Sharpy
-
Posts
2,773 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Sharpy
-
-
17 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:
@Sharpy Dare i ask how many mods it takes to get 7085 patches from module manager?
I'd need to check, but the number isn't all that staggering if you get *the right ones*. Tweakscale, Interstellar Fuel Switch, Pathfinder, and a couple mods that provide a plenty of parts (Mk2 Stockalike), and you're quickly going into thousand as nearly each part (stock or mod) is getting one or more patch from every of the 'improvement' type mod, so you quickly get num of parts x num of extra feature mods as number of patches.
-
Nice. I think I happened upon this recently but didn't really understand *how* that happened.
BTW, for those who aren't stock purists, the easy way to obtain up to 20x symmetry (and surface-attach anything, and offset parts without limits and snap to more angles than stock allows) is EEX.
Crafts created with this mod still count as stock (don't require the mod to import and use the .craft files) but obviously if you detach something that's not normally surface-attachable you won't attach it again.
-
This just in. Building my Tellumo Ascent Vehicle. How to get rid of two Ramjets (that ran their course and won't contribute any more thrust, just weight and drag), their tanks, and unnecessary wings in such a way that they won't rip away my tail stabilizers?
The scramjet gives me some 200-300km apoapsis with some -80km periapsis, and I can circularize and travel around in orbit using a puny 0.625 NERV.
-
Let's add it doesn't use crossfeed rules to draw xenon (or electricity). So it will draw from tanks that are pretty much anywhere on the craft, just according to flow priority - similarly how RCS uses monoprop.
-
Never as actual launch escape system. But I used it a plenty of times. Insane thrust, 0.5s burn time. You have to use at least two in symmetry mode because otherwise its offset thrust will send your contraptions into a spin. Contracts of 'high-gee adventure', contracts of 'test part' at some stupidly high speed and stupidly low altitude, missiles, getting micro-airplanes without landing gear into the air, separatron for boosters etc.
Seriously, this thing is fun! Just forget the whole 'launch escape' ideology. If it had an integrated parachute or at the very least a decoupler, it would be good as actual LES. In current form it's just an awesomely strong, short-burning separatron.
-
11 hours ago, The_Cat_In_Space said:
Either a terrain bug or glitch, or the Kraken's new way of slaughtering Kerbals
Happened to me on Minmus, when driving over highlands over 3500m. At that altitude the default time warp mode is standard, not phys-warp. I pressed '.' and the game just stopped checking for collisions against terrain and the rover went directly into the ground.
-
Eyup, the fake wheels.
They aren't actually round, think more like motorized skis. They have only one surface, on the bottom, that provides propulsion.
Additional tip: add a reaction wheel and run in SAS 'prograde' mode. Rovers tip over all the time. Especially on low-gravity bodies. The reaction wheel allows to tame it a bit. Hold your left hand on Q/E keys to fix the alignment if it starts to tip over. SAS in Prograde keeps your rover's pitch and yaw, leaving you roll to control.
BTW, there was a mod that provided genuine round wheels that worked even upside down... anyone remember the name?
-
Since I overengineer everything, I design multistage landers, then perform the transfer and braking burn with my core ascent stage, land on the engine of the transfer stage, and use the descent stage to soften the landing on Kerbin.
-
That loading tip.
-
1 minute ago, KerbService said:
Thanks... I tried what I thought you meant but no joy. I am using the PC version and the UI for the nodes is consistent on the X-Y-Z axes but not the T adjustment where only dragging is allowed. Adjustments while dragging on the X-Y-Z axes of the node remain consistent no matter the zoomed distance from the active node. But the rate of change of T when dragging the entire node is greatly affected by the distance zoomed away from the node. Hover and adjust on T would make the UI fully consistent and handy for adjusting timing on nodes well zoomed out in the background. It is on my wish list.
That could make life easier as well.
Try this: Set up a perfect plane matching maneuver, as good as you can. Then just grab the node as for dragging and don't move it anywhere, just hold it - and see how AN and DN markers crawl - the node is moving.
If you really want precise adjustments, just install PreciseManeuver or PreciseNode.
-
- Mk3 Inline docking port
- Mk3 shielded docking port
- Mk3 Aligned Docking port
-
On 11/11/2018 at 4:47 AM, KerbService said:
But not if I want to fine adjust the timing of the node on the orbital path. I can hover on the node and drag it forward or back on the orbital path but can not use the mouse wheel for fine adjustment.
You can hold the node immobile (as for dragging) and its time will be shifting at some 10s per second.
-
Instead of 2 klaws, have abundance of reaction wheels, so that you can angle your rover this way and that, so that you could attach the claw perpendicularly to the surface. You may make the rover parts droppable, and give it an engine and fuel tank so that it's the return capsule. And really, really don't bother with skycranes, landing legs etc. Just set your rover gently on the engine and tip it over using the reaction wheels. Reverse the process for launch.
-
3 hours ago, MR L A said:
For example the SpaceX launch of THAICOM 8 sees MECO and first stage separation at 8331km/h
(2314m/s) @ 67kmKerbin low orbit speed is 2240m/s, at 70km. Everything checks out.
What you need is a heavier planet. RSS?
-
1 hour ago, Pthigrivi said:
True, the only real advantage is because Im not trying to precisely land on the runway most of the journey down can be done on physics warp, aside from a dicey stretch around max-q. Probably a well-designed spaceplane could time-warp close enough to only pilot the final approach too though? The other half is just how much faster it is to launch an SSTO rocket over an airbreather.
