Snark

Moderator
  • Content count

    6,620
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8,310 Excellent

About Snark

  • Rank
    E Pluribus Boojum

Recent Profile Visitors

10,955 profile views
  1. No, I'm pretty sure a mod could do this. As far as I can tell, basically the only thing in Making History that wouldn't really work as a mod is the mission builder and mission play. Everything else can be done as a mod, because basically Making History is a mod, for most practical purposes. Exactly! That's why they made it standard. By putting it in the official Making History expansion, rather than leaving it up to a modder somewhere. So it's "standard", and easy to write mods against, and everyone can have it. As long as they pony up $15. Which, from a business' point of view, is the whole point. Yep. I believe Firespitter was the go-to mod of choice for that. You're mixing apples and oranges. Standardizing it so that it's part of an official Squad released product is the relevant thing for the point you're making here. Whether it happens to be in Making History or in the stock game... is completely irrelevant. No matter which one it's in, people can build on it and use it. From a business' point of view... they'd want to put everything new in the paid DLC, and not in the stock game. Because if there's a thing that technically could go in either place, then all they accomplish by putting it in the stock game is taking away a reason for people to buy the DLC. And why on earth would they do that? I can think of only a few reasons why a rational company would put stuff in the base game at this point: Technical necessity. Let's say there's a cool new feature (e.g. "variant parts") that they want to make heavy use of in the new expansion... but it runs into a wall because making it work requires changing some aspect of the core game that the mod depends upon. Well then... solve that by putting that feature into the core game, specifically because it enables content in the mod. My guess is that this is why the variant part-switching is in the base game: "part" is a base KSP concept, and they're tinkering with that, so I'm guessing it was technically needed in order to make the new Making History parts work as desired. Synergy with DLC. Okay, so, let's say that they added the variant functionality itself to the stock game because they had to, so that they could enable all the nifty variant parts they wanted in Making History. Why, then, did they take the trouble to offer Rockomax variants in the stock game? Well... my guess would be, the new Making History parts have a fairly different look-and-feel to the old stock parts, so by doing this, they let players build ships that look nicer when they put the Rockomax parts together with the new MH parts. So, it was a fairly easy bone to throw to the stock players, and also made MH more attractive. At least, that's my take on it. Simple feel-good pandering. Nothing wrong with spending a little bit of time and effort to appeal to your fan base and make people happy. This is necessarily pretty limited, since it doesn't directly generate any revenue, but a little can go a long way. The Rockomax reskins kinda fit here (though they also help leverage MH's look-and-feel). About the only things I can think of in KSP 1.4 that feels like pure gimme is the EVA parachutes and the Mk 1-3 command pod. My take on what you're asking for, here, is that you'd like to see a bit more of #3. However... like I said, that generally tends to be really limited. They need to give people reasons to shell out $15 for the expansion, and the engine plates are really cool and useful and don't depend on making any changes to the core game, so that's a perfect reason to put them in the DLC instead of stock. Pretty sure that this was for technical reasons 'coz it had to be that way in this case. There's nothing special in the base game about "community effects". The community can benefit from Making History, too. As long as the community shells out $15 a pop, thus giving T2 / Squad a reason to keep making shiny kerbal stuff for us. If the community's not willing or able to do that... well then, that's when KSP closes up shop and they turn out the lights and no more shiny kerbal toys for us. Because why would they?
  2. Okay. So, adding up their thrusts (1303 kN for the Mastodon, 168 kN for each Swivel), that comes to a total of 1975 kN. Depending on ship design and intended mission profile, launchpad TWR should generally be somewhere in the range from 1.2 to 2.0, which for this amount of thrust would put the ship mass in the range 100 to 160 tons, roughly. Personally, I tend to prefer higher TWRs myself, but YMMV and it's okay to be lower-- but you certainly don't want to be lower than 1.2, so if your rocket's over 160 tons or thereabouts, you're in trouble. Okay, so how much does your ship mass, sitting on the pad? You haven't given the number (would be nice to know), but just eyeballing it and approximately toting up what I can see, I'm guessing it's in the ballpark of... oh... around 140 tons, maybe? 