The_Rocketeer

Members
  • Content count

    2015
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by The_Rocketeer

  1. @Ossan3 MAKE THE TRUCK FLY!
  2. The Rocketeer approves
  3. I decided to take a new approach to this. My new attempt uses an unguided rocket tractor for a tow up to 10,000m, then cuts the tether (the tractor has chutes) and glides back down.
  4. Ooo, goody... a chance to play with my toys Here's Koncorde. If she goes up and stays there, she can do a whole lap of Kerbin in ~90 minutes:
  5. Why wouldn't you want to use RCS to dock? I mean, unless you're one of those people who thinks it's ok to build a hotel everytime you land on your property in Monopoly.
  6. In a word: gravity. It's weaker the higher you are, and that is a one-directional change. At no point on the way up does gravity increase (unless you started underground, but that's another point). Therefore anything that weighs 1 ton on runway weighs less than 1 ton at 5000m, not because it burned fuel but because there is less gravity. Therefore anything that has a Thrust-to-Weight-Ratio (TWR) = x and can lift off from the runway will have a TWR > x at 5000m. Therefore if a rotorcraft can take off on its own rotational lift, it can definitely climb above 5000m. Weighing it down will only work to keep it below 5000m if it stops it from actually leaving the ground. Using rockets to get around this would result in a flight that either returned to Kerbin's surface at destructive speeds, or that eventually reached equilibrium somewhere in more rarefied atmosphere above 5000m. Now you're right to say that the air gets thinner at higher altitudes - in fact I said that myself last time around, and I just said it again - but the point at which aerodynamic lift fade off kicks in enough to seriously affect rotorcraft TWR is a lot higher than 5000m. But by all means, prove me wrong if you can
  7. Your misconception here is that weight can make lower altitudes possible yet higher altitudes impossible. Gravity (and therefore weight) decreases as altitude increases, so assuming equivalent thrust, any vehicle that can hover at 1m can definitely ascend at higher altitudes. Using rockets to get off the ground would boost TWR, but once they've done their thing the rotorcraft will either fly up, up and away (until the air is too thin for aerodynamic lift), or descend and accelerate back towards the ground.
  8. erm... if a craft hasn't got enough TWR to gain altitude at 4,999m, it definitely doesn't have enough to lift off the ground at sea level. @Abastro where do u stand on parasails?
  9. Awesome stuff. I knew this leg-propulsion would lead to great things
  10. ...I guess something about rhetoric gets lost in translation. Thanks for being a sport regex, but it should have been obvious that a) I know that and b) I'm belittling the fuss because by two separate metrics this software product is outrageously good value for money even when you do have to pay for it.
  11. In the UK, a cinema ticket can costs in the region of £6 per hour. That seems a reasonable evaluation of the price of entertainment. In the UK, university fees cost upwards of £9000 a year, which pays for approximately 20 hours of lectures and tutorials per week for 40 weeks of the year (based on personal experience). Erring on the side of caution (YMMV), that comes to about £100 per hour for university-level education. KSP, an amalgam of recreational entertainment and higher-level education, comes in at 3000 hours logged so far, for the retail price of £18... that's £0.006 per hour, and decreasing. So what's the fuss about again?
  12. I know this isn't quite what you mean but I thought it was awesome and it felt pretty badS to outrun my own jetwash by so much at only 4m altitude
  13. @Crzyrndm I'm having an issue with Dynamic Deflection + Pilot Assistant inverting roll inputs. Things I'm sure of: uninstalling Dynamic Deflection got rid of it I first noticed it just after take-off when activating Pilot Assistant heading control when testing to see what had happened I realised it was affecting manual input as well as autopilot (Q banked right etc ) It didn't affect pitch or yaw It affected mored than 1 craft, including stock (Mallard) I've uninstalled DD for now to avoid trouble, but a fix or some advice would be gratefully recieved
  14. So this feels like exactly the sort of thing Kerbals would come up with, plus it would settle the 'is the runway flat' debate forever, and be awesome to actually use:
  15. This is a decent summary for a place where Career goes wrong. If the only reason for having a satellite relay is either collecting science (or operate remote missions to collect science), that's a pretty lame reason. It would be better if the game rewarded you with funding commeasurate with maintaining and completeing missions, not just putting them in situ.
  16. You seem to have mistaken my commentary and conversation for argument. It is possible to contribute to a discussion by expressing a view without intending to particularly oppose any previous statement. Assuming that my remarks were intended as argumentative is somewhat narcissistic, but perhaps understandable considering I was directly quoting you to frame my statements. Edit: @KSK I respect your right to be utterly offended by my views, and I completely accept that I made some very in-the-round and generalistic statements which for many are still doubtless absolutely correct. I also appreciate the time you committed to letting me know what you thought of my post. If I upset you, I apologise.
