Jump to content

Vaporized Steel

Members
  • Posts

    325
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Vaporized Steel

  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.
  16. @moronwrocket Your suggestion to launch multiple vessels on the runway and docking them together is great, something I like to do myself, so thanks for the thought. As for doing this in early career you should mind the following if you haven't already. If you can make something that works you still run into the problem that once you recover the vessel back on the runway that you have to reassemble it for another mission. Not that this is your intention or that of Wanderingkid, just saying the obvious. Also I'd advice if you were to try this to test that vessel in a sandbox game with unrestricted part count to test the whole assembly. You don't want to launch 2,3 or 4 seperate vessels, dock them on the ground after fiddling with your keyboard buttons to find out the vessel crashes after takeoff, or anywhere from there and in between landing after reentry. Probably obvious advice you were going to run into anyway if you'd have taken a shot at this. As for Kergarin's video. Rockets are definitely more of a feasible method with your criteria.
  17. This is hypocrisy. In a universe with billions of planets with potentially lots of life there may just actually be a green goblin race experimenting rocketry right now as we speak. At alpha centauri maybe or 100mpc or 1gpc+ away from us. Who knows? So the lifes of Jeb and friends are as important as belka, strelka and Laika. But in all seriousness. I can imagine this would be a moral issue for people. Which answers why this may not happen.
  18. If that is the case then I wish you good luck with v0.25 I also hope you get enough cash some day for a more modern computer, which by my guess is surely something you'd want. For better help with your station it would be best to make a screenshot of it. That way you will get more specific advice.
  19. a additional 2GB of ram costs about 1/3th the money you need for a new game. So if you have money for games, you have money for RAM sticks a plenty. Don't do anything you don't want to do. I'm just sharing a option you may not have considered. If you don't like the idea of upgrading your pc yourself then don't. All I can say that adding ram sticks yourself is very very straightforward and seems a dangerous thing to do, but it isnt. You can even let it be done at a local computer store for a little extra service costs. This way they can even determine what exact ram stick should fit into your computer. And it will still be cheaper then a new game. Unless you go to a computer store where they trick you into spending large amount of service costs. In which cases you get scammed lol. Your age shouldn't matter in this case because a 14 year old can go to a pc hardware store as easily as a adult. The pirated comment was a joke lol, and was not to be taken seriously
  20. RAM Sticks are cheaper then most sacks of fertilizer at your local gardening center. Need upgrade advice, ask us. Unless you have a very old platform ofcourse, even still, there is something called ebay. In which case it's probably even cheaper. Or your going to tell me that the pc is so old that its motherboard cannot support over 2GB ram. Which makes me wonder why you haven't upgraded it yet in the past 1-2 decades. And unless you pirated KSP (angryface), it's probably cheaper then the game itself. Don't want to waste a penny? Have fun with v0.25. Do you have pics of your vessel? In 0.25 things can get quite wobbly. So LFO is adviced for circularisation as is pointed out. But you better check if your station is stable under the thrust you wish to apply.
  21. Not only is the COM to far down, the hitchikers that are lightweight in comparison do induce drag. And drag is not displayed in the VAB by the aerodynamics display. But you will see its effect if you press F12 in fight which opens the aerodynamics forces overlay. If alot of red lines start to visualize themselves on the top of the rocket when you turn with F12 pressed in flight you'll know you have drag issues. And because theres less mass at the top and thus the COM is far down the drag works like a lever. Because the COM is far down the Engine gimballing has less effect, so you have no authority to combat the drag while turning. And because the fins are even higher (probably just under the COM) you probably have similar flight characteristics if you pull them of completely. That^ and everything everyone else has said.
  22. I agree with most that has been said in this thread. Video Clips:I would like in game video clips to be introduced that makes you feel like your progressing a real storyline, with some Kerbal bloopers in between The storyline should be very basic. It should appeal to you regardless of what path you choose. This would be close-ended because you cannot expand it throughout a whole career ofcourse. But maybe something like that is favored, uplifting and important for the overall career experience. Video files in a base game regardless of file compression is a hit on total storage requirements. As this would involve extra bits and bytes it might be good to make something like that for a future DLC. Better audio:Maybe expand the audio system for a better gaming ambience. Have a dedicated song for each and every object in the game. Now we have the same tune in space everywhere we go. That last piece of advice is more aimed at newer players. Whenever I play a new game I'd like to be impressed with standard audio (as long as it is fitting ofcourse) Expanding default audio might really give the game a better vibe. And you won't be running in agony for your playlist to find Eminem or Mozart. Kinda helps with both sandbox and career. I would copycat about everything what @tater described. A very accurate review of the current contract status indeed. If programming allows it the game should detect whether your a docking, interplanetary, basebuilding, station building