• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

224 Excellent

About OHara

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I tried it and think it is very nice. It is difficult to cheat it into orbit before a fairing part 'splashed down', but now that it is in orbit I'm leaving it there. Maybe change the title of this thread to indicated the construction method, "Stock fairings edited into the shape of the Death Star" or something, so that those people interested in this kind of method will know to look, and other people won't get confused with what you mean by 'stock' (stock parts ? or stock KSP vessel-editors in the VAB/SPH ?)
  2. Good point, there. Just to spell it out: The switch from Rhinos to the Wolfhound engine (from the Squad part-mod expansion 'Making History' from March 2018) was cited by Bradley as one of the enabling factors to what he also concluded was impossible in November 2017. Given the benefit of considerable hindsight, Matt's assessment of December 2017 is looking very good.
  3. OHara

    1.5.1 Hotfix

    Possibly bug 16993 (forum post here) but I can't tell for sure from what you say. Post over at TechSupport.
  4. OHara

    Colliders are a bit bugged with this update?

    Yes. Always the starboard side. That fact was mentioned in the bug-report that XLJedi posted (18017) and I just noted that fact while confirming the one you posted (18801). The earlier bug is marked "being worked on", and I am more willing to believe that than to believe hot-headed comments in the announcements thread. Also, more speed seems to be required to cause breakage in version 1.5.1, about 5m/s now. On the other hand, this bug is weird enough and appeared when Squad wan't making any obvious changes to the affected parts, that I suspect the problem is deep in the Unity engine and might be beyond Squad's current capabilities to fix or avoid. I'm with you in version 1.3.1 90% of the fun with 10% the frustration. (On the side topic of the submarine bug, that was as you surmised, confusion about on-rails craft in the atmosphere mistakenly not being seen as 'splashed' and therefore deleted as if on re-entry, and was fixed in version 1.4.5, so fear not for your sub.)
  5. OHara

    Cargo Bay Kerbal Implosion

    @Tibrogargan, I think the new kid has your answer. Welcome to the forums, @stelarKerbal Kerbals are fine inside a closed cargo by in the chairs, or on ladders, but when they try to walk around inside a cargo bay, the game seems to act as if they are walking on the ground below the craft. It's not the aerodynamic forces, or at least the game isn't applying aerodynamic forces, but it sure looks the same. You can see this effect even while moving a couple m/s on the runway. (Given how important it was to get the physics correct in this game, this omission does seem strange. Maybe nobody tried walking kerbals around on moving craft early enough in development.) So, the Kerbals running equipment inside the cargo bay will have to remain seated, or if you have a crew container with a door into the cargo bay they can come out that door but stay on ladders to do their jobs.
  6. OHara

    Propellers in stock game?

    In general KerbalX.com is a good place to find craft files, when the designers feel ready to post them. There are lots of propeller craft there, some redockable, and a couple 'klaw copters' from jfrouleau that answer the question of the OP.
  7. Nice test. You can test whether the change is due to parts or aerodynamics by copying the old craft-files or searching for the old parts (like the TR-18A decoupler) in the advanced tab in the VAB. With identical parts, I get the same results versions 1.3--1.5, so I think the effect is due to how the slightly-different diameters of the new versions of parts line up with the old booster. (You can see differences in m² surface area between similar parts PartDatabase.cfg, but between versions the differences are just rounding error.) In general I don't see any difference in aerodynamics between 1.3 through 1.5.1 (except for the bugs that came and went).
  8. That makes sense. The hidden rotated nose-cones cover the flat ends of the mk2 fuel tanks, leaving them with the nice low Cd=0.08 that versions 1.2+ favor. Then KSP applies the (correctly) much lower tail-drag rather than leading-edge drag to the cone part of the nosecones, but doesn't notice that the leading edge is now a flat plate (incorrectly). The sharp pointy fairing on Aerobond's SSTO (linked earlier in the thread) has a pretty low Cd=0.16, and the recent aerodynamics model does give that low supersonic drag. Sharp fairings give less advantage than rotating a nose (2.8× drag at Mach 1 from physics.cfg) to a tail (0.22× drag at Mach 1) but the sharp fairing method uses the aspects of aerodynamics that KSP gets right.
  9. The bug-tracker has a self-registration system and is at https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/projects/ksp The KSP-specific advice on making a helpful bug report (which is you is followed to various levels of incompleteness on the tracker) is at https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/83213-stock-support-bug-reporting-guide/ Edit: Congratulations on finding a way to make it work.
  10. If I understand you correctly, the fairing stays hollow in many situations, but not yet in the situation where you really want to use it. I would also expect your idea to work fine. I looked at your craft and see the problem-- the fairing in flight acts like it has a wall over its opening --but don't see any solution. You could speed up the testing, maybe, with a useful mod linked below, that draws the colliders. You might have to rotate your view and practice to visualize the colliders, because the mesh is drawn with no hidden-line removal, but it shows the wall at the end of your fairing in orbit, so could be useful to show you just when that wall appears. (and if you find the solution, you can post on the thread where @Raptor9 had a similar question, because you both will make good use of it.)
  11. OHara

