• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by swjr-swis

  1. 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).
  2. 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.
  3. A submission for the Rocket Only Recovery category: the D2, a single-stage recoverable rocket with a payload mass fraction of 20.23%: Btw, if rocket builders manage to land the rocket at the runway, would we also benefit from the extra points: For that matter, I feel that if landing a plane on the runway gets 10 points extra, rockets landed on the launchpad should get 30 points... Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/MassFraction-Rocket-D2
  4. A long time ago, when 1.2.0 was still in prerelease:
  5. 1) You don't want this. No, really. Even for huge heavy vessels (talking hundreds to thousands of tons here, I do not kid around), you need only a relatively small number of well-chosen autostruts to immensely rigidify the craft. But just slightly beyond the optimum, and I mean sometimes literally just one more autostrut, and the whole thing will explodify right at loading. 2) In stock, no. 3) If you accept mods: with the Module Manager mod, you can write a quick tiny cfg that sets the line 'autostruts = Heaviest' for every single part in your install.
  6. Personally it's a 'realism option' I immediately disable in any game I play, much like camera flares and DoF blurring: they are forced constructs to mimic the ways cameras fail to duplicate what our eyes/brains do for us. In my opinion it's less realistic, rather than more. In any case, if you already set the sliders to max you're out of options, unless the game permits 'cheating' the slider by using a higher setting in the Settings.cfg. Try editing the values for FLT_CAMERA_WOBBLE, CAMERA_FX_EXTERNAL and CAMERA_FX_INTERNAL and see what happens.
  7. A few possible causes to check for: Overuse of autostruts on big/heavy vessels almost guarantees spontaneous explosive disassembly at physics kicking in. Wrong choices for the autostrut endpoint setting can do this too. Check carefully how they connect and to what, if there are any asymmetries or too many things connected to light-ish parts it can lead to explosions. Heavy payloads connected by weak decouplers/docking ports, or insufficiently (auto)strutted in the bay/fairing. One that happens very often: with heavy rockets, make sure there is some room between the lowest part and the launch platform deck. The rocket will start with a spring motion downwards as gravity kicks in and before the launch clamps can stabilize it, which without headroom will bang it onto the platform, hard. No amount of launch clamps avoids this if you surpass certain weights, not even when placed at the bottom (the swinging will happen right through the clamps anyway). A similar thing happens with heavy (space)planes, but not much you can do there to mitigate this due to unclamped SPH vessels stubbornly deciding their own launch height. You could try with launch clamps and 'dropping' it once stabilized, and experimentally finding the best compromise between swing room and drop height that allows it to survive for take off. Ironically: too many launch clamps can be a cause too sometimes. Not exactly sure of the explanation for this one. If you have a lot of clamps, try removing a few. Or try separating them a bit away from the craft, with the offset tool... I've come to accept 'magnetic clamping' as an inevitable workaround to avoid the clamps themselves from being the catalysts sometimes. Fairing bases and TT-38-D decouplers have a tendency to almost unnoticeably break their top or bottom stack connection when the top is very heavy or even just from the initial swing motion when physics kick in. You can tell sometimes because the stack will 'lose' stages right when loading, or if you had SAS on and it suddenly turns grey as if you lost connection (you didn't, the vessel focus just went with the severed part of the vessel that does not have a core/manned cockpit). Explosions tend to follow very closely so it's hard to notice sometimes. There are a few parts that have a tendency of creating in-vessel collisions/forces when clipped, even though this is supposed to never happen: most notably landing gear, wheels, the klaw, and kerbals in command seats. Almost forgot, but this one is difficult to check for because the game does not show it and it doesn't happen consistently: if you do clip parts, especially heavy parts in symmetry, either ensure their (invisible!) collision meshes are well apart, or clipped a good bit into each other. If they are just barely overlapping, it sometimes causes them to violently push each other apart when physics kick in.
  8. Pass on the (auto)struts, add moar docking ports, longer rocket, heavy payloads in fairings, a sprinkling of TR-38-D decouplers, generous amounts of gimbal - the perfect recipe for Noodle Rodeo. Or with (space)planes and the SAS as it's been since 1.2.x: simply engage 'follow prograde' mid-flight when you're pointing 5-10 degrees away from it, and watch the wobble intensify. If you mean the screen shaking: add a heavy barely-fitting payload in a cargo/service bay and decouple midflight while rotating in any axis, preferably all three. Make sure to switch focus to the payload for the optimal experience. (*) (* Obligatory disclaimer for our American friends: do not try this at home without supervision if you're susceptible to epileptic seizures.)
  9. Or... you could enable the OS folder/file compression on the saves folder (on Windows hidden behind the 'Advanced...' properties button) and have the OS do it on the fly without the game needing any adaptation. Essentially it works the same, performance-wise there will be no difference, and if you edit savefiles with some regularity, it is transparent to the notepads of the world that the files are compressed. Conner, my trusty HD provider for the first ... forever. 20, two 40, then a giant leap to a 170 MB that swallowed all data from the three previous disks and still had almost as much space left empty. Sigh, and these days GB-size files are a regular occurrence... Btw, if you really want to feel old, try asking the all-important question and be prepared for the confused stares: C/H/S of your first one? (615/4/17 if you really must know)
  10. I was afraid that'd be the response. Oh well. Back to spoiler tags and individual links it is then.
  11. First of all: yay for the ability to paste Imgur albums being back again. But can we please talk about how those albums look? Is there any way to change that? In particular, is there anything we can do about resizing the default 'mini-polaroid' frame, so we are not forced to click away from the forum just to be able to see/read any of the pertinent details someone is trying to show in the pictures? The way it is now, we're gonna have to circumvent the miniaturization by pasting individual image links so they show at a readable size... in essence invalidating the album feature. (and preferably: can we just get rid of that polaroid frame altogether?)
