Helmetman

Members
  • Content count

    210
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

77 Excellent

About Helmetman

  1. Working Kerbals

    @Agustin For some weird reason that is one of those very obscure things that I've missed on so far. I did saw pictures of interior view and videos but thought they were a function of either the mods you mentioned or another one. Glad to be wrong On topic...
  2. Aligning The AGU With A Target's CoM?

    When using the AGU I put it on a longer arm made of structural parts or LF tanks and then attach the engines to the far end. Angle them a bit so they don't fire against the module I'm willing to transport. Then I pull the craft rather then pushing it. If you push it like you would normally as most of all rockets are like that you will have a greater balancing issue over towing. It is not recommended on rocket in a atmosphere by the way, just to let you know. Try to push a box by standing tall to the highest reachable window. You'll use 2 hands blimey and you still whining how it almost fell out of your hands. Rather, let someone grab the box on the next floor who tows it from your hands over the railing in a second or 2. In part this is because it's harder to push things above your head, but like I said, in part. Pulling it causes the CoM to trail towards the thrust vector. This means you have to do less of correction because it will auto correct itself, if you have to correct at all. Pushing it causes the CoM to trail of off the thrust vector, like a stick will fall of your hand trying to raise and balance it. This makes a stick or your vessel easily turn over when firing to hard. Pulling it means placing the thrust vector in front of what your willing to transport like a crane. In that case, the stick of the guy below would be hanging in it's hand, rather then balancing it. Because that's what you do when pushing, your basically balancing a candle. Basically it's this principle vs this principle If you do go for pushing then makes sure your engines are farthest away from the CoM (you can eyeball this) This means the relative offset of CoT and CoM becomes less. And only if you have sufficient gimballing range on your engines ( I recommend the vector ) the distance from the CoT to CoM creates a longer levering arm. That means that less pronounced control strokes will give similar corrections. Of course you don't want it to long otherwise it will become wiggly especially under high thrust. I hope this has helped you. Buahaha, getting our attention by exchanging sentiment, Great. I hope it was only your humour since we're talking pixels, but yeah very poor indeed
  3. Working Kerbals

    Cool Animating things such as doing stuff, opening and closing of doors is just for starters imo. I would also like to see through the cockpit window to see the Kerbals sitting there and doing stuff when assigned to nothing. You can look from within the cockpit to the outside world, but not from the outside world into the cockpit. Basically the IVA interior should be loaded outside a vessel and all windows shouldn't be opaque, all the way to being completely transparent if you ask me. Unless Kerbals are gangsters requiring dark windows to protect their identity or something, yeah, in space, right... I'll only say "IR" I want to see Jeb and Val drink tea in the Mk 3 crew cabin, spilling it over the flight displays and getting into conflict (of all sorts) Behaviour will be linked to their courage and stupidity levels (determining several stereotypes for Kerbal behaviour)
  4. [KSP 1.3.1] ShipEffects Continued [1.0.8.2]

    @GalileoDidn't know this was a revived older mod, had I only known about this earlier EDIT: Snipped Didn't read the OP correctly. Never repped you, and your rep isn't on par with your total post count yet. Let me help you with this
  5. KSP is dead?

    If bits and pieces of this game were once "major gameplay" updates to you then why can't you remember? A few key taps and some mouse clicks will get you overviews of updates. That's the same with a ex-mate. While they age they become less popular and if you forget to water her ditch they'll become abandoned By the way, things happen you know. And you say it yourself, "ex-popular" I can't make things popular for you (or anyone) because other chose to popularize other mods. Tell me what in KSP is stagnating exactly, because you know something I don't. Pacman hasn't died in nearly 4 decades, so I'll give KSP a century at least. It seems you have preconditions on what determines the designation "being dead" Making assumptions on self formulated preconditions to construct a argument is never really a attention getter. As long as there's still a copy available and you keep playing it your keeping it alive. If there was something nostalgic back in the day that appeals to you, know that it is your nostalgia. I think your a troll by the way, so I probably shouldn't even type this. But it might be better next time to put the topic into a question. As in- Is KSP dead these days? Rather then stating that it is.
  6. Controls screwy after load

    Maybe... Any chance you have SAS targeted at a node (other then stability assist) Maybe you don't notice it and it's activated. This would cause the ship to yaw (A and D) and pitch (W and S) but it wouldn't affect roll (Q and E) So you might be fighting the yaw and pitch cause SAS tries to maneuver elsewhere to i.e. pro/retrograde, radial in/out or normal/antinormal. Since this doesn't affect rolling (Q and E) you might find this part to be unaffected. And thus it only looks like a bug while it isn't. Maybe you unintentionally turned this on?
  7. Disappointed with Eve

    if the slope is to big you can try to zigzag. So don't try to ride over the steepest part of the hill in front of you, but curve over the hill in hairpin bends. Added to that, increase friction on the wheels and if proven not useful try to add more wheels. I make Eve rovers and have them carry a ISRU to supply fuel back to the ship. In some cases I give the rover a small boost so it will climb the hill using a smaller engine. I hate roving on Eve though. When I do rove on Eve I pick a specific course using "Bon voyage" or "Mechjeb rove autopilot" let is finish and then do something else. Repeat everyday until you get to your destination, rather then babysit your monitor until your Eve rover gets somewhere, which is tedious like a teddy.
  8. As stated by aegolius13, it's better to make use of the Oberth effect. Some basic calculus will evaluate this, but just see Wikipedia for some basic to mid depth information on the maneuver. Burning closer to the Pe of the departure planet (Kerbin in this case, but accounts to every gravitational body) for a escape trajectory is more efficient then doing the interplanetary burn later on. So getting into a escape trajectory and then doing a interplanetary burn is more costly Delta-V wise. To get to Moho I would use Eve as a gravity assist to change your inclination around the ecliptic to match that of Moho's. You need next to no Dv for this other then a well executed fly by (gravity assist) of Eve. Matching it's inclination (Moho's orbit angle around the sun) will deduce the Dv required to slow down at Moho. It's also important that you match Moho on its Apoapsis around the Sun. Kerbin has a completely circular orbit. Moho has a somewhat considerable elliptical orbit of 6.3 million Kilometers by 4.2 million kilometers around the Sun. Adding to that is that Moho is much closer to the Sun overall. So the relative speeds are much greater on top of the previous mentioned fact. This also means that the penalty of slowing down between moho's Pe and Ap around the Sun is much greater then that of any other planet. This means that with a inefficient approach when not minding inclination or Moho's Pe around the Sun but using a direct approach from Kerbin to Moho you can need as much as 6000 Delta V to get into Moho orbit upon arrival during a unfavourable launch window. Taking the efficient approach when minding a inclination change and arrival at Moho's Ap then you can get as low as 3200 m/s Dv (maybe even less). For this you pick the right launch window and you'll use Eve to lower your Pe around the Sun and change the inclination. Not sure what you mean by this. Do you mean you have one stage burning to SOI escape, then undock and recover that stage back at Kerbin? As in, is it a recoverable launch system your getting at? So the answer to this is "Yes" Not just in Moho's case but in any case. Also, you don't need to assemble anything in LKO. It's perfectly possible to get crew and some science equipment to Moho in a single launch. Unless you have a potato computer that can't run on many parts, then I would do multiple launches and assemble what's required in Orbit. The planeshaped vessels are probably SSTO's using ION engines or a combination of that with LF and LF/O engines (ION engines is the engine with the blue exhaust) ION engines are often optimized for low volume, drag and weight. ION engines are very low powered and not much fun to play with if you value your real life minutes. But they're very efficient and only work fluently with a lighter less complicated vessel to deduce part count and weight. Nuclear rockets may do the same but are bulkier due to stats (weight and isp) of the Nerva engine. So that's why the nuclear rockets are larger while doing the same. Both methods can be used for transfer to Moho and back. ION engines are way to small for considerable payload. So if you bring multi tons to the scene, go the nuclear route and only use a ION on the latter stages if that turns out beneficial in deducing total mass, parts at launch. Moho missions using ION engines are often a probe or 1 to 2 crew vessels with the only intention to land a kerbal there and do a few small experiments and get back to Kerbin again. You only need about 12.5 km/s Delta V to get to Moho and back. 3500 m/s to get into LKO. (can be less if your going for optimal efficiency) 1670 m/s to get a Moho encounter (can be less, about 1100 m/s using Eve as a gravity assist) 3200 m/s to slow down at Moho. 1800 m/s to land at Moho and return to Orbit. 2370 m/s to get back to Kerbin (1570 m/s Dv when using Eve to assist back to Kerbin) So that's 3500 + 1670 + 3200 + 1800 + 2370 = 12.540 Dv and not 16 km/s. And it's going to be less if you take the Dv shortcuts using the gravity assists. But I haven't thrown spare Dv numbers into the mix so I'll add up a couple of hundred for the entire mission. Have you verified the data of the Dv sheet posted (wherever the source of this Dv sheet is located)
  9. Engines TWR and ISP

