Jump to content

Snark

Moderator
  • Posts

    9,491
  • Joined

Reputation

14,683 Excellent

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • About me
    E Pluribus Boojum

Recent Profile Visitors

19,848 profile views
  1. Download link removed and thread closed for the time being, pending resolution of some licensing issues. Thank you for your patience.
  2. Yes, I'm aware of the issue-- I can reproduce it, too. It's on my "to do" list to address when I have time-- it's just that I've been pretty busy lately, and there have been other things higher in the priority queue.
  3. Just wanted to make sure you've seen this excellent how-to by @adsii1970, just a few posts after you posted this: The TL;DR is that if you want to have a large amount of stuff "about you" that people can see, you have an alternative. Instead of trying to cram it all into a signature-- where it may get cut off, and also can get in people's way since it's repeated on every post-- you have the option of creating your own "about me" page in a status update, where you can put as much stuff as you like, and then just link to it from your signature. Would that address your concern?
  4. Hello @hellwraiz, and welcome to the forums! The placement of CoL "above" (i.e. dorsally) or "below" (i.e. ventrally) the CoM is much less critical. Basically, what that will tend to do is affect the roll stability of the craft. Above the CoM = more stable for roll; below the CoM = less stable for roll. The reason it's not all that important is that aircraft tend to be naturally pretty stable on the roll axis, unless you do something really unusual to the design. This is because, there typically aren't any major aerodynamic forces that tend to induce roll aircraft tend to have a lot of control authority for roll, since wings tend to stick pretty far out to the sides, and an aileron at the tip therefore has a lot of lever arm to work with SAS does a pretty good job of maintaining roll attitude If you'd like to add a smidgeon of roll stability, you can give your wings a slight dihedral angle (just a tiny bit is plenty), and/or mount them higher up on the fuselage than the midline. Speaking for myself, though, honestly I don't bother most of the time-- I just mount wings on the default midline and everything works fine. I'll usually give them a very slight amount of pitch up (i.e. positive angle of attack) to reduce fuselage drag, but that's about it.
  5. Hello @YeaiMakeMods, and welcome to the forums! Moving to Add-on Development, since you've indicated this is a work in progress and we're guessing you'd like it there. If it's playable and you'd prefer it to be in Add-on Releases, just let us know and we're happy to move it there for you. FYI, please see the following: TL;DR is that there are some rules to follow when posting anything for download. From looking at your post above, the one thing I'm seeing that appears to be missing is a license. From your SpaceDock page, it looks like you've chosen MIT, so all you need to do to the above post is to add a comment "License: MIT" anywhere and you're good. Per the rules, please also ensure that your downloadable .zip file contains a LICENSE file that has the full text of your license (e.g. MIT) with all the legalese and everything. Thanks for joining the KSP modding community!
  6. For the folks who aren't a fan of the new forum update: Totally understandable. I'm not a big fan, myself. A little bit of context may be helpful in understand how and why the change happened: It wasn't anyone at Squad or T2 who changed the look. The forum software is produced by a completely separate company, and they're the ones who design it and update it. Squad/T2 are just customers. It wasn't because the folks at Squad/T2 particularly wanted to change the look. It was just an update to a newer version of the forum software, that's all. The changes to the "look" just came along for the ride. No, it's not really an option not to update to a newer version. It's important to keep forum software up to date. For example, newer versions contain security fixes, and so forth-- it's not okay not to take those. Yes, it sure would be nice if the company that makes the forum software (which, again, is not Squad or T2) could somehow decouple the "you must take this" update (security etc.) from the "only take this if you want it" stuff (e.g. forum appearance), but that's not how they work. Yes, there are some knobs we can twiddle to adjust some things. But not all things, and figuring out the "best" settings takes a bit of time, so thank you for your patience in the meantime. The relevant people running this forum are listening to you, and are doing their best. Knob-twiddling has been happening, and folks are genuinely trying to sort things out to avoid needless user pain. So, with