Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


925 Excellent


Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The delta-v in the case where you rotate the velocity keeping constant speed, is just the length of that arc. follow : Δv = 2 v sin(Δi/2) follow : Δv = v Δi (×π/180° if Δi has units of degrees)
  2. The formula you used is correct for an instantaneous burn to go directly from the first velocity to the second. Principia computes the burn assuming you rotate the craft as the prograde/normal/binormal coordinates rotate. Principia rotates the instantaneous velocity of the craft through part of a circle, and that requires more delta-V (in this case, π/2× rather than √2× the orbital velocity). @jd284 figured this out recently in the Principia thread (despite some confused and incorrect arguments given there)
  3. In stock KSP1, jet engines work only on Kerbin and Laythe; no oxygen for air-breathing engines at stock KSP's Eve or Duna or Jool
  4. This, or a very similar glitch of KSP1's drag model, came to light here:
  5. there is a note in the changelog for 1.11.0: * The LFB KR-1x2 Twin-Boar Liquid Fuel Engine now has the correct diameter. which probably broke the flag. So to restore the flag find the original twin-boar under Manufacturers : Kerbodyne
  6. Initially hiding the extrasolar planets could be fun, if there is a good mechanism in the game to discover them. I don't find Research Bodies' mechanism to be fun, myself, with the manual pointing and repeated clicking. KSP1's Sentinel Telescope has a nicer mechanism, and it could fit KSP very well if the telescope found those asteroids and planets that were sufficiently lit by the sun or local star (youtube link). Then we might send telescopes to orbit the other stars to find their planets, and it might be challenging to pick an efficient orbit and guess the right inclination. For scanning surfaces, the mod ScanSat fits very well into KSP, as it maps the surface depending on the orbit we choose for the scanner. The information it provides is potentially found on the internet, but ScanSat makes those maps useful in-game so there is plenty of motivation to plan the satellite scanning missions. There is not much randomization in KSP1, and that fact allows more shared experience, challenges, mission reports, taking inspiration from others' youtube videos, etc. I suspect we don't need the parts that are random. Distribution of ore varies from game to game, for example. ScanSat mapping Eve to pick a good location for a base, was more fun than trying to line up maps found online with my view in the game would have been. But then, sharing a solution that works for my game led to the obvious question "what if there's no ore there?" so the solution is less shareable in KSP1.
  7. Yes; it is a long-term background amusement. I got interested in trying to adjust the Jool and Duna systems to make them stable, which is actually very difficult and complicated. (One of the well-known youtube explainers surveys the problem here, in his nicely intuitive style.) As the days get shorter in the northern hemisphere, I'll make more progress. By all means, tell us here if you explore any interesting aspects of Snarkiverse with Principia.
  8. Yes, with the curved side down they will. I've made airplanes using flags as wings, and remember someone posted one on the forum, but I cannot find it now.
  9. Yes. Kerbals have always tended to slowly slide along ladders. Recently, around version 1.10-ish, the game changed to stop them when the reach the end of a ladder, which probably causes the difficulty you mention. Very recently, there appeared an option in the pause menu (Escape-key, settings, 'Kerbals stop at end of ladder') to let you change that. I like your idea of using the flag as a stepladder.
  10. The lower speed of sound in colder air explains some of the lower aircraft speed. The drag of the fan blades goes up significantly, and their lift falls, as the speed of the blades through the air increases through the speed of sound. That means propeller-driven craft have a top speed somewhat under the speed of sound, as the blades are moving through air faster than the craft. I don't think it gets cold enough to make a 10% difference, though. Maybe KSP also has the density fall more quickly with altitude, over the colder regions of Kerbin. If you still have quick-saves at different latitudes, you can use the alt-F12 debug menu =>Physics=>Aero=> display Aero GUI to see the temperature and density of air around the craft, to see which properties vary. The fan blade gives the most thrust when it meets the air at 5° angle of attack, so the optimum blade pitch will be flatter at lower speeds.
