FleshJeb

First off, thank you!--Fuel Balancer has been on my list of "must-have" mods for over a year now. Two ideas: --Have you considered displaying the tanks in a Tree List, in the same way that the craft file is structured? Being able to control entire branches would be amazing. Just checked your code. Looks like the resources are handled as a regular list. I'm a pretty crappy programmer, but as I recall, recursing through a binary tree isn't that much more difficult? --Controlling heat balance as well as fuel. Greatly simplified, you're pushing heat quanta around. My calculus was 20 years ago, but I think this is just a Mixing Problem. If we just take the case of "Balance All", The algorithm would attempt to get all make all the tanks the same temperature by cycling fuel through them. Or maybe it's just a side effect of the regular pumping operations, and it's up to the user to tune it. Pumping rate would have an effect on this of course, and it should cost electricity. OK, if I understand your code correctly, you're just balancing to the next nearest resource in the list until they all hit equilibrium (Which is definitely elegant and good enough for fuel). If we apply this to heat moving with the fuel, am I correct in assuming that a side effect of this might be that the left side of the ship could end up significantly hotter than the right? Or do I misunderstand the process entirely? Thanks, and thanks again for this mod.

Explosives you n00b! ;-P That's how Jeb did it, that's how KSC does it, and it's worked out pretty well so far. On a more serious note. Thanks for cranking out all these great videos and craft.

Banned for your complete lack of signature.

Tylo single stage lander and ascent: https://youtu.be/MlFfIau9IDM?t=1m38s Pre-1.0, it was mathematically possible to do it on Nervas using the Constant Altitude Landing technique, I don't know if it can still be done. Possibly using 48-7S that are only toggled on for final touchdown and takeoff.

The root part doesn't matter. It's the Control From Here part that matters. SAS will try to correct based on the control part's current orientation. If it's far from the CoM, and the ship is flexing, the control orientation and the overall craft orientation don't line up. So, the SAS tries to correct based on bad data, leading to potentially destructive harmonics. Option 1, Lots of struts. Option 2: Turn SAS off and fly manually. The flex will dampen itself out in a lot of cases Option 3: Put probe cores or docking ports on each stage. Control from the one closest to the CoM. I like this option because you can get by with a lot fewer struts. I built a rocket last night that had the top flexing 10 degrees from prograde. I manually set control to the probe core at the top of stage 2, and it got to space just fine.

Agreed. As we say in the construction industry, "Your brain is the most important piece of safety equipment you possess." Everything else is situational and conditional.

Still playing 0.25 at home. Mostly because 0.90 necessitated a change in how Vertical Snap works in Editor Extensions. Since I spend most of my time building, why "upgrade" to an inferior interface? I have 1.02 at my office, but other than mining, it's not that interesting.

MechJeb, Kerbal Engineer Redux, Kerbal Alarm Clock, Editor Extensions, Blizzy's Toolbar, TAC Fuel Balancer, ScanSat, Hullcam VDS, Enhanced Navball, RemoteTech OR Antenna Range. In approximately that order of importance.

I take the money I would have spent on armor and hire minions and meat-shields. ;-) IRL, I wear 5-10 pounds of Gnomish Workman's Armor and carry a shortspear and a falchion (machete): It's EXCELLENT adventuring gear--Perfect for crawling through brush, and it reliably deflects punji traps and whip attacks.

Add a command chair and it's Mecha-Yoshi. ;-)

Awesome! I loved that show.

You may have just changed my mind. After a few hours of fiddling, I had abandoned planes altogether.

I'm a committed atheist, but U2's Gloria turns me into a Catholic for 3 minutes and 43 seconds, every time.

