Cunjo Carl

Members
  • Content count

    387
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

289 Excellent

3 Followers

About Cunjo Carl

  • Rank
    Rocket Fancier

Profile Information

  • Interests Science. All of it!

Recent Profile Visitors

891 profile views
  1. One more, showing up fashionably late to the party: MPL - Mobile processing lab
  2. Welcome to the forums, @Ncog Nito, and glad you're enjoying the game. A truism of ksp contracts is they're real sticklers for tiny details. To see the requirements for your mission midflight (and which of those requirements are currently being met) click on the page icon on the top right. Also, some parts need to be 'tested' and this is accomplished by right-clicking the part and clicking the 'test part' button on the bottom of the popup. (both shown in pic) If this doesn't help for your mission, send us a screen cap of the mission details or the contract requirement list like in this pic and we can give more specific advice. Posting images can be done by uploading your screen cap to a image hosting service (imgur or postimage work simply) and copy-pasting the link they provide right into your post. The contract system isn't perfect, and if you're certain you've completed a mission but KSP won't mark it as completed, you can do it yourself by pressing alt+F12, selecting contracts -> active and then clicking 'complete' for that mission. It happens. Oh, alt+F5 and alt+F9 are save and load for during flight. During longer missions they can make things a lot easier and less harrowing. Whether you want things to be easier and less harrowing is up to you Good luck, have fun, use the help forums plenty while learning and hopefully see you 'round!
  3. @mart Took a while to play around with this and there's a couple things I've noticed, though none of them will fully solve the troubles. As a note though, this shuttle has a nice bit of energy in it. While fiddling around I was getting orbits out past Duna before dropping he main tank- I like the design! As you mention, the main issue is the SAS trying to manage the gimbal, and this isn't the first large craft I've heard of that's become trickier to fly in 1.2. Control of yaw pitch and roll are all heavily coupled with the vectors' gimbal, and KSP is getting in to harmonic oscillations trying to damp both of them at once. I was hoping that tossing some vernors in key places (wingtips) would give the craft enough control to not get into the wiggles to begin with, but no such luck. I have found a handful of incremental improvements to make it a bit more manageable though. The main tank has a flat bottom, which has become far draggier in the latest version. Putting an empty but somewhat pointy fairing on it helps reduce its drag, which seemed to help the wobble slightly. You can increase the flow priority of the main tank's lower sections to help keep the COM more inline with the thrust. You can do this by right-clicking the bottom section and increasing the flow-priority by 2 and the middle section by 1. It helps a bit, but not much. The vectors can be tilted one tick further down (more straight) without hurting launch conditions at all. It helps later on a little bit if the wiggles get more severe. I've tried a handful of other things, but nothing in my toolbox is getting rid of the wiggles satisfactorily. I hope the little improvements above make it a bit more manageable for you. And hopefully someone will have a magic bullet for this problem. There's a huge amount of expertise in the help forums, so I'll keep my fingers crossed! EDIT: Inspiration struck, and I found an ok solution. Turning off the gimbal on the lower two vector will keep it from rocking too much on the way up. It's not ideal, but it works!
  4. @KenjiKrafts Happy to be of service! Have fun with that leviathan of a ship cruising the oceans of Laythe. It doesn't have any landing stage on it, but it should have just about enough fuel to power all the way down. I've left it in a slanted orbit in case there was a certain latitude/island you wanted to land near. I turned on autostruts for a couple of the central parts on the bow end. They should be far enough away from eachother to prevent wiggles on the way down, but you will almost definitely want to turn them off shortly after landing. New Dawns (the MPL/ISRU station) is in equatorial LLO, and is a little short on electricity... Some of the yet-unused station parts launched up earlier on have loads of batteries, so you could always dock one of those on if needs be. Cool ships! I'm looking forward to seeing them in action. @53miner53 A pair of Mk2 Airplane Fueling stations are in a slanted orbit with small separate deorbitting stages. These thing should bring VTOL to a whole new level. With that many Whiplashes, it could probably nearly crank itself back into orbit! I also resorted to autostruts on a couple of the larger mainline parts, but I don't think they'll cause issue in the long run, even if left on. @Jeb federation I didn't get to do much more than ogle the dozen or so of your craft that Kenji loaded in (and I merged into the main file), but I'm really excited to bring some of those out to Laythe. I love the utilitarian boxed-and-crated look they have, and it's really cool to see the uses you've made of hinges and airbrakes. I have to admit.... Light post's my favorite. It's.... so.... practical! So others know what I'm talking about: It sounded like you thought something might be missing? There's a bunch of your stuff in the main file... Let's see. Truck sub Mobile suface scanning transmitter Heavy Surface Harvester mobile ore recovery & processessing plant light post Heavy crane platform heavy harvester D_A_V Heavy Resource Transport Laythe lander Let me know if anything needs adding! If someone gets in the mood for piloting, Kenji's Com and Scansats are set for deploying. They should have plenty of deltaV to pepper into the nearby moons as well. also, a compressed gif of today's mission: links: Project Babylon Reboot Save File Repository Calendar.
