Jump to content

Hotel26

Members
  • Posts

    1,980
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Hotel26

  1. Just now, tater said:

    True but this is extinction. Not finite deaths, all living things, and all that ever will live going forward.

    Thank you, Tater.  I know.

    (Not the aliens, of course.  Perhaps they're clearing the way for a new intergalactic wormhole.  They do seem to be the authorities in this situation, too.)

  2. 15 minutes ago, tater said:

    Stated that everything dies if neither.

    (Everything always dies.)

    Not my doing.  And not my choice.  I'd prefer there be no kidnapping, murder, corruption and deception, but I don't go around killing indiscriminately to prevent it...  (I leave that to the authorities.)

    Philosophy is great only to make people think, I suppose.

    In the scenario, there are three choices, but one wasn't listed in the poll.

  3. "Sandbox  Aerospace was the only mode available until career mode was introduced in version 0.22."
    "functions more as a pure exploration"
    "The Science game mode is one of the three modes available in Kerbal Space Program. It is an intermediate choice between "freestyle" Sandbox Aerospace mode, and the heavily resource dependent Career mode."

    I've stopped using the S-word.  Try assuming for the moment the term was just a misnomer and that the original game was "Aerospace" (spirit and intention). 

    "In exchange for total freedom, sandbox Aerospace will not deliver rewards, register progress, or acknowledge certain things the player does in general, such as collecting science from research modules."

    Even then, since the term aerospace encompasses a lot of ground (on planet Earth), one should reach a common comprehension on that original "spirit and intention" in KSP of the creators.

    Note that the Kerbolar system resembles a cleverly-graded series of puzzles in Orbital Mechanics (and Aerodynamics) and the original implementation seemed fairly clearly directed at that focus, and succeeded largely because that focus kept things simple, elegant (and provided a modular base for later expansion for a wider audience): allowing the most degrees of freedom (flexibility).

     

  4. 45 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

    Inaction can be just as evil.

    Quite true.

    But in the face of giant evil, very often the only reasonable action is to state the evil and refuse to play.  It's also necessary in my view to target the perpetrators, not innocent bystanders.  In this scenario, no personal nuclear suicide vest (with a palm-held orange button) is mentioned, or else I'd happily press it.

     

  5. I, as someone with an apparently significantly "different" view to most expressed in this and its companion thread, have to say that SunlitZelkova's response (cited above) is the one I have found notable for its cogency, informativeness and comprehension.

    Kudos, therefore, to SunlitZelkova.  "Dux."

  6. 15 hours ago, The Aziz said:

    Since today marks the 11th anniversary of me playing KSP

    That is very impressive, Sir Aziz!!

    Spoiler

    (Yes, you've been knighted; the official letter is in the mail.  :))

    Sincerely, congratulations.

  7. I revisited Reykjavik Is (70S 170E) recently and thought: "I should deploy a Vitesse here".

    One thing lead to another and Samsted Kerman attempted a max speed run in the single-engine Wheesley machine...

    fC1153V.jpg
     

    Spoiler

    Her top speed: 175.5 m/s or M 0.55.  (Vitesse can also halt in just 5 seconds.)

    6jB1lCp.jpg

      As Mike Myers might say: "aaaaall riiiiight..."

     

  8. 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",

  9. 1 hour ago, Bej Kerman said:

    Simply incorrect. Sandbox is a mode where you're bound only by orbital mechanics as opposed to also having arbitrary monetary limits and availability of parts. That doesn't make it some kind of cheat, you're still bound by Delta-V and physical limits.

    I have to say, Bravo, sir.

    Semantics can be insidious.

     

  10. 23 hours ago, Hotel26 said:

    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...

    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?"

  11. Backgrounder:

    Spoiler

    I have been playing my current, Orbit, production world since January 2018 (progressing through KSP versions 1.4.5, 1.6.1, 1.7.3 to 1.11.2) and playing more or less in real-time.  Recently, for a twist, I ran a proof-of-concept in my Lab world to establish a new space agency based on the island of Olympia, 60 South.)

    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:

    MdbKQjc.png    OenQdG5.jpg

    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.

  12. 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.)

     

  13. On 8/2/2022 at 11:53 AM, Pthigrivi said:

    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.

    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.

  14. 12 hours ago, MechBFP said:

    How is Sandbox mode with extra steps any different than starting a new game in KSP 1 and customizing your gameplay options before you start?

    Literally the same thing, but okay.

    Well, speaking from the point of view of KSP 1, it could be viewed literally as a "total inversion of mission" imposed by interlopers.

    On 8/4/2022 at 4:04 AM, Master39 said:
    On 8/3/2022 at 8:02 PM, Hotel26 said:

    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.

    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]

    UWxSADn.jpg   vcsC5iw.jpg   LBS6XOJ.jpg   VURrFfc.jpg

     

  15. 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.

    Spoiler

    Although I, personally, have no wish to ride a tricycle.

     

  16. 1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:

    Strongly disagree?

    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.

  17. [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:
     

    Spoiler

    [click + arrow => slide show]

    88Xwgi3.jpg    G4sTJBP.jpg    edFn4em.jpg    UTfw0x1.jpg

     

    "Why, I recognize this place!", excitedly exclaimed one of the junior Staff.

    "That's TSA 15!  It's on Olympia Island.  We abandoned this place, oh, two decades ago during another round of the blasted budget cuts!  Also.  It wasn't a very good launch site...", he trailed off.

