B-STRK

Members
  • Content count

    262
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

188 Excellent

1 Follower

About B-STRK

  • Rank
    Speeds by...

Profile Information

  • Location Kharak (oh **** me...)
  1. I don't think it worked that way, nor does it still. The tether is simply the kerbal on EVA grabbing the connector, and with that function he or she can unreel and re-reel at will; I guess as long as the grabbing kerbal is the focus, winch function like fixing unreeled length is suspended, so flying away will just unreel the winch until max, which I haven't tried by the way--but again, I haven't played around with kerbals on tether since .24-.25, so my experience may be outdated. When the winch craft is the focus however, yeah I can fix the line unreel length and tow said kerbals (or anything, actually) around (and that's one way of getting them back on board!) but that's the standard function anyway. (And that's what triggered the NRE by the way, which is why I discontinued using the winch as a kerbal tether or towline. Could have been fixed in later versions though.) I wonder though, if the kerbal is harpooned instead? If he hasn't ragdolled from being shishkabobed, and since he hasn't technically "grabbed" the winch line, would you be able to do as tsovarisch Leonov did? PS: the jetpack does have its uses though. It's damn hard to walk on Minmus and Gilly without concrete weights, after all.
  2. @Geschosskopf Actually that's why I said "volume." I was hoping that DSEV came with 5m profile tanks (again, minimizing parts count on everything). Though I know that I could add a WB tank to any of my present designs, then have distributed resources fill that up then transfer to the larger tanks, then repeat. Actually experimenting with that for a "detached" nuclear reactor using distributed EC. Would you happen to know if Pathfinder's distribution will also fill up non-WB tanks automatically by way of filling up attached WB tanks, or does it have to be manually transferred from there after the transfer, and if it can happen in the background? It's the manual transfer I'm worried about, because those LH2 tanks need active cooling thank to CryoTanks and even a small amount can use up a surprising amount of charge on top of all other processors, so automatic or background transfers especially for EC would be useful. (I remember back in the day someone used TAC fuel transfer to work this out, but this was when it was a part to add to ships to make it work, and only while in focus). Oh yeah, I remembered that mission. Hence why it's now a commandment among kerbals: there's no such thing as too much thrust. GC's wireless is actually similar to EPL, a one-time only resource transfer before launch of the constructed vessel. (Useful since GC's build range is 300m). It's not meant as a wireless logistics system. It'll handle any and all tanks between the builder and buildee; you'll only need WB distribution or any equivalent after launch for wireless logistics. By the time I got Snacks for Apollo 1.0, it already had the MPL patched as the generator (hence why my Munbase in Sunshooter had an MPL component: it was the greenhouse). It was the lack of extra tanks that got to me as well--like you observed, it meant that to support a Duna flyby in Apollo 1.0 I'd have to toss about 3-4 Hitchikers for every 3 kerbals to be safe--way too large to simulate the 1-launch AAP mission. Which was why I switched to a Duna landing before I went into hiatus due to school. That issue of extra tanks touched off a pretty heated, almost nasty debate in the original thread, I almost thought a moderator would step in to calm things down some. I guess Angel decided as well when he took over that not having extra tanks was silly, additional parts to load notwithstanding. @scottadges It's how I learned stuff too, watching the masters at work. Which is why the Reports are my favorite place to go to (apart from the occasional humor and comedic tossing about of kerbals).
  3. The advantage of Snacks is that it tends to be generous in both baseline resource production and stockpile per part. As long as it's continuously fed with ore and EC as though it were an ISRU, one generator--the MPL for stock parts--will easily supply the needs of an expedition. It's literally launch-and-leave (just leave a couple of scientists, I think). And command parts carry about 50 snacks per seat, crew tanks 200 per seat, for 3 meals a day, so relatively extended ops can be run out of a cockpit and crew tank (e.g., a mk2 cockpit and crew tank for three-four kerbals), even before adding equally generous dedicated LS tanks. Some would say it's OP in that role, given that more realistic food generation should be periodic rather than continuous, but for a first foray into LS it doesn't get easier than that. And you're right on all counts about Kerbalism, Gesch, it's as masochistic as BARIS on hard mode.
  4. I can vouch for Ground Construction, as it's what I'm using for my own Minmus shipyard. (Only disadvantage is: no orbital construction so far...) If I my offer for your analysis a for-example in aggressive parts reduction: This GC shipyard complex behind the spoiler uses the same principles that @Geschosskopf mentioned, except that since everything is co-located in one base alone (construction, fueling, and LS generation), all the storage tanks need to be big for immediate launch-ready capability (fully constructed, fully fueled, fully provisioned once the Launch button is pressed). And I got the primary base which houses all of those functions down to I think around 50+ parts, using one big tank for each fuel resource, two for Ore and MaterialKits, and the big ISRU and big drills from Mining Expansion in place of their smaller counterparts (like about 4x the efficiency). Even had the leeway to add a Hangars-garage and a landing/refueling pad in the background for visiting vessels and tankers, and it's still enough for relatively steady green framerates, estimated five-to-fifteen-day construction times for my more complex vessels, and a space industrial refinery aesthetic to it all. Again, it was using the big parts when I needed the big parts, combining functionalities where and when I can, that aggressively cut down on this base's parts count. If this base were EPL-based, on the other hand, and the construction yard's orbital, I'd probably lose the larger ore tanks, the white barrels in the center of the complex (unless I needed to stockpile ore for some reason) and the large fuel tanks (the tangerines at the back), transferring the latter's capability to the fuel shuttles. It's not like the extra gas will be necessary for a ground launch. That being said, to minimize the shuttle runs to and from the orbital shipyard those are going to be some big shuttles--or probably not. I suggest nailing down the design of the Zeus first--or at least finalizing just how much fuel it will need to get the desired dV, that will make it easier to nail down the capacities of your fuel shuttles to minimize the number of runs needed to fill Zeus up. I second the advice re: KAS piping. That's the other reason why the tanks are big, it's my solution to the threat of Kraken attacks on bases linked by docking. I can't get the wireless transfers to work at the volumes I needed, so all KAS piping is temporary and I focus on keeping a stockpile for immediate refueling, just connect, transfer the fuel to the customer, disconnect, launch. Also the other reason why I used the landing pad there: even the Kraken can't break that thing in two. Sinking it might be another thing entirely, however. Oh yeah, speaking of which, for future reference, for really REALLY simplified LS, Snacks! Doesn't come simpler than that and it used to be even simpler than at present, so much so that it complicated my Apollo 1.0 Challenge entry when I wanted to try for the Duna mission then. As for a more accessible version of MKS, both Gesch and I would vouch for Pathfinder. Similar emphasis on in situ activities as MKS, but a lot of it has to do with exploration and geological investigation, as opposed to colonization (though this might change with future versions, based on Angel-125's latest updates). & & & Speaking of which, Gesch, I can definitely vouch for GC. Even if it should be the sideshow for the main event, Duna, it's one of the most fun sideshows I had since Elcano. It also coexists peacefully with EPL in the same install. The disadvantages of note as an alternative to EPL, given your play preferences I believe are: no Wild Blue integration (a question to ask Angel, I guess, especially now that he's into building up Pathfinder?), no orbital construction (yet), its rate of key resource generation (MaterialKits) is way slower than the same being generated by OSE parts (the mod also uses MatKits, so it's the perfect partner for GC due to shared resources), so unless OSE is present MatKit production will be the chokepoint of your shipyard operations; I should address this to Allista, shouldn't I? while it adds workshop capabilities to most stock and many mod parts housing crews >1, they tend to be highly inefficient compared to the baseline Mobile Workshop, or the workshops that come with KPBS when both mods are present, and the Mobile Workshop being a massive rover is a PITA to get to the build site--though at least the mod also provides a nice integrated Skycrane that might have the power to do the job. So for parts count issues it's highly recommended that KPBS be present as well even if only for its easier-to-lug-around GC workshops (and the OSE generators it also provides when the latter mod is present); watch out for the EC-resource-on-warp bug, it will shut down production when the warp drains the batts (recommend warp by focusing on another vessel very far away from the build base or warp in the Tracking Station so that the base's EC isn't being tracked live through warp); and as you've mentioned, you're gonna have to take your DIYKits with you from Kerbin to the target build site, rather than the build-from-scratch-on-site approach of EPL. The refinery complex and landing pad in the screenshot above was built out from GC kits, for which I used a combo of Pathfinder and KPBS as a temporary build camp. And the total complex built out and furnished this mobile orbital refinery below in about six days (three KPBS GC Workshops, and nine 5* Engineers, I forgot how many MatKits), the tank modules seen below are Size 3/3.75m and 4/5m, so that big can be done fast, just requires that the MatKits are available to feed production; hence the GC-OSE-KPBS combo to get it done fast.
  5. Pun-A-Thon

