Jump to content

swjr-swis

Members
  • Posts

    2,705
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by swjr-swis

  1. Not to mention the increased risk to EVA astronauts, with an undetermined and non-trackable number of bullet-like objects flying by the station in the near future.
  2. Val quantifiably wins from Jeb: she can take higher G's before passing out. Argument ended.
  3. <looks around in puzzlement, then walks on muttering something about @Hotel26 playing tricks on him again>
  4. I disapprove. Without individual bannermasts, how are we going distinguish House Krakendoor from the other houses?
  5. What you see can be deceiving, because the KSP code doesn't check the visual model to decide on blocking. Also, some engines have an offset added to their exhaust effects. Visually, it can look like the exhaust is going right through another part, and yet to KSP, the engine is not considered 'blocked' and the other part is not getting heated. On top, there are different multipliers for the exhaust heat some engines produce, which makes them more/less likely to show heating effects. Unfortunately we've been given no way to see directly whether the thrust is considered blocked. The PAWs, even the debug windows, will all merrily continue to show full thrust being produced, even when you have none. Once upon a time it used to show in the logs when engines were heating another part, and that's how we could tell. I haven't seen such entries anymore in a long while though, I think they were removed; possibly it was part of the old engine module. Or it was some undocumented setting that I forgot along the way, I'm not sure. So, all we got to go on now is this: if you can notice the engine is producing thrust, ANY thrust, it's not blocked. The way it works, it's an all or nothing thing. Obviously this is per individual engine, so if you have more than one, you have to account for that. Note also that you do need to check this per exhaust nozzle, if the engine has multiple. Engines like the RAPIER, Mammoth, and others, will still produce thrust from the unobstructed nozzles, which will affect torque and total effective thrust produced.
  6. Sorry... I posted this before my coffee, apparently. The first would reward NOT recovering parts. Obviously needed to be the other way around.
  7. The question was about unselecting a target without going into orbital view. The method I mentioned works regardless if the target is visible or outside the 100km range. So it's useful to know.
  8. Welcome to the forum! KSP doesn't offer us a way to map stock SAS pitch/yaw/roll inputs directly to servo/rotor controls. We can however trick KSP into achieving the same result you're after. We start by creating a 'bucket' attached to a probe core (and an extra reaction wheel), which will contain the payload/device that we want to point-and-track targets. This bucket we then suspend in a set of three rotating gimbals, using servos, and taking care to balance it such that the CoM of empty/full bucket always stays precisely in the intersection of the gimbal centers. We can't directly control the servos to do the steering, so we leave them unlocked and unmotorised. BUT: since we have suspended our device with three degrees of freedom, to the probe core it's as if it's floating freely in space, and its SAS can effortlessly point it at any target and keep tracking it. I created a craft as a proof of concept of this: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/SAM1 Notes: There is a risk of 'gimbal lock', where axes can become aligned in the same plane, losing you one degree of freedom. In the time I've tested this, it's not happened to me. But it's possible. KSP's SAS code gets confused when switching away and back to the device, causing a deviation to build up from where it should be pointing. I haven't found a way to solve or prevent this. As requested.
  9. The first question was about UNselecting a target. You can UNselect any target by double clicking the vessel you currently control.
  10. I have to agree with @krautfed1 that part spamming is a bit of a spoiler with this scoring formula, because it works even without resorting to physicsless parts. A quick example of why can be seen in this album: https://imgur.com/a/04YKK3h The 0.625m separators are not physicsless, but they're an easy way to add to the part multiplier. Even only reaching 6182 m, it still propels the calculated score to 302918. A suggestion: since the intent of counting those parts is to reward recoverability, how about dividing parts launched by parts recovered? Making the formula: Altitude * (PL/PR + bonus). A suggestion: since the intent of counting those parts is to reward recoverability, how about dividing parts recovered by parts launched? Making the formula: Altitude * (PR/PL + bonus). Perhaps then the bonus for landing on VAB/tower can also be somewhat lowered. +1 for VAB, +2 for tower would be enough.
  11. Ok, getting an entry into this one to give @Andetch something to compete with. The Mite-E uses 10 parts to reach 7338 m with a single kerbal, and lands all 10 parts intact on the KSC tower. Score: 7338 * (10 + 10 + 15) = 256830. A few more pics in the album: https://imgur.com/a/mr6pjLV
  12. No. As long back as I remember using the resource panel for anything, really. Before posting that reply, I quickly tested it again in 1.3.1, so at least that long; but pretty sure it's been that way before that too.
  13. Question: shouldn't this also be in the technical category? I get that you're focusing on aero and clipping, but if the Purist category is defined by what is 'physically possible', perhaps free-floating gear and payloads phasing through the hull are out of bounds for that.
