Jump to content

Vaporized Steel

Members
  • Posts

    325
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

90 Excellent

Profile Information

  • About me
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I would go so far to suggest the introduction of shockwaves. Generated by a large enough explosion from a huge enough rocket would obliterate nearby buildings like the VAB or vessels that are nearby. ^^Honestly, lets get serious about this.
  2. Good way to launch your boats and submarines
  3. Maybe the Lego parts should be replicas of the game parts? Anyway, If this idea fails I suggest Kermobil.
  4. Kerbals CSS kerbals construction and spaceflight simulator.
  5. Euhm, whaaaaat So if I'm getting this right your suggesting a secondary main income system based on multiplayer activity while KSP doesn't even have multiplayer The logic in here is? Oh, and how did you realize Squad couldn't get enough income through sales? Also, why dlcs for consoles only if KSP is more a pc game? What your suggesting would probably reduce income. Did you have meetings with the devs about bookkeeping and the financial obstacles to overcome? What do you know that I do not?
  6. I'm not against your idea, and sympathy for whomever, like i.e. yourself or those you know that suffer from it. However, you can't simply change all the bits that are complained about, that would be chaos. What if every political group could do what they want, get it? With that logic, lots of games would have to change. Its no surprise why some games state it may trigger photosensitive seizures. Thats a warning! At best ksp may give similar warnings. And that is the best you can expect.
  7. @flatbear A Oberth kuiper maneuver... haha No idea who came up with that. Good humor.
  8. Always. They're also alot stronger then the regular struts. Whether that is because they actually are stronger, or KSP struts better then I strut huts, I really don't know
  9. I think you've broken the guinness book of world records for multiposting I guess this issue is about the same vessel your posted a question about earlier? (stating the obvious) You could have discussed it in the same thread since it's about the same subject. Unfortunately I cannot further help you. Maybe someone else.
  10. @Fwiffo Great that we can rule out the staging. Procedural fairings of that size are very heavy and create alot of drag. On top of that, all the side boosters are hanging on the fairing. So the sideboosters may be well strutted, but the fairing base fails to hold that weight. So why does the disassembly happen when you stage the first boosters? As far as I can tell it has 2 reasons. One reason is the less obvious one which is change in G force by differentiating TWR when you drop the first side boosters. This might be the final trigger to shock the construction into disassembly. The other more obvious reason: The tanks are also strutted to one another in a circle around the fairing. This actually strengthens the integrity of the fairing. By the looks of it you have 14 boosters attached that are strutted to each other in a 2x7 symmetrical setup. When you stage the first set you basically have 2 groups of 6 boosters that strut each 6 boosters on either side. But those 2 groups of 6 are not connected anymore because the tanks you dropped on the first stage held them together. So now you have alot of weight hanging on both sides of the fairing, but both sides hang loose. So there is suddenly a large peak in centrifugal force on either side at the base of the fairing holding both halves because 1750tons is pulling on either side of the fairing. That in combination with the change in G force due to staging is what is causing the disassembly by the looks of it. The solution to this. You can procedurally increase the size of the fairing base up to a very large width. Stretching a procedural fairing base in it's width increases the joint attachment strength of the fairing base and may increase the bar to how much stress the fairings can take. So try to create a larger fairing base (as large as you can to rule out this posibility) Maybe even strut the fairing walls to the fairing base, and the fairing base to a root or grandfather part (mammoth engine). Strutting the fairing walls should be possible with procedural fairings. But it's a long time since I used the mod as I'm rather pleased with stock fairings and not much into RSS lately which I mostly use this mod with. As for the procedural fairings mod, it had and probably still has bugs. I can tell you I had problems with the procedural fairings mod a long while back in v0.25 causing parts ripping of when seperating them. This is another case entirely, but the point is that the mod did have bugs, and might still have bugs. Sorry for the long and detailed input, hope it gave some ideas or better yet the solution:d
  11. @the topic title They would come to the KSP forum and ask: What is a jet engine?
  12. Your not really wondering, your answering your question I always burn in between several and a dozen or more seconds after I'm supposed to execute the burn to adjust for this. (How much obviously depends on how much fuel weight your going to burn)
  13. @Kerbonaut257 You may want to read this http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Reaction_Control_System ...If you haven't already...
  14. Mocking attitude:The Squad mobile will arrive 2pm your local time to learn you the career rules once and for all. Serious attitude: You decide the rules. KSP is not some kind of autocracy where you have to abide to custom rules or be banned from the forums or have your copy of KSP confiscated. I wanted a spaceplane only career in v1.1.3. So I tech researched all the way up to Mk 2 parts, solar panels and panthers to skip the early career. Now that I think about it. I had several careers where I cheated all the 45 tech nodes, because the early career is very boring imo.
  15. You say that you decouple the first pair of boosters? Are you really sure? Because it seems like your decoupling your fairing and thus everything else that is attached to it. According to your animated gif picture (third one) you are not staging your boosters but you are jettisoning the fairings. Thats because on your gif it's not just the boosters that fall of, they actually stay somewhat in one place for a second while the fairing seems to fail as a first. On the last picture it is also visible that your fairings are being staged, not your boosters. Remember that the procedural fairings use the same decoupler icons as radial decouplers. The fairings fly inward and bulge out because your staging them according to the gif. Which is typical for procedural fairings as the jettison torque is applied at the procedural fairing base and the engine thrust sandwiches both halves inwards. After that your boosters go along for the ride or disconnect completely due to strutting failure. You might probably be able to do it with auto struts only. Because if your staging is setup wrong which seems like it to me you probably don't even need any struts at all. If you do need struts, you can take the fairings of and strut your boosters to the center cargo stack and then re apply the fairing. In a nutshell: Check your stage 20 again to ensure you are really decoupling your boosters. If you are actually decoupling the boosters then it is still strange why your fairing seems to decouple according to your last picture. It would then almost sound like a bug. Take a look at your gif and the last picture in the OP. In the last you see the fairings decoupling, and consequently all struts failing because they're strutted to the mammoth which is the part your seperating from as the fairings are detached.
×
×
  • Create New...