  17. I agree that learning and wonder are a key part of the attraction of KSP, but I think many videogamers would share the general mantra that in creative games like KSP amateurish whimsy is more fun than professional specification, trial-and-error more fun than calculated perfection, and garden-shed-contraption more fun than precision-engineering. The former make a game for gamers and the latter make what I will call a virtual-model for virtual-modellers. I enjoy modelling and gaming, but in my life I have more opportunity to game than to model simply because it takes less commitment and rewards me faster, even if that reward is 99% gratuitous explosions. Barn-KSP is more convenient to do than NASA-lite-KSP, which makes it more accessible and more cheap thrills-y, but NASA-lite KSP is what the real fans really want to graduate to, myself included. Net-KSP is a confused mess with both ends criticising the middle for having too much of the wrong stuff, yet somehow still succeeds and keeps everybody interested enough to keep playing and define and refine their own experience. Perhaps in future we'll see expansions that spur off in both directions, and then everyone will be happy (except the people who don't want paid DLC... ). Edit: Wow, I was wondering what my 2000th post would be. I'm a little bit proud of this one.
  18. Ah, the barn. The best and worst thing about KSP is it's played by so many people who want a straight up simulator instead of a game.
  19. What's hilarious tho is that every comment on why this shouldn't be done in real life reads exactly like a reason why this would make a great Kerbal facility.
  20. I didn't realise I was dealing with so many experts on aviation safety limitations, pilot training standards, and international airport administration. The EU are clearly wasting their money here. The dummies...
  21. In the UK (where the BBC comes from), particularly in the south east, airports are a major conflict issue between human interests and economic interests. One of the recent plans to deal with that problem (and perhaps the furthest-fetched) was to build a brand new airport on top of a nature reserve in the Thames estuary. Yah. So in this region of the world, and in other places with similar problems, people like the idea of innovative technological solutions to these problems, and smaller, more efficient and less intensive airports are very attractive. Shooting down an idea because it was far-fetched would have seen a great many wonderful human inventions - not least this videogame - never exist. This isn't a crazy idea, it's just one that conforms to different conceptual standards - planes that are designed to land on flat straight runways will always be working with narrower safety margins when landing on banked circular runways, just as they are when landing on, for example, ice or water. On the other hand, those margins can be widened again by designing your plane with this application in mind. I think circular runways are a great idea, and with population densities only increasing in major cities worldwide, I can imagine a future in which they are the norm... assuming of course that fixed-wing air transport remains viable in future.
  22. Yes, exactly. Edit: but in MP, or in any game with timewarp as an option, how important are transfer windows anyway?
  23. Yes, in the sense of speed, but no in the sense of directional control. You would have to plot in the route first by completing a regular manouvre, but you could then use your Elite Dangerous style FTL throttle to zoom towards the destination as fast (or slow) as you liked. This speed control would have no effect on your route, just on your progress along it.
  24. As I understand it, you no longer need to make a rendezvous per se, you simply need an orbit to reach the target's orbital altitude and proceed towards it at a suitable rate to meet the target there. As far as the game is concerned, your vessels rate of progress is affected by a multiplier to increase or decrease the number of meters it moves along its orbit trajectory without changing the parameters of the orbit itself. A bit like running at x speed on a treadmill, which is inside a train doing y speed. KSP calculates your orbit as though you are moving at x velocity, but your ship moves along it's orbit at x + y m/s.
  25. I think this is about the most original and outside-the-box suggestion I've read regarding multiplayer in some time. +1 for that alone @Tex. Personally, I think this is the least attractive part of MP KSP (EDIT: or any KSP come to that - that's why we time-warp it!) anyway. The point is in interacting with another player in a local environment, but the simple practicality of meeting another player far from KSC is the whole problem with MP. The KSP orrery can be a very impressive machine, but it is a one-player game. I envision a small radial part (quantum field generator or something ) that gives the player the ability to manipulate the passage of time for a single craft only, in effect dilating or contracting the passage of (craft) local time without a change in relative velocity. This would allow a vessel to proceed along it's orbital trajectory at a rate determined by the player rather than by the mathematical laws of KSP physics. The parameters of the orbit are still determined by the expenditure of fuel in the conventional way, but the rate at which the vessel then progresses along it's orbit is now in the hands of the player. Sure, it's not for those who seek a realistic experience, so they need not use it. For those with more toy-like expectations of KSP (be they LEGO fans or Trekkies), this would be a real asset to their make-believe games.