• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Aeroboi

  1. @Twogoodsoul The bug is that Jeb is no longer Jeb
  2. 0-180 indeed. There is no need for a N/S runway, it's just easier. Some heavier planes are bulky and slow turning and require active control to turn north or south. It's a bit inconvenient to fly whereas you'd only want to fly runway heading on the 90-270deg runways, therefore I'd like to have a N/S runway. In any case I think it is a good space faring practice to understand Kerbins orbital rotation period to calculate how and where to aerobrake on a N/S runway. Sometimes going to Moho I do a polar launch. Instead of a plane change around Kerbins equator I calculate when to burn over the poles by directly burning through the prograde reticle for optimum usage of Dv. Space planes requiring a polar orbit (is never the case and is never required but optional) would always have to turn after liftoff. Some of mine are bare on thrust and lift to have good Vacuum Dv and it would be hard to turn them to 0-180deg after liftoff and cut on the fuel economy.
  3. Agreed. The Goliath is a RR-Trent-800 replica and there aren't many other larger variant types so a larger ksp type would be a fictional made engine, just like the rapier that is. IIRC I need a light air craft with plenty of wing incidence to get it anywhere close to 12+ km let alone 15km. The way I see it the Goliath is a engine for the lower atmosphere, remember that 10km on Kerbin is a lot higher relative to 10km on Earth. There is a Mk4 mod in the first place and the way it looks it would require exotic new type shapes of stock fuel tank adapters, by the looks of it would'nt even blend in that well with it's egg curved shapes but that is taste after all. While it required a lot of effort I already created a 52% payload to orbit rapier space plane using 96 rapiers to get 1.5Kiloton into orbit 7.5M wide and 60M long. Bigger ramjet/turboramjet or ramjet/rocket hybrid engines like the Rapier would cut on the part count and 2.5m variant engines would be good. Maybe Squad could stock make a welding mechanism to weld rapiers to a engine plate so to make it a single part. I'm all for bigger cargo bays, any way shape or form.
  4. A 270° <> 90° runway. Polar launches using SSTO's should be doable. The flat KSC complex is big enough it seems. A shipyard for building marine vessels.
  5. @Anth12Undock/decouple in my case is usually reserved by using action groups. I can't recall correctly but I know there was a bug that if you decoupled the first time it's best to use both undock and decouple on both docking ports using a action group. Doing that instead of using the Kerbal to undock should work out to. In that case, maybe you must be active on the vessel instead of being active on the Kerbal. Also, there might be a phantom force when both vessels dock. In a way the docking ports have magnets so the combined docking force causing to magnet 2 parts together to create a single vessel. Perhaps one wheel clips the ground and the vessel starts to bump up. This was a prior issue where loaded vessels would jump into the sky due to terrain colliders when loading. The same issue can still persists but now only when docking vessels. Try to undock when active on the vessels. If it's a phantom force caused by the combining of two vessels causing a terrain collider glitch it should only happen on very light rovers like yours. If any of this is related to the issue you shouldn't be to hopeful for a fix. Squad has never had a good wheel collider workaround and the issues they fix are the major ones. TBH, this isn't a major issue since you can workaround the problem, if anything you can use a engineer to fix the wheels, err, for instance the same kerbal used in the video you just posted. Regardless, let's hope there's a fix.
