• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

80 Excellent

About Weywot8

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast
  1. Perhaps "B9 Part Switch" is the right mod. Not entirely certain for your own issue but B9 Part Switch is the main dependency that is responsible for all texture switching in the mods I use.
  2. Fins should help some - It's the same thin air rushing over the fairing producing the flipping force. So large enough moveable fins should also generate force of a similar magnitude, but smaller of course. Potentially enough for an extra 10-15 degrees of stable pitch maybe? And they help produce more drag for the aerobraking too.
  3. That's a first for me. Never seen that happen before. The fairing 'thrust' should be considered as lift. You should probably head over to the FAR thread and let them scratch their heads over it. The underlying solution to your problem is still weight distribution and, if you are amenable to it, sticking a few SAS modules to help you keep your heading. Alternatively, the movable tail fins can be stuck to the back. Max out their deflection settings and activate the flaps for effectiveness in thin Duna air.
  4. Didn't realise you can't set thrust values in VAB for RSS/RO. Thought that they were only un-throttle-able in-flight. Was under the impression that CoT (purple) took into account all forms of thrust on the ship, regardless of staging and throttle (but that's irrelevant here of course). IAlso, isn't Aerodynamic Thrust = Lift? Anyhows, ignoring any retro-rockets with regards to the flipping problem (no pun intended), the differences in internal weight while retaining the same external shape means that the same amount of force is acting on less weight at the nose, and the CoM (yellow) appears to be shifted backwards/to the right in the second design, increasing the ability of any force at the nose to flip the ship. Also, your CoL(blue) looks like it is closer to the CoM in the second one, decreasing the ability of Lift to stabilise the ship. TL;DR answer : The front end of your ship is still to light. +/- not enough lift at the back somehow
  5. KER is correct: your SMA is 600 + (190+299)/2 = 844.5, therefore eccentricity = 1 - [(600+300)/844.5]= 0.0645, close enough given rounding errors in input Snark is also correct: Pe = 675, AP = 675*1.5641= 1055.76, adjusted to account for Kerbin radius, AP = 455.6 =~460km Try again - you'll have to adjust both Pe and Ap of your current orbit to the TLDR answer: Pe/AP 75km x 460km
  6. Just guessing but probably your front still isn't heavy enough vs the first one? Try shifting the front boosters further to the back/reduce the thrust on the boosters.
  7. @AtomicIrishman, not entirely sure how you've built the plane. Anyhow, I suspect that for your case use, there are few points contributing to your disappointment Play-ability considerations means that the engines produce similar thrust to their real life counter-parts (e.g 757 engines) but weigh 50-80% less than their real life counterparts. Not entirely sure about their thrust curve profiles either but it would be safe to bet that those are skewed to produce higher performance either. Like what @HebaruSan was implying. Build specific issues - are you carrying 140t of fuel like the B-52 bomber? Is it truly a 230t B.U.F.F.? Stress tolerance of the real B-52's wing - isn't that also a reason for speed limitations? FAR let's you reduce the structural strength of wing joints in exchange for lighter weight. But watch those wings disintegrate at higher speeds! The B-52's operational endurance and range partially reflects this tradeoff. With high drag at the trans-sonic range killing fuel efficiency most aircraft designs consciously choose to be sub-sonic and optimize around that, including wing tolerances. Having said that, the rated Vmax is kinda like a "best before date" - the actual VNE (Never Exceed, unless you are OK with potential permanent structural damage) can be higher by 10-15% And lastly - the B-52's has old, heavy engines that produce something like 35% the thrust of a 757 engine. Flipping this line of thought around, if the B-52 (which can do a respectable Mach 0.9, easy) had the same build & performance characteristics as your KSP plane, it too can hit Mach 1. Especially if the pilot is anything like Jeb and completely ignores fuel efficiency considerations and just floors it from the runway. Also, no birdstrikes at low altitude on Kerbin and other safety considerations... Edit: @AtomicIrishman, I think you mean delta wing - the B-52 has swept wings
  8. Easy in game method of finding out - just boost your Ap while at Pe until you fulfill the eccentricity requirements TL;DR answer: ~460km Educational calculation: Semi-Major Axis, SMA = (Pe + Ap)/2, Pe, Ap measured from center of Kerbin instead of surface Pe = SMA*(1-eccentricity), therefore, SMA = Pe/(1-eccentricity) = (75km +600km)/(1-0.22) = 675/0.78 = 865.4km Ap = 2SMA - Pe = 2(865.4)-675 = 1055.8km Adjust for Kerbin radius = 455.8km