140 tons would put your TWR at 1.4, which is reasonable (though it could stand to be a bit higher to reduce gravity loss). So... you don't have a pathologically bad TWR, but you do have pathologically bad performance if you're running out of fuel at 10 km altitude. So there must be some issues elsewhere. One thing I note is that you're really not making much use of staging. I see only two stages there, which means your 1st stage is somewhat wasteful because it keeps lugging along way more dead weight than it needs (e.g. fuel tanks after they're empty, engines after your TWR has climbed to the point that you don't need them anymore. Also, be aware that that huge fairing on the front is going to generate quite a bit of drag, which will also hurt your performance. Actually, in 1.4.2, fairing aero is broken and it'll really be awful because that payload inside will generate drag as if the fairing weren't even there. But even when they fix that bug... the fairing's just so wide that you're gonna take a hit there. So, some suggestions: Replace the Mastodon with a Mainsail. There's basically no reason to use a Mastodon here; the Mainsail is unambiguously better in this case. More thrust, better Isp, much cheaper. Replace the Swivels with Reliants. They're lighter, they have a higher atmospheric Isp, they have more thrust, and you don't need the Swivels' gimbal because you've already got plenty of gimbal on your central engine. Asparagus the radial boosters. No point in lugging them along when you don't need them-- after you've burned off a fair amount of fuel and are traveling more horizontally than vertically, the Mainsail will have plenty of oomph on its own. So, ditch them when they're no longer needed. To do this: Instead of attaching them directly to the central stack, mount them on radial decouplers. Set the radial decouplers to "Enable Crossfeed". This will cause your Mainsail to drain the radial tanks first, before it starts using its own fuel. So, once those radial tanks are empty, then as soon as you no longer need the Reliants' extra thrust, stage them away. Add some SRBs. In this case, they would probably be a good idea. Looks like you have room for a foursome of radial SRBs. So, attach four Thumpers with radial decouplers, and stage those away as soon as they've burned out. For extra bonus points: set their decouplers to "Enable Crossfeed", then set some fuel tanks (say, 2-ton or 4-ton) on top of the radial boosters. That way, your Mainsail and Reliants will drain those tanks (the ones atop the SRBs) first, so you get a nice little fuel bonus. Consider revising your payload. I see you've got a 100G relay antenna plus a 15G relay antenna on there. Perhaps you like it that way just because it looks cool... but bear in mind that you're taking a huge performance hit for not much gain in signal strength, so you should consider whether you think it's worth it. (Only you can make that call, since you're the only one who knows what your priorities are.) For example: If you were so inclined, you could get rid of that 15G antenna, and mount just the 100G one, sitting right on top of the rocket pointing straight up. If you did that, not only would your signal strength still be nearly as good (the extra 15G doesn't add much), but also it would allow you to make the fairing far smaller and more compact. Resculpt the fairing. If you change the payload, you'll be redoing this from scratch, of course. But even if you don't... the current fairing design is bigger and draggier than it needs to be. From looking at it, it appears that the reason it needs to have such a huge radius is to clear that projecting antenna from the 100G relay, yes? In that case... don't have so much of a cylinder. Make the fairing sculpted as a cone, stretching up from the fairing base to right where the projecting antenna is. Then, once you've reached that point, slope it inwards towards closing the fairing-- i.e. don't have it project a long way up from there as a cylinder before you start to taper, as you're doing it now. Doing that will give it a pointier, more tapered shape and (I believe) will make it more aerodynamic. Doing all this will also reduce the total surface area and therefore the mass of your fairing, which is also good.
  3. Okay, folks. Had to prune out a whole bunch of content because despite moderator instruction, twice, in the last 24 hours, no politics please, someone just had to drag politics in again. Accusing people of having agendas, making slippery-slope arguments, talking about political correctness... nope. Also, a lot of the "arguments" were ascribing motives to people. Also not okay. That's being accusatory, which is also against forum rules (2.2.d). Look, nobody can speak for anyone else's reasons. It's fine to say "I like this idea because <my feelings>." It's also fine to say "I hate this idea because <my feelings>". It's not okay to argue about the idea because of anyone else's supposed reasons-- because you don't speak for them. If you want to talk about your "agenda", fine-- don't go talking about what you think someone else's supposed "agenda" is. So, had to go in and heavily prune the thread. Alas, the removed posts include not just the blatantly political ones, but, alas, plenty of others that then responded to them, so unfortunately they had to go, too. Which is a pity, because several of them contained some interesting (and non-political) commentary. Leaving this thread locked for a while to give folks some time to cool off. And, seriously: when the moderators say "stop doing this thing", it means stop it, okay? A word to the wise: Don't post politics. (Or other forbidden content.) Don't respond to someone else posting politics (or other forbidden content). Thank you for your understanding.
  4. Ah, in that case you want the subforum for modeling and texturing, not the "plug-ins" subforum (that one's for C# coding). Moving thread.
  5. Dragon Analog

