Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Hotel26

  1. FWIW, I just responded to one of your posts elsewhere and almost added a "Welcome to the Forum" until I saw your number of posts... It's also true that some truly new members -- have actually been playing KSP for years and have as much experience/expertise as many, many others here... So: please feel certain, "it is respected"! I will just say then, "hello",
  2. Hover over the bottom right "personnel view" and then move to the radio button at the left end and see "Interior Overlay" and then check that button...
  3. I have to say, Bravo, sir. Semantics can be insidious.
  4. We do strongly disagree. What about? My Aerospace bicycle metaphor. I believe that is what you responded to. Am I mistaken? Where do I claim that you advocate dumping Sandbox mode or that I read you to say that? I can see how you inferred that conclusion because I was, in a latter draft, striving for brevity and ran on to a larger point. A new paragraph (after "we strongly disagree") or a ruler (like below) might have helped perhaps. (Nevertheless, friend, extend me the courtesy of refraining from inserting words in my mouth, please.) But if you and I, Master39, who value Sandbox mode, cannot agree on what the core of KSP 1 is, then my claim made, that PD (owner of the franchise?) should exercise extreme caution in diverging unnecessarily makes sense. Does it not? That very much applies to the whole sense & gist of this topic, which is the way I made the comment, too (re-iterating with the LEGO analogy). Pthigivri said, and I quote: "Very few complete, good games Ive ever played include a sandbox mode. Instead they make the game good and just dump you in, rules and all." This was a hypothesis with very clear caveats (fun, controversial, opinion), but his initial premise was, frankly, ridiculous given that KSP 1, which he plays full well, is an immediate exception to his rule. He baked in the contentious conclusion. He has since (laudably) retracted it. I likened this to a gear-up landing. (The saying in the flying community is, "there are two kinds of pilots (regarding gear-up landings): those who have and those who will"). And you said: "KSP is just one in a long list of fantastic Sims that are terrible at being games." Who says? Subjective. Disagree. "People have been playing Go for centuries. Is it a worthy game?"
  5. Backgrounder: Today, the first launch by the independent Terkestan Space Agency (TSA) -- a Titan 2 fuel tanker, now secured in a 60-degree inclined orbit at an altitude of 80 km: We, at Mission Control in Olympia, are looking forward to seeing some new scenery from space!! Still to be decided but the next series of launches is likely to be to place a KISS Space Station into a 90-km altitude orbit.
  6. I've read everything that has been posted in this topic quite carefully. (I did say "removed or denigrated" and I was addressing my remarks to everyone. [snip] I did understand the spirit in which you posted this (from the get-go), so have no concern there. (How you thought it was going to be fun, is simply the case of the experienced pilot who lands gear-up one fine day: simple mistake and everybody does it sooner or later, so no bad. ("Three greens, Pthigrivi!")) (And making the Lego cartoon was a lot of fun, as bad as my drawing hand is. I was laughing the whole time.)
  7. The initial premise is flawed. If people want hard-core, fetch-quest modes (off topic, I would say), debate it but leave Sandbox off the table. In particular, do not suggest Sandbox players wear a placard, "I play Sandbox. I am a cheater" and don't use that word ("cheat") unless you really intend to denigrate the core players of the game. By the way, "Orbital mechanics is a core discipline within space-mission design and control.", i.e. it is a set of rules.
  8. Not if you make a Career out of buying the parts...
  9. "KSP is just one in a long list of fantastic Sims that are terrible at being games."
  10. Well, speaking from the point of view of KSP 1, it could be viewed literally as a "total inversion of mission" imposed by interlopers. Strong disagree, KSP is just one in a long list of fantastic Sims that are terrible at being games. Well said! Dealing in opinions, we strongly disagree. And all that that means -- to the owners of the franchise -- is that both views should be catered for: remove or denigrate one (particularly the original!) with caution. Recall that the venerable Creators of the game have stated publicly that KSP was intended to be a game, not a sim. That was only their fun opinion, of course... Just a reminder, then, about our heritage: [click + arrows => slideshow]
  11. Taking my cue from the OP (whom I much admire): my fun opinion, and no doubt controversial, is that KSP is the brilliant, imaginative, quirky, innovative game it is because it is an Aerospace bicycle. (The conventional gaming industry term is "Sandbox" game but I prefer the description "Imagination" game.) There's a reason why the two trainer wheels ("Geology" a.k.a. Science and "Economics" a.k.a. Career) were bolted onto the rear axle later, seemingly as an afterthought -- and are naturally deemed underdeveloped (being miniature and not touching the ground; which would, after all, defeat the sense & intent of being a bicycle). They're there as guides to those learning to ride the bicycle who need the additional assistance. I just hope that Science or Career (or something like them) are retained in KSP2 so that it continues to cater for the widest audience.
