Falkenherz

Members
  • Content Count

    132
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

27 Excellent

About Falkenherz

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This really is something to look forwards to. And so soon, spring 2020! Joy! I hope there will be ways to do re-usable rockets like SpaceX. Some sort of automated landing would be necessary, too, or those things could never return and land so precise on a landing pad (or a drone boat....?).
  2. Concerning the new configs for the drills, are existing drills also affected? Because the lag at my Mun colony with an A-Drill did not get really better. Instead, it got reset and I have no special parts to re-select the stuff to mine.
  3. Thanks for confirming. I am glad I did not accept a Duna ore mission! Just curious if this issue will be adressed by Roverdude, probably in relation to the new mission creator in 1.4.1.
  4. Ah, well met. I just checked for an issue and found your latest and last patch for 1.3.1. Drills. I despaired on a "get ore from Mun" mission. It will just not check "aquire fresh ore from Mun". Is this a known issue? If there is no quick answer, I will send another mission with drill-o-matics just to see if the bug is somewhere else in the mission creator.
  5. Fantastic mod, very authentic, good looking and not unbalanced at all. Finally I have proper parts for those space stations! Here is a little problem, though; I cannot deploy the pilgrim centrifuge even though I have enough material kits. (USI MKS, KIS, some other non-parts mods). There are two engineers aboard, seven crew all in all. What is going on? I updated to the latest version via CKAN, but no help. EDIT: Found the error! You have to have >6750 parts, one part more and it works.
  6. Hi guys, can anyone help/explain that little problem with the graphics of the mini-truss? I attached them via EVA (KIS mod). Basically I want to connect in situ separate tundra-hubs via mini-trusses and KIS, but this totally does not look they way as it does in VAB and pretty much kills immersion. I tried to attach and reattach with every node which is offered by KIS during EVA. Here is a similar problem: I attached a docking port via KIS, and it would not recognize the Tundra adapter, resulting in a docking port embedded into the adapter. Docking to this port really looks weird (highlighted green).
  7. Thx, sound advice! I am not very experienced with interplanetary and low-thrust burning. It was always annoying to do already within the Kerbal system, and since the arrival of ISRU harvesting, there hardly seems any need anymore for building so much deltaV.
  8. As many have already mentioned, it is all about what payload you want to move. Here is some of my experience: I personally avoid LV-N like plague, due to low thrust to weight ratio (TWR); KSP is not made for calculating efficient continuous burns, and any ejection burn from Kerbin, which takes longer than ~40 seconds, becomes very inefficient, eating up a lot of the ISP advantage which those low-thrust engines do provide. While you usually can get by a TWR of 0.5, by now I prefer to have more, especially for landers. The less time the engine burns for a given maneuver versus a gravity well, the more efficient it is, often outweighting the advantage of higher ISP engines with a weak TWR. Also, I often do have a symmetry or shape problem. E.g., where do I put the rover or other payload which is intended to be decoupled later? It is usually the central axis. Therefore, the engines get outsourced to dual- or quad-nascelles. This in turn requires me to "split-up" and downsize to smaller engines. This causes only a a slight loss in fuel efficiency, because bigger engines tend to be more fuel efficient for a given TWR. However, I rarely use Rhinos or even Poodles these days (they have best efficiency apart from the LV-N). Instead, I often refer to Terrier or Aerospikes in quad-nascelle arrangements and safe that central axis for a flexible payload arrangement. Concerning launch-stages, most engines have a lesser thrust and ISP in atmosphere and thus require high thrust, which is mostly overpowerdly wasted after the initial 20km of altitude. That is why Skipper plus any number of boosters or even triple Skippers plus boosters are my favourite engine. I rarely launch payloads which require more thrust than that. A very successful design was an SSTO with four aerospikes plus four boosters which helped to get through the initial 20km altitudes. I found staging beyond that to be necligible, as an empty fuel tank adds only very little weight and the Aerospikes serve very well in and out of the atmosphere (i.e. less initial dead weight from engines which will be fired only in later stages).
