roll set the wrong way around (the outer ones are much more effective). In fact, I would.... wait, why is the sun already up?
  6. There is a bug in 1.3.0 causing this: http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/15410 It's possible to manually edit the part cfg if you need it right now (see the bug report text), but it looks like it'll be fixed in the next patch.
  7. You could ask alexustas in the release threads of his mods: I did find ASET Aviation v1.0 and ASET Props v1.3 in my archives, but I have no idea if those are 1.1.3 compatible, because there is zero indication in the mod files. I uploaded them here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1pn03ev9dyyfyd4/AAD7KrCh4kL9Xf8JEt9QmHhUa?dl=0 Please let me know here when you grabbed them so I can delete them again.
  8. You have a broken link in there. It should be https://kerbalx.com/Ilovetrump/broke-mach-effects. And I already responded to you on that page, with the analysis/solution (struts without endpoints are the cause, see the imgur album).
  9. Kerbal cabins/cockpits/pods are pressurized with a dense clear and oxigenated liquid instead of air, that has several functions: it keeps their lidless eyes moisturized makes dedicated hygiene equipment and functions unnecessary makes a very effective shock absorption system to protect the kerbals allows taking snacks in deeply dehydrated form to save weight and storage space (and they become quickly hydrated for consumption by simply unpacking them) Due to this, and because that liquid has almost the exact same density as the average kerbal astronaut and suit... there is no difference in weight when the kerbals enter: some of the liquid is simply displaced and spills, that's all. That same liquid fills their suits too, which is the main reason they can bounce and survive collisions and drops. Command seats do not have an interior that can hold this liquid environment, so when Kerbals get into a command seat they do add to the craft mass. Think about it, it explains the lack of Kerbals and buildings on Kerbin's surface: the oceans must be their natural habitat, and the KSC was built and is used just to take advantage of the much lower friction of the atmosphere for launches. Disclaimer: the contents of this article is offered free of charge and devoid of any factual evidence. Any resemblance to Actual Facts ™ is purely coincidental and an unintended consequence of the almost total absence of said facts from anything I write, and I take no responsibility for either global warming or Justin Bieber. This article does not advocate long space missions without hygiene equipment on board, and soggy snacks are just nasty. My Internet lawyer says I have written enough words now to ensure no one will ever read this. Jeb: Val knows about us; nuff said.
  10. It's stock. Look it up in GameData/Squad/Localization/dictionary.cfg, line 7856: #autoLOC_7001131 = Flying Safe...
  11. That is almost a certainty. There are very common situations in which the current SAS code gets into a self-amplifying oscillation - often triggered simply by changing from stability hold to follow prograde in mid-flight. I think the winglets add very little to the control authority of the rocket to begin with, roll being the worst off. The Delta Deluxe winglets have the lowest control authority of all options (only 20% of their wing area is used, 0.13 - compared to 0.18 for the elevon 4), so most of their effect ends up being just stabilizing drag keeping the command pod pointing at space - and even that is poor due to very low initial CoM. A central stack engine gimbal has negligible control authority over the roll-axis. That leaves roll almost entirely up to the reaction wheels/SAS, which is weak in the atmosphere for this rocket. This is easily shown by disabling the winglets for all three axes: you will hardly notice the difference in flight behaviour. Now try disabling the reaction wheel torque and leave it all up to the winglets instead: flipping rocket and horrible roll control.
  12. Did you place those parachutes with mirror symmetry, or manually? Actually... I think I can see that you have also added 2x2 chutes on the lowest stage in the same way... only on the 'back' side. I draw that conclusion from the first picture, where one can tell that the chutes are not on the back/left side of the rocket, but also from seeing 2x2 chutes instead of 1x4 (which would be normal for a 4x radial symmetry) in your staging sequence, in stage 6. So that's 8 chutes in total that are only on one side, and that would certainly have an asymmetric influence on the aerodynamics. All bits add up. Btw, I tried to re-create your rocket, and I get to just over 94t with 95 parts; your info screen in the VAB claims 96t with 97 parts. I play pure stock so obviously I am missing the remote control and MJ parts, which seems to account for two missing parts, but I've looked and looked and I can't really see what could cause 2t of difference in mass. For just the remote action and the MJ part (is it at the back of the Mk1 pod? It's hard to tell but something seems to be there) 2t seems excessive. If either of those parts are really that heavy, since they are placed asymmetrically and KSP calculates drag based on part mass, that could account for a lot of the effect you are seeing. Pics of my stock re-creation:
  13. It's gotta be a Skipper... you can see the dark black bell of it in the first and last pics, darker than the boosters, where the mainsail has a grey bell, lighter than the boosters. A Mainsail would also stick out quite a bit below the boosters and would be much more visible at those angles.
  14. That's a rather uncharacteristically harsh judgement from you, RIC, and I don't even see where it's coming from. I too wish it had been handled a bit better (mostly wish he had been a bit more vocal about the situation leading up to it), but in a burn-out situation I think he handled it about as gracefully as could have been expected. If he had truly intended any real harm, let alone 'maximized', he could've just pulled the plug, scrubbed the disks, and told us all to take a hike and go fish for mods in our own personal archives. He did not. Instead he still took the effort to archive the entire site with source, full tree structure, and the entire history of uploaded mod files, made it publicly available for download, *and* assisted in the background to get a replacement site up and running. The interruption was less than two days. This phrase is still atop the SpaceDock forum thread to document that: Does that sound even remotely like someone intent on 'maximizing harm'? Seriously?
  15. <sigh> And I knew that... proof positive it's never a good idea to try answer questions while the morning headache is still at full blast.