  12. Just a few km north of where you found the highlands splashed, a bit closer to the next bend; the module window shows the coordinates. The picture may be slightly confusing because it is looking due south instead of due north like yours, but the view would be almost the same.
  13. No need to go that far apart.
  14. At Y10, D38, H1:14 Eeloo gets farther away than Jool again, at 67298321 km. So a bit over 1 year and 332 days.
  15. I don't have that, but I do have the moment that Eeloo is no longer further away from Kerbol than Jool: Year 8, Day 131, Hour 5, Minute 47-ish, at an altitude over Kerbol of 70500252 km, give or take a km. The reason I don't have the direct answer to your question: it's quite possible that Jool never becomes the furthest body from Kerbol... since once past Eeloo, it would still require all five of its own moons to be simultaneously on the 'sunny' halves of their orbits around Jool (any moon on the other half of their orbit would be farther away than Jool, thus negating Jool that privilege). Edit: Ok, you made me check: Year 8, Day 144, Hour 1, Minute 58-ish, the first time after Eeloo moves closer that all of Jool's moons get on the sunny side, and Jool gets to be the furthest body from Kerbol.
  16. Best thing to do is to report this in the mod release thread for the parts you found, and mention the bug report nr. so the author(s) can watch for whatever the resolution of the problem is; or in case it's a systemic issue with the game, they can add additional information to the report itself.
  17. That is exactly what happens, yes. Note that the site decides this based on the name of the craft in the craft file (not the filename of the craft file itself): if there is an identical name already uploaded on your account, it will tell you and ask if you wish it to update the craft.
  18. It's been reported already (http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/14467), but you can confirm it.
  19. What means this word 'enough'? We at KSC not hear of this word...
  20. Nothing? A single Linear RCS Port offset to the very nose of the Mk1 or Mk2 cockpits are all you need to protect them from overheating. They 'detach' the shockwave from your cockpit so it soaks up a whole lot less heat at reentry.
  21. Agreed on almost all points. Still would've used 6x fuel cell in symmetry around that Oscar-B though, despite the 1/5th extra mass. And the array makes for a nice mini-rover body.
  22. [Forum keeps destroying this URL, so you'll just have to type it in by hand. Go to google, search for "ápside definición"] Start going down the list of different dictionaries and tell them all how wrong they are...
  23. I know I'm not in any kind of majority on this, this is a very personal opinion: I'm not a raving fan of Ven's Stock Revamp. I played with it for a while in a single career game... and to this day that's been the only career I used it in. I was not a fan of the overall look, I kept having difficulty with quickly identifying the parts while building, and I didn't like some changes that in my opinion went beyond a 'simple' visual restyling. No offense to the author, as it is clearly obvious a lot of effort was put into the pack. I liked some of the ideas worked into it, just not the overall effect.
  24. For mindless fun, tests, proofs of concept: minutes, usually. Which proves I can work fast if I need to (thousands of hours of experience counts for something). For 'final' (*) versions of 'serious' (**) projects: hours and days and weeks and months, over many many, many iterations. A cycle often restarted when a new version of KSP arrives. *: final is incredibly relative in my case; I seem to be almost incapable of not 'tweaking'. Almost every time I reload an existing craft, I get stuck in the VAB or SPH for far longer than I intended, succumbing to further tweaking that started under the pretense of 'quick checking how I configured this last time' instead of launching after crewing the ship. I spend way more time editing than flying. I fully expect one day to roll out my last (tweaked) creation to the pad or runway, and find the Kerbin landscape completely transformed due to the natural evolution of the home star... **: serious between serious quotes... I've spent more time on unlikely contraptions than on realistically designed spacecraft. It's a weakness.
  25. I read the thread title and the user name, and I had to race into here to see how in space someone had managed to get KSP running on a C-128. I am disappoint now! If you can already run the demo, you should be able to run the full version too. You don't mention your CPU, but otherwise you exceed the minimum specs for the full version. Technically there's not much difference: they only ask for more VRAM, RAM and storage space since there are more parts to store and load in the full version. KSP is CPU-bound, not GPU. Your 'onboard graphics' is basically a full-fledged graphics card with dedicated VRAM which just happens to come pre-soldered... AMD prerrogative to use their own GPUs for their motherboards. To compare: I have a Win 8.1 laptop with an Intel i7-4800 CPU, Intel HD4600 'actual' integrated graphics using shared memory, and 8GB, that ran KSP fine (*)... the FPS slowed down at around 150-200 part ships or when aerodynamic effects were being rendered on high detail levels (Mach/reentry effects), and I never tried it with more than a handful of mods (which can gobble up RAM rapidly), but it was quite playable. I didn't notice much difference between the demo or the full version other than the initial loading time. Your mileage may vary, as they say, but since your graphics specs far exceed the specs of that laptop, I expect it should work fine for you. (*full disclosure: I haven't run KSP 1.2x on that yet - but performance-wise 1.2 was an improvement, and I think the demo is based on a pre-1.2 version, so I can only assume it works better)