mabarry3

[quote name='Snark']First things first, FAR. I've never used it, but from what I understand, it completely rejiggers aerodynamics. So you may want to post to that mod's forum thread; any non-FAR advice has a high likelihood of being moot. That said, in stock aero, your plane looks pretty reasonable. I would think you could go under 85 m/s on landing, though not a lot slower; it's not really built as a glider. How's your landing technique? Are you flaring just before touchdown? Other than landing technique, all I could suggest would be to either lower your mass (such as lowering the amount of fuel carried, Junos really don't need much) or increase wing surface. You also may want to consider increasing your brake torque in the SPH (it's pretty low by default).[/QUOTE] Hmm, well I didn't think that FAR would change it so drastically. I haven't had a chance today but I'll delete it and try again. I flare up to kill as much speed as possible before landing but as soon as I flare up, the plane seems to react by almost immediately going skyward if my velocity is high enough. It only stops doing that around 95 m/s where I can properly flare up while still maintaining a small negative vertical velocity. But that still seems to be too high to land on an incline or hill. Next, how exactly do you get more wing area? Do you just slap more wings on for a larger wingspan? I have never tried having more than one wing on the plane so just curious what a plane with more wing area would look like if I only have access to the swept wing and some structural wings.

I started a new career for 1.0.5 but I can't for the life of me seem to be able to make a tier 3 plane that can go below 85 m/s landing velocity. I can fly around just fine, and be completely stable up to a pretty decent speed, but landing is what is killing me, and I kind of prefer to keep the kerbal.The gear is rotated fine, so that speed is okay for landing on perfectly flat surfaces, aka the area around ksp. But, if there's the slightest bit of an incline or hill it just refuses to land since it either smacks the ground too hard with too high of a vertical speed since I can't properly kill my speed on the way down, or it lands and then immediately flips due to the incline. Here's the plane/landing speed: I'm not sure if it's FAR-related as I did just install it to play around with it on a save file I wasn't too concerned about, but I have my doubts that it would make me basically be unable to land anywhere except KSP. I will probably delete it and try again and see what happens. Anyway, if anyone has some suggestions, or I'm just being dumb and forgetting basic aerodynamics (I feel like I should have the wings farther forward for a better pivot point about the CoM, but I'm already pretty close to having my CoM on top of/behind my CoL and, as fuel is used, that will end up happening without some manual fuel shifting, so I am unsure of where my problem lies), I'd love to hear it.

There are three total possible outcomes though... If I have a single $20 bill, and eleven other bills in my wallet, that doesn't mean I have a 50% chance to pull out the $20 bill because "it's either a $20, or it's not". There are more than two outcomes for every rescue in this scenario - more than one of which are "not a scientist". While each event is taken individually and not as a collective whole in terms of RNG probability (by which I mean, if you get 20 scientists in a row, you still maintain a 1/3 chance to get a scientist on your next go, and the previous 20 have no effect on the probability of anything that comes after them), there is still a probability of less than 0.5 for each event. Just because each event is taken individually, does not mean that each event also has a 0.5 probability because it is either a scientist, or it's not.

So, if I warp 20 days ahead because I don't have any other missions up and running, but I want to finish this mission to, say, Eeloo, but I have 5 contracts that are "available", does that mean that I should take a rep hit (1 per contract per 2-3 days of warp) for not intending to ignore contracts, but rather just to finish a mission?

Perhaps I'm dumb, but I don't know how to transfer my save file from 1.0.4 to 1.0.5. I have both installs on my computer, in different folders, and when I copy my 1.0.4 save into my 1.0.5 save, I am unable to do anything with that save in 1.0.5. I can open up any building except tracking center, VAB, or SPH, but I can't leave a building since the exit button doesn't work. I can't do anything that goes between KSP and a ship, but I can directly load a ship (via named quicksaves I made while flying), but can't go from there to KSP, even though I have full controls of the ship like normal. I have no mods in 1.0.5 and I'm not sure what would cause me to not be able to do anything. I can't save the game, but I can load saves just fine. Anyone have any tips, or did I copy it over wrong?

Hmm, I'm unable to do anything with the save I transferred over from 1.0.4. I can open up every building except the SPH and VAB, I can't do anything that interacts between the SPH/VAB or actually flying something. If I try to hit "fly" on something from the launch pad/runway or hit "fly" on the flags on each end of my runway, nothing happens except the box closing like it's fulfilling my request. Also, I loaded a save which was saved while I was flying a ship, and it loaded the ship just fine but I was unable to go back from there to the space center. I just copied the save straight from KSP>saves>saveName and copied the "saveName" file from the 1.0.4 file over into the KSP/saves directory in the 1.0.5 version. Did I do something wrong? I'll try zipping it and unzipping it, but that doesn't seem like it would change anything.