that out of the way, some good news below. Yeah, as far as I can tell, basically everyone hated those things. Took a little while, but the Powers That Be™ have figured out how to turn them off. So they're gone now. Yay! (For anyone coming along later wondering what this was about: the update added little "stickers" onto everyone's avatars, a blue rocket-in-a-circle icon, which obscured the bottom left corner of every avatar.) Yah, that's another surprise change that nobody seemed to like. Also fixed now, your full rep should be showing, at least for desktop. (Yes, we're aware that mobile has its own issues. Things are being looked at-- again, please remember that, 1. figuring out what can be changed, and how, takes time, and 2. it is new software and not everything will necessarily be doable.)
  7. No worries, it happens. FWIW, I glanced at your logs and I'm seeing a bunch of errors that say "Trajectories" on them-- so if you're running that mod, maybe it's the culprit? Might want to go and ask about it in their thread. Quite welcome.
  8. The two moons that are by far the most useful for gravity assists are Tylo and Laythe. They both work pretty well. Tylo has the advantage of being in a higher orbit, so using it allows establishing somewhat less-eccentric orbits around Jool. Laythe has the advantage of being able to combine aerobraking with a gravity assist. I find that reverse gravity assists (where I'm trying to slow down, e.g. to capture to the Jool system) are considerably easier to arrange than "positive" assists (e.g. for boosting out of the Jool system), mainly because in the latter case, it's necessary not just to get a boost but to get it in the correct ejection angle to navigate to wherever I'm going, which makes it a trickier setup. If you want to gain energy from an encounter, arrange an orbit so that you cross behind the moon, so that its gravity speeds you up. Somewhat more effective if you're crossing from inside its orbit to outside. If you want to lose energy from an encounter, arrange an orbit so that you cross in front of the moon, so that its gravity slows you down. Somewhat more effective if you're crossing from outside its orbit to inside.
  9. Maybe do a quick check on an unmodded install, just to make sure that some mod isn't tripping you up? Just as a sanity check-- would be handy to eliminate that as a source of error.
  10. Hello, and welcome to the forums! The author has already helpfully supplied an answer, just a few posts above. I'd suggest referring to that. And no, the answer isn't very specific, which is clearly the author's intention, meaning "it'll be ready when it's ready". If they were prepared to give a more specific date, presumably they would have done so. So, best thing to do is simply to : be patient reflect on how fortunate we are that modders choose to continue their precious and scarce free time to give us these shiny toys for free wait for whenever it happens to come out. Doubtless there will be an announcement about it here, so watch this space.
  11. Moving to tech support for modded installs.
  12. Hmm. I've taken the liberty of cleaning up the image a bit for visibility, and yeah, it looks to me as though the arrows are pointing in the correct direction (from the radial booster, towards the central stack). So, yeah, that looks to me as though that ought to do exactly what you expect it to. Not sure what's going on, here. A few questions, as a sanity check: What are the fuel contents of each of those tanks, as it's sitting there in this picture? e.g. for radial tanks and the central tank, is each one full? empty? partial? (and if so, roughly how full?) You're lifting on all three engines, yes? What's the status of the fuel crossfeed settings on your radial decouplers? Enabled, or disabled? (With the fuel ducts present, you want the crossfeed disabled.) What's the drainage pattern, exactly, as you ascend from the surface? For example, is it draining only the central tank while the radial ones stay untouched? Or is it draining all three tanks, simultaneously? (And if the latter, is it draining them at the same rate, or is one tank draining faster than the others?) Do all three engines stay burning the whole time it's ascending, or do any of them conk out from lack of fuel at some point while others stay burning? (e.g. when one tank runs dry but others still have fuel) (FWIW, I tend to agree with @jimmymcgoochie that your current engines-and-tanks setup looks like overkill for coming home from the Mun-- you should be able to get home just fine from the surface with only that central tank and one Terrier, assuming that the tank has a reasonably full fuel load. So you shouldn't actually need asparagus in this situation. However, if you're having design issues with getting asparagus to work, then it's probably worth sorting that out, so it'll work for you in the future when you need it more.)