    If this is thread for posting updates about a mod that you're working on, then this thread goes in Add-on Development. Moving.
  6. You don't need to sign up. No account needed, at imgur. Just FYI.
  7. Some posts have been removed, that were doing one or more of the following: Joking about politics, right after we said "no politics please" Saying "Okay, I'll stay off politics, but <political argument>", right after we said "no politics please". Please. Just don't. Thank you.
  8. Folks, Let's try to keep it on topic (KSP) and off out-of-bounds areas (politics) please, okay? This is a thread about the idea of crew roster choices in KSP, as pertains to gender. It's a perfectly reasonable and normal type of thread to have in KSP-- "Would you like to see more X in KSP, and why or why not?" For many possible values of X. This is not a thread about feminism, or what you think about people who identify themselves as feminists, or what the definition of "feminists" is, or political correctness, or capitalism, or What's Wrong With Society Today, or whatever-else. Those things are politics, and we will not get into political arguments here. Politics is out-of-bounds for the forums, and for good reason. We haven't gone completely off the rails here yet... but we're teetering awfully close to the edge, so please dial it back a notch, okay? It's fine to say that you'd like more female kerbals in the game (or that you wouldn't). It's fine to say why you would (or wouldn't)... within reason. But if your reason why (or why not) happens to be political... then please don't go into detail about the politics. There are plenty of other places on the internet to discuss politics to your heart's content. Let's leave it out of our little cartoon space game, shall we? Thank you for your understanding.
  9. Massive Duna Ship help

    Just FYI, you don't actually need them, at least not for braking to orbit. However, given that you have them anyway, they can be handy in adjusting the braking while it's going on, e.g. "Oh no, looks like I'm not braking enough" <open them> "...oh, now it's too much..." <close them> Nope. Not a problem. Bear in mind that docking-port connections are really strong-- basically they're as strong as a regular part joint. You don't need to worry that the ship will spontaneously undock. When they're stuck together, they're stuck together hard. Any forces strong enough to snap the docking link would be strong enough to snap the ship apart anyway. I believe that they're not quite as stiff as a regular connection, i.e. they can be a bit "bendy" ... but they're bendy the way a spring is bendy, not brittle-so-that-they-snap. That slightly increased bendiness can sometimes be an issue if, for example, you have a tall stack of docked-together things and you've got an engine at the back end trying to push them at high acceleration-- can cause some "floppy noodle" issues. But that's not any concern for aerobraking, because during aerobraking you're basically just luggage. And if you're using the "senior" docking ports, those are fairly stiff in any case. Also, bear in mind that in terms of the mechanical forces involved, braking to Duna orbit is pretty darn gentle. You're shedding a total of about 600 m/s of velocity, and you're doing that over the course of a couple of minutes. Your deceleration is generally under 1 g. So as long as you build a ship that's strong enough that it doesn't actually fall apart when standing still on the landing pad at Kerbin, it can handle the forces of Duna aerobraking. You seriously don't need it. Like I said, Duna aerobraking is gentle. Assuming that you hit a good transfer window, you'll be going only about 1500-1600 m/s when you hit Duna atmosphere. That's very easily survivable, especially since you're not going all the way down to the surface. You really don't need a heat shield. So, you don't need to worry about being snapped apart by mechanical forces, and you don't need to worry about getting fried. Basically, there are just two likely failure modes for aerobraking-to-orbit at Duna: You don't go deep enough (Pe is set too high on approach). Result: Not enough braking, and you need to waste rocket fuel braking to stop from flying out into the solar system again. You go too deep (Pe is set too low on approach). Result: You brake too much, and go down to the surface instead of to orbit. The tricky bit is that on Duna it's really finicky-- the altitude difference between scenario #1 and scenario #2 can literally be less than a kilometer. So you'll probably need quite a few tries (with reverts) to get it dialed in just right. Other than that, though, it's pretty simple. Really don't need 'em. Your LV-N engines should suffice for any orbital maneuvering around Duna. How fast you'll be going when you arrive there has nothing to do with what kind of engines you use. It's completely determined by, Duna's escape velocity (which is a property of the planet, not of your ship), and the geometry of the interplanetary path from Kerbin to Duna (which is a property of Duna's and Kerbin's orbits, not of your ship) With a good transfer window, you'll arrive at Duna with a speed of around 1500-1600 m/s when you hit atmosphere, regardless of ship type.
  10. Correct, because that's not how the forum works. It won't let you paste any content directly here. You get a screenshot into your post by linking to it, not pasting it. Here's what you do: Upload your image to some third-party image sharing site, such as imgur.com. Once it's uploaded there, right-click on the image on its web page and choose "Copy Image Location" Paste that URL into your forum post here. Presto, it gets automagically converted into an in-line image.
  11. Massive Duna Ship help