Awesome, thanks for the info. I downloaded 1.0.5 and kept the four mods I mentioned above, though I couldn't find KER in ckan's directory (I didn't see mechjeb either, which I know is also useful for displaying similar readouts that KER does, besides some of the non-overlapping functions of KER/mechjeb such as autopilot). Am I looking wrong or is it not listed there?

I can transfer my saves over to the new version via copy/paste of my save's file folder, right? And can you tell me what CKAN is or how I go about getting it? I've heard the name tossed around but never had a clue what it was. As far as mods go, I play with around 10-15 (which from what I see around here seems to be considered "mostly stock") but the only mod that's truly crucial for me is KER since it takes a lot of the guesswork out of what's currently difficult endeavors (interplanetary travel) while still requiring me to do the actual flying, while mods I'd greatly prefer to have are KIS/KAS, & KAC. The rest are ones whose presence wouldn't change my play experience. All of those mods seem like they're run by awesome people who code at light speed to keep up with an update, so I shouldn't have a problem there

So, I'm a new player (only been playing since 1.0.4), and I'm still learning all the aspects (particularly learning the physics) of the game as I only have trips to the mun, minmus, and duna under my belt. I'm getting used to the way 1.0.4 ran, though. I am perfectly okay with change (in fact, I'm not sure if it could even be better since I'm not nearly as used to game mechanics as some people were) but just not sure how drastic it would be. So, my question is, as the title suggests: do you think it's worth it to upgrade to 1.0.5 now or are there some issues that need to be worked out before updating?

If you add too many thermal control systems, is it possible to keep a drill or ISRU always lower than full capacity since it can't heat up to optimal temperature?

I am confused as to how you get the wet CoM to be near equal to the dry CoM. How do you get the (a) fuel flow roughly the same on both sides of the CoM - fine for the airbreathing portion, but the rockets don't burn equally stage-by-stage - or ( the near-empty weight leaving all the fuel at the CoM (which it seems like it would be required)? I can only imagine that the solution would be carefully placed fuel lines (not really aesthetically pleasing) to keep the fuel flow stemming from around the middle to keep the CoM in line, but are there any other solutions?

Didn't know there were large (1000+) LF only tanks. I also haven't unlocked mk3 parts yet, so that's probably why. I guess I'll wait until that becomes available to launch this tug. I'll add some lights and a fair amount of reaction wheels and RCS engines; those are in progress right now. My payload should be about 100/155 tons depending on whether I bring 1 or 2 miners along with. I'll probably take it down to 1 and balance out the weight. I'll probably end up dropping the TWR down to about 0.1 but I don't have the largest patience for long burn times (that may change as I play more) For using LV-Ns: How many radiators do I need to run nuclear engines for long burns? Just as a general idea of active radiators:engines. I'll adjust the tug to a very wide base on the top and I'll probably change the docking ports location to the bottom of the rig to reflect that, as well as to make it so payload is pulled rather than pushed. (that's also a more convenient location, anyway) As always, thanks for the help. I'll make some changes later today or tomorrow and see if they look more closely to what a stable tug "should" look like.

I am trying to make an interplanetary tug using LV-Ns. How do I know if I oversized it or undersized it? I've never made a tug before, so not sure how big it should be or how high I should get the TWR. Also, can I presume I should use large tanks and clear out the oxidizer rather than using LF only tanks (which don't come in massive sizes)? Does what I have look adequate for getting around Duna/Ike (and other places, primarily Jool, in the future) and cleaning out its biomes of science, as well as being able to set up a return trip for every kerbal I plan on bringing? Pic 1 is the tug itself, pic 2 is the tug with its cargo (to be docked in LKO) of 2 unmanned miner landers on the top and a kerbal lander on the bottom. I could switch that to one miner and one lander, each on one side of the tug, but there's an 11.4t difference in mass between the two so I'd have to balance it out first. Edit: my staging was off so KER gave results that don't match. The TWR with a full tank while in LKO burning should be around .15(.20) rather than those numbers.

Another option besides the one that Pecan mentioned is: Set up your rescue ship and, if you're going to send an engineer Kerbal along, right click the pod the Kerbal is in and click "<Kerbal's Name>'s Inventory" or "Seat#'s Inventory" and add in a wrench and drill. Attach your life support supplies wherever, and when you get to the ship, send the kerbal on EVA and equip the drill or wrench, hold "G" and grab the life support supplies, and then move over to the other ship and attach it using X. Alternatively, since Bob is an engineer (I think Bob is the engineer and Bill is the scientist, right? I always get those two mixed up...), you can also just make it a probe, pack a drill and whatever other supplies you need him to have in a KIS container on the ship, and have him grab them directly out of the KIS container and put it on his own ship, or you can just have a drill/wrench there and have him grab the drill/wrench and then manually detach the life support supplies or whatnot from the other ship.

Pretty sure it's the same for all cargo bays/units. Here's a picture of me re-entering in a plane; the cluster of hot items in the middle of the plane are items inside my cargo bay. While the bay does somewhat protect them, it doesn't do nearly the job you'd expect it to. But it's certainly a lot more aerodynamic/aesthetic to place it inside rather than just sitting out.