  5. @Sarxis You can also get an idea of what range you'll have using @Poodmund's antenna range calculator. It models the non-linearities in KSP's range calculations accurately as I understand, and I've heard the upcoming version won't have any notable differences for com range.
  6. Takeoff on Laythe tends to have very similar requirements to Kerbin. Takeoff speeds tend to be slightly lower (at sea level) or slightly higher on hilltops. There also tends to be shorter stretches for takeoff, but the curved terrain is nice for jumping off. For the SSTO flight requirements the atmosphere is thinner, but orbital velocity is lower, so you wind up coming out a little bit ahead. Generally, if you get it working on Kerbin (or atleast close to), Laythe comes naturally. Just finished this weeks haul! I'm putting together a post and uploading the files now. Sent up Hyperion, Mk2 Plane and new dawn. Files are up, but need to finish post later. Have fun!
  7. Thank you very much, @bewing. This is something I'd much rather not have learned the hard way.
  8. @galactictaco That seems like a very sensible way to run a Mun mission . Unfortunately, I literally need to be prodded into rendezvous-ing anything, and doing it without maneuver nodes sounds crazy hard! By the way, the KSP mission system keeps trying to get me to rendezvous in the orbit of the Mun with caveman levels of upgrades... is that.... doable? It sounds like an enormous undertaking to me!
  9. I hearby dub this craft "Science Robber"! May she serve well for queen and country. 4 reaction wheels feels way overkill, huh. Unfortunately with all the vernors pushing this thing around, the SAS will let the yaw (roll on the navball) wander all over over unless it has an equivalent silly amount of reaction wheel to counterbalance it. I'm sure there's a more elegant solution, but in the meantime those kerbals get 200kg of highspeed discs spinning right over their head. Silly as it looks! Thanks again for the help!
  10. There were many wonderful answers, all of which I'll use, but I'd like to mark this question answered and @Urses' advice for monoprop rcs (or in my case vernor) propulsion and 'wide not long or tall' really got my landers landing quick! Here it is! The mk1. I haven't quite optimized it for physwarpx3 landing, but x2 is fine and it handles well flying at x3. The legs have all had their dampers turned up and springs turned way down, which has helped increase the landing speed while preventing bounce-off or roll from leftover horizontal velocity. There are banks of vernors on the bottom as well for upward propulsion, so the whole thing can be controlled by linear translation, which has made an unbelievable improvement in landing time. I really liked the scientist suggestion, but in the end I was finding it harder to bring (and use) a scientist than to just bring the extra science gear! I may change my mind with a bit more practice, but given I have no limits on launch weight I'll just be inefficient for now. The landing "Pontoons" decouple once spent to help alleviate the extra weight. To keep the engine from ramming into the ground when landing at high physwarp, I put it on the top, which means we're flying home backwards! It's too bad twitches are just out of reach.... I'm happy, this is gonna work great, and there's still plenty of room to improve on it, too!
  11. Thank you everyone for the great answers! @bewing It's a good point about the sharpness of the terrain. I'd also been finding that by the time my rovers pick up any real speed (50m/s) they might as well be hoppers for the amount of flying they do! Knowing that's not just me is very helpful. I'm actually not too worried about braking, because I have no qualms with using chemical rockets to slow down. A bit wasteful in normal situations, but it works well in this context. @Aegolius13 I just gave it a shot, and the scientists can't reset experiments directly from an armchair. However, if they're within reach of the experiment it's quite convenient to pop them out, reset it, and pop them back in. Unfortunately, quick turns are what I'll be all about because the twist on this mission is to get it done as fast as possible, but I like the idea of a smaller (spark sized) hopper. Despite the low gravity allowing for larger craft, I think your spark-sized design could handle much more quickly and precisely for its lower mass.... I'll definitely tinker with that. @paulprogart Hah! Trash can with SAS describes so many of my ships. Fortunately, on this route, all 5 of the biomes occur on broad flat spaces, even the 'slopes' biome. Could be a glitch, but I'm not complaining. That'll make it (comparatively) easy to stop at the designated sites regardless of rover/lander type. Pulsing the breaks makes you slow down faster?? This will be very useful on some of my other craft! @AeroGav I'd also been noticing that landing gear roved better (sturdier) than traditional rover wheels. Nice to know it's not just me having trouble with the little rover wheels. @Foxster The techs a bit beyond me, but I really like the idea of putting the primary rocket engines in such a way to apply additional downwards force. I've been applying the extra down force with separate smaller engines (sparks) or RCS blocks, but applying it directly with the main engine should make the setup a lot simpler! Because I gotta go fast, I'll be keeping the acceleration on pretty steady for much of the trip in any case. @Urses If racing rovers sound amusing, there's a few good races going on in the challenge board, including one on Kerbin, and one on the Mun. I've got a silly quick ion rover for the Mun race, but I'm still trying to make a monoprop-only design surpass it . So far I can only get the monoprop design to 50m/s reliable, so it's still a long ways off! Back to the topic though, it's an interesting idea to use only 5 way monoprop blocks for propulsion... If you could make your craft light enough (as yours is) it would certainly be maneuverable! 