    So, how are you planning on getting into orbit once you arrive at Duna? Using braking thrust from the LV-Ns? That's certainly doable, if you like. However... it does use fuel unnecessarily. You'd need to spend 600 m/s of braking thrust from your LV-Ns to get into circular low Duna orbit. That's a pretty big chunk of dV that you can almost entirely eliminate by aerobraking to orbit. Bear in mind that Duna is a very gentle environment for aerobraking-- you're not arriving at super high speed (assuming a good transfer window), and the planet itself has a relatively low escape velocity, which means by the time you arrive at low Duna orbital altitude, you're going at a speed that can easily aerobrake even without heat shields. So, for example, you could set up your craft so that when it initially arrives at Duna, it has a Pe of something like 20 km, give or take (exactly how high will depend on how heavy and/or draggy) your craft is-- it may be somewhat higher, it may be somewhat lower. (You only get one shot, so best to quicksave beforehand so you can fine tune it if you get it wrong.) So, your whole 140-ton assembly comes flying out of the solar system and plows through Duna's atmosphere, slowing it to a speed that puts it into low Duna orbit with a Ap that's as low as you can manage. Then you coast around to that Ap, decouple the lander (so that it can coast back down into atmosphere and land), and the decoupled orbital stage just does a small burn to lift its Pe out of atmosphere and circularize. This requires no design changes at all to your ship, and can save you 500 m/s or more of dV. The only real downside is that it's tricky to get your aerobraking Pe just right, so you'll likely need to go through several cycles of "try it, revert, adjust Pe slightly, try it again."
  12. Massive Duna Ship help