It also depends how precisely you can target your reentry point. Circling half of Kerbin in orbit, at 2200m/s takes over 20 minutes. So, if you fly from the opposite side of Kerbin at 440m/s (a reasonable cruising speed that won't leave you without fuel halfway through), that's 50 minutes. 12 minutes at 4x phys-warp, if your computer is fast enough and the plane is simple enough to get the full 4x boost. You'll usually reenter way closer, still, with planes complex enough (part count), with being short on fuel and having to fly 'economy speed', with exitting phys-warp for adjusting the course (doing it under 4x is just asking to flip and crash), you can estimate 5-10 minutes just for the return flight. That is without time taken for safe approach, or airbraking into the atmosphere.
-
2 hours ago, The_Cat_In_Space said:
Oh I don't think so
Myths and kerbal legends.
-
12 hours ago, magnemoe said:
Has two types of carriers, pure fuel and fuel + ore or other resources.
By the time I finished building it, I was so sick of it I never used it to refuel anything.
-
3 hours ago, The_Cat_In_Space said:
a few Kerbals stuck on Dres
Lies. Dres doesn't exist.
-
As usually, any game that has non-uniform time-base (time warp) implementing multiplayer is problematic. How long are you going to wait while your friend performs a burn with Dawn ion engine? How long will your mission to Jool take while your friend drives a rover over Minmus?
There's the DarkMultiplayer mod that allows mucking around together around KSC, and it would be possible to make a co-op craft editor. But as soon as you try to go interplanetary, the concept breaks.
-
46 minutes ago, Tyko said:
Do you have problems with the colliders when you rescale them? Last time I fooled around with this I had way too many cases where the visible surface was well above the collider.
I had that problem without rescaling them too. Rescaling does exacerbate the problem - in exactly linear way, asteroid twice as big = skin:collider offset twice as deep. Not a big problem with my tugs as they are *big*, but yeah, if you plan infrastructure on the surface it gets in the way of aesthetics.
One thing more: undock and redock periodically as you drain resources, especially if you autostrut 'to heaviest'. The asteroid *shrinks* as you deplete it, unload (go to KSC or other vessel), then come back - but the attachment point remains fixed - after a time it's way off the surface, and that creates some awfully strong strain that can really break stuff or eject you hard.
-
11 hours ago, Tyko said:
Can you share the code you use to create larger asteroids?
The 4th post in this thread:
...but don't use the parameters I used. Bump them by some 30% from defaults, like 1.25 - 1.6. Reason:
(that's the same type of tug as in the previous picture. I made a mistake thinking these are mass multipliers. Nope, these are radius multipliers.)
-
5 hours ago, officernickwilde said:
as I have you people on the line
Ive mounted the "Drill-O-Matic" and the "Convert-O-Tron" on my vessel, do they require any storage tanks for the raw materials before they get converted into fuel??Ore tank (may be very small) and of course fuel tanks for the produced fuel.
3 hours ago, officernickwilde said:How do I connect struts to the airstream protective shield? The game is automatically moving them away when I hower my mouse over them (to let me see whats beneath it)
Help? <3This is triiiicky. You can't attach struts directly to the fairing - but if you want to attach them to something else and the fairing is in the way, they will attach to the fairing.
I usually attach the Kickback SRBs (because they are looong) pointing around the rocket, then draw the strut from the part to the Kickback, make sure to keep the cursor away from the fairing (so that it 'settles'), then 'attach' the other end to the Kickback - and instead, it attaches to the fairing. Then I can just delete the Kickbacks.
-
I did more of that than reasonable.
Two fundamental factors to consider. 1. How much work is it to get a tank of fuel into LKO (where it's needed). 2. How much of that fuel will be left once you finish.
Orbital processing is right out. Hauling ore into orbit is a terrible chore, and then you still need to bring the fuel *somewhere*.
A surface installation with a good tanker is doable... but you end up with relatively little extra in LKO if you need to return the tanker to Minmus.
A good asteroid mining tug is the cash. Don't bother with class A-C. Only class E, or mod the game for even bigger. A good class G asteroid in LKO is superb.
The two alternatives are hauling the ISRU with your mission, refueling on the surface of wherever you land (and possibly leaving the ISRU behind), and Extraplanetary Launchpads; a base somewhere - Minmus, Gilly, Bop? - and just building ships there.
Let me just say if the refueling job requires more than one round-trip with the fuel, ore or whatever, you'll get thoroughly sick of it fast. While "on paper", taking different solutions, you may find some more or less optimal, don't underestimate the value of your own time and patience. I made some wondrous refueling solutions. By the time I finished them I was too sick of them to ever want to use them.
-
22 minutes ago, Bottle Rocketeer 500 said:
@Sharpy Are those engines for the base to fly around on Ceti?
Or are they for the base to return to Gael?
Fly around on Ceti and reach the orbit to get the crew to the reentry vehicle.
Thing is the base was never meant to be modular. The docking ports were "contractual obligation" and the base had own perfectly functional engines right before the "accident"...
They aren't actually round, think more like motorized skis. They have only one surface, on
[request] F and G class asteroids
in KSP1 Mods Discussions
Posted
Sorry, I've already shown calculations Gilly is Y class. You were close though.