Stewcumber

Members
  • Content count

    113
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

184 Excellent

About Stewcumber

  • Rank
    The alpha-fail

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/member.php?u=115053

Profile Information

  • Location Southampton, UK
  • Interests Computers, Cars, Transport Planning

Recent Profile Visitors

961 profile views
  1. I do it in quite a dumb, basic, 'brute force' kind of way, which probably is not good / cheap /efficient design but has got the job done about eight times (and counting): The rocket is a bit unstable during ascent, but I overcome it with (more) brute force, such as adding reaction wheels to various places, and more winglets everywhere on the rear half of the rocket. The rover itself is essentially a decoupler on top and another on the bottom of the rover; lander above rover, main rocket stages below. It is useful to create your rover as a sub-assembly in the Splace Pane hanger to get the symmetry spot on, and also turn off all power / steering to ALL wheels by default so your rocket's pitch / roll / yaw commands will also control the rover wheels.
  2. How do you propeller propelled plane designers design your propellers? Do you "stick a bunch of blades on and angle them a bit" or do you apply more science than that? I use 8x blades (usually I use short flaps), with an angle of attack of maybe 25 degrees. What do you use, dear reader?
  3. Today I improved my 'engines' by having a much smaller space for the axle to rotate in, so it bounces around less and is therefore less likely to explode. No landing gear wheels required! I spawn my creation with the axle attached with a decoupler, and then let it drop down into the slot. I then lower the legs of landing gear to 'lock' the axle in place and stop it bouncing around. https://www.dropbox.com/s/zae042tprsj9f3l/KSP 2017-07-19 20-21-16-90.mp4?dl=0 I then thought I'd try out an air powered car, which actually worked! Watch me turn off the landing gear brakes and then power away at a blistering 3m/s! https://www.dropbox.com/s/bqx5o47zy0mp3lc/KSP 2017-07-19 20-33-23-06.mp4?dl=0
  4. I took it further today, and made a more stable engine (with the wheels on the outside of the axle): https://www.dropbox.com/s/3468vpz42bp0s0g/KSP 2017-07-18 20-11-42-18.mp4?dl=0 It worked for a good few minutes at low power before exploding! I then thought I'd try driving a wheel and made this brilliant contraption: The idea being the engine connects straight to an axle, which the wheel is connected to. It would be a one wheel drive car. This, naturally, didn't work or move and blew up pretty quickly, because the engine / axle at the wheel end would sag as it took the weight of itself so would not rotate smoothly around itself with a bearing of 0, if you know what I mean (it's z axis?). Any ideas? I thought I'd go back a step and made literally a rolling axle, which was a lot of fun to be fair! (Video is 51mb) https://www.dropbox.com/s/r5rm7b0g14pqjlh/KSP 2017-07-18 21-42-30-08.avi?dl=0 It is pretty nippy, I've seen 21m/s before it starts flipping out of control because the engines are not exactly inline. I'm sure this is easily fixable if I go back and use the symmetry properly.
  5. Today I started experimenting with making prop engines. So far I've managed to design something that can rotate slowly but rattles around like a food blender... and as soon as I try add 'blades' it will lift out the engine bay / the rest of my craft. I might go back to Azimech's thread (which I know is a completely different method of propulsion design)...
  6. I started a new career. We all know what that means - hideous but functional science farmers! KSC Science Farmer Level 1 tech plane for air farming (?)
  7. I thought i'd give a try at building a modular base somewhere that can have parts added or removed. First step- setting out a "building standard" and a tug to move parts around... It works! (with stabilisers anyway) And it self rights when I inevitably fall over... It would seem large fuel tanks are a bit too much though... Would "moar wheels" overcome this? or maybe having two of the tugs- one at the front and one at the back of the fuel tank?
  8. I have also have a kerbal Roverisation technique: It is a sturdy and fast design, with landing legs to flip it the right way over. I have an action grouping to turn off various wheels and turn on rear wheel steering. Put your arms in the air like you just don't care!
  9. Today I did a couple of uninteresting things in KSP. What was more interesting however, was finally connecting up the little LCD display my case has (It's a Bitfenix Pandora if you're interested). I put up a kerbal picture, in the few minutes break I had between putting immature logos, pictures and memes:
  10. Today I thought I would rescue some of my stranded Kerbals on the Mun to "tidy things up a bit". I am not very good aiming to land at a specific place so I was also interested in practising this. I used my standard Mun/Minmus rocket but with extra seating. There is a rover below the lander. I managed to aim my lander quite well, and with a few quick saves of practice I got to within 750m of my first stricken Mun mission. This was an LKO shuttle thing that I thought I'd try to reach the Mun with, and ran out of fuel. My landing was a bit precarious: I dumped the mid stage before landing so I can detach the rover. I'm sure seeing various rocket parts strew across the Mun instilled lots of confidence in the stranded Kerbals... Picking up the stranded kerbals The other rescue mission was for a prototype version of my Mun rocket. I missed a crucial part in the prototype: Compared to the 'final' version: Yeah, no fuel pipes between the central tank and the engines, hence it ran out of fuel, oops I've always ditched the orange middle stage just before I land (it usually has a little fuel left) but this time I stuck some legs on the middle stage to get some free Dv . Although this meant I couldn't detach the rover... Back on Kerbin, I managed to land on one of the very steep cliffs, but fortunately my quad-legged design kept me upright and I slid down the hill at 2m/s. Well done Lander!
  11. The graphics cards are called names such as "Nvidia GeForce 940m" (http://www.geforce.co.uk/hardware bottom left of the page). The older ones tend to have "GT" in front of the number, such as "Nvidia GeForce GT650M" the more powerful ones will have "GTX" in front of the number. The first number is the "generation" of the card, i.e. a 5xx is newer than a 4xx. The second number reflects the performance of a card, i.e. the 640m is slower than a 650m. Performance generally increases slightly with each generation, so a 650m is probably equivalent to a 740m. A 680m will be much more powerful than a 740m, however. I would go for a GT640m (or higher 6 series), 730m (or higher), 920m or higher. As another poster says, these are basic, low power graphics cards and probably not suited to AAA games likes Witcher 3 etc. But are fine for kerbal. The game does run on "intel hd graphics" so a graphics card is not strictly necessary.
  12. It's been a while since I looked at laptop specs, but KSP likes fast cores rather than lots of cores, so I'd go for an intel i5 CPU, but make sure it is a non- "u" model as the u series are the low power, low clock speed models, especially on laptops a few years old. I'd also recommend a basic dedicated graphics card like an Nvidia 540/640/740/940/ rather than built in intel /AMD graphics. 8GB of RAM will be plenty. I play KSP flawlessly at high settings on my i5 3xxxx (we're on 7xxx now, so a good few years old!) 2.8GHz CPU, Nvidia 650m, 8GB RAM.
  13. Haven't played in quite a while. When I last played I was about to try to set up a mining base at the inland space centre, despite never going there before! So today, after a few attempts at flying there, and getting bored, I cobbled together a sub-orbital ship to 'artillery shell' myself there for the first time. It'll be a nice holiday for, er, Geoffbro Kerman (no, really) and Luny Kerman (also a great name!). Probably my least elegant design ever, but never mind: The idea is my rover is contained in the upside-down cargo hold, which i'll release when landed "on all fours". I wanted to have a cat based name for this ship (because it will always land on its legs!) but unfortunately the lander reminds me strongly of a pig for some reason, and was immediately christened Babe. I just need to add a curly tail... It took a few attempts to get within a reasonable range of the inland centre. When I did, I unceremoniously dumped the rover and hopped on for the quick drive to the centre... OK, after 15km of driving I'm getting bored, note to self, improve SOT accuracy... ...Yay, we're here! I've spoiler-ed the second half of the images if you want to discover what the inland centre looks like for yourself
  14. Approximately every time.
  15. This would be quite an easy experiment to carry out. Load up kerbal in windowed mode and open task manager, set the affinity (i think it is affinity) of the KSP process to only use one core. You can also measure the effects of clock speed. In Control Panel --> power management --> advanced power management--> you can set the CPU maximum clock speed as a percentage. So if you have a 3GHz quad core you could see what it is like playing KSP on a 1.5GHz Single Core quite easily. Setting to 99% will disable "turbo". You should note that the above example is not the same as saying "would KSP work on a 1.5GHz Pentium 4" because a modern processor will be much more efficient per GHz, not to mention the much much fastger RAM, CPU cache etc.Also remember that the other three cores would be doing all the background work as well, it is just KSP running on the one core. I tried this on my tablet when KSP was struggling to be playable. It is an atom quad core and has a clock speed of 1.3GHz, but can turbo up to 1.8GHz on a single core. I decided to disable three cores for KSP in the hope of boosting the one core to 1.8GHz. It worked, but KSP was still unplayable!