  6. You have to file a bug report. This shouldn't happen
  7. Put Dampener and spring to desired levels. The more weight the vessel has the higher both numbers need to be set to. The numbers are arbitrary so you should play with them. If the space plane damps up and down during the takeoff roll you should put dampener and friction higher. Small unevenness in ground contact can cause more friction on one wheels causing the vessel to turn. That is why it is best to attach the main landing gear to the center stack of your vessel (space plane or rocket) and then use move:tool to drag them to the desired spot under the wing and use rotation with absolute mode to straighten them relative to the vessel. If this is the case you might have the gears attached to the parallel tanks or worse the wings. Notice how wings flex under aerodynamic stress? Can you imagine unevenness when rolling down the runway with 15Ton per wheel while the wing holds the landing gear? Besides the above point I mentioned friction. It is best to have more friction on the back wheels and less on the front wheels. The difference doesn't have to be great, for instance a Friction setting of 0.9 on the rear with 0.7 on the front should work miracles. It is often better to have friction below 1.0 (unless your vessel is very heavy it should be more) so there is some drifting effect so that they don't anchor into the ground when rolling. That in and of itself can cause the veering even when this effect isn't noticeable at first glance. Use autostruts by right clicking a part in the editor, activate "advanced tweakables" in main menu general settings to allow autostruts. Use grandparent on all center stack fuel tanks, then grandparent on the parallel fuel tank directly attached to the center stack and the other parallel parts to heaviest or root part. It is possible the weight of the engine bays wiggle or sway micro metrically under engine thrust causing unexpected sway causing the space plane to turn unexpectedly. Use SAS, it is a very common mistake but you should never forget. Only put the front or main landing gear to steering enabled. Preferably the landing gear closest to the CoM for more natural steering (main landing gear in your case) There's a radial and symmetry mode in the editor toggled through when using the X key. (The M or MM is the symmetry mode icon in the lower left corner. The radial symmetry mode when toggled to using X represents the 2, 3 4, 6, 8 numbers. It is possible you accidentally used the radial symmetry mode while being selected at 2 and you snapped it on slightly a-symmetrical varying by a degree so it isn't visible, please check this. Or you put the landing gear to the parallel tank which was radially attached while being snapped on symmetrically and you put rotation on the main gear which are now attached uneven. Put landing gear closer together. I know putting them wide causes the space plane to be more stable but any leverage due to wiggling of part attachment between both gears will increase as the landing gears are put wider. FWIW, you should be able to put them closer and still be very stable. While it would seem strange for a rolling takeoff, I know that the heavy mass wants to move in front under acceleration. That is especially the case if the front is more draggy while being lighter (which it is since you use Mk2 parts) while the back is super heavy. I see you have 1 LV-N and 4 Rapiers. Your main landing gear is also further to the back. Maybe it's wise to redesign so the 5 engines are moved a little bit closer forward. In any case, for a rolling takeoff higher friction on the back wheels should also remedy this effect. Are you swaying from the runway without control inputs? In case that you do have control inputs know that rear stabilizers that are put both to pitch and yaw counter effect each other which may cause the sway, automatically if SAS was turned on. Since you have 4 rear stabilizers it would be best to put on pair to yaw and the other to pitch.
  8. 1.Why a 3m Goliath? You can already build the biggest space planes with them. However, for a 2.5m wide engine I'd prefer more thrust on them. Traditionally buckets are only used on small regional jets where the engines are radially attached. Cold stream reversers are used on the most popular high by pass turbofan engines (like all of ksp engine types) and have integrated function with cold stream flaps. It would only be a animation anyway, is that cool factor sufficient to suggest something out of the games scope. Otherwise play a flight simulator. Regardless, they'd be used only on aircraft that have the bucket engine away from the wings like on most smaller private jets. This is why bucket reverser engines are attached near the wing where there's no wing for the bucket cowls to clip through. Rotating them 90 degrees counter/clockwise so they don't clip goes against the logic of bucket reversers as the runway debris/gravel would hit the cowl and ejected on the fuselage hence why the bucket cowls are always vertical top to bottom. So the realistic application for a bucket reverser involves the player to know how to attach them to look traditional whereas traditional is the only functional way. 2. I'm cool with a 1.8meter engine. For aircraft that means we need 1.85m liquid fuel tanks otherwise it's not much of a plane. At least have 1.85m truss mode so a 1.25m engine attached neatly to a 1.85m attachment node. Nowadays we have to use a 1.85m to 1.25m converter with another adapter to have rapiers at the end of the stack, that isn't optimal. 3. Bigger FAT-445 Aeroplane wings would be cool, but I never need 50 of them and I'm a little big against it. I have a Rapier SSTO that carries 1.5Kiloton to orbit It uses about 80 Big S wings which equals about 50 FAT-445 in lift rating. It's the heaviest SSTO I could build without falling apart. I also have It uses 28 FAT-445 wings while carrying more then 800 Kerbals 2.5 times around the globe. So 28 of them is enough to create a super heavy aircraft or spaceplane, why do you need moar I ask? 4. Size 2 and 3 rounded fuselages is a must for my part. Make it happen 5. I'm for new landing legs, also the foldable spacex style ones that requires no mods and comes stock in the game. 6. I'm against aircraft heat shielding. First of all that is incorporated due to the excessive heat tolerances of 2000-2700Kelvin. That is already excessively high for most materials to maintain solid and is arbitrary to what could be expected. That part has to become realistic first before you want a heat shielding element tossed into the part count. Which brings me to part count which would be excessively high using tiles. It's not really a nice gameplay element and hence why no modder has attempted to make it. Alternatively mend the heating element to realistic expected values and toggle heat tile element on/off in the context menu of mk2 and mk3 parts making them noticeably heavier compared to having no tiles. Also, in Kerbin's atmosphere at 2.200m/s it is very hard to overheat and using a steep ascent profile and 90 degree body aerobraking you should be miles away from a critical heating temperature even in normal/expected temperature ranges, so they're most suited for interplanetary encounters at greater speeds. 7. Antennas resistant to heat and aerodynamics? Maybe you should ponder that suggestion further, it makes little sense. A lightweight aluminium disk with a thumb screw or bolted on twig like radio receiver breaks in the wind earlier then aerodynamics do under the current game physics so don't go there. 8. I like all the Edit parts suggestions of yours, good thinking.
