Page 18 of 112 FirstFirst ... 816171819202868 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 1112

Thread: [0.25] Kerbal Joint Reinforcement v2.4.4 10/7/14

  1. #171
    Well... what does your rocket look like? That should give us something to start with. Problems I can think of:

    If MechJeb is in control during launch, that could be the problem; it doesn't know how FAR's controls work, so what ends up happening is it tends to over-control and over-correct the rocket.

    There's also the possibility that you're just asking for an absurd amount of force to be applied to the rocket to correct its trajectory; if you're flying at full thrust low in the atmosphere when you do this then FAR's aerodynamics will probably apply forces that would tear the rocket apart in a real scenario.

    Another possibility is that you're connecting a very heavy part (say a fuel tank) to a very light part (say, a decoupler) that happens to be right near the center of mass of the rocket; such joints are naturally more flexible due to the way physics works in-game and if you manage to get control inputs strong enough to flex the rocket that will ensure that the maximum amount of flexing occurs due to the large amounts of mass on either side of the joint.
    Realistic Aerodynamic Models in KSP -- Make your planes fly like planes and your rockets fly like rockets!
    Ferram Aerospace Research -- Neophyte's Elementary Aerodynamics Replacement
    Kerbal Joint Reinforcement -- Kerbal Isp Difficulty Scaler


  2. #172
    ferram, (1) since everything moves east when you go on then off rails on the pad, I'm guessing it's the translation from polar to Cartesian. Stab in the dark, but since rescaled Kerbin is at a larger radius and rotating faster, might be that. (2) re: stretchytanks, ah, cool. Well, I meant to do that fix anyway, eventually (now you can use on as the bottom of your vessel!) so all's good.

    SRFirefox: are you using SAS or MechJeb? They can't really handle the delay FAR adds to control surface activation. Try with your control surface maximum deflection set to 0 but more reaction wheels.
    EDIT: Ninja'd by ferram.

  3. #173
    This mod is causing a problem with the novapunch Launch escape tower and parachute stack. The inline parachute is exploding when the launch escape tower is decoupled.

  4. #174
    Then you need to increase the breakForce and breakTorque parameters for it in its config file. I can look into seeing if there is a way to scale down the stiffness to not break very low-mass parts, but that raises the question of what should qualify as "low-mass" and thus have low stiffness parameters applied to it.
    Realistic Aerodynamic Models in KSP -- Make your planes fly like planes and your rockets fly like rockets!
    Ferram Aerospace Research -- Neophyte's Elementary Aerodynamics Replacement
    Kerbal Joint Reinforcement -- Kerbal Isp Difficulty Scaler


  5. #175
    ferram, have you considered, instead of multiplying breaking force and torque, and otherwise using existing values even as a base, just replacing them with sane values and then using those in your calculations? So many are so screwed up...

    Apologies if there's a really simple reason not to that I'm missing, or you already considered and rejected it for good reason...

  6. #176
    One thing i encountered is: some joint seems to become lower after i installed this plugin.

    To be more specific, I'm using NP's escape tower for 3-man pod on a medium docking port, with a parachute pack which has built-in RCS ports (this part also belongs to NP but i don't remember the name of it) installed under the docking port.

    When the escape tower is to be decoupled as i'm reaching orbit, the docking port is pushed by the ejection force and break the connection with the parachute pack below it.
    I had similar designs before and had never encountered such situation... I wonder if this plugin actually reduce the joint strength between the parachute pack and the docking port.

  7. #177
    @NathanKell: Well, there are three main reasons:
    1. For the most part it doesn't seem to be necessary; there are only a few odd exceptions that seem to be mostly due to the behavior of mod parts, and I don't expect mods to mesh perfectly together.
    2. I'm not exactly sure what breakForce is measured against. I think that it is the force applied by the joint outside of the "Drive" parameters I use to really keep the stiffness in line, but I'm not too sure about that.
    3. What happens when something I didn't anticipate comes along and it is either too strong or breaks when you sneeze on it?


    Besides, further thinking makes me think that the actual issue with the parachute was the "crashTolerance" value being exceeded, since that seems to control whether something blows up or not (or is it the "strength" value... I'm honestly not sure. I'll have to look into that). Another possibility is that the workaround I did for the decoupler-no-ejection-force bug is causing the issue; that's been removed and replaced with a solution by a.g. that allows me to get away with not having to do that, so I can test in my build and see if anything happens.
    Last edited by ferram4; 31st October 2013 at 02:21.
    Realistic Aerodynamic Models in KSP -- Make your planes fly like planes and your rockets fly like rockets!
    Ferram Aerospace Research -- Neophyte's Elementary Aerodynamics Replacement
    Kerbal Joint Reinforcement -- Kerbal Isp Difficulty Scaler


  8. #178
    Sorry, I mean break_ing_ force and torque, for the parts themselves, not the joints. Then when you multiply them by your constant to get breakForce and breakTorque, you'll get sane values. But if it's not necessary, no worries.

    (I found that if I use a tractor LES with a high thrust, a high breakINGForce is necessary for both it and what's under it, or it'll rip off. Zander's post reminded me of that experience, and Starwaster mentioning at some point that many (stock!) parts lack any breakingForce and so might have wonky values.)

  9. #179
    Quote Originally Posted by HoneyFox View Post
    One thing i encountered is: some joint seems to become lower after i installed this plugin.

    To be more specific, I'm using NP's escape tower for 3-man pod on a medium docking port, with a parachute pack which has built-in RCS ports (this part also belongs to NP but i don't remember the name of it) installed under the docking port.

    When the escape tower is to be decoupled as i'm reaching orbit, the docking port is pushed by the ejection force and break the connection with the parachute pack below it.
    I had similar designs before and had never encountered such situation... I wonder if this plugin actually reduce the joint strength between the parachute pack and the docking port.
    Hmm, i have similar experience with ya. i also use that escape tower on my Katurn, and it pull the docking port out from my pod when decouple.

  10. #180
    Ferram4 Have you considered disabling gravity one you go to pad, and then gradually reintroducing it to help the simulation settle? You can do it by manipulating CelestialBody::GeeASL value. Set it to 0.01 initially, and then bring it back to what it was over few seconds. The point being that at first it settles from the kick to the side (caused by planet rotation), and only then settling against gravity.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •