EpicSpaceTroll139

Members
  • Content Count

    1,184
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,075 Excellent

About EpicSpaceTroll139

  • Rank
    Space Toaster programmer

Profile Information

  • Location Array
  • Interests Array

Recent Profile Visitors

5,844 profile views
  1. It's like one of those "spot the differences" games that you find in magazines. Try to find all the changes without reading the answers!
  2. Well, it took many, many debug flights and landings (sometimes in the middle of nowhere), but I finally got the ascent portion of my script working well enough to get to orbit. Some highlights: WHEEEEEEEEE. Max Q Having to keep the gear retracted until the last moment to reach the runway "100... 50... 40... 30... 20... 10... butter" "Where are we this time?" "No idea..." Orbit! With only fumes left in the tanks! I need to make some tweaks to the script though. The inclination wasn't quite on point and the gravity turn could be a bit more optimized. I might also try to let the script use the more-efficient OMS engines for the latter portion of the circularization burn, once there is no worry of falling back into the atmosphere. Oh, and of course it might be beneficial to tell the script to drop the external tank when it's empty.
  3. No FAR installed. This looks exactly like the bug described in the report @Steven Mading referred to (thanks!). Guess I'll look through the GitHub issues more thoroughly next time before running here. @Steven
  4. So I might just be missing something, but I've run into an error that's left me scratching my head Something I've done in the past was to adjust the authority limiters on control surfaces in my kOS scripts, and would do it with a sequence of code like this: set MySurfList to ship:partsdubbed("CtrlSurf"). for Surf in MySurfList { Surf:getmodule("ModuleControlSurface"):setfield("Authority Limiter", 30). }. I've found this especially useful for reusable boosters on which it is desirable to have the surface authority set positive during ascent and negative during descent, and I was hoping to use it in a shuttle reentry guidance script to throttle airbrake deployment. But now, possibly due to change of KSP or kOS version, this method doesn't seem to work anymore. Testing on a single surface shows the partmodule and field exist with the same name and types as they were before, but when I try to set the limiter, kOS claims it's not there. It doesn't matter if I call the field by name or by index, kOS just goes "nope." Anyone have any idea what's going on here? Could this be because I'm running KSP 1.9.1 and this version of kOS is labeled for 1.8.1? It's been running smoothly for me except for this one issue so I feel like I'm just missing some change to the required syntax.
  5. Not sure if this first bit counts as "in KSP," but I've been working on a "Unified Shuttle Guidance" script for use in some missions I plan to do in the near-future with my space shuttle. Things this script will be able to do is launch the shuttle into an inclined orbit around Kerbin (or in theory any other starting body), execute orbital maneuvers, and assist in docking and reentry. That's all great, but it's been meaning lots and lots of debugging. Kind of grindy. Might be a while before Jeb and company get to space. On the other hand, a buggy test launch went pretty much straight up, and I ended up using it as an opportunity to brush off the rust on my landing skills under unusual circumstances. I did the final approach and landing in IVA, and once again encountered the "extreme braking" phenomenon. Granted, KSP aero and my shuttle's large wing area do result in a rather low stall speed of 62ish meters per second (for this payload), but I still would not have expected it to come to a stop that quickly. Afterwards I discovered the payload came loose in the bay, but I believe that was my fault. I kind of stalled in the last second or so and ended up slamming down with something like 10 m/s vertical speed on all 3 gear at once. Definitely need more practice in IVA.
  6. Didn' t do anything too exciting today. Decided to do some IVA piloting and tried to land a mid-heavy aircraft. Had to go around the first time because I came in kind of high. Made it the second time around, but I kind of Ryan Aired the landing. I kind of expected because I was flying a large, sluggish plane and it had been a while since I last tried landing planes from IVA. What I wasn't expecting was for the plane to decelerate to a stop so quickly that I didn't even have time to react and activate the thrust reversers. I decided try again from external view to figure out what was going on. This what I like to call "excessive braking." Yes that is a converted airliner balancing on its nosewheel. Trying to figure out what's causing that right now. May have to do with this craft having been made in an earlier version of KSP. Guess I can market the passenger version for shortfield operations with the stipulation that all passengers be trained for high g.
  7. I just got back to KSP after a looongggg break. I made this
  8. Which version of kOS do you have? I'm not sure I could find a solution, but I could at least look into it. That being said, in the past I also worked on a similar script, and I found that the Trajectories mod wasn't really necessary. Actually I didn't even need true orbital mechanics. The script just estimated the impact point with a basic zero-drag, constant-gravity parabolic trajectory assumption. When I originally implemented it, it was sort of a "for the giggles" thing, and I fully expected it to fail horribly. Imagine my surprise when my booster actually ended up somewhere near the target! I won't bore you with the details, but whether you use Trajectories or not, there will be errors in your trajectory on the way back. You're going to have to steer (mostly using aerodynamics) during the descent, no matter how precise your boostback burn is. That steering should* give you some good leeway in terms of how you predict your trajectory, so don't feel trapped into needing Trajectories.** *Just how much leeway may depend on how lifty/draggy your rocket is and if you're using Realism Overhaul, relatively small errors could cause big problems **If you can figure out the compatibility issue, by all means use it if you like. But keep in mind that it's one more thing that might break in your script with an update.
  9. Had a little bit of spare time among all my studying, so I decided to fiddle with a new stock bearing design (well, new for me. Probably done before). Made one rotor with it, and it was working great. So I decided to test a tandem rotor system, hoping to put it on a new heavy-lift helicopter. Apparently having two of the rotors broke physics. The "aft" rotor shifted sideways out of the bearings after being uncoupled, then exploded. ...and the pieces just started floating as if gravity wasn't there Thought I might have left hack-grav on, but nope In other news, having watched the successful landing of all 3 boosters on the latest Falcon Heavy launch, I feel motivated to work on my booster guidance scripts again. Need to figure out what's causing the inconsistencies with booster landings, and work on center-core landing. Hoping to then test it on bigger rockets... then figure out how to work with laggy throttles in RO.
  10. Deorbit by crashing a heavy spacecraft into it at 500+ m/s?
  11. Hey that's pretty good! I like the detail! Don't be too worried if the lander has a high part count. I recall from working on mine, that while I never finished the rest of the rocket, it became quite clear that the lander would be a large fraction of the part count. Stock leg secondary option isn't bad though. Out of curiosity, do you plan to add spherical helium tanks at the bottom of the S-IVB? (Sorry for the late reply... been busy getting back to college this week)
  12. I think I have something that can theoretically do the job... if it doesn't shred the station while launching it due to stresses.