or other kind of guy. And whatever of the above type of player you are, the contract system should then based on reputation expand the type of missions your aiming for with realistic objectives. Which means the expanding contracts should be logical and future oriented. The contract system should then have a higher spawn priority for those missions that you are actively chasing. But it should always offer all the more basic oriented mission types so you always have the selection to choose freely if your willing to diverge from your main goals. As for realism. I think you should be forced to always do 1 test contract for each and every part your willing to unlock. Regardless of whether you have the tech for your node and the money to unlock those parts. Probably something not everybody will agree with, but it is my desire for better realism. Maybe have that in a advanced option menu specifically for career. Just like you can choose to purchase the parts before you unlock them. I also don't want a Explore Duna/Ike mission from the start when Duna is in the wrong location from the get go. Even while I could use a Eve assist to get there from a unfavorable angle It would fill up the max contracts in the early career for a -1 to 2 year mission. And granted, a Duna mission from the start is still a sweet contract when you contradict it to some of the other ones mentioned in this thread. Maybe hire RPG/boardgame associates on the team and see if the 2 different mindsets can compromise with one another for a better career system. In the meanwhile I'll be substituting with mods. But to get that favorable career vibe you'd have to introduce a whole new system. Because the career is faulty in the ways that we discussed on a basis, not by details which is what career mods modify, and nothing else.
  23. You can totally forget it. You'll need a array of Junos just to get to a preferable altitude already taxing your part limit with Junos only. Then you can get all the LFO up to 18Tons weight limit and you will not have enough to get into orbit. I tried this in 1.1.3 and I got a Juno/Reliant design up to 63km Apo with a burn out velocity of 1820m/s. So I would have needed quite a bit more to pull it off. I would see no way to get a additional 600+ m/s in that design not to mention spare LF for a powered landing. You can do it with 45science nodes only. But not with a 18ton and 30 part limit. What is your motive by the way? A spaceplane only career mode? If that is the case then it is possible. But you will want to science/fund grind with Kerbin only missions. This is possible, and you can always get high orbit and space science data with suborbital flights. You can get a R&D level 2 and unlock only the desired tech nodes and you may get panthers. On hard mode, it will be one hell of a grind. But it is possible.
  24. @Gamel0rd1 What is your motive for willing to do this? Q:Is it a idea for cheap Eve manned missions? A: It won't be cheap. The very fuel cost would be more costly then a entire conventional asparagus staged rocket from sea level for 3 Kerbals. I know your idea is to refuel on the surface. But besides how long that will take it kinda tells you how much the vessel will cost/weigh even with dry mass only (it will be alot) You can create a 2nd vessel with a LV-N tug at gilly and refuel the vessel once it gets in orbit. I am completely hypothesizing that you finish what your after (you won't because it's virtually impossible) Not only that, but the whole cost of getting that vessel to Eve without it burning up in the atmosphere is probably more then if you were to send conventional asparagus staged rockets to each and every Biome on Eve seperately. In a nutshell: Even if you manage this, it offers no benefit, other then boasting rights. Even modded parts that work on the same stock propulsion methods that substitute LV-N, Rapier, Vector, mammoth designs and whatnot are simply rescales with different ISP values with a custom texture. So it's the same technology really, and it won't make you a Eve SSTO. You'll need future propulsion techs for that to make it cost effective and make it reusable. The most cost effective stock way to get to eve is to make a SSTO to carry 60-120tons in 2.5m - 3.75m form factor to LKO. I do spaceplanes, then strap a heatshielded ascent rocket to it, take it to eve and get back in the SSTO you brought with you. Anything else is you wasting alot of time.
  25. Well, I did manage to get it to reenter just fine. I thought there was a mark solved option somewhere for your thread but haven't used that in a very long time and can't find it in my post when I "edit" it. Either I'm looking badly or it is removed. @luizopiloto Thanks for your information and advice. It wouldn't help to test flight this craft under those conditions. The craft flipped backwards and keeps spinning during reentry up until it decends below 10 through 8km and then I can somehow fly level again. Which confirms @Plusck his explanation about drag versus lift. So it will fly just normally if I test flight at 5000meter. It did that with level flight or even when trying to quikly pull the nose up. But moving the canards backward was indeed one of the implementations that fixed this craft. Repositioning the fuel tanks also did wonders, the craft is indeed wider now and with a shorter length. It looks less eye catching if you ask me, but function over form as always. @Plusck Makes alot of sense. I know there is aerodynamic overlay while in flight but I do think some indicator or VAB/SPH overlay that shows how drag is going to behave would be very usefull. I can not always tell what's the cause of aerodynamic fail by the overlay function. A VAB/SPH indicator probably allows you to get it right in 1 or 2 tries. But that may make the game easier to a point where perhaps nobody is willing to go, just my idea though. Now that you explained why my vessel behaved as it did I kinda see it the same way now that I have it working. I probably avoid this problem next time.
×
×
  • Create New...