  14. Apparently, the engine plate is not being recognized as part of the DLC, and considered part of a mod called 'squadexpansion'. I notice there are another 5 parts where it does the same thing. Not sure how or why this happened, but this might need to be manually adapted in the KX part database. Thank you for pointing this out.
  15. Welcome to the forum! On the top right of the screen, one of the icons looks like a gas can. Click it. It will open the resource panel of your craft. In that panel, click the white square to the left of the resource you are interested in transferring (in the case of the Baguette, since it carries LF and Ox, click both of those). It will open ALL tanks on your craft that can hold that resource, as if you had right-clicked them all at once. Pin all the Baguette windows by clicking the black pin icon on each tank window. Pin one of the tanks you want to transfer fuel from. Now click the white squares again in the resource panel. All windows that were not pinned will go away. On the one non-Baguette tank window, click the 'Out' buttons for LF and Ox. ALL the Baguettes will start filling at the same time. If they are not full when that tank is empty, unpin it, right click another full tank, and pin it. Repeat steps 6 and 7 until all Baguettes are full.
  16. I was doing other things, even if with half an eye. I may be dumb, but not crazy. I'm not sure a macro would've done the job though; it wasn't a consistent rol, otherwise even a bit of trim could've solved it. I do that regularly, mostly to fly VTOL type craft. I suspect if I'd tried that in this case, the plane wouldn't have kept its heading, it would've just translated the self-corrected roll into yaw. Still, either one of those suggestions might've at least made it less of an ordeal, but by that time I was already well underway and I wanted to have it done and over with, not start all over again. I can be a bit stubborn at times, if you hadn't noticed.
  17. AB level 1 AB level 2 We have a pretty good lead on who it is though...
  18. Aero was noticeably easier in 1.2.x, but in my experience it's only become easier after 1.3.1, if only marginally so. I interpreted your previous words to refer to all rockets, not just single-stage. Still, it's possible to improve on the 1.2.2 numbers, if only because that challenge required a 100 km orbit, and now we can suffice with 70 km. I was curious how my old D1b/D2 lifters would perform in 1.12. So here's an entry for the purist category, a single stage, recoverable rocket. 106.3 t of payload to a 74 km orbit, from a total launch mass of 483.19 t (not counting the 7 x 0.1 t of the launch clamps), results in a clean 22.0 % mass fraction. In the recorded attempt, I landed it all parts intact in the western desert for a 67.6% recovery value. Note that it was initially tested with a Kerbal in the payload seat, hence slightly different numbers in my craft description, but the resulting mass fraction without the pilot still rounds to the same score. Craft file: https://kerbalx.com/swjr-swis/SWiS-PMFC-SS-FRR1 Full album: https://imgur.com/a/5VLKBQw
  19. Yes, DLC parts. I dabbled with it all night, and finally just gave up when I was getting no closer to something remotely resembling what the editor 'promised' the parts should do. Maybe after that hinted official bug-fix release (holding breath) I'll feel like trying again.
  20. All that to grab a fresh bucket of ice cubes for the party back home. I'm impressed.
  21. I once babysat a 1.10 instance of the game for 7.5 hrs, because the long-range aircraft I had created for a circumnavigation challenge kept rolling to one side and needed to be manually kept on track by tapping 'e' every 2-3 seconds. Pure stock game, no mods to autopilot for me, physics warp made it even worse and required constant tapping that I could not keep up with, and after a lot of tweaking and searching I couldn't find the source of the phantom roll. Worked perfectly stable in 1.3.1, but the challenge required 1.10, so if I wanted an official entry to the challenge, this was the only way. 7.5 hrs... tap tap tap. It worked - held the top entry for most laps around Kerbin for a while. But not ever doing that again.
  22. I had been entirely prepared to just forget about what I did last summer night, but noooooo, you had to go and remind me. Fine, now y'all suffer: This was supposed to be the SWiS Airport Tower and Terminal A, complete with controlled hinged and telescoping jet bridges (stock robotics), individually controlled to allow coupling onto different sized aircraft for passenger, cargo, and fuel transfer. Unfortunately, after all the work to get the multitude of actuators individually assigned and set up to their respective controllers and bound to action groups, it turns out that once launched, none of it works as advertised in the SPH. Like, at all. The PBBs don't hinge or telescope, they just painfully tilt sideways as if they're trying to claw onto each other; and the entire structure keeps rhythmically shaking as if a gigantic dinosaur was walking past. Oh well. It looks pretty in the SPH. Somehow fittingly alien for a Kerbal structure.
  23. Do you really want to keep track? Ten years along, and we still haven't caught that durned KSP luncher. Leave my snacks alone!
  24. Have you been seeing more of these spontaneous formations recently? When was the last time you had some mashed potatoes...?
  25. Have you right-clicked the SENTINEL part of the sats once they are in the intended orbit, and told them to 'Start Object Tracking'? They won't do this automatically, you have to actually tell them to. Each one.
×
×
  • Create New...