qzgy

Members
  • Content count

    876
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1052 Excellent

3 Followers

About qzgy

  • Rank
    Turbohead-In-Training

Profile Information

  • Location Colliding stars
  1. Can't help but think of the queen/david bowie song. Looks fun, I'll give it a go.
  2. Error 404 - no situation found I have a notebook. What could possibly go wrong!
  3. You're farther than my career save, and I'm playing with everything on a 100%. Good job.
  4. Tested out a 300 kerbal lander. Only compatible on planets with atmospheres greater than or equal to Kerbin. Eve might work well.
  5. I gave it another go, given how @sevenperforce is trying to one up me. So I one upped myself. Same idea as last time. But bigger. And more brick like. 300 kerbals (in theory, I only had 100 loaded), nothing lost, on Island with runway, 9 wing surfaces 500+3000+50-315=3235.
  6. Ok, quick entry. I didn't detach the deorbit thing, but it wasn't used for landing. So, total score should be 640 points - nothing lost, 100 kerbals carried. (6*16 + 4) Edit: Score should be as above... - did my math wrong.
  7. Question - Can we cheat our craft into orbit? Or do we actually have to do a full mission. I just ask cause the focus is on descent and landing, right? Also, what about SSTO's? I can;t detach the deorbit thing from that....
  8. Judging by the numbers in the menu, SRBs are not hit in the same way as a terrier. For example, a BACC thumper produces 250kn at Kerbin sea level, 300 kn in space. It seems also from the numbers in the SPH/VAB that you'll want really vectors or aerospikes - the ISP for vectors at Kerbin sea level are better, but vacuum isp is better for aerospikes. Also vectors have a much higher thrust. This is also consistent with what people have on youtube. Take your pick. I don't really have experience with eve though...
  9. What I don't understand is why not just play on the i5 system with the 970.... Best of both worlds. But yeah, others are correct that KSP is single thread performance bound. Kinda due to the way the physics are handled.
  10. In my case, wayy off. Thought I might have been a native norwegian, and spoke a South African dialect (as top picks). The 2nd choice for native language was correct, but the dialect option were welsh and New Zealandish. I live on the East Coast of the United States, and never been to any of those areas. Kinda far off.
  11. Unfortunately not. I wish I could though. TUBM cannot land on jool.
  12. Then the question is whether the heat transfer by radiation is calculated by the closest distance, or to the CoM of the part. Maybe it would be best to calculate a projection and an average distance of the immediately visible to the part, assuming we are treating it as a point source of heat. Which then asks the question is it a point source, emanating heat in a perfect sphere? I'm not sure how good of a model that would be though. Radiators for example don't project all of the heat from one single point, heat tends to radiate from all points of the radiator, and more so in certain places (the big flat part) than others (the edge). So, how would that be modeled? I guess one of the ideas is to model it as a flashlight, similar to the current stock lights, instead bathing parts with heat, not light. (this could also open the door to stock heat lamps, maybe to tan kerbals?). But then you fall into the problem of having to model heat in a much more complex way After a point, it's how real do we make this? Easiest way and simplest is to simulate the CoM of a heated part as a point source of heat, emanating in a perfect sphere, dissipating according to inverse square, affecting other parts based on the distance to the center of mass. I also am not a specialist on thermodynamics, nor a mathematician, nor a programmer.
  13. Huh? They do science? Wonder if they do it by locking a couple people in a room and refuse to give them snacks until they figure something out.
  14. When you are still clutching onto your 1.2.2 game cause you really don't want to update...