  9. It depends on the speed and direction of the scrolling. A smooth scrolling mouse can be very helpful for this. It's also rather picky, mouse cursor has to be pretty much center of the direction marker being adjusted.
  10. // --- standard part parameters --- mass = 150 dragModelType = default maximum_drag = 0.2 minimum_drag = 0.2 angularDrag = 1 crashTolerance = 80 breakingForce = 200 breakingTorque = 200 maxTemp = 2500 // way hotter than the melting point of "Ore" but oh well. explosionPotential = 0.1 skipColliderIgnores = True Seems like a tear in the fabric of Space-Time has caused an expanding bubble of altered quantum dynamics centered on the Kerbol system where the underlying fundamental physical constants have once again been altered. This seems to be a periodical occurrence, sometimes causing and resolving major alterations, at other times minor subtle shifts in the very nature of reality itself. The Kerbal's don't seem to make a big deal of it, perhaps not noticing the difference as they change along with the rest of the universe. Wehrner von Kerman did speculate once that he was living in a complex holographic simulation of reality but was then promptly distracted by Jeb crashing yet another rocket. Darn...hilarious answer ninja'd by bewing
  11. @KerbMav, as far as I can remember , KJR auto-strutted everything to the root part in some way, eased physics and probably rigid-ified joints. Great for tall rockets, not so great for asymmetrical , branching structures like space stations. I've found "strut to grandparent" a pretty safe compromise in most instances, at the outer ends of a station. Parts with an unbroken line of sight/"strut line" through the physical structure to the heaviest part can be auto-strutted to the heaviest part as that gives very little distortion. Everything else is is kinda 'figure it out' as we go along. The debug menu "show autostrut" option helps visualize what parts you need to release from the generic strut to heaviest/COM, especially after docking big now parts to a station.
  12. Well, it's only required if you choose to use KSP 1.3 to progress your game. Or to put it succinctly because everyone else is being really nice - the modders aren't our personal programmers and don't owe us anything. I hope you can see the reasoning when it's like saying "Hey dude, fix these free (and most excellent) earphones you gave me because they don't work when I jog in the rain - they work just fine when i'm jogging in good weather but I choose to jog in the rain now because it's a new experience. 'Kthnxbyeee". It comes off as really rude, much more so than the expanded example above. The simple solution, if you are as motivated as you make out for MOAR boosters, is by continuing in KSP 1.2.2 (roll it back on Steam). Simpler still, progress in 1.3 without this mod by simply deleting it. Which involves the same/less typing and clicks than finding the correct forum for "update required". Unfortunately, the new compile isn't working for me - but the stock "easing in physics" settings option and advance tweakables -"autostrut" should help until KJR returns.
  13. Just something to note in relation to your original method - the main inefficiency comes from splitting the steps of number (1) and (2). Getting to Eve within the transfer window period shouldn't take >2000dV and can be done for ~1100dV at the best of times (not all transfer windows are equal) by planning and executing the entire burn from parking orbit. Transfer windows are actually very generous - for ~10% extra dV, you can still get there +/- up to 2 kerbin weeks deviation from optimal departure date. of course, knowing when the transfer windows are without doing the calcs yourself means you are still using mods in some form or another.
  14. If you haven't "rage Alt-F12'ed" yet, do check a few things on your returning ship, assuming the ship in question hasn't landed, has the DV/earlier save game: it is in Kerbin SOI entry into kerbin SOI was hyperbolic, not intersecting Kerbin's atmosphere/Kerbin captured into a final, stable Kerbin orbit - aerocapture is fine but final orbit should NOT intersect Kerbin's atmosphere/Kerbin only after the above, allowing KSP to run for a while after each so the game recognizes the state of your craft, then you can put the ship in suborbital trajectory of your choice. KSP contracts will only recognize the change of trajectory to sub-orbital only if coming from a stable, "in-orbit" state. An old issue that catches out efficient players.
  15. And also, have you tried the debug menu (Alt-F12), "clear input lock" fix? Rather silly to ask as well but just checking all the bases - those are stock docking ports and not Konstruction ports?