• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

92 Excellent

About Empiro

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Having unique music for different situations and planets would definitely go a long way to making KSP 2 better. I already have the soundtrack editor for KSP1, but I definitely don't want to have to take the time to select each track for each planet / situation separately. It would also be nice for KSP 2 to have a composer creating unique music just for the game, rather than using free music.
  2. I think that the game does the right thing even with reverse-pointed winglets if you are going forward, so another solution is to mount a backward-facing control point somewhere.
  3. Some parts of these results are definitely surprising to me. The full throttle being lower than the other two in particular seems to suggest that drag losses are significant when moving too quickly, yet the fact that the more aggressive turns did better seems to imply that minimizing gravity losses is still the way to go. Can you give us an idea of how far the AP went ahead? I think the biggest takeaway here is that you really don't need very high TWR to be efficient.
  4. The optimal flight path is a pretty difficult problem to solve. Generally speaking, the most efficient ascents will balance between minimizing gravity losses, minimizing drag, and minimizing mass (not carrying too many engines). An efficient ascent has you thrusting at full power for most of the burn (if you're not at 100%, you might as well take fewer engines or more fuel). You also want to point at prograde as much as possible to minimize steering losses. So the ideal ascent would look like: Launch, 50 m/s or so, tilt slightly to the east Lock to prograde, continue to burn. Your nose will come down naturally (gravity turn) At some point, you want your time-to-AP to start decreasing, even as you burn at 100%. You typically do this by staging into efficient, low-thrust vacuum engines. Just as you reach AP, you circularize your orbit In practice, you'll never be able to get #5 perfectly (I typically will need to cut thrust or coast), but the fortunate thing is that even if you don't the difference in delta-V is minuscule. Getting 1-4 down will be the biggest difference. At only 1 km, I'd just burn directly toward your target and then slow down. If the difference is much greater, there are a number of approaches, all with different fuel costs and time to intercept. What you described would indeed work -- by thrusting down (radial in), you're "rotating" your orbit so that you'll traverse the next part of your orbit at a lower altitude and faster before slowing down. This will catch you up to your target. If you do it just right, you'll intercept your target at your initial altitude. The most efficient way (that requires a lot of time) is to burn retrograde (even a minuscule amount). This put you in an orbit with a shorter period, and when you make a full orbit and come back around to where you are now, you'll be slightly closer to your target. After enough orbits you'll be right on top of your target, and you'll only need to burn the same amount to match velocities. In practice, I tend to use this method most often, though I will burn more so that I can get an encounter more quickly.
  5. Ideally not a static texture box at all but dynamically rendered. In KSP1, stars look noticeably bad and texture-like if you zoom in. Dynamically rendering would let you take into account things like local lighting conditions, how zoomed in you are, and other things. I'm not familiar with games like Universe Sandbox and so on, but there must be stuff out there that does similar things. Parallex effects for nearby stars would be an optional, but nice feature (you'd probably never notice it unless looking specifically for it). Wouldn't be too expensive since you'd only rarely need to update the parallex calculations.
  6. You don't really need an LES in KSP. When playing without reverts, I bind my abort key to shut down all engines and decouple the pod. Generally, parts don't really explode in a way that will cause damage to a pod.
  7. It's mostly about the TWR you need. Dropping tanks reduces your mass be a small amount while dropping engines reduces your mass by a large amount, but also reduces your TWR. Drop tanks are useful for something like a Tylo lander, since TWR matters the most toward the end. If you use stack staging set ups, it does mean that some of your engines aren't firing the whole time, which means that they're basically dead weight. Asparagus staging kind of gets the best of both worlds -- all your engines are firing at all times.
  8. Moho's orbit is quite elliptical and has a significant inclination. Eve assist is definitely the cheapest way, as it can both correct your inclination and slow you down. However, it requires careful planning and lots of patience as you need to encounter Eve right at Moho's AN or DN, and you may need several assists. If you don't want to use an assist, the keys to success are: Capturing close to the PE so your speed difference is lower Correcting your inclination as far from Kerbol as possible, since inclination changes are cheapest when far away / moving more slowly. One other thing to consider is that Moho's argument of periapsis is 15 degrees, meaning that its AN is 15 degrees off from the PE, while its DN is 15 degrees off the AP. This means that you should combine maneuvers and both lower your PE and correct your inclination at its DN (which from your perspective is actually the AN -- confusing, I know) I like to use the following procedure (sorry if some of the steps are a bit difficult to understand): Launch a craft in orbit around Kerbin with 0 inclination, and place a maneuver that brings you barely into a solar orbit. Set Moho as a target and note where the AN is. Warp until Kerbin is about a day away from the AN point. Now, place another maneuver node that has both prograde and normal components so that the maneuver eliminates the relative Moho inclination AND places your PE so that it is touching Moho's orbit. I've found that it's around around 2000 in the prograde and 1000 in the normal direction. However, thanks to Pythagoras, this only costs a total of around 2300 m/s. If you want to maximize savings, note the trajectory after your escape burn, and launch a ship that matches the escape inclination exactly. This saves about 200 m/s as you won't need to burn any in the normal direction. Perform the maneuver. Accuracy is important, so make any corrections afterwards to put your PE so that it's barely touching Moho's orbit. Place one maneuver at your PE, and place another node ahead of that one. Click the next orbit button a few times for the second maneuver node. You'll see the close encounter markers move around. Click until you find one where you are close to your PE, and Moho not too far ahead of you. Now, go to the first maneuver node and start pulling the retrograde direction. You should see the encounter marker for Moho move closer to you (you're lowering your AP and decreasing your orbital period, so you're catching up to Moho). You should be able to get an encounter without burning more than 100 m/s, since any change in orbital period is multiplied by several orbits. Perform the maneuver. Again, accuracy is fairly important. Wait a few orbits and you'll get that encounter your second maneuver node had predicted. and once you're 1/4 of an orbit from Moho, do a correction maneuver that puts your PE close to Moho. Finally, capture at Moho. This step should take less than 1900 m/s, putting the total delta-V cost around 4000 or 4200 m/s. This is about as good as the optimal transfer time according to the transfer planner (and you don't need to wait for years).
  9. You're probably getting thrown off by the relative motions when the SOI switches. In the Mun's SOI, you're going in one direction (and the Mun is stationary). However, the Mun itself is moving relative to Kerbin, so when you switched to Kerbin's SOI, it looked like you're going a different direction. You were going that direction before the switch too.
  10. Ship representation is something that is pretty core to the game itself, so changing it later is probably impossible. Hopefully that means it is there at launch.
  11. Try just placing a maneuver node where you think it should be? I think it will force it to show the nodes for the current orbit.
  12. Empiro