  12. I have no opinion about KSP2. I play KSP exclusively in Sandbox mode. If KSP2 doesn't have Sandbox mode, it won't matter because I'll just keep playing KSP. The only 3 games I have ever heavily invested time and expertise in are MS Flight Simulator, Minecraft and KSP.
  13. [first] SPACE NEWS GAZETTE [prev] As you will recall from a week ago, KSC High Command had decided to dispatch a satellite photo shoot over a remote location. Due to technical difficulties in making a high inclination launch as well, as overcast weather in the target area, the photos had only just been made available. The Top Brass had once again assembled in the Mission Control board room. Here's what they saw:
  14. tl;dr I think the AoA at max altitude and speed, whatever it is, is the "best" you can do for that machine, for that altitude & speed. So if you change the wing incidence, you will still need the same AoA to fly at the same latitude and speed. But what you will have done is adjusted the nose (at the other end of the wing incidence angle!) such that you make it match prograde. This could have a big effect on parasitic body drag (rather than wing efficiency) and put you into a new ball game: less drag at that altitude/speed means -- more speed; more altitude. One will also note that fuel flow of certain engines changes remarkably at certain high altitudes with only slight differences in altitude. So climbing 200 meters higher can make a whopping difference to ultimate range.
  15. We can understand that some people are allergic to mods (the way I am allergic to, oh, Real Life, ), I guess. Precise Editor really beats the mouse for intricate work, though, doesn't it? I found @Lt_Duckweed's view expressed above both surprising and interesting! Thank you. In my next post here, I'll make some elementary comments about determining max range, certainly nothing new for the experts, but hopefully of value to those like me, who have been toiling now for some years, learning things the hard way (only to find out "everybody" already knows that!). I really do invite anyone with anything to share on the whole, fascinating topic, loosely "aerodynamic optimizations", to speak forth!
  16. Well, this has to be acknowledged. There are a lot of simpler ways to get high! (Just about anything is simpler.) So let's state the baseline: "take-off and climb, and keep climbing until she won't climb any more, and when you get to there, that's your maximum altitude." That's the simplest way I know of. So I'll spill the beans on another technique I've heard of. "Fly East on SAS Orbital." This may not work initially for some planes (I'm not an expert on why not), so you may have to do the initial climb yourself and then switch to this. (I kinda think @TheFlyingKermanmight have been onto something like this...?) It works, I think, because of the following: If the airplane at the circle (Origin) on the left is flying one of the blue lines (easterly) in the atmosphere, this corresponds to the SAS Sfc direction. The difference between Sfc (atmospheric reference) and Orbital, is that Orbital adds the easterly spin of Kerbin (175 m/s?) horizontally to your velocity vector. If you allow SAS to fly your airplane aiming for the SAS ORB prograde, you'll notice that: in the case that you are climbing, ORB will tend to aim lower, and in the case that you are descending, ORB will tend to pull you higher. As a result, SAS ORB in control has a moderating influence providing a neg feedback loop to permit the airplane to balance its surplus energy to its climb rate. This will asymptotically climb to the point where there is no longer any surplus energy, and therefore the aircraft will no longer (sustainably) climb higher. Once it takes over (properly), this method is automatic and hands-off. While it only works in a precisely easterly direction, it does yield your theoretical maximum, which is what you are trying to improve in the design/testing process. (It being automatic (over and over again) is a boon to getting though numerous cycles without tedium.) Once you finish designing your aircraft, you will now have to fly the climb manually when on any other course.
  17. Yes!! I've heard of this method. Let me riddle you this in two parts: in which direction do you conduct the test? can you explain why it works? Bonus question: are there any special things you have to do in design to make your planes "obey" this trajectory? (As I know that many of mine do not...!) Thanks for chiming in! P.S. I read this a bit hastily but notice now you don't mention what mode you have SAS in. Are you using SAS or hand-flying this? If SAS, which mode?
