Claw

Members
  • Content Count

    6,415
  • Joined

Everything posted by Claw

  1. A seat would work better than a lander. I would agree with Geonovast in that I doubt Bob would be able to hold on the entire time. It's possible though, so you could always give it a go! What's the worst that could go wrong??
  2. Yes. The parts act like a big tree (as mentioned earlier). If there's a loop, the physics calculations break. Nope. They automatically disconnect with no action needed on your part (which is why I prefer it over the auto-strut, which can sometimes have unintended consequences). Cool. Just wanted to make sure (it's a common thing for people to try and get tripped up on). Glad you're already on top of it! Also, welcome to the forums!
  3. As mentioned, you can't make a "loop" of directly connected parts. Your particular setup is (in my opinion) best fixed by simply using a strut near the bottom of your engine stack. I personally avoid auto-struts for these situations. Just ensure that the decoupler's connection point for the liquid engines is in a good spot for the liquid engines to run (so they aren't wobbly by themselves). Then strut near the bottom of the solid booster. (Pics below) One other thing I see that might be a problem for you. I see some parachutes on your solid boosters which leads me to believe you are planning on separating and recovering them. If you're running without add-ons, you will have a hard time recovering those boosters. The stock game automatically deletes airborne objects below a certain altitude if they are not near your active vessel (the one you are controlling). This is to help reduce the physics burden, but has the side effect of not being able to recover things like boosters with parachutes. If you really want to do this, you either have to stay near the boosters, switch to them and follow them to the ground (which is a problem for your main ship), or use an add-on (there are a couple to chose from).
  4. Stock doesn't have a "dV spent" tracker. The best bet, as suggested, is to know your starting dV and do the math based on what you have left. If it's for efficiency, I assume you're attempting different ascent profiles for launch?
  5. This has been a culprit in the past, especially with laptops. I've also heard it happen with PCs when the fans stop working or the heat sink doesn't have proper thermal putty. (KSP can be rough on processors and graphics cards.) Also, if you updated KSP or your graphics drivers recently, check if KSP is still using the proper video card. Sometimes the nvidia 3D settings lose track. Does this happen with any vessel, or just some particular ones? Also, take a look at the log file and make sure it's not getting spammed with messages. If, for some reason, you have a corrupted ship or part in the save, it can cause excessive log entries which leads to slow performance (because the computer is outputting so much to the log file).
  6. Maybe consider removing that second stage engine and adding just a bit more fuel (to keep the dV about the same). That might also enable you to remove many of the struts, which will slightly improve performance. Additionally, removing an engine could reduce the overall price of the rocket (if you're dealing with funds at all). If it's still a bit flip happy, you could also try putting some fins near the bottom to help improve aerodynamic stability and control (in a manner visually similar to the Saturn V).
  7. You have a lot of mods that I am not familiar with, but something is definitely breaking your camera, and you're getting null reference errors from things affecting the sky (sky color, sun, sun flare, etc). It's unclear from the log what's causing this. The nearest thing to the big list of errors is Hangar Extender, but that may or may not be the core of the issue. Right before the issues appear, it seems your ship undergoes an explosion, then you revert to prelaunch, then you go back to the editor. Is that what happened? ... Does this same camera issue come up if your ship does NOT explode? (i.e. can you revert or leave with no issue, assuming nothing catastrophic?) Unless someone else comes along and knows right off what the issue is, I recommend removing some of your mods (maybe half) and trying the same scenario that causes the problem in order to narrow down the issue. - If the problem still happens, start removing some mods until it stops. - If the problem isn't happening, then start adding some mods until it happens. Once you find the mod, then you can try asking for help in the mod's specific thread. Hopefully someone can come along and give you a more direct "mod x is incompatible with mod y" answer soon. Good luck!
  8. It would also be helpful to know which mods, and if you can post a log file. Information on obtaining the log can be found here: Hopefully this will get moved to the modded help forum, which might get you a quicker answer.
  9. I did a quick replication of your ship and managed to fly it into orbit without having the fairing break (and I didn't use any struts). Interestingly, I ended up grabbing the 3.75m fairing and ran with that. I didn't go back to see if there's something different internal to the 3.75m vs. 5m fairings, so there's a possible issue there. It may also be something with the adapter you're using. Another possible cause of the problem is thrust to weight ratio. The big reaction wheels especially can sometimes bend or crush under the weight of a ship on top of them. This usually comes up with rockets much bigger than yours (i.e. there is a lot of weight on top of the reaction wheels), but could still be a factor if your takeoff TWR is particularly high. This could be popping up when you do the gravity turn since the reaction wheels and/or fairing are already under stress from the TWR, then it gets some bend during the gravity turn. I have my doubts here because I also tried flipping the rocket sideways and it stayed together, but it can still be an issue. I also noticed (not unexpected) that the rocket wants to flip over. There's so much surface area on the fairing that turning too much off of prograde while at semi-high speeds causes the rocket to really want to flip over. I'm not sure if that's also part of the issue you're running into.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. Can you help explain "how" your rocket is failing? Is it just sitting on the pad? Does it flip over during flight? Something else?
  14. 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.
  15. 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.)
  16. 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.
  17. Sounds like a yummy place to land. Unfortunately, it's not there unless the pack is installed.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. This is something I hope never goes away. It's just too entertaining to build a kerbal powered glider.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. Krakensbane also had an interesting effect that when going fast enough, the exhaust smoke would actually "wrap around" such that the back end of the smoke trail would end up in front of the craft.