    Haven't used tweakscale much myself. I don't think it will matter much. Tweakscale does exactly what the name says, it scales things. So part values should be maintained I think, but I'm guessing here as I've only used TS a couple of times. My take on this so far... But if those values are maintained you won't get any benefit other then the benefit of the square cube law. I haven't magnified how numbers of wet and dry mass scale up with TS. But tweakscaling something should change the square cube values even in KSP, right? Also, SLT matters (sea level thrust), but not much. The difference between vacuum thrust and atmospheric thrust parameters shown on the part information list is the ISP difference between 1 atmosphere (the Launchpad) and space (70 km up) The ISP gains immediately as you gain altitude, and you only need a few kilometers altitude to be halfway to your vacuum ISP. It's better to have a vacuum optimized rocket rather then a atmospheric optimized rocket. Unless you takeoff from Eve, have a very high twr rocket with a very early gravity turn I wouldn't even waste my time optimizing it for optimal atmospheric efficiency. You often do better giving your rocket more thrust and making it more aerodynamic then to nitpick a engine for the 1st minute of flight, but you can obviously. I wouldn't use the Aerospike ever, but I did a few times on Eve. It has good atmospheric isp, yes! But they're quite heavy for the thrust they provide. I wouldn't necessarily advice against non gimballing rocket engines like the aerospike. Some good placed fins far enough down and some adequate reaction wheels and a well timed gravity turn will get you to orbit trust me. But I simply wouldn't because the aerospike just isn't the best choice imho.
  10. Catapult start?

    @DDE Even better
  11. What Platform do you hhave KSP on?

    I also got the Steam version. Almost everyone runs this game on PC. There are a few weirdos all platform ksp lovers, and so some have a Xbox copy besides their pc version. They're the minority though. Most that haven't gotten the pc version desperately want it on pc but don't have the money for better pc hardware so they play on console as they usually already own one. If everyone had the money for a good pc and we're all informed on the differences and modability on the pc version then I bet the console version of KSP would currently have next to zero sales. Meaning more next to zero then it does now Check the total post count in Technical Support (PlayStation 4, XBox One) to see my point. Last reply was more then a week ago (12 nov)
  12. Catapult start?

    Not that this proves much cheaper. Or that it is a good idea for a return profit at all. The idea of catapulting just isn't. But what about building a several kilometer deep elevator. A elevator that can push several hundred Metric ton and accelerate it to, euhm, let's just say to sub/transonic velocities. In the last few hundred meters reaching the surface acceleration will stop, clamps will be released and the engine ignited. The rocket pushes on it's own power a 100 or so meters below the surface when the rocket clamps releases the elevator from the rocket. The elevator platform is then timely decelerated to stop before the end of the tunnel so it doesn't collide with the installation on the surface. The rocket then shoots out from below at transonic velocities only to maintain velocity up to and after Max Q. So you need less thrust only to maintain it. So a TWR of 1.05 should suffice, so that's less engines (less weight), less thrust (fuel consumption) and less time spent for the firing rocket engines in the denser part of the atmosphere. The elevator probably needs a lot of equipment, air circulation to maintain sane air pressures within the tunnel it's launched from. This is completely hypothetical, I wouldn't know how to get a orbital rocket several clicks under, but let's assume all that equipment were in place. But as for any randomly thrown out idea there's probably a gazillion of reasons why this is impossible, or not? It's probably not worth the investment. It would pay back over a very long time period as the project would be quite costly. But for the big bucks invested it will pay back over time if you could properly manage this.
  13. EVA - come back in ship

    It is so obvious that with some local gravel or dirt one could make a small lump for heightening elevation from available soil. But you can't do that in KSP unfortunately, there is no spade or a ability to use your hands to interact with the ground or anything, but this is the idea behind it. Whenever I forget a ladder or when my cockpit is to high due to long front gear then I temporarily set gravity to 0.33 in the debug menu and then use my jetpack to get back in the cockpit. Then I tell myself there was a ladder there in the most delusional sense After all, I could have made a lump, and KSP doesn't have to know right? So unless the height is so much that I require a hill, or a construction that is required that can never be locally assembled by Kerbal hands, only then I'll discard this behaviour of mine. But this is just one of those personal playthrough rules of mine. And generally I don't forget the ladder or make sure he gets in any other typical way. I know the gravity slider is a in game cheat/tool. But realistically a sentient being would allow himself to build a temporary lump from dirt or even staircase/ladder from available twigs, plants etc. So with some logical reasoning it isn't a cheat, but simply a good help in the circumstance described in the OP. If you got more crew in the vessel one could also give a helping hand from the cockpit hatch. But Kerbals are not very helpful to one another in this game. Atleast Val should be able to get on Jeb's shoulders to reach for the cockpit hatch. Close contact behaviour is primitive in Kerbal kind. To facilitate this behaviour Kerbals require equipment, which is sad but accord. By the way, if your mission was already finished you can recover the Kerbal first and then the aircraft in the tracking station. Just saying if this is the case.
  14. Carrer Tutorials and Hints

    What's your native language? Some youtubers have playthroughs in local languages (Russian, portugese, german, French, dutch, Spanish etc) It's often better to understand something by watching a video rather then reading the wiki, especially if it's narrated in your own language, something you would likely prefer I guess. Until your electric charge runs out