'Build in width rather than length'... that makes so much sense now that you mention it. I'll give it a shot! @Warzouz That's uncanny- your lander is the spitting image of mine if you were to cram a few more sci.jr.s on. A terrier on a rockomax pancake works way too well for how silly it looks! For this mission in particular I'll need to push my landing speed up a bit higher than is convenient for the design as is. It's a great craft to build from though! @WanderingKid Sweet setup! Hardmode career is hard - I can't imagine playing without quicksave now I've been spoiled . Unfortunately, I won't have time for docking/refueling because I'm trying to do the mission as fast as possible. Looks super efficient though! I guess I like anything with enough kickbacks on it. It sounds like we have a pretty similar route on Minmus, and I agree KER would be lovely! The seismic accelerator is a good call to check out. I was originally planning on skipping it because I'd need to spend 300 science to get it, and would only get 500 science from it out of the mission (5 biomes). The payoff is kinda thin for my particular case, but science is science! Thanks for the pictures by the way, it made your answer really clear. @Kryxal May the Schwartz be with you! @Spricigo I used to run the mission exactly to how you described: Get science Jr.s and go straight to Minmus! But the new career mission setup sadly requires I head to the Mun first. So I might as well take advantage of my extra science on Minmus. Ooh, mods are tempting sometimes, but it's stock only for me! And no engine will ever be big enough . @Wanderfound I love the spin-to-seperate tanks vertically attached to eachother. They should save on aerodrag during launch, while still providing an asparagus-like design efficiency. I also am keen on the small, low moment-of-inertia form factor. Since I'm aiming to go quick-as-possible on 5 landings, I'll probably need a surprisingly high TWR, despite it being on Minmus. Designs like this have become so much nicer since the advent of rigid joints, it's a cool style! Thanks again everyone for your help!
  12. @FancyMouse The 500m/s is a good value to know. I've always been eyeballing it by the fueltank gauge, but if I put KER back on that should give me a much better feel. Also, good call about doubling up on Sci Jr & surface samples for a bit of extra science! If the mission runs a bit short I'll be sure to use that. @AeroGav I've also been tinkering with landing gear rovers and finding ~30m/s to be about tops on bumpy ground. I'll keep tinkering, but it's nice to know that's not unusual. Ohhhh... so scientists can reset science Jr.s! Somehow I always forget this, thanks for mentioning it! Given I'm intending to hit 5 biomes, it may well be worth bringing a scientist along, which is an interesting thought. Also, you hit the nail on the head about having this mission win the game for me. It'll hopefully be able to get all that tasty tier2 tech in a single shot for a silly mission I've got going. You bring up a good point about biome hopping taking a long time though. If it winds up taking too long, I can defer some science gathering to my next launch, which should probably be Moho. Thank you both for the answers- it's given me some good stuff to mull over. Edit: Haha! I hit send and 4 more answers popped up. Boy, I write slow. It's unfortunately bed time for me, but I look forward to reading your answers tomorrow, @bewing, @Aegolius13 and @paulprogart.
  13. Hi! I'm putting together a biome hopper for some flat parts of Minmus. The little red path shown below has five flat spots I'd like to land on and take data with a Kerbal; the only twist is I'm hoping to do it as fast as possible (in real time). Any general advice for making maneuverable landers or quick rovers that don't mind a bit of beating? I'd love to be more specific, but I'm fairly new to biome hopping and really don't know what I don't know. At this point I have ~1400 science, most of which is still unspent and flexible. An example of the tech I could have is above... so... tier 1 engines, the 1.25m control wheels and medium legs/gear are all a given, and if needed I could have any 1 of vernors, the command chair or large landing gear. Thanks in advance!
  14. You got it! I've got a lot of things for this weekend. Looking forward to it. Could you send me the name of the vessel so I don't mess it up or forget it? I'm pretty epic at these things! My history of 'Kerbal sized' wreckages on Laythe are definitely a testament to this. Fortunately, I'm up for making some ludicrous-scale lifters, so worse comes to worse I'll just strap HMCS Dooblydoo to twice its weight in deorbiters and landers.... yeah that sounds about right. ... ... You used to work for SPAR!?
  15. March 18 would have been me, and I'm not surprised I uploaded two by mistake. The only other person who's been working since then was @KenjiKrafts and I'm pretty sure it wasn't directly in the save file.