    [This one came up in a reply I made in the Tutorials section] The closest I ever got to flying FAR... was NEAR. Anyone still remember?
  6. To be fair, I did, but that was with having too many kerbals on EVA, and I wanted to be sure that no one flew off too far away. I think it might have also spammed an NRE during a maneuver with them tethered, but this was back in KSP 0.23.5 (which means the pre-KIS KAS old KAS), I should say.
  7. On the necessity: not anymore, if you're okay with just a general, almost-intuitive (think "layman") simulation of aerodynamics. Never flown with FAR before (closest I got was NEAR--heh, I should be PUNished for that ). The more hardcore you want your flight simulation, the more you'll want FAR. (The Mk2 thread I linked, for example, among other places I've found in researching how to stop my shuttle from whipping its hair back and forth, notes that FAR will simulate changes of stall angle of attack at supersonic and hypersonic regimes, whereas stock dynamics stall all wings at 30 degrees AoA across all regimes. Wing sweep I believe would also be accounted for in FAR naturally; I'm not sure how stock drag effects model it--maybe by increasing the drag factor of straight wing parts compared to swept?). Apart from now accounting for a different drag model in either case, the basics the tutorial introduces will cover both post-1.0 stock and FAR, no doubt about that. I've used this both pre-1.0 and post-1.0--more so post now that planes have become more fun to fly (after Squad sorted out exactly how they wanted stock atmo to feel over four or five sub-versions, I guess?). It's just that in both cases, there is still more to learn after the basics taught here, those "more to learn" being either shared between the two, or unique to stock and FAR respectively, that will further improve your plane design. So think of this tutorial as the starting place for nuggets to learn about what makes planes tick, and to get around in the lower atmosphere. Once you get to the part of wanting to make operational spaceplanes at the high alt, high-Mach regime, it will be the combination of this and other knowledge scattered around the kommunity that will make it successful. (I am still working on neutralizing its squirreliness, though, she's really twitchy coming in through the stratosphere.) ADDENDUM: The assymetrical flameout isn't a problem in stock aero anymore as far as I can recall, so having spaced-apart engines generally isn't the killer it once was. I think it might be an issue in FAR if it will model directional airflow into air intakes, you have to check with someone in the know.
  8. The lighting thing is quite common, and not just to Kerbin. I've had the amber emergency light from USI Exploration alternately bathe Kerbin in amber fro 175km, the Mk1 spotlight light up the KSC subcontinent, Aviation Lights and Kerbal Electric light up the interior of IVAs, and in the latter case, even light up the surface of Minmus. From behind the planet. In map view. Since KE uses its own lighting module (and I heard Aviation Lights uses something independent of any lighting module, at all, but I might have heard wrong?), I'm thinking it must be "KSP Unity, it so silly" dealing with all manner of lighting. And--I know I'm diving into a probability mechanics fallacy here, but just having fun with it--seeing the order of events this chapter and the last, maybe that's the secret to appeasing BARIS (apart from the invocation of the saints and regular parts testing): feed it something unmanned first to satiate its hunger, then hope it's too satiated to go after anything kerballed, at least not to the extent of devouring their ships whole. Yep, I know I'm diving into a probability fallacy here. Who was it again that said that dice don't have memories?
  9. Both aesthetics and because there is a stock effect now. Going by the Mk2 SP tutorial thread, an exposed node will produce more drag than if it was capped off with those caps. The pics forming this tutorial date back to the souposphere, so it's probably easier to just drop in a line or post saying that post-1.0, cap off nodes and fairing/cargo bay draggy payloads, than it is to redraw to edit the tutorial. Exception: if your plane's got rocket propulsion and it's got an attachment node at the bottom of the engine, then obviously plugging it plugs the engine as well, so that node being uncapped is unavoidable.
  10. You do know, when we grant your wish, we're going to have to rigorously interrogate you to learn your secrets to such understanding. Rigorously. I wish for... a shrubbery.
  11. Why are you around the kerbal forum