  18. It's not often (never) that I quote so-called "real life" in regard to KSP, but in case it soothes: heavy, long-distance wide-bodies very typically climb to an initial cruising altitude and then request higher once some of the fuel load has been expended. (Nothing at all like a two-stage rocket but that's my metaphor for today.) in the very early days (before the prevalence of ATC), cargo pilots cruised in a continuous but slight climb instead of using the modern "step-ladder". I imagine their primary control reference was to never decrease airspeed while maintaining some small, positive climb rate. re: your Hidden Contents: exquisite entomology!
  19. Climb to Maximum Altitude In the technique I employ, that I will now describe, I use KER and Atmospheric Autopilot. Please note the following instrumentation: Instruments we are observing: Altitude Vertical Speed Pitch (angle of body incidence to the horizon) Fuel Flow Airspeed and commanding Vertical Speed (Rate of Climb, m/s), via Atmospheric Autopilot. Flight Phases from take-off: good rate of climb, whilst keeping airspeed increasing, is primary, as we know we have surplus energy -- at any altitude much lower than the theoretical maximum increasing airspeed, whilst maintaining a positive rate of climb, is primary, so as not to get trapped on the back side of the power curve approaching the level-off, Pitch is primary and should desirably approach zero asymptotically -- but the final value will depend on the design setting of wing Angle of Incidence Stratagem: In order to minimize parasitic body drag, maintain small/zero angle of Pitch incidence between the longitudinal axis of the body and the prograde direction. You could think of this as the Angle of Attack of the body rather than the all-important AoA of the wing, usually spoken of. Now although the attitudinal Pitch is relative to the horizon rather than to prograde, we note that at or near maximum altitude, the climb rate is very minimal when compared to horizontal airspeed: prograde is very nearly identical with the horizon. Therefore we can substitute Pitch for Body Incidence. Scenario: In the screen shot above, this little 'plane (Drosophila, the "common fruit fly"; having a maximum altitude of at least 9800 meters), is still climbing at a healthy 4 m/s, commanded (4.01 actual). Pitch shows 0.01010 degrees, which is very close to the "null point". As the climb continues, the airplane performance will ordinarily decrease, most naturally. Atmospheric Autopilot will respond by raising the nose in order to maintain the commanded climb rate. The increased resulting drag may soon have an effect upon speed, which we watch constantly with a view to never permitting it to decrease. Tactics: So when the Pitch is positive and increasing, we should consider lessening the climb rate as necessary to send the Pitch rate back downward toward zero. We may not allow this situation to worsen. The closer we get to maximum altitude, the less (excess) performance we can expect and the more sensitively we must respond. When the Pitch is negative, it indicates that the airplane is likely enjoying a surplus of energy and we can consider commanding an increase in the climb rate. As long as the Pitch is positive and decreasing toward zero, or negative and increasing toward zero, we are in good shape. The closer we approach maximum altitude, the more critical body drag becomes and so our feedback against it. At lower altitudes we can afford to be more aggressive. Keys: "In general", I strongly resist allowing speed to decrease or the climb rate to go negative. some airplanes (those with "strong personalities"!) may give the appearance of "topping out" but -- while speed or climb rate (or both) are only vanishingly increasing-- catch a "second wind" and burst out of the gate once passing some hidden threshold. (The feeling is like squeezing through a choke point.) This can especially happen in a second phase of Cruise when fuel load depletion unleashes a new maximum. (My Hexapen Deluxe is one of those, as I recall.) There is a sense, I am sure, in which this technique is "nothing new". It may be quite like what an experienced pilot might do, "seat of the pants", purely from a few instruments and, particularly, the Artificial Horizon. But I find the trend in the Pitch indicator is much more sensitive and that this whole approach is more amenable to explanation and comprehension. Take-Away: If, after finding an aircraft's maximum altitude, the final Pitch is positive, it may indicate that it is profitable to return to the SPH and adjust wing incidence to be commensurately greater. A negative Pitch may indicate the opportunity to decrease the wing incidence, which will offer new dividends. Either of these incur the need, of course, to once more fly the modified airplane and (re-) determine its maximum altitude/performance. Disclaimers: I have knowingly simplified aspects of this Introduction in order to make an excitingly-complex subject more approachable. Experts in the field will understand already the simplifications (omissions) made. I do believe though that this technique gives an understandable and metric approach to "climbing Everest" that will equip the newly-minted with a basis to develop their own intuitive comprehension of the rigors of this particular sport. In particular, the trans-sonic regime and the usage of multi-mode engines (particularly the engine I have painfully grown to dearly love over time, the Panther), often demand some skillful optimization of technique. Finally, I am aware that there are alternative techniques available and I am certainly most happy about opening a forum here for pilots, both experienced and more novice, to "compare notes". Blue Skies!
