• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

673 Excellent

About Xavven

  • Rank
    Junior Rocket Scientist

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Xavven

    rhino engines, what are they good for?

    I used a Rhino engine as my main transfer stage for a Moho land and return mission. When you need both lots of dV and high thrust, as Moho orbital insertion demands, it's a great choice on big stages.
  2. Xavven

    KSP Updates And Your Opinions

    So wait, a "new feature" by your definition is something added to stock that no modder has yet delivered? Interesting definition.... Because both "New Features" and "Mods added to stock" are in your poll, I assumed the latter meant literally adding that mod to stock, meaning Squad actually taking that code and not developing their own spin on it. I think the modding community has been pretty thorough about things missing from stock KSP, so what exactly would make the cut for "new features" then?
  3. Xavven

    What was the barn?

    Come to think of it, there is too big of a jump between the starting level VAB and launchpad vs. the next level up. Having a step inbetween would make sense for the early game phase.
  4. Xavven

    KSP Updates And Your Opinions

    They added delta-v calculations to the stock game. If that isn't a significant new feature then I don't know what is. Personally I'd like to see basic life support added to stock. One they're done with the part retexturing I think it's time to add clouds.
  5. Xavven

    What was the barn?

    To be honest, I found bac9's critique to be overly pedantic. But I don't have a background in level design or any artistic sense, and I also don't zoom in on KSC buildings that much to care if a texture was scaled wrong. Others are entitled to their opinion that the barn was poorly executed. Maybe they have more refined taste or something. Personally I found the barn to be charming. In the end, does the barn really have that much effect on the game one way or another? I'm not personally enjoying KSP any less with or without it. I honestly think people have made a mountain out of this molehill.
  6. Xavven

    What should I do next ?

    As a Subnautica fan I am going to have to cast my vote for deepest point.
  7. Xavven

    If I ever make it back from Eve

    Oh yeah, that ship is too tall and skinny. You need to widen your base and lower your center of gravity so you aren't limited to 100% perfectly flat and level landing sites. One thing to try is to load just the Eve portion of your ship onto the runway or launchpad, and then take off into a hover just above the ground, and hover slowly over to a grassy area and practice landing. It'll give you an idea of how stable your craft is. Also try landing on various inclines to see what your ship will tolerate.
  8. Xavven

    What are the chances?

    I sent a pack of 3 relay satellites (on a single parent ship) to Duna on Career Hard with fairly early to mid-game technology, and with partial control for probes disabled (must have active relay connection to do anything). My signal strength at the time was such that I there was about a 100-200 day communication window and then you have to wait for Kerbin and Duna's orbits to align again. I'm sure you can already see where this is going... When I detach a relay from the parent ship, I have this 5 second period of vulnerability, in that the relay doesn't have its solar panels deployed. I just need 5 seconds to get to a safe distance of about 20 feet and deploy them. So I detached it, and 2 seconds later lost signal to Kerbin. Not to occlusion from Duna or Ike, but from Kerbin moving out of signal range. I couldn't believe it... of the literally tens of thousands of seconds in my transmission window, I picked the 5 second period that would let me detach from the parent ship but not have enough time to deploy solar panels. The battery would go on to die over the next 2 years of orbit required to get another transmission window. A probe with a dead battery cannot unfurl its solar panels to charge its battery, so it's a catch-22. I will have to send a new relay satellite, or send a manned mission to manually unfold the panels. I realize that if I had switched to another craft immediately and time warped, KSP would not calculate battery drain on the relay, but I decided this felt unrealistic to me, so I'm choosing not use use this game mechanic to save me. Ugh... what are the chances?
  9. Xavven

    Out of curiosity, what's your craft naming scheme?

    I was surprised to see there are so many people using abbreviated codes to designate a spacecraft's purpose. Kinda reads like part numbers, not that there's anything wrong with that. I can see it being very efficient for finding what you need, or knowing what a crafts capabilities are without having to try to remember, or having to actually look at the design. I used to name all craft after their purpose, like Unmanned Mun Lander 1. I still do that for relays, like Minmus Relay 1, since I always plan to have 3 orbiting every planet and moon. Lately though I've tried to get more creative and name spacecraft after plants and animals. Example: Polar Bear Ivy River Willow I also have an unmanned flyby-and-return vehicle appropriately named Boomerang. The one I sent to Duna is named Dunarang Honestly I'm not very creative when it comes to language, and it's actually really hard for me to name things in an artistic instead of purely pragmatic way. Same goes for rocket designs themselves. I see so many beautiful KSP creations on the forums and YouTube and think, "why can't I do that?" I'm usually building purely for efficiency and or practicality, so my ships are rather spartan. I'm truly envious of people who seem to have a boundless well of artistic creativity.
  10. It was obviously an unfortunate typo and we don't need to explore the innuendo further. This topic is about how to mitigate the negative health effects of space travel and I do appreciate your post about using a life support mod and the Kerbal Health mod. I'll have to try that. I'm curious if Kerbal Health accounts for artificial gravity or has parts for spinning stations or ships. I'll look into that after work.
  11. Xavven

    State of the game - How is KSP doing?

