cadaverific

Members
  • Content Count

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

1 Follower

About cadaverific

  • Rank
    Spaceplanes for days

Recent Profile Visitors

644 profile views
  1. Oh don't worry you just didn't get to see all the failures. Not to mention most people here have a bit of experience making shuttles it seems. Patience and practice are the key. If you need help post a pic in the SPH with the aero and com and we can probably help with whatever issue you're having. Judging from the looking at it now it looks a bit too front heavy but i'd have to see the whole setup to say anyting definitive. In other news on my end, the 1.1.2 update really messed up my mods quite a bit on CKAN, so i'll be waiting a bit before i can do anything. The double update and probably future hotfixes will stall me for a bit in the modded end. I may just post my rescue mission first just because.
  2. Yeah i like to use mods to make things a bit harder. It gives you a reason to use things like heat shields and retro burns and such. I did use that spin stabilization, it's just kinda hard to see in a still picture . I thought i had a pic of the empty sepratrons in there but i guess not. Really DRE just made reentry take longer than the whole rest of the mission. There were a lot of lost practice ships (and kerbals) in the process of figuring out the reentry profile. i haven't done too much with kerbalism yet since i want to do a spaceplane centered career and landing gear were making my planes dance on the runway. The whole centralized system is the most interesting part. Another cool thing is that its being actively balanced and developed atm, mods like TAC and such aren't going anywhere anymore. I think the simplicity of the life support is the best part for me. You have O2 with scrubbers and food with greenhouses. Very similar to USI but with actual death. I also like how malfunctions give you a reason to actually take engineers on missions for once, but they are never ship breaking i think you get something like 50% efficiency loss at worst. The QoL give you an actual reason to add things like hab modules instead of just a command pod. Signals are like an easier Remote Tech, which was too tedious for me. Radiation is interesting since its the first i've seen someone emulate the van allen belts, but still leaves plenty of room to have safe low orbit station. Shielding and such is just a bit of extra weight and shouldn't be much of an issue to plan for. The science rate change is something i just like in general. To top it all off there's an actual planner that ties it all in so you can plan the whole thing out pretty easily. So yeah i think i covered most of how i feel about each part of it. I like what i see so far i'll just have to play with it more. Perhaps there will be an orbital assembly interplanetary mission for this challenge in the future where i can test these things out better. Update: Rescue portion is complete, album should be up tomorrow
  3. Misson: STS-2: Can You Hear Me? Commander Edit. Mods & Parts: NEW Deadly Reentry Cont. - I'm some kind of masochist NEW Kerbalism - Not sure how much of a difference it'll make, but ships now have food and O2. Forgotten Saturatable Reaction Wheels - Makes reaction wheels feel a bit less cheaty and forces more use of RCS. Probably why reentry is so difficult for me. Mechjeb & KER - Info readouts. SpaceY - Boosters and sepratron nosecones. Tweakscale - Fuel pod is 3.75m boosted to 5m, wing parts boosted 200%, decouplers set to 150%. Raster Props - IVA and external cams. Kind of pointless based on current iva setup, the monitor positions really suck. FAR - Cant go back after finding it. Real Chute - Same as FAR. Proc Fairings - Makes the nosecone nice and round. GPO Fuel Pump - Absolutely necessary as the only updated fuel management system for 1.1. Various visuals and sound additions - Makes my game pretty. Lots of other mods that don't make an appearance... yet. Specifications: Orbiter(Dry) - Weight ~ 41t; Price: 116,193 F Weight on Launchpad w/ Payload - 817.71t Full Launch Price - 266,041 F Details/Pictures: This challenge was made more difficlut mostly due to the addition of DRE. Launch was fairly uneventful and it was easy to get up to a fairly even 390 km circular orbit. The comsats were released and ended up a bit closer to one another that i would have liked but whatever. In order to land i had to drop orbit to 100x100 before deorbiting. Reentry went fine until i hit ~40 km where i lost most RCS thrusters on the nose (NOTE: if using FAR & DRE i would recommend the use of vernor thrusters on the nose for higher heat res and better control authority). I made sure to document my descent path in the album somewhat in case anyone else has trouble with it. Despite giving myself half of Kerbin to land, i completely overshot the space center and had to use my remaining fuel to (barely) land at the island. Being much lighter on fuel this time around, i was able to land at ~130 m/s. Despite the lower speed it was still a bit to close to falling off the airstrip for my liking, i'd rather not try it again if i can help it. Here's the pics:
  4. Thanks, I'm excited that my fairly high-spec pc will finally start to show (my 16GB of ram are now useful). I also can't wait to get my hands on some more high-res stuff for EVE, once I'm confindant things are stable. It felt like something was off when i was re-entering yesterday and i figure it out: no DRE. It seems like it just got updated today so I'll have to undergo some extensive re-entry testing to come up with a decent profile. Update: Just noticed CKAN seems to install the low res version of SVE, going up to highest res to see what happens. Should look even better in the future.
  5. Been a while since i've done either a challenge or a shuttle, so here we go. (Last time i made a shuttle i was stuck using the old Mk3 and a crazy number of wing parts "shudders") Introducing the Mk 420.69, because i'm an adult and i name things how i like. Also working off norc's format b/c it looks nice. I believe this is also the first FAR entry. Misson: STS-1: Bonus Fuel Pod Mission (Can You Carry Me?) Mods & Parts: Mechjeb & KER - Info readouts. SpaceY - Boosters and sepratron nosecones. Tweakscale - Fuel pod is 3.75m boosted to 5m, wing parts boosted 200%, decouplers set to 150%. Raster Props - IVA and external cams. Kind of pointless based on current iva setup, the monitor positions really suck. FAR - Cant go back after finding it. Real Chute - Same as FAR. Proc Fairings - Makes the nosecone nice and round. GPO Fuel Pump - Absolutely necessary as the only updated fuel management system for 1.1. Various visuals and sound additions - Makes my game pretty. Lots of other mods that don't make an appearance... yet. Specifications: Payload Limit - Unknown Height Limit (empty bay) - easily < 350/400 km with more flight practice and tweaking Height Limit (extra fuel) - Unknown Orbiter(Dry) - Weight ~ 41t; Price: 116,193 F Weight on Launchpad w/o Payload - 803.96t Weight on Launchpad w/ Payload - 844.92t Full Launch Price - 253,637 F Details/Pictures: Decided to jump right in with the full first challenge. This is actually the first iteration with just some minor tweaking atm, excessive data crunching and FAR experience helps. First orbital flight put me in a 300x300 with quite a bit of fuel left. It was pretty good landing practice too. After some tweaking i was ready for the payload launch. Despite my shoddy piloting everything went pretty well. I had nearly full OMS fuel after hitting 100x100, but being a first real test i didn't want to push my luck. I may try it again later after getting some more experience and ironing out a few wrinkles. The only scary part was hitting the runway at ~180 m/s, but then again FAR is mean like that and i stuck it anyways. Here's the album with all the interesting bits:
  6. I love where you guys are headed for this challenge. I've seen a few people complaining about the complexity and 'railroading' and i'll have to respectfully disagree. I personally enjoy the complexity as well as trying to fit within the constraints provided. Just look at the constellation mission you linked. Every portion of the mission had multiple requirements and it became one of the most popular challenges for a while. Plenty of people still took part in it(myself included. It's too bad i had to delete the imgur albums). Moving on, i think the idea of separating this into separate mod options is nice, but i feel it would be very hard to compare stock vs. RO. If you intend to go that way i would think having a separate post for stock options vs RO options. I also quite like your proposed scoring system. People should be awarded for making the effort to complete the mission in a simple yet pleasing or accurate manner. Granted i haven't read all of every post, but i though i'd add my 2 cents. I'll certainly be keeping an eye on this and would love to participate. If you need a hand or need input on a mod/idea i'd love to help as well (i have a decent amount of supersadistic RO experience). EDIT: i completely forgot to mention why i started. I saw your min payload requirement for the ariesV and it got me thinking. It would also be interesting to try and place tonnage requirements (or perhaps goals sound better) for each module on the spacecraft. It would be nice if it was possible to take other peoples models and combine it into one complete mission. I think one could be awarded extra points for falling withing some kind of constraints for that. It could be as simple as designating a portion of the ~110t payload for each module and try to remain within those limits. Just something i thought that would be fun (if you hadn't been thinking along those lines already).
  7. Hey T, First off, i love the mod. Ive been using it on and off since .23 and even more lately (works amazingly with KCT).I'm curious about what sort of updates you have planned for the mod. I've looked over the last 10 or so pages and ive seen you acknowledge that the hex cans may hold too much as well as having parts TACLS run in the background eventually. So i'm really just curious about what (if anything) you might have planned for the next update (i.e. new parts, mechanics, changes). I'm not pushing or anything, i'd just like to hear what you have in the works.