    Poll: What's Wrong with Stock Science

    Something very close to that is the appeal for KSP to me, and I would guess other players for whom KSP is the only interesting computer game. The exceptions to reality (like planets 10-times too small for their surface gravity and pilots that can take multi-year trips without food) are simple, and leave a set of self-consistent rules that are close to reality in the interesting ways. The few gratuitously unrealistic parts bother me. For a while I rationalized the mechanism, by which collecting surface samples unlocks the next engine, as representing how demonstrating the value of a technology, by doing something impressive with it, draws attention and investment toward improving that technology, and how simply using technology gives the some of the data used to improve it. I even played with a scheme where I tallied science points to the unlocked technologies, representing how much they have been tested and appreciated, opening next tech in the tree only after the unlocked prerequisite tech had been used to earn its own cost in science. Now I ignore science. I get it if convenient, cheat it if I want the next tech for my career mode game but I don't have the science yet.
  12. OHara

    Question about the MK1-3 command pod

    Yes. You see how other players handled it, here: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/172343-part-observations/ Versions of the game before 1.4 had a Mk1-2 pod (now hidden unless you search for it) which also has a too-narrow top and slight gap to its attachment node.
  13. The drag configuration in 1.5.1 stock leads to 200 kN drag force on the pod as you go through the sound barrier, so even KSP's comically over-powered 15-kN-m reaction wheels would be overwhelmed when that pod drifts a few cm from prograde. Fins would be the natural countermeasure, but you need a surprisingly large area of tail-fins because those kv1 pods are so surprisingly draggy. Fourfa's image in the other thread makes the point well There's a bug-tracker item 20268. Now that I've re-entered all the pods with natural drag, I'll add the suggestion there to make the kv1 pods' drag match their visible shape.
  14. For some reason, the kv1,2,3 pods have custom-configurations for their drag, with values of a flat-plate facing each of the x,y,z directions instead of the default values from its shape. A ModuleManager patch to remove the custom drag @PART[kv?Pod] { !DRAG_CUBE {} } makes launches easy. This removal also makes the round pods slippery on reentry. The three pods have the same outer size and shape, but very different masses, so re-entry with the 3-man kv3 pod requires extreme care and drogue chutes. That configuration entry very much looks like an un-finished attempt to make the kv3 re-enter more easily.
  15. The heads show the same using Collide-o-scope, 1.5 same as 1.3, and a craft that I had from 1.3.1 with a tight-fit Kerbal access path works in 1.5. The longer extendable ladder has always had an annoying bump, around the box it folds into, which pushes Kerbals out a bit from where they are lower on the ladder. The Kerbal needs to get closer to the craft to reach surface-recessed ladder built into the cockpit. There is a transition zone where the ladders (extendable and built-in) overlap, where the Kerbal goes to the half-way distance from the craft, and often cannot quite make it over the bump around the extendable ladder box.