winged
-
Posts
485 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by winged
-
-
I wonder if the game will really allow for the creation of such complex colonies as in the screenshot below. I mean there are thousands of parts here...
-
Is Orlando Airport still available for download somewhere? I've found a link but download was removed: https://www.dropbox.com/s/s4dm6tj75snxhf4/BaconAerospace.rar?dl=0
On 4/16/2019 at 9:03 PM, lk00david said:so... I'm not a frequent Kerbal Konstructs user (wish I was honestly) but I can't seem to switch the launch site to the shuttle runway. This may be something I've broken on my end but I have spent the last few hours trying to iron it out. Sorry if this is a dumb question but how do I make the shuttle landing facility a launch site?
Because it is not set up as a runway. You have either spawn a marker on it and call it a runway or just spawn your aircraft on a stock runway and move it using Vessel Mover.
On 4/23/2019 at 8:29 PM, Nightside said:Are you playing in RSS? I’ve had trouble with KK when JSC Switcher is also installed.
I haven’t heard any reports of anyone successfully using this mod for a long time. I suspect that it was built for an out of date version of KK.
I use it rather succesfully in 1.2.2 for last two years. Recently I've even added Baikonur from Kosmodrome mod.
-
1 minute ago, blowfish said:
It probably is. The RAPIER (and similar) are hacks of the turbojet module really, so I'm not really sure of a good way to fix this yet. I've been looking at an alternate thermodynamic model for these engines but haven't generated anything I like yet.
Yes, but I just noticed that in newer AJE versions FHV was increased from 36 mln to 45 mln which is supposed to increase efficiency so I will apply that.
-
@blowfish I would like to ask you about one thing. Isn't the specific impulse for RAPIER engine a bit too low at static conditions, just before takeoff? I am asking about 100% throttle with afterburner.
For a comparison most of turbojets and turbofans have something like 2000-2500 ISP with full afterburner on. At higher altitudes and speeds it is ok, comparable with other engines but i feel like I am loosing waay too much fuel just for takeoff and climbing. Another thing - specific energy for methane is a bit higher than for a regular jet fuel, shouldn't this be reflected in specific impulse?
EDIT: just noticed that this was fixed on github 2 years ago
https://github.com/KSP-RO/AJE/commit/e60ce68dcb9c11f0d89d79a7b543f6e33c20f071#diff-7712b54154072776670435a729c7f4ea so I will just apply new settings to my installation.
-
Procedural Parts
-
On 1/27/2019 at 11:47 PM, frisch said:
What electrical propulsion is supported by RO?
Near Future Propulsion is the only supported mod I've heard of.
On 1/28/2019 at 5:16 PM, hypervelocity said:How is the rest of the RO/RSS community dealing with spaceplane launches?
1. Launching vertically and landing on the parachute (like I do with DynaSoar in RP-0)
2. Using KSP 1.0.5 for horizontal takeoff and landing.
-
8 hours ago, Psycho_zs said:
What mod do you use for thrusting in timewarp?
Persistent Thrust.
-
On 1/6/2019 at 11:33 PM, Raptor22 said:
I've found that you need to go to prograde in order to line yourself up, then switch to regular stability hold in order to keep that orientation. For some reason, if you have anything else but the regular hold it disables the rotation with the orbit.
In this instance, a solar panel truss got loose when I was attempting to remove it from a shuttle's bay with the aptly named "Krakenarm" canadarm analog. The station began to spin and I was forced to let go of the panel less I destroy the station. While the station was brought under control, the truss started tumbling away. The truss was rotating on two axes, making it impossible to line up to dock without running circles around the truss. Without enough acceleration from the RCS jets to stationkeep and running low on fuel, Bill was forced to abort.
Thank you. Everything works fine now. I've made 200 day spiral burn within just 20 minutes.
-
@MarkusA380 hey could you tell me how to keep prograde orientation during time warp? I need that to do spiral burn with my realistically powered Ion tug. I have reaction wheel installed but it doesn't work during time warp. KSP version 1.2.2
Spoiler
-
14 hours ago, JPGSP said:
@winged You must have a lot of time in your hands.
Absolutely no. Single rocket requires maybe 3h to recreate and test so 50 rockets = 150h within 3 years = 50h per year or 8 minutes per day.
-
6 hours ago, 0111narwhalz said:
Finally, 3kg is really light for anything in KSP. You're going to need either a sounding rocket pack or Tweakscale to examine that regime with any kind of accuracy.
With RO suite of mods you can launch even 0,25 kg payload to orbit.
-
18 hours ago, JPGSP said:
@winged Did you actually made all of those?! Because they look like they took a lot of time to build.
Yep. This is why it took me 3-4 years of playing RO to build all of them.
-
5 hours ago, Munar pilot said:
How do you guys make such small orbital capable launchers? My smallest is 57 tons and 27 meters tall, and 2m diameter at the first stage.
1. Use as modern stuff as possible
2. Make your probe as light as possible. For instance cubesats from AIES can be scaled down to about 0,25 kg.
3. Use Procedural Avionics to create as light as possible guidance unit. Do not attach it to the last stage - use spin stabillisation instead.
4. Use solid fuel. Procedural SRBs can be easily miniaturized so you can create very small upper stages.
5. Use supersonic or hypersonic plane as a first stage. Staging at Mach 2.0 will save about 30-40% of LV weight, staging at Mach 6 - about 60%.
Here is an example. 775 kg launcher (orange rocket) - 15 kg payload. Just about the size of a sounding rocket and with a 0,25 kg payload it could be 2-3x lighter.
But if you're limited by early tech... that's a full different story. I remember that my first orbital capable launcher was just a replica of Vanguard: 10t vehicle - 3 stages: X-405, AJ-10, solid upper stage.