  13. So, basically what you're trying to do is have the fuel draining inward (so that the radial tanks drain first, and you can stage them away), but instead you have it draining outward (with the central stack draining first), yes? If that's what you're experiencing, most likely what you've done is gotten your fuel ducts backwards. Fuel ducts transfer fuel in only one direction. (In the direction of the little arrows printed on the side.) When you're placing the fuel duct in the VAB, "end 1" is the one you place first, and "end 2" is the one you place second. The fuel will flow from end 1 to end 2. So, if you want your fuel to drain inwards for asparagus staging-- i.e. you want the radial tanks to drain first, leaving the center tank full-- then what you should do when placing the fuel ducts is to first place the duct end on the radial tank, then place the second end on the center tank. It matters which end you place first. (There's another way to do asparagus staging, which involves enabling fuel crossfeed on your radial decouplers instead of using fuel ducts, which I can go into if you like. That sort of fuel crossfeed is in two directions, so the fuel management is handled slightly differently. Let us know if you'd like to go into details for that type.)
  14. Yay, as of today, we now have a new subforum, "KSP 2 Suggestions & Development Discussion"! Since this thread is very much a suggestion, moving it over there.
  15. Moving to Gameplay Questions, since that's a better venue to get answers to these kinds of questions. Yes, it's not surprising that this runs into problems. The issue, though, is actually not what you think it is-- more on this below. It's understandable that you might think that the problem that destroys the parachute is "load", such as how much mass it's supporting... but that's actually not the issue, at all. I mean, at all. You could literally have a 1000-ton spaceship with a single Mk16 parachute on it, and that wouldn't destroy the parachute from "overloading", because that's simply not a thing in this game. (It wouldn't slow the 1000-ton ship down very much, so your "landing" would be at pretty high speed and would likely destroy the ship from the crash, but it wouldn't rip the parachute off while in midair.) What kills the parachute isn't load. It's airspeed. The problem you're facing in situations like this-- "my stupid parachute keeps breaking!"-- isn't that your parachute is overloading, it's that your vehicle's terminal velocity while falling is too high. The technical details of what's happening Here's how it works: You can stage the parachute at any time, including in space in a vacuum. Once you've done that, it will semi-deploy as soon as it's able. The parachute won't deploy at all if the atmospheric pressure is below 0.04 atmospheres (by default, you can tweak that). The parachute has a certain "critical speed", such that if it is deployed when above that speed, it gets destroyed. (This is the problem you're running into.) This critical speed varies with pressure. Near sea level, it's around 250 m/s. Higher up near the pressure limit for semi-deployment, it's around 400 m/s. If it's not deployed at all yet, while you're falling, then by default the parachute is set to "deploy when safe", so if you're initially falling faster than the safe speed, it won't deploy. This doesn't slow you down... but at least it doesn't rip the parachute off. A typical scenario is that your craft will slow down somewhat due to atmospheric drag as it falls, so eventually its speed will fall below that critical speed, at which time the parachute will deploy. In the happy case, it then stays deployed and un-destroyed all the way down. For one thing, even in its semi-deployed state, it adds some drag, which helps to slow you down a bit more. When you fall below the "full deployment" altitude above the surface-- which is 1000 m by default, though you can tweak it-- then it opens all the way and slows you down by a lot. The problem that you're running into is in step 6 above. Your falling craft has a terminal velocity that's too high. It's built like a javelin: dense and slender. In other words, its ballistic coefficient is too high. What's happening to your ship So what's happening to you is, at some point you're falling and you're slow enough for the chute to semi-deploy... but the craft is still too heavy and aerodynamic to be slowed down, so it keeps its speed (and maybe even continues to accelerate from gravity) as it falls down into denser air. The critical speed gets lower as the air gets thicker, but you're still going way too fast, so eventually your speed gets above the critical speed and it rips the chute off. Since the problem is that your ship's terminal