    I was told that it was a piece of cake to bake a pretty cake. Was that it? On to topic: first, the mods. Then the expertise, the inspiration, and finally what makes it all stick, the humor. Oh the fun in watching everyone here snatch victory from the jaws of defeat... and sometimes the other way around .
  12. Thanks once more @michal.don! And geez, I know the feeling: I have a licensure exam all next month and my KSP time is already feeling the squeeze (yet it's one of the only few ways I can decompress from all the studying, this isn't healthy for me at all ). Anyway I think I figured out how to deal with the instability I experienced in -2a, just need a verification flight or two to confirm it, and then (presuming I can squeeze out the free time to do so) -3.
  13. This is really an "Aww, shucks" moment I'm grateful for the acknowledgment, though I really wouldn't consider myself an expert, not compared to many others around here with a greater wealth of experience such as @Geschosskopf (as you've mentioned as well). Ah, my old enemy, parts count! Would you consider bigger ore tanks for both tanker and station? Would trim it down some. (USI Kontainers, should be part of the USI Core mod. Probably lose out on the existing aesthetics of your stations--the largest barrel-type ore tanks are painted white, the largest ore tanks, period are the boxy containers), but for the largest capacity you'd be cutting down on parts needed for ore storage by half (at least). Also, any prediction on how many parts your mothership will be? Looks like you could be running well into the yellow come Jool-5, considering (unless you're using the Hangars mod to stow away smaller craft) you'll be docking an assortment of landers (at least three: Laythe, Tylo, and everything else-capable) and even support craft to it.
  14. Seconded on all counts, though I'd also add that having additional nodes at such close range may make getting parts to snap to the right nodes a little finicky. Probably, if there was a function to swap to an alternate set of nodes for wide mount via a PAW toggle?
  15. ... when you're [oh yeah the autocensor kicks in here, just say "word for really angry" and "urination"] off that your law school hosted a talk on the legal ramifications of Humans to Mars by 2034, and you're practically screamjng at the announcement poster "I would have slayed that ["fecal matter"], I've been to Duna countless times already!" DISCLAIMER: "No, Your Honor, I have not legitimately gone to Duna yet (apart from Hyperedit/orbit cheat tests), let alone countless times, as this law school was too busy sucking the life out of me for me to do so in 1.0.x before I graduated; I am working on it now; however am not making much progress either because of the [another bad word] bar!"