    Aparagus is easier now. Just enable advanced tweakables from the options menu, and you'll find that your radial decouplers allow for cross-fuel-flow. And as someone mentioned, fuel tanks have a priority setting on them so they drain in the order you specify. No more fuel lines are needed. Everyone's pretty much covered everything except the Making History expansion. I think it's really worth the money because of the additional parts, specifically the 1.8 meter parts that fills the gap between 1.25m and 2.5m, and also you get the giant 5m parts. Personally I don't asparagus much anymore because there's a really nice progression of increasing rocket diameters and more powerful engines. Plus you get thrust plates which let you easily cluster smaller engines and tune each stage exactly how you want it. In my opinion, KSP 1.6 plus the expansion are together a much more complete game than when you played it in 2014. There's so much more to do now, and much better reasons to do it. For example, ISRU has made bases and stations important for mining, and probes with different types of scanners for searching for ore. Commnet has made communication satellite constellations important especially if you go unmanned, and probes for mapping out biomes and even searching for anomalies. I don't remember when asteriods were added exactly, but that's yet another activity to undertake. Edit: Oh, also, do you remember procedural fairings? Well stock KSP has fairings now and they're important.
  12. Oh, well in KSP it's very hard to get all of your satellites to have exactly the same orbital period. You might get it so close that they are synchronized for a while, maybe even a good while, but time warp a mission to Jool and back and you'll find your satellites are no longer in sync. For this reason I don't bother trying to get them to have the same orbital period, and therefore it doesn't matter when I launch the next satellite, because it's going to get messed up anyway.
  13. Xavven

    Are batteries too light?

    Ah, I fell down the rabbit hole even further. IRL the Apollo program used two silver-zinc batteries for the LEM, weighing 57kg each and holding 296 amp-hours of charge (each). That's an energy density of only 5.2 Ah/kg. So if you assume Kerbals haven't advanced their battery technology past IRL 1960's levels, then you should double or quadrouple their weight. If you assume they use litium-ion batteries, leave them alone. You could shrink their size but don't change their weight.
  14. Xavven

    Are batteries too light?

    Oh, you know what? I think my numbers don't mean anything because I haven't looked at how much charge the batteries hold. Unfortunately, KSP uses an unknown unit for charge. IRL we use amp-hours for batteries. The Nissan Leaf battery has 48 modules of 4 cells each, and each cell has 32.5 Ah of charge. That's 48 x 4 x 32.5 = 6240 Ah for the whole thing, and with a weight of 294 kg that's 21 Ah/kg. Without knowing what units of "Electric Charge" are used in KSP, it's hard to draw comparisons. What if we made some guesses? For the Z-4K battery, let's assuming 4000 "Electric Charge" means 4000 amp-hours. It has an energy density of 4000 Ah / 200 kg = 20 Ah/kg. Aha! That's pretty close to the energy density of the Nissan Leaf's battery, so maybe that's the right unit. That means that the weight of the batteries are actually fine, it's just the size that's off, assuming they're using modern battery technology. Maybe Kerbals just pack the cells inefficiently, and/or there's a lot of empty space in the battery's housing.
  15. Xavven

    Are batteries too light?

    Nice stats! Its dimensions are 61.8 x 46.8 x 10.4 in. (1570.5 x 1188 x 264.9 mm) and it's fairly rectangular (see https://qnovo.com/inside-the-battery-of-a-nissan-leaf/) Feel free to double-check my math, everyone. So with its structure it has a volume of ~ 0.494 m3 . It therefore has a density of 294 kg / 0.494 m3 = 595 kg/m3 . Side note: Water has a density of 1000 kg/m3 at STP. We can use the known radial size of cylindrical batteries in KSP to estimate density. The Z-200 battery pack is a cylinder that fits in the 0.625 m stack of rockets. If I stack three of them high, they roughly equal the diameter of the battery in the VAB, so going off of these numbers, we have a height of 0.208 m. This would make its volume π(0.625/2)2 x 0.208 = 0.0638 m3 . With a weight of 0.01 t, or 10kg, that's a density of 10 kg / 0.0638 m3 = 156 kg/m3 , which is about one quarter the density it should be. Maybe we should make this battery's weight 0.04 t BUT remember KSP has a scaling factor in it? IIRC that scaling factor is 1.25x. If you look at a Z-4K battery pack the effect is quite noticeable. There's a "1m" bar for scale in the part's picture, and if you hold up an object to your screen on that scale bar, you can use it as a measuring stick and see it equals the radius of the battery. The battery is 2m in size but fits in a 2.5m rocket stack? What? That's the 1.25x scale I'm talking about! So let's recalculate the Z-200 battery pack with this 1.25x scale applied. Its diameter becomes 0.625m/1.25 = 0.500 m and a height of 0.167 m. This would make its volume π(0.500/2)2 x 0.167 = 0.0328 m3 . With a weight of 0.01 t, or 10kg, that's a density of 10 kg / 0.0328 m3 = 305 kg/m3 , which is about half the density it should be. Maybe we should double this battery's weight to 0.02t Okay, let's do the same thing with the Z-4K battery. Without the 1.25x scaler, The Z-4K battery in KSP has a diameter of 2.5 m. A stack of 10 of them equals its diameter, so its height is 0.25 m. π(2.5/2)2 x 0.25 = 1.23 m3 . With a weight of 0.2 t, its density is 200 kg / 1.23 m3 = 163 kg/m3 Wow, that's pretty consistently 1/4th the density compared to real life. The devs at least were consistent. With the 1.25x scaler, The Z-4K battery in KSP has a diameter of 2 m. A stack of 10 of them equals its diameter, so its height is 0.2 m. π(2/2)2 x 0.2 = 0.628 m3 . With a weight of 0.2 t, its density is 200 kg / 0.628 m3 = 318 kg/m3 That's half the density it should be. So my personal interpretation of these results is that they aren't really too badly off but they do affect some designs more than others. If I quadrouple the weight of my batteries on a landing probe I like to use, my delta-v goes from 3490 to 3145, a ~10% reduction. On a 3-crew manned rocket, however, my delta-v on my upper stage goes from 2842 to 2824, which is insignificant. If you're making an ion powered ship and you have a lot of batteries, a rebalance would affect you a lot, though. But ion thrusters in this game have some thousands of times more thrust than they do IRL anyway, so I'm not sure realism needs to apply anyway.