velocity is too high... then the way to fix this is to reduce your terminal velocity. Okay, so how do I reduce my ship's terminal velocity? As with so many things in KSP, there are multiple possible ways of solving the problem. Solution #1: Alter the ship by staging You've already discovered this method on your own, so congratulations! ...By throwing away those fuel tanks and engine, you change your craft from a sleek, slender, aerodynamic, dense javelin with a high terminal velocity, to a craft that's much less aerodynamic (with the blunt end of the capsule leading the way), and which is also much more "draggy" relative to its mass. So air drag slows it down by a lot more, and therefore it can safely fall with no problems. Personally, this is usually my own go-to solution. It's simple, it works, and (in career mode) is available very low on the tech tree. Solution #2: Alter your trajectory The shallower the angle that you launch at, the more time you have to lose speed due to drag and the less punishment your chutes take. You mentioned a 30 degree angle from vertical-- that's still pretty steep. Aiming for a more shallow trajectory than that can help, depending on ship design. Solution #3: Use drogue chutes A drogue chute, such as the Mk12-R, is one that's specialized for slowing down a craft from very high speeds, down to a safe speed for "standard" chutes (like the Mk16) to operate. Things to know about drogue chutes: They can handle much higher speeds. The "critical speed" (that it can tolerate before being destroyed) is roughly double that of a standard chute. They have a much higher drag while semi-deployed than a standard chute does. So they help slow things down quite a bit even before they're fully deployed. They have a much lower drag while fully deployed than a standard chute does, so they're not very useful for landing (if you tried to land on drogue chutes alone, you'd probably hit the ground at 30-40 m/s, ouch). Their minimum pressure to semi-deploy is substantially lower than a standard chute, meaning that they can open (and start slowing you down) at a significantly higher altitude. Their default altitude to fully deploy is 2500 m, which is a lot higher than a standard chute's 1000 m. So, what you can do for your ship, for example, is to add a couple of Mk12-R chutes to it, in addition to the Mk16, and put them all in the same stage for convenience. As the ship falls, the drogues will deploy first, and will substantially slow the ship so that when the Mk16 deploys, it should stay safely under its critical speed. Solution #4: Increase drag via orientation Another way you could potentially mitigate this is to alter the orientation of your craft. For example, you could use drag, and make your craft as draggy as possible by falling sideways. Solution #5: Use "body lift" to descend at a shallower angle Another option would be to use body lift to try to descend at a shallower slope. Body lift is what you get when the fuselage of your cylindrical ship is angled to the oncoming airstream, generating some lift. (Kinda like when you hold your hand out the window of a moving car, and angle it so that it deflects the airstream downwards-- your hand gets pushed up). About the optimum angle for maximum body lift is around 25-30 degrees. If you're falling nose first, you'd want to keep your nose pointed about 30 degrees higher than . If you're falling tail first, then you'd want to keep your nose pointed about 30 degrees lower than . Some limitations of the body-lift technique: It works better when you're falling at a not-so-steep angle. You mentioned angling away from the vertical by 30 degrees-- that's still pretty darn steep. You may have better luck with a shallower angle than that. If your craft is too aerodynamically stable-- i.e. if it acts like a badminton birdie with all the mass in the front and all the drag in the back-- then the limited control authority from your reaction wheel may not be enough to give you that 30 degree angle. Your craft may end up getting held fairly rigidly in the worst (i.e. most aerodynamic) position, and you can't generate the angle needed to get lift. How well this works for you will depend on the design of your craft, which depends on the shape and the mass distribution. Using body lift becomes much more powerful and practical if you've got some steerable fins on the back of your ship, such as the AV-R8 Winglet. These allow you to steer with the power of the airstream, so you're pretty much guaranteed to be able to get some reasonable angle on your orientation. Solution #6: Put wings on it With wings on the craft-- even stubby ones, like the AV-T1 Winglet-- you can glide instead of plummeting, which lets you descend at a much shallower angle and therefore slower, which is safe for the parachutes.
×
×
  • Create New...