Receiving messages from space: Splashed down on Kerbin

Little known fact: The Round-8 is a direct result of attempting to mitigate the unpredictable (and often dangerous) effects of trying to toast bagels. Preeminent "TPF" scientist (and part-time evil overlord) Schwartz Kerman discovered that coating them in gold foil nullified the worst effects of the Toaster Procreation Field. Eventually, Schwartz attempted to go to Duna on a vessel (The Crumbs of Our Ancestors) fueled entirely by Round-8's. Unfortunately, contact was lost 237 days into the mission, just before orbital capture. Legend says he will never go hungry.

Thanks for the info, Xannari. I'll have to look into it when I'm not working quite so much.

Generally realistically and stock parts, but using lots of "Applied Handwavium". I see KSP like Legos--The parts aren't literal representations, but abstractions assembled to give approximately the look and performance that I want. Don't get me wrong, I love realism. For example: I used to use RemoteTech, and have fully designed, and partially built out a very robust comms network for the entire solar system. It was hell on my framerate, so now I just design craft and missions as if RemoteTech were in effect. Unfortunately, some of the physics mechanics implemented in 1.x have dented the power of Applied Handwavium. For instance, the heat mechanics and airstream occlusion are poor copies of reality, and one can no longer say, "This surface-attach part is located here, but the engineers tucked it away out of the airstream". As someone in another thread pointed out, 1.x is in the Uncanny Valley of realism. At the risk of getting edited (and feel free): KSP is now like being forced to use a blonde RealDoll when your imagination can give you anything you want.

∫ex= f(un) Now that that's out of the way... OP, do you know if modding the attachment points of wings will cause anything screwy to happen? I hate that the structural swept wings attach at the rear corner, and I'd like to move it to the middle of the attachment edge. I assume this will completely screw up how Center of Lift is determined. There's about 20-30 parts I want to mod the attachment points for because they're completely unintuitive. They're also lousy for Editor Extensions' Vertical Snap. How about rotating the attachment points of all the control surfaces? I think 1.x swapped a few axes, and I'd like to put them back in pre-1.0 position, and make them all consistent. Does the size of the node determine occlusion, or joint strength? I'd set everything to 0 or 1, because the size 2's are hell in the editor.

Nice job on the triangular fuel loadout.

That might be the phantom acceleration bug. Does it persist after you shutdown and restart KSP?

Hmm, maybe this will help me with my problem: Planes used to feel like lumbering bricks, they actually felt like multi-ton monsters. NuStock feels like flying RC planes--The sense of scale feels completely off. Before, I could purposefully design something that wouldn't generate more than 2-5Gs; now I can't seem to keep them under 10Gs. I know NuFAR does that BS thing where it assumes the wing is optimized for whatever speed regime it's currently operating in. Do you think removing ModuleLiftingSurface would make them behave more like supersonic wings all the time? (i.e. a flat plate with a AoA for lift). Would a similar fix help control surfaces/airbrakes? They're way too powerful right now. I keep seeing that term... What's a "drag cube"? How does this differ from sphere? I'm guessing the cube model has a different drag coefficient per face, and the sphere only has one?

This happens to me occasionally. I believe it's an overheat issue in my case.

As a surveyor, I'm well aware of the power of the tripod. However, there's a thread from a few months back where someone proved that 5 legs offers those most tip resistance (distance from center of mass to bounding polygon, as Zarakon said) for the least number of legs.

Bumping this thread to check 1.x compatibility. I'm a surveyor in real life, and I'm planning on making some surveying equipment in KSP. This is perfect. I'm going to mount the laser on the side (or inside!) of some HullCam VDS telescopes.

That's actually an amazing write up. The error is the difference between where you're pointing now, and where you want to end up pointing. There are no individual "set points" for what you're asking--For lack of a better term, PID controllers are more "organic" than that. This is why they're good for handling many different situations. However, Kp is the "raw aggression" term. The wikipedia page discusses tuning methodologies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID_controller#Overview_of_methods It's a trial-and-error process for each craft, because they all have different amounts of available torque and moments of inertia. Likewise, a particular set of PID parameters might work well for a full craft, but not an empty one.