While I agree with the suggestions here for the most part, I would disagree with the recommendation to get an autopilot mod. If, early on, you get used to mechjeb flying everything for you, then you've taken out an entire portion of the game (design/plan/fly reduced to design/plan/Mechjeb). While Mechjeb surely is useful, I would say to at least not until you can fly difficult missions "seat-of-your-pants" before considering something that plays the game for you.

Wait, what? What are these things you speak of they sound useful for me

So, I got my mining operation set up on Minmus, unlocked the largest tanks and am preparing to set up two tankers (have one so far) that transfer back and forth between Minmus and LKO as they need fuel to transfer to ships getting into LKO that can use it. I overloaded on solar panels so that I wouldn't be without power during daytime. For some reason though, I noticed my solar panels work 24/7 - unless they're "blocked" by something else on my ship (as if the moon didn't exist and the only reason it was blocked from the sun was my ship's part). This doesn't happen anywhere else. Anyone know why? Pic 3 just to show that I'm obviously on the dark side of the moon (if the near total darkness wasn't enough to show that ) If I should have put this in support, let me know; was just curious about this.

Oh, what, is it really that easy? Bah, I downloaded Editor Extensions primarily for that purpose because "T" on the editor screen turned off surface attachment.

I'm not grasping why using the Oberth effect for landing (doing the deorbit burn at periapsis), or even a Hohmann transfer to a lower "orbit" is more efficient way to land than doing the burn at apoapsis until your periapsis is in the correct spot for you to do a suicide burn or whatnot. Even if the burn itself is more efficient at periapsis, you have to lower the apoapsis a greater amount (sometimes significantly) than the periapsis would have to be lowered in order to put yourself on a suborbital trajectory. Why is the burn done at periapsis? The only reason I can think of is then you're already bleeding off velocity, but even then it feels like the lower the altitude reduction required to be on a suborbital trajectory, the better; by definition, that would make the burn at apoapsis. What am I missing?

Ah, okay; that seems to have been the primary source of my confusion, since that misconception hasn't mattered yet thus far in my work with torque and rotation in class. Thanks again for all the help.

Thanks for all the answers guys. KSP definitely makes more sense (at least to me) when I look at the stuff in terms of the underlying physics behind everything. Makes significantly more sense when I think of the torque wheels not being an external force on the "system". Question about this - isn't moment of intertia mr^2, where r is the distance between the axis of rotation and the location of the applied force? So isn't "distance to fulcrum" indirectly in that formula?

So, I've been going over torque and its relationship to angular velocity in my physics course, which led to a few questions about the physics of KSP in relation to where I should put my torque wheels on a vessel. I would've posted this in the science lab area but my overall question ties back into gameplay. Sorry if this has been brought up numerous times before, I kind of suck with the search function. (It also doubles as a check to make sure I understood my physics class! ) So, given that a force that changes angular velocity is more effective when it is farther away from the axis of rotation on the object you're trying to rotate, would that mean that torque wheels for pitch and yaw (or roll, if your torque wheels are to the right/left of CoM rather than the normal up/down of a vertical rocket) movement are more effective the further away from the CoM that they are? In addition, can torque wheels "cancel each other out" by being placed on symmetrically opposite sides of the CoM or does the game automatically invert how the torque wheels rotate based on its position to the CoM? Or, does the KSP model not care? And, of course, the last possible answer: is my understanding of torque and gyroscopic rotation total crap?

Made this: The first vehicle was originally a space station in Minmus orbit (which doubled as fulfilling a contract), which I then used KIS/KAS to make it essentially a VTOL with 4 Thuds and 6 small wheels. Second vehicle was a resupply ship that carried a few KIS containers so I could make the VTOL, to which I then added some Gigantors so it kept some usefulness after fulfilling its job. Third vehicle was my original miner ship that had only 1 drill and 1 ore container and shuttled the ore to the space station in Minmus orbit (the one that's now on the ground), until I realized that's horribly inefficient and didn't give any profit. Fourth vehicle is my second miner, which has 9 large ore containers and 4 drills. These were all docked originally to the former "space station" in low minmus orbit until I took them down one by one to an area with ~8.5% ore average. Planning on bringing some fuel shuttles once I unlock larger fuel containers (orange tanks are currently my biggest; waiting until I get Kerbodyne) and engines and making a minmus/LKO shuttle so my interplanetary trips can be topped off once they hit LKO. Special thanks to KIS/KAS for making the VTOL possible, and reducing the tedium that would have been required from manually attaching every single ship together.

It appears like he used a Radial Attachment Point on the wing, and then stuck the engine onto that node. I can't see if you have one on the wing from that angle, but if not make sure you add one. If that's not the issue have you tried 1) offsetting the attachment point down a bit, 2) rotating the attachment point 180 degrees, or 3) restarting the game to make sure?