  20. Introduction Before taking to the air, any pilot will desire to know the following about the equipment to be used: how far it can fly how high how fast how much fuel it will require and what is the most efficient speed & altitude to fly Equipped with this information, the pilot may then choose to fly: in the shortest time (speed) via the most scenic route (altitude and route) maximizing the range (efficiency) with a reduced fuel load Before any others, the first datum to determine must be maximum altitude. This is because one must explore the whole altitude range to determine the most efficient cruise altitude. Our primary metric for efficiency, η, will be η = speed / fuel-consumption. [This is effectively/approximately, "the maximum distance that can be covered given the fuel available.] (The above introduction intentionally omits the complications of evolutionary cruise trajectories due to decreasing fuel load and those introduced by multi-mode engines which may introduce a choice of two power profiles that may be chosen or blended.) Conclusion The question now posed is, "how to fly an unknown machine to its maximum altitude?" Seems simple, doesn't it? In truth, the means to achieving the highest possible altitude can often be quite surprising. In my next post, I will give an outline of one such technique. I do know of others, however, so if you'd like to share your own favorite method, by all means, please post here. Blue skies!
  21. [first] SPACE NEWS GAZETTE [next][prev] in our last installment, a mysterious booster (Dreadnought S2) had appeared on a lonely northern shore[pic 1]. The next morning, as investigators arrived upon the scene, they were to discover that it had disappeared. What they found in place was a short set of triple tire tracks, starting and then stopping at or very near the location of the disappeared booster, then turning a sharp left and descending down to the waterline. Nothing else in evidence. In another hemisphere, far away, a small UAV departed a mountain base[pic 2], wound through some rugged terrain[pic 3] and then scouted for and found another booster (Obelisk), ditched[pic 4]. Hours later, a large fishing trawler arrived at the scene, hoisted the booster[pic 5] into its hold and then departed in great haste. Back at KSC Mission Control, all the Big Brass were assembled in the boardroom listening intently as a lone figure, dressed rather dapperly in civilian attire, pointed to the map stretching some of the length of the boardroom table and spoke in low tones. "Gentlemen, I suggest you scramble clandestine overflights equipped for detailed photography over this area in order to identify the launch site of our mysterious intruders..." His finger was lightly tapping a location in the far south of the planet. Perhaps as many as Sixty Degrees south. The speaker was none other than the legendary Agent 86 (although only one other, present in the room, knew this). Yes, KSC Top Brass had decided to get smart, and call in Maxwell Krakpotkin to solve the puzzle at hand.
  22. Gilly is where you mine on the surface with a space fuel station directly overhead, geostationary, at 42.14km altitude. And the transfer is just a short elevator ride with no orbital mechanics, no real rendez-vous; just the dock and nothing but the dock. I absolutely love Gilly. (Gilly is also the only place to get fuel into space in the Eve subsystem, don't forget!)
  23. That's a lot of speed! Did you have the wings auto-strutted as Grandparent, say? (I generally strut the fuselage as Heaviest part and the peripheral parts as Grandparent.) Unsure this is going to help you (at that speed) but... Mmm, maybe a more strategic idea is to use time-warp only for the cruise duration of a long trip and turn it OFF before heavy maneuvering!?
  24. [first] SPACE NEWS GAZETTE [next][prev] Today's first news story is the surprise finding on a rugged, remote, northerly shore of a spent booster of unknown origin. A farmer out on a tractor phoned it in with a screenshot and geo-location data: 41.2/146.9 NE. Meanwhile (source withheld) a craft with unknown markings made a long journey across an ocean in the northern hemisphere for unknown destination and purpose. [Best intelligence estimates position as 21/125 NE] And in our final headline, rumors are buzzing in the aerospace community that blueprints of a revolutionary submarine technology, featuring STOCK buoyancy control have been hacked, and have now been published on the dark net... [click the image] Kerbin Space Agency specialists are studying the technology but remain baffled so far, particular by its apparent lack of an energy source...
  25. SPACE NEWS GAZETTE [next] In recent weeks, KSC Mission Control has become increasingly concerned about the recent proliferation of unidentified objects occupying 60-degree inclination orbits. No known source for these objects has yet been determined.
  • Create New...