Claw

Members
  • Content Count

    6,406
  • Joined

Community Reputation

3,214 Excellent

About Claw

  • Rank
    Claw-erator

Recent Profile Visitors

7,100 profile views
  1. If you have a lot of weight above the fairing base and the fairing base itself is small, you can try making that section stronger by adding some struts or using a larger fairing base.
  2. As bewing just mentioned, the often overlooked item (especially for vessels or other debris without a probe core) is the map filters. When you go to the tracking station, debris markers initially default to off.
  3. Additionally, make sure braking is off for the nose gear. From the video, it looks like the nose gear touches down first (meaning there's going to be some bounce) and the brakes come on before the main gear are fully seated. It may be coincidental, but as soon as you turn on the brakes, the nose compresses and the tail slides out (with no main gear on the ground). You may also want to consider turning off the front upward facing RCS since it's further driving the nose gear into the ground. SAS is probably helpful for keeping the nose straight, but it's also going to keep firing the RCS so it might help if you settle the tail manually or attempt keep the nose off the ground. Once the mains are seated, start tapping the brakes before applying them full. Alternatively, you can tweak down their effectiveness to keep them from biting too hard when you turn them on.
  4. Can you help explain "how" your rocket is failing? Is it just sitting on the pad? Does it flip over during flight? Something else?
  5. Sorry nobody has replied to you in a few days. Assuming you're talking about these.... They are still in v1.7. Sometimes parts disappear from the install (or get corrupted) during an update. If you're on steam, try validating the files (right-click->Properties->Local Files tab->Verify integrity of game files). If that doesn't work, then you can try copying your save files somewhere safe...then delete KSP and reinstall it.
  6. It might help if you have a picture of the hab module, or if you can give us the exact name. (In the past, some of the habs didn't have a portrait or hatch, so you had to grab on with a claw before you could get the kerbal out. I don't know if that's still the case in the current version.)
  7. Not necessarily "one fairing" but definitely want to avoid the wide, then narrow middle, back to wide setup. It would be better to either have one fairing, or replace that middle small fairing base with a larger one. Also, Aegolius13 also pointed out something that often catches people. The atmosphere is thicker and tends to cause difficulty during entry. Things burn up more, flip over easier, and such (as Aegolius13 pointed out). So once you get there, you may need to try different speeds and angles for entering the atmosphere.
  8. Sounds like a yummy place to land. Unfortunately, it's not there unless the pack is installed.
  9. Claw

    Hello everyone

    Beware that if you have ships in-flight with mod parts, they will be deleted if you remove the addon and load the save. Definitely follow the recommendation to "make a backup copy" of your saves before you remove the addon. It could also be something with your setup and MechJeb. As Vanamonde suggested, a picture of your ship in flight might help.
  10. I concur with bewing...there's no intent to force a redesign every time you start a game. Some people love spending a lot of time on design while others prefer exploring. There are a lot of folks who put out well designed vessels to fly, so no need to feel cheaty about taking them out for a ride.
  11. This is something I hope never goes away. It's just too entertaining to build a kerbal powered glider.
  12. Fun fact...in earlier versions of the game, the reaction wheels used to have "SAS Modules" and was internally named sasModule...which possibly lead to widespread use of terms like "sas units" and "sas parts"...or "add some SAS to your ship." I'm surprised nobody mentioned this (or maybe I missed it). For the probes, you don't have to remember the list of cores and their levels. If you go to the parts list and right-click on a part, it brings up additional info. You can right-click again on the part to make the window "stick" which allows you to scroll through the information. For probe cores in particular, there's a SAS section which shows what modes that particular part can provide. If there is no SAS section, then the probe does not grant access to SAS functions. Again, this is for probes. For manned capsules, access to SAS functions are reliant upon having a pilot in the seat. A higher level pilot grants access to more SAS options (as mentioned previously and quoted below). If you only want "Stability Assist" then use any probe core (except stayputnik, which doesn't like to stay put) or any pilot, as Snark stated.
  13. What I said about where the torque is applied is not hearsay and not derived from experimentation. It comes from first hand knowledge about the code and how the unity engine works. Torque is applied at the reaction wheel, but (due to physics) the equal-and-opposite reaction of the vehicle occurs about the CoM when the vehicle is unconstrained (for example, in freefall). I said nothing about flex in my statement, though it's referenced in the links. Orientation will matter if the torque is not symmetric about all three axes. If it's the same, then I agree that orientation doesn't matter. Position does matter as to how the flex behaves, but is mostly masked within KSP's mechanics. So in essence, the position is much less of a factor than is the actual design of the station. Yes, we can agree on this even if you do not believe my assertions about where the torque is applied within KSP's mechanics. Also, I didn't intent that my statement of "torque is not applied at the CoM" as me claiming it as the causal factor to the OP's problem with station wobble/flex. Aside from the torque@CoM statement, I agree with your other points about how the vessel behaves and ways to help minimize/prevent the issue. Snark already explained why the "reverse reaction wheel" won't work. So here's another series of example pictures. The first picture shows a basic setup and the location of the CoM. The second image shows the result of a "turn left" input. The beam is clearly flexing, which it can't possibly do if the CoM is where it's at, and behind the launch clamps. The third image shows another setup, which clamps down the CoM even further and has some markers on one side of the beam (to show twisting in the fourth picture). And the fourth picture shows the beam being twisted. I'm not sure how this would be possible if the torque was being applied at the CoM. This is not an experiment to hypothesize where the torque is applied, it's a model to demonstrate it being applied at the end of the beam.
  14. This is not quite accurate. Or, at least, maybe a misinterpretation of what's happening. The reaction wheels apply the torque at their location. However...torque is a funny thing in that, in the freefall of orbit, the reaction of the vessel occurs at the vessel's CoM. If anyone is interested, I have some old posts I made in threads discussing similar questions. The threads themselves are also full of good discussion. Edit: And actually, this post here addresses the statement directly.
  15. In general, this is correct. The parts within a single vessel themselves can't collide. There are two methods at play with this one. The earlier version of wheels used a different system entirely, which essentially boils down to the existence of wheel colliders which were not ignored by the rest of the vessel. Shoving this collider into another part would cause joints to bend (because they are bendy), resulting in the ability to build things like moving cargo bays and kraken drives. This is no longer how the wheels work. The new wheels use ray casting, so it technically not a collider. The ray casting is not ignored internally to the vessel. As others have pointed out, part clipping really only becomes a major catastrophe when you cause an event which creates two vessels (such as staging or undocking). The "ignored" collisions become active between the parts of one ship vs. the other (but still ignored internally for each). So if two parts are clipped, but suddenly belong to a separate vessel after staging, they will immediately collide.