  11. With mission cost a multiplicative factor, and ISRU allowed, it is tempting to design a electric-prop-assisted spaceplane, decouple from an ISRU and drills at the runway, leave the IRSU making fuel while taking the swimming trip to Eve, and then recouple and refill upon return, much as one would refuel a rental car. But, probably that fuel would be deemed a significant factor and not counted. I think KSP 1.12.x has corrected the recovery-cost calculator with respect to robotic parts and their optional motors. So the in-game recovery calculator might work for this challenge.
  12. The top post makes it clear that the wind simulation creates abnormal physics, with the parachute of a free falling body tilted off from vertical, but I though I'd try a sailboat anyway. I set up a 20-knot wind from the east, so Jeb is on starboard tack with wind coming from his right. As soon as the boat starts to drift downwind, the weather vane swings as if to indicate that the wind is coming from the west. The boat settles in to moving backwards. Similar strangeness is seen flying and airplane in a crosswind, again coming out of the east. We would expect to point our nose a few degrees east of North, in order to have a north-bound ground-track, with level wings. But the only steady configuration I could find has me banking toward the east, which strangely does not result in the aircraft turning. It looks like some kind of vector addition is done to figure the airspeed, but then the direction of the relative airflow is determined by looking at our velocity over the ground --- for lifting surfaces at least; parachutes seem to follow a different rule. So sailboats, would work very differently in this world's physics.
  13. Well, do you see any good set of rules to disallow clipping? I think KSP version <0.90 had parts on the same craft collide with each other, but allowing clipping seems to have been a net benefit, especially for people who try to make replicas. KSP1 tries to prevents some parts from functioning (the "cannot deploy while stowed") if they are enclosed in cargo bays, and players were often frustrated and surprised by how exactly KSP1 decided when parts were 'enclosed'. FAR since its 2015 'Euler' release, on the other hand, lets me clip an engine inside a fuel tank for drag-free thrust, and I see nobody complaining. After reading the "Rethinking clipping" thread, I think it is better to let the players enforce their own clipping policy. This reminds me of another complication from computing drag body-lift for the whole craft : the game then needs to divide the aerodynamic force among the parts, and apply the correct force to each part, assuming KSP continues to treat parts as independent physical bodies. (I cannot figure out FAR's rules for dividing the force, just from reading its code.) The boosted lift, however, does allow the fun flying by Cupcake that Laie pointed out a few posts up, and also lets new players get off the ground more easily. KSP1 also boosts drag at low speeds, resulting in a L/D (a.k.a. glide ratio) a bit smaller than similar-looking real aircraft. Players using FAR also complain that their planes float the length of the runway. I did not mean to imply that it was bad that planes can float down the runway, because players add airbrakes and chutes to stop in the available distance.
  14. After playing KSP two more years, with and without the mod FAR, I have change my mind slightly on what would be good to keep from KSP1 aerodynamics. Calculating drag and body lift per part and combining parts with simple rules, creates strange behaviour when players make craft in natural ways. Today there appeared a video doing a recreation, that (1) places a narrow decoupler between two wide parts, and (2) uses Mk2 parts at the front of the rocket. Experienced KSP players, including the video-maker, know that this creates very large drag on the top of the rocket, especially if it turns even slightly off prograde. There have been a few forum threads about what people want from aerodynamics ( link link link ) and there was also a thread about when part-clipping makes KSP a better or worse game: Given that, I now hope that KSP 2 uses the shape of the assembled craft to figure aerodynamic drag and body lift, rather than shapes of the individual parts (aspects 0,1, and 2 in my list in the top post). That would make "clipping for performance" more important in KSP 2 challenges, but I think players understand that intuitively and would allow/disallow that as they like for their own play or challenges (as opposed the less-obvious node-attaching for performance in KSP1). Probably too late to have any influence on KSP 2 development but you never know. Has anyone else changed their mind on this topic?
  • Create New...