    No matter what is chosen, I hope some research is done to figure out what they would look like up close. I suspect that rings would look a bit diffuse, like a light fog-ish effect, though I'm really just guessing. I haven't been able to find any really close-up pictures online (close as in a few km from the rings). One thing to keep in mind is that the particles in the rings are moving at orbital velocity, so if you were orbiting around in the same plane, it should be kind-of like floating dust particles. However, if you were moving faster or slower and/or coming in from a polar orbit, then things should look different.
  13. I wouldn't mind a bit of adjustment to the sizes, but I think from a practical gameplay perspective, full sized is too much. From a pure time perspective, full-sized launches would take far more time, and I'd prefer not to have to spend so much time burning to orbit or doing long maneuver burns. Really-old-school KSP needed about 4500 m/s because of the atmosphere and drag modelling. I think that provided the right balance of time versus challenge. Once the atmosphere and drag were fixed, launches needed only 3500 m/s, which made it a tad easy. I wouldn't mind if sizes were adjusted a bit so that you'd need around 4500 m/s again.
  14. Yes, this has been discussed and analyzed quite extensively on this forum. It's generally considered a poor idea because burning straight up causes you to suffer more from gravity losses, which will more than offset any savings you might get. If you try to minimize gravity losses by using a rocket with very high TWR, then the increase in aero losses and the fact that you're carrying way more heavy engines means that you still lose out compared to just launching normally, especially in career mode.
  15. I usually design shorter missions based on staging events -- asking myself when I want the stages to happen, and then design each stage's delta-V around that. Generally for a Mun landing and return, I use 2 main staging events, plus the launch stage. After launch, the first staging event is when I switch to a vacuum engine. This lets the first stage fall back into Kerbin. The second event is when I switch to the lander's engine while landing at the Mun. This lets the second stage crash into the Mun. Then that final stage finishes landing on the Mun and returns. Then, I design the rocket backwards from the final stage. I'll construct the lander keeping in mind that I'll need at least 1100 m/s (110 minimum for the final part of the landing + 580 Mun orbit + 310 return to Kerbin). If I have more, then that's fine too, because I can stage at any point during the landing burn and still let my previous stage crash into the Mun. I then design my second stage. I know I'll need around 1800 m/s (100 minimum Kerbin circularization + 810 Munar Injection + 310 Mun circularization + 580 Mun de-orbit and land - Lander Stage Excess). If my lander stage has more than 1100 m/s, then I know that I can have a bit less in my second stage, since I can use the lander stage to perform a bigger part of the Munar landing. I also know that if my second stage has more delta-V, that is fine too -- because I can then make my first stage smaller and complete more of the Kerbin circularization using the second stage. Finally I'll design my first stage (though it's not always just one stage). I know I'll need around 3400 m/s minus excess from the second stage. In my usual designs, my second stage can provide around 1000 m/s of the Kerbin orbit, so my first stage needs around 2400 m/s, which can be easily done with a single liquid engine or a liquid engine + side SRB boosters providing an initial extra kick. In practice, I then ensure that each stage has around 100-200 m/s extra delta-V, just so I can deal with poor piloting or unexpected things.