    There was an instant hubbub and then a booming voice from the rear of the room, cut through the din.  It was the illustrious Agent Maxwell Krakpotkin, but known to most in the room only as "Agent 86".

    "NOOO, gentlemen.  That is NOT Top Secret Area 15.  No longer anyway.  The markings are just a clever subterfuge, I'm afraid, to throw us off the scent."
     

    Spoiler

    "If we can see the last photo in the reel, please."

    "Yes.  Gentlemen, it is as I thought.  This is, in fact, the new headquarters of the emergent, and very secretive, Terkestan Space Agency!!"

    59b2V6k.jpg

    There was a stunned silence in the room.  Finally, the Agency Chief spoke:

    "But what are they doing?  Why have we never heard of them and why so secretive?"

    "Well, Chief," Eighty-Six replied in precisely clipped intonation, "I'd say it's pretty obvious."

    "The Turkestan Space Agency is launching vehicles into space.  Just like we do."

    "But Max, what is the purpose of launching them into such odd orbits?"

    Krakpotkin, a little irritated his cover had been blown, "Well, Chief.  You see, they are launching into 60-degree inclines because they have to..."

    "They are located on Olympia, far down under the equator.  Sixty degrees south, to be precise."

    "But what good are these vehicles in such strange orbits, Max??  Are they spy satellites?  Space-borne weapons ?  Are they hostile?"

    "No Chief.  And would you stop using my first name, please?  They are not hostile.  Of that I am quite sure."

    "But MAX!!  How can you be so sure?  This is a matter of the gravest national security.  We need more than just your intuition!!"

    "Chief, for the same reason we ourselves have no hostile intentions, by policy.  As you know, PD Rule 2J, issued by the Planetary Directorate, clearly forbids hostile or warlike motivation or action.  And as everyone also is aware, the Planetary Directorate has assured a policy of mutual destruction should any violations occur.  It would be quite insane to even contemplate."

    Maxwell continued, now in a somewhat menacing tone, "Technically, Chief, you shouldn't be wearing that uniform, nor sporting the insignia or rank.  I should, after all, if I were a stickler for the rules, be reporting you to the PD Moderation Squad..."

    "Oh, no", gasped the Chief, "there's no need for that, Agent 86; no need at all!!  We don't need to bring the Squad into this matter; Heavens no!".

    Krakpotkin's composure relaxed and he beamed pleasantly.  "Good.  Then we understand each other, Chief.  I will continue to expect your full cooperation."

     

     

     

  18. 16 hours ago, Lt_Duckweed said:

    Using a value of 5 instead of 3.81 degrees nets you a loss of efficiency of... 3.46%

    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.

    Spoiler

    I'm going to be thinking about everything you said above (not just this quote) for a while, but your remarks are addressing the efficiency of the wing and very interesting.

    The slant of my thinking about angle of incidence is focused on the effect on body angle and parasitic drag.  I am told that the Mk2 format is particularly sensitive to angle to prograde.  Is that true and is it significant?

    So, I would think that, if we fly a particular airplane at a certain altitude and speed, we are going to find that we need a certain angle of attack to generate lift equivalent and opposite to gravity.  Is that true?

    If that's true(?), then let's say that AoA (of the wing) is 5.5 degrees.  Then it follows that where the nose points is the angle of the wing incidence lower.  Let's say the AoI is the standard 5 degrees.  That puts the nose (down from 5.5 degrees (wing)) to +0.5 degrees to Prograde.  And in level flight, this is also the horizon, giving us a pitch of +0.5 degrees.  This angle now has no effect on wing efficiency or the flatness of the curve at this speed and altitude. 

    But it may (I am told) have a remarkable effect on increasing parasitic body drag.

    So consider the following: if I increase the angle of (wing) incidence) to 5.5 degrees -- and if I fly the same 5.5 degrees AoA (wing!) -- then the only thing I've done is...  lowered the pitch of the nose by 0.5 degrees: down to the horizon, minimizing body drag.  We don't have curves published for this??

    So experimental evidence would be key to determining whether it is or isn't worth doing (varying from designer to designer).

    I will make one further claim.  It's possible and necessary to make value judgements about effort & utility.  (See above!)  In practice, no one (including myself) might want to use my technique for determining max altitude as the method to routinely fly to max altitude.  (Knowing where it is, there are ways to exploit to get there more quickly with less effort.)  I think though that understanding what's involved in the theoretical approach might open a greater appreciation enriching ordinary flight?

     

  19. 7 hours ago, camacju said:

    I use either 0 or 5 degrees because I'm too lazy to install a precise editor

    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?

    Spoiler

    (My only beef with it is that I get the sense it is not quaternion-based inside(?) and, critically, it reasonably often has trouble applying a rotation in one Local axis when rotations have been applied in the others...)

    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!

  20. 2 hours ago, The Aziz said:

    one rule of thumb

    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:

    We5lwE0.png

    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:

    1. in the case that you are climbing, ORB will tend to aim lower, and
    2. 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.

  21. 2 hours ago, TheFlyingKerman said:

    Just fly prograde and see at what speed altitude it stabilizes

    Yes!!  I've heard of this method.

    Let me riddle you this in two parts:

    1. in which direction do you conduct the test?
    2. can you explain why it works?
    3. 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?

×
×
  • Create New...