  8. I'm replying to this just because you mentioned dwarf fortress, my favorite hated game. The only other game where losing is !FUN! oh and here's my opinion on the aero debate:
  9. I DID THE SAME EXACT THING! (Seriously he should just stick to Starcraft and Hearthstone he's awful at everything else)
  10. If I may, I would like to inject my 2 cents into this debate. It's an opinion i have yet to see stated. My perspective comes from playing the game with custom/hard options (i personally run 50% rewards and 200% penalties). There are 2 problems i can see with the poodle right now and both are related to its position on the tech tree relative to other engines. NOTE: I'm not going to argue about efficiency overall, just about the specific point you can obtain and use the poodle. I'm not going to beat a dead horse here, the poodle is a niche engine that is easily overtaken. First off I believe the the poodle engine is more balanced towards the point in the tech tree that you unlock it. Normally, as you gentlemen have stated, the 909 is the clear early choice for small landers to get that early science going. However, most often after you unlock the 909 you are able to rocket (no pun intended) up to using the more advanced engines (aka nerva and to some degree the 48-7s but ill get to that later) and skip the poodles usable stage all at once. Ignoring that fact, at the time you unlock the poodle it is the best engine for its designated task (landing and orbital maneuvering) so I wouldn't say theres much to argue with that. But on the flip side you could argue that the 48-7s is in the same tech level, however i would not yet have access to cubic struts or the ability to make a decent stack using them(sometimes its easier and cheaper to just slap on 1 poodle instead of attaching 48's without cubics). In my careers the poodle has the ability to be the first engine i can use to go interplanetary and as an overall good vacuum engine with a decent isp and a good twr to keep the burns short. This leads up to my second problem i can see: it is placed on the same level as the 48-7s So I've already said that the poodle is good for it's position, but at the same time it has a serious competitor in the 48-7s. Don't worry I won't get too much into the tech tree or it's balance as I believe it is still very much a work in progress(I personally think some of the nodes are too crowded/too empty/too easy). As soon as the poodle is available you already have a better option available, so what is the point in getting it? As stated by many before me: the twr of the 48-7s is just too good to be passed up. Why waste the sci points on the poodle and co. when you can make much greater progress with the 48-7s(aka fuel systems), and then get heavy rocketry just to have the larger tanks for convenience? It would seem to me that the devs have a direction for where the poodle should be used, however it will only ever end up being used by those running the harder difficulties unless it is given greater time to function before it is beaten. The best buff you could give the poodle is to move the 48-7s and the nuke further up the tech tree to make the poodle more viable in the mid-game. TL;DR~ The poodle is the best choice for a veeerrrry brief period of time before it is eclipsed, and with the 48-7s available on the same tech level why not get that instead? ~~forgive and bad sentences and structure, its late:sticktongue:~~~
  11. Was planning on adding my contributions to this contest, but the new wing strength in FAR really fudged up every single one of my planes (not that its a bad thing). I'll edit in my planes when i fix the mess in my SPH.
  12. If it helps at all i had the same question when i first started FAR seriously and made a post on it. Wanderfound and Hodo had some very nicely written explanations on how to setup flaps and spoilers. They also covered their uses in helping take off and, most importantly for you, bleeding off speed for landing (as well as not having a crazy AOA to maintain level flight)
  13. Space plane designated US-3D (UtilitySpaceplane-v3revD) SSTLAB capable of transporting 24 lucky kerbals (+1 pilot) in first class. Here we go with my entry kicking off the modded category: This plane requires b9 and KER parts with FAR. I also use TACFB, Kerbal Flight Data, and Kerbal Flight Indicators in flight. As a SSTO that is capable of landing at the runway recovery funds is not an issue. I did do this in sandbox(don't have a career save i can use atm), but i can just calculate everything myself. Here's the breakdown: Total plane cost: 100,940 funds Liquid Fuel: 3197 - 443 = 2754 * .80 = 2203.2 Oxidizer : 3419 - 544 = 2875 * .18 = +517.5 Total cost: 2720.7/24 Ticket Price: 113.4 funds
  14. That's my favorite part about Death's challenges: the complexity and multitude of uses for each part of the mission.
  15. You can count me in on this. I don't know when i'll find time to complete it, but i'll certainly try. (i'm thinking stock sounds good)