Spoiler
-
https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealISRU/blob/master/GameData/RealISRU/Parts/HexAssembly/sabatier.cfg
Currently Sabatier unit produces not only methane and water but also incredible amount of electrical power: 300 kilowatts. With that powerful device you don't need any nuclear reactors or solar panels for your fuel production facility because sabatier unit does all of that for you.
Is sabatier reactor really supposed to generate any electricity? According to wikipedia it rather require energy to work:
Quote"An optimized system of this design massing 50 kg "is projected to produce 1 kg/day of O2:CH4 propellant ... with a methane purity of 98+% while consuming 700 Watts of electrical power."
EDIT: nevermind, I saw you already removed that electricity production in your github branch.
-
54 minutes ago, tater said:
The primary point of NTP in any short (next X decades) timeframe is crew missions to Mars, not small space probes, not crew missions to LEO or even the Moon.
I know what they're supposed for, I was only trying to list the applications for NTR assuming that they're available here and know without any additional problems related to them. It turned out that there aren't many applications because everything what can be done with current NASA budget is doable with chemical propulsion. Crewed Mars expeditions are probably beyond budget and political will and having nuclear engines available right now wouldn't change that.
In other words what's the point of developing NTR if we wouldn't go to Mars anyway.
-
On 12/20/2018 at 11:04 AM, magnemoe said:
This, you nailed it, look at the types of missions we does, its small probes to various planets, people to IIS and various satellites.
For none of this missions the LV-N in KSP is an good engine, its only relevant for heavy payloads and pretty high dV requirements or medium payloads with very high dV requirements.
Nerva start to get relevant for manned moon missions or heavier probes who require high dV burns. Its very nice for manned mars missions. Exactly, our missions aren't ambitious enough to justify the development cost for nuclear engine. Even if NTR engines were available here and now without any complications such as radiation, I still don't see them to be used for what we do today: launching probes to nearest planets, asteroids and crewed LEO expeditions. The only application that I am able to find is to transfer small probes (3-6 metric tons) directly to Jupiter and Saturn without relying on gravity assists. That would require creating a small Centaur-like nuclear upper stage for Atlas rockets. But you can get around that simply by using larger rockets - SLS for instance is supposed to launch Europa Clipper directly towards the destination. Oh and we launch probes to outer planets only once per 10 years or so - it's hard to imagine developing such hardware just to be used once per decade.
-
@kurgut I guess there is Mun Arch located somewhere on the real Moon, do you have a screenshot with anomalies map for the Moon?
-
11 hours ago, Saltshaker said:
@winged What mod are those nuclear rocket engines from?
Engines and trusses are from Constellation Essentials. Tanks are procedural.
-
On 12/1/2018 at 9:20 PM, Epox75 said:
Hello everyone! I'm back to KSP after more than a year and I'm doing a career with 1.3.1, RO and the dev version of RP-0. I have a very simple request: once I made a cfg patch to fix the AIES landing gears by copying it from the AIES thread, which isn't available anymore... maybe some of you have it?
Thanks in advance,
Epox
Do you mean this below:
@PART[expendLandingLeg] { !MODULE[ModuleLandingLeg]{} MODULE { name = ModuleAnimateGeneric animationName = extender isOneShot = False startEventGUIName = Extend Landing Strut endEventGUIName = Retract Landing Strut actionGUIName = Toggle Landing Strut allowManualControl = True allowAnimationWhileShielded = False } } @PART[godLandingLeg] { !MODULE[ModuleLandingLeg]{} MODULE { name = ModuleAnimateGeneric animationName = desple isOneShot = False startEventGUIName = Extend Landing Strut endEventGUIName = Retract Landing Strut actionGUIName = Toggle Landing Strut allowManualControl = True allowAnimationWhileShielded = False } } @PART[godLandingLeg2] { !MODULE[ModuleLandingLeg]{} MODULE { name = ModuleAnimateGeneric animationName = desple isOneShot = False startEventGUIName = Extend Landing Strut endEventGUIName = Retract Landing Strut actionGUIName = Toggle Landing Strut allowManualControl = True allowAnimationWhileShielded = False } } @PART[legstrotLandingLeg] { !MODULE[ModuleLandingLeg]{} MODULE { name = ModuleAnimateGeneric animationName = bajar isOneShot = False startEventGUIName = Extend Landing Strut endEventGUIName = Retract Landing Strut actionGUIName = Toggle Landing Strut allowManualControl = True allowAnimationWhileShielded = False } } @PART[plommsLandingLeg] { !MODULE[ModuleLandingLeg]{} MODULE { name = ModuleAnimateGeneric animationName = abrir isOneShot = False startEventGUIName = Extend Landing Strut endEventGUIName = Retract Landing Strut actionGUIName = Toggle Landing Strut allowManualControl = True allowAnimationWhileShielded = False } } -
12 hours ago, Spaceman20290 said:
I didn't find that on page 6.
Page 7 actually: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_tPtjHrVkkmY09MMFF4RF84WFE/view
-
Ok, I found it on the sixth page, it works fine. Thanks !
-
@Tristonwilson12 hey what happened with real KSC VAB which was a part of this mod 3 years ago? would it be possible to add it again?
-
-
Parts marked red were responsible for my missing parachute: https://i.imgur.com/zSaPUZJ.jpg
I've deleted all the others and saved another 60 MB! Thanks!
Disappointed in the physics.
in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
Posted
No, it didn't and it has nothing to do with n-body physics. You have just switched to a different frame of reference. Your velocity is now being displayed relative to Kerbin (previously it was being displayed relatively to the Mun).