    One handy technique for dealing with launching low-TWR, high-dV craft efficiently from low orbit is periapsis kicking. In other words, don't try to do the whole burn at once. Just do a burn of a couple of minutes, which raises your Ap somewhat... then stop. Coast around one orbit, and then do another burn at Pe that raises your Ap further. Then again, and again, until you've raised your Ap up fairly high (i.e. several thousand kilometers) and there's not much more dV left until escape velocity. Then do one final burn at Pe to send you on your way. This is nice because it allows you to do your burning at low altitude (thus preserving maximum Oberth benefit, so you need the least dV), and also to do all your burning with your high-Isp engines (thus getting the most dV out of your craft). If I'm reading your numbers right: You've got 4 LV-N engines, pushing a craft that's 62 tons dry mass, plus 80 tons of liquid fuel, plus an 18-ton fully-fueled lander. So the whole shebang has a total fueled mass of 160 tons. From a 90 km orbit, your ejection burn to Duna for an ideal window will be 1049 m/s. That means you'll need to burn almost exactly 20 tons of fuel for your ejection burn. Given the fuel consumption rate of LV-Ns, that means your total burn duration will be 654 seconds, i.e. just a shade under 11 minutes. So, for example, you could do an initial 2-minute burn, then coast around for another pass to do another 2-minute burn, then a 3-minute burn on the third pass... and then on a fourth (and final) pass you do the remaining ~4 minutes of burn.
  13. Yeah, if you're struggling to get to 10 km and run out of fuel then, you're probably way underpowered, as @Gogi pointed out. It may be that you have other design issues, as well, if you're new to KSP. Would strongly suggest posting a screenshot of your ship-- lots of folks could give specific suggestions then. "Strap SRBs to it" is certainly one useful (and fun!) suggestion ... but there may be other issues as well, and an experienced KSP player could spot an awful lot of potential problems with one glance at a screenshot.
  14. Okay. So, one of the things that you're up against here is that clearly this is a satellite that's designed to unfold, i.e. it's launched in a very compact, folded-up configuration and then when it gets to space it will unfurl and extend arms and antennas and things, right? KSP supports animated parts (e.g. individual parts that extend-retract)... but it doesn't support animation of parts themselves as part of the ship. For example, you can make a part which is a leg that extends and retracts-- but you can't mount another part (such as an antenna) on the end of the leg, so that the antenna is moved when the leg moves. Doesn't work that way. It's a basic limitation of the game. It's why there's no "hinge" part in the game. (There are mods that add this ability-- the main one that most folks use for this purpose is called Infernal Robotics, in case you want to go looking for it. But I've never used it myself and therefore can't attest to what it can or can't do.) For example: Looks like those antennas are basically big dishes, and as such, are not all that different from the Communotron 88-88. So I suspect you could cobble together a satellite out of stock parts, using Communotron 88-88s as the antennas, mounted on arms sticking out. But that would be the constant shape of the satellite, i.e. it would be shaped like that on the launchpad, too. The antennas themselves could fold up into their retracted positions, but (unless you can use some mod like Infernal Robotics) the arms themselves wouldn't be retractable, which means you'd have this huge ungainly awkward-to-launch thing sitting on the pad. You could use the cheat menu to just put it into orbit, of course, but then you'd miss the fun of launching it to space. So, essentially what you're up against here is that you're wanting to do something that KSP doesn't really support. I'm not saying it's impossible, just that you're kinda swimming against the stream. KSP wasn't really designed with the idea of mimicking specific arbitrary spacecraft in mind, especially when those spacecraft involve complicated moving parts. So, you've got a few choices here: Model the satellite as a single KSP part (or as a collection of a few parts). Advantage: Gives you something that looks and acts exactly the way you want. Disadvantage: Huge investment of time and effort on your part. This will likely take many hours of your time, and require you to develop specialized KSP part-modeling skills. Approximately model the satellite by building it out of stock parts, and/or any mod parts that look more like what you're interested in. Advantage: Easy, doesn't take too much of your time, doesn't require any specialized skills or knowledge. Disadvantage: Will look only approximately like your satellite (don't know how much you care about that). Disadvantage: Won't have the extendable/retractable arms feature, which means it will be an awkward mess on the pad to launch. Same as #2 above, but use a mod like Infernal Robotics to model the extending/retracting arms that the antennas are mounted on. Advantage: Still lots easier than option #1. Can unfold/retract. Disadvantage: Still looks only approximately like your satellite. Disadvantage: Have to learn how to use and design the Infernal Robotics mod (or whatever). Like I said, I've never used the mod myself, don't know much about its limitations or how hard it is to use.
  15. Sure, but I'd be astonished if they did this. After all, you could say the same thing about all the 1.875m parts. The thing is... They could have put all this stuff into the stock game and given it away to everyone for free, if they wanted to. However, they didn't-- they deliberately put it into a separate expansion pack that costs money. I assume that's for business reasons, because they're a company and they need to sell stuff in order to make money. Every part that they take out of Making History and put into the base game instead represents an investment of expensive engineer time that they then give away for free instead of selling to generate income. And is also one less reason for someone to buy the expansion pack. Think about it for a moment. Obviously, if you bought Making History, you wouldn't need to request this, right? Because then you'd have it anyway. So the only reason for you to want these parts in the stock game is so that you don't have to buy Making History. So essentially you're saying to them, "Hi, you know this stuff you've been spending all this money to develop because you wanted to sell it? Well, I'd like it if you could just give it to me for free, instead." Seems to me that that would... um... not be a super persuasive argument to them. I don't work for Squad and therefore am not privy to their business decisions, of course, but I have worked in the software biz for a very long time and therefore have a reasonable familiarity with how things work in general. "Companies sell stuff for money." I'm not saying that you're making an unreasonable suggestion-- you've certainly identified why a player would want this. But what would Squad's reason be, here? I think part of the problem is that those of us who have been getting thousands of hours of entertainment, for years, out of a game we purchased for the cost of a couple of movie tickets, while Squad keeps giving us new releases and new features at no additional cost... well, I've certainly enjoyed the ride, but I think we may have gotten a bit "spoiled" by this. The ride couldn't go on forever-- it costs money to run a business, and they can't keep operating unless they start charging people for stuff. So, "Take this thing you're trying to sell and give it to me for free instead" isn't a persuasive argument. It's simply a non-starter. What would be more a persuasive argument would be "Please add <more nifty things> to this thing you're trying to sell me, so I'm more likely to buy it." In other words... if you came up with feedback of additional stuff you'd like to see in Making History, i.e. stuff that would bring you to the "Oh, okay, I guess I'll buy it, then" point... well, that is the kind of thing that tends to get a company's attention, in my experience. They've got no business reason to give you additional free stuff. But they do have excellent business reasons to persuade you to buy the thing they're trying to sell.