Jump to content

Snark

Moderator
  • Content Count

    9,243
  • Joined

Community Reputation

14,158 Excellent

About Snark

  • Rank
    E Pluribus Boojum

Contact Methods

Recent Profile Visitors

18,573 profile views
  1. You'll note that @sal_vager's profile says "Moderator Emeritus"-- the only person on the forum in that category. Sal's special. He was a mentor and friend to us during his time here. For those of us who've been fortunate enough to know him personally, he's the guy who showed us what it means to be a moderator here. The special title is our small way of honoring him.
  2. A couple of years (and a couple of thousand posts), in my case. Because they're friends, and in some cases their absence might not necessarily be permanent and they may drift back. Bear in mind that we're just volunteers, we don't get paid for this, and we have to deal with day jobs, family matters, school, etc. like anyone else. Sometimes folks don't have time for the forums for a while. Not sure what you mean-- @HarvesteR left Squad quite some time ago, and his profile is currently listed simply as "Members", same as most users.
  3. How are they useless? The lateral thrusters are the most important for docking, and are pretty much all you need. If you need to thrust , just put a brief blip on the main engine. It's true that this would lack thrust, but that's not really needed-- if you're docking, you want to go towards the target, anyway. In any case, its usually a moot point for me anyway. If I'm docking something with a Mk1-3 pod on it, most often it's something that's fairly long and skinny. In which case my usual distribution of RCS thrusters is "ring around the front, ring around the back." So the thruste
  4. Oh, goodness no-- girders are astoundingly hideously draggy, that'll make it fly like a brick. Here's a design type I like to use for scenarios like that: Those side stacks are attached to the center using Small Hardpoint, which is very light and quite aerodynamic. (There's also "Structural Pylon", which gets quite a bit more separation and is also very aerodynamic, but those are pretty heavy so I tend not to use them as much.) Again, virtually tip-proof. As shown, that has nearly 2 km/s of dV in a vacuum. Quite aerodynamic. Depending on the design of what goes bene
  5. Well, it depends on the design. It's possible to build a fairly squat / stable lander whose aerodynamics during launch isn't too bad. Here's an example of a Mun lander that's typical of the type I like to use: The Baguette fuel tanks are great. You can attach them to pretty much anything, and they're reasonably aerodynamic on ascent. And by attaching the landing gear to them rather than to the central stack, that really widens the lander's "stance" and makes it quite stable. And I can adjust the vertical positioning so that the Baguettes are really low down-- they're nearly
  6. Moving to Gameplay Questions. Those look like the integrated RCS thrusters that the Mk1-3 command pod has built-in. By any chance did you, 1. leave monopropellant aboard that pod, and 2. accidentally turn on RCS? Weird that the RCS thrusters that are visibly attached to that big fuel tank don't appear to be activating, though. That sounds... buggy. Did you look to see if anything odd was going on with your KSP log file? Also, is this a stock install, or are you playing with mods?
  7. A common solution to this problem is to turn it the other way around, and build a lander that's really stable so that it can land on a slope without tipping over. Low CoM, wide / squat build. That way you don't have to care whether the ground is especially flat or not. If you're talking about the Mun, most of its terrain is not all that steep. Crater floors are reasonably level when you get away from the ring wall, as are the lowlands / midlands / highlands in between craters. As long as you don't land on the side of a crater, it's usually not too bad.
  8. Hello @The_Faulty, and welcome to the forums! ...just a reminder that actually sending someone the contents of your GameData folder would not be allowed (at least, not if it includes the Squad or SquadExpansion folders), since KSP's game code and resources are copyrighted. Providing a copy to anyone would be a EULA violation. So please be careful not to do that.
  9. Nope. We're not Squad employees, we're just volunteers who help out with the forum, so we don't have any more visibility into what's going on inside KSP production than you do. We do occasionally get a little bit of advance warning when a major announcement happens in the forums (so we can plan accordingly, make sure that some of us are around when the news breaks, that sort of thing)-- in which case we'll sometimes learn stuff a few hours before you do. But we don't learn any more than you do, generally speaking. Because everyone else was quicker at calling "not it!"
  10. I've noticed sometimes that the ability to edit maneuver nodes can get "wedged" if I drop multiple ones for the same craft. It doesn't seem to reproduce consistently, so I don't know what triggers it. (I also don't know if it's still happening in KSP 1.11, I haven't run into it in a while but that doesn't prove anything). When I do get wedged like that, I simply exit the map screen and go back in, and then they're fine and I can edit them as expected. Not sure if this is relevant to your problem or not, just something it might be worth trying.
  11. Thanks for the report! Yes, I've seen that on occasion. AFAICT, it's been an intermittent error that's been around for a long time. I've never been able to get it to reproduce consistently enough to nail down exactly what causes it. I haven't noticed it causing significant problems. If you have a specific, 100% reproducible sequence of actions that could cause that to happen every time, then that would be useful in tracking down what's going on. Otherwise I'll just have to let it lie, pending more data.
  12. The problem is that your CoM is so low that the Rhino can't help much. The control authority of a gimbaling engine is directly proportional to how far behind the CoM it is, so it has a decent lever arm to work with. In your case, the Rhino is so close to the CoM that its gimbaling doesn't help you all that much. Probably nearly irrelevant, especially on a craft that size. The issue is that as a rocket goes faster and faster, the aerodynamic forces get huge during the "max Q" part of ascent-- easily enough to totally swamp the (relatively) tiny torque that reaction wheels can provide
  13. Your CoM is too far from the front of the ship; it's basically in the rear. And since you're taking off on the SRBs alone, you don't have any significant engine gimbal to give you any active steering. Suggestion: Move the SRBs down. I mean, way down-- mount the radial decouplers as low as you possibly can on the central stack, then mount the SRBs as low as you can on the decouplers. And put stabilizing fins on the bottom of the SRBs. Also: Are those SRBs flexing at all? Are you using autostruts (or regular struts) to stabilize them and hold them rigidly in place?
×
×
  • Create New...