  9. Yeah the hitchhiker is always a central part. I have built big interplanetary ships, but they were always a bit painful. E.g. centrifugal induced artifical gravity is possible to build with stock parts, but launching such a ship, or just being able to assemble it in orbit, is a major pain and requires for me a lot of suspension of disbelief. BTW, using Mk1 command pod, adaptor and hitchiker makes for more efficient space than a Mk2 command pod, by almost 1 t less mass. Imagining this as "one big command pod" is already a stretch. It is little things like this, when they sum up, that they throw me a bit out of the game. I would like to have real dedicated parts instead of redundant historic parts like they seem to want to offer in the "making history" expansion.
  10. Some very nice replies to my posting, thank you for your insights! I have done about five career games, and each one was different in scope and goals, using completely different approaches at design and logistics. So I can understand players who like to replay under different historic technologies and designs. However, my point about the lack of new gameplay option sticks, and that´s why such an expansion is rather "nice to have" but nothing really which propells the game forward as a true new content DLC should. As an additional point, I had to observe that did not go beyond the Kerbin system in every one of those saves. Because the parts are not made for it, not realistic enough to pull it off. Well, except for unmanned flights, and the last expansion for remote controls did a lot to make it realistic enough. But there is no way that I cram e.g. Jebediah in a Mk1 pod and leave him in there for 3+ Kerbin years, just in order to reach Duna! I need a true interplanetary spaceship which also accomodates the "human aspect" of Kerbals, they are no robots! So, here is a second aspect beyond the pure gameplay and management aspect, some more "simplified realism" would be cool. This of course also directly feeds into the colonisation-idea, as management of Kerbals should be a much more central aspect there.
  11. Coming back from a hiatus, I might chime in here a bit late. Unfortunately, this expansion does not excite me at all. - New parts of "historic" design, which probably just do the same job as all other parts, will just clutter up the UI. - Historic missions are of no interest to me. - Mission builder is a meta-game-y aspect which I am not interested to play. I would advocate an entirely different direction for Kerbal Space Program: Don´t look back, look into the future! Like, - Some advancement in tech, like the new SpaceX Merlin engines with better ISP ratings. (Near or far future mods tend to overdo this, I want something modest and realistic) - What about economic and social exploitation of space? Tourist missions and ISRU harvesting are just a start, what about colonies? The stock parts are woefully lacking here. Mods like USI and MKS look good but seem to overdo things, especially when simplification is one of the strengths of KSP. So, bottomline, I will wait until KSP starts to look forwards and implements new systems to add new gameplay, like colony or social and economic management.
  12. Yes, it is a nice shortcut if you do not want to tweak a rocket up to perfection. Even if my vessel is basically stable, I found that manually controlling heading in conjunction with SAS on stability is just not a fine enough control, oftenly overshooting or leading to pendulum movements. Alternating between stability and prograde SAS just does the job for me.
  13. My problem with turning off SAS is that the craft often likes to start to rotate or deviate sideways. Controlling a craft in this situation manually is very difficult. That´s where I learned to appreciate the advanced pilot/autopilot "prograde" setting. That´s why I always have the SAS module on board; it also works in conjunction with a simple remote control unit. I basically do it exactly like the OP, just that I click on "prograde" once my vessel has achieved 100m/s (which is roughly at about 6-8km altitude). If for some reason, the prograde marker drops too fast downwards, I can manually correct this by switching from "prograde" to "hold heading" for some moments. My aim is that the rocket ist almost horizontal at about 42km, but not earlier.
  14. http://falkenherz.blogspot.de/2016/04/patch-11-greets-me-in-kerbal-way.html
  15. As a "totally professional Kerbal Space Program pilot", I wonder why the guys over at SpaceX to not attempt a different concept to land and re-use their rockets: Parachutes? Granted, they might not pull off a point-exact landing with parachutes, but select a big landing region, roughly direct your rocket there, deploy the parachutes and all that matters should be that you have your precious rocket back unharmed and recoverable in one piece, no?