  9. I almost never use lander legs unless the lander is lightweight. Remember that you can land on anything else other then landing legs as long as you don't exceed the "impact tolerance" of the part that impacts. Vector engines and Mammoths have impact tolerances of 20m/s so you have to land unsafely hard to brake them, and let's not forget you should have quiksaved to try again For reusable rockets I never use convential legs, sometimes landing legs who are wider and stronger especially the heavy landing gears. Alternatively you can make a construction. On the following vessel I used a construction of Adjustable Ramp Intakes with landing gears put underneath. Remember, both landing gear and the intakes are very aerodynamic so you won't lose much due to drag and wont have your rocket flip over to easily using other parts. 1. 2.
  10. Select CoM marker in the editor to display yellow orb (CoM marker) Place wheels as far outside of one another. The idea is that the contact point of the outer edge on the wheels versus the CoM location forms a leverage point. If you move the wheels further outward you decrease the angle between the wheel and the Center of mass and it is harder to tumble. Alternatively to the above point you can place a Jet engine upside down. Normally a jet engine has a interior combustion chamber which in length is longer then the actual length of the jet engine part. To compensate the Center of mass of a jet engine is away from the jet engine to simulate it being longer. The trick is to place one upside down on your rover to potentially have the center of mass below the ground. It's perfect for creating upright bikes and trikes that require to roll straight. Put friction as low as possible. On your vessel you use very light equipment, my bet the default friction settings are to high on that vessel on Kerbin, let alone a planet with less gravity like the Mun. High friction is what causes you to either drive in rigid turns or you'd be drifting at lower friction settings. High friction settings will seem like you are on train rails when turning resulting in immediate turn inputs but it also creates torque on the X axis when turning that could allow the vessel to tumble. The solution to this is using SAS (or mechjeb autopilot) and have adequate reaction wheels onboard to straighten the vessel. Regardless of that you should be able to do without any of this with the proper friction settings and wheel base width/length. If for instance you want to fit a rover in a Mk3 cargo bay restricting the wheelbase width in order to drive one out on the ramp you may need lower friction settings not to tumble when turning while having the adequate reaction control onboard. If you use the rover on a atmospheric body and it reaches adequate speeds of 30m/s plus you may need aerodynamic vertical stabalisers to have the Center of lift behind the CoM. Otherwise the rover might have trouble keeping straight when driving. Always put friction higher on the rear wheels and lower on the front wheels. This makes sure the rover keeps straight under rolling resistance. Make sure the entire wheel base is a little bit in front of the CoM. This means your 2 front wheels are a little further from the CoM while the rear wheels are a little closer otherwise the back end would want to sway forward.
  11. I'm trying to make a rocket plane with a re-dockable rover. It is part of a Eve rocket plane so I can visit Biomes on Eve with ISRU. The idea is to open the ramp, move the rover inside, close the ramp and let the leverage of the ramp connect the 2 docking ports. This part works but there is a bug apparently. Perhaps it is known to exist with rovers and cargo ramps but I haven't used cargo ramps for my rovers before but to minmize drag for a Eve rocket it is necessary. 1:This is the rover ready to be undocked after launching the test vessel. 2:This is the rover after being detached ready to move. 3:This is the rover after being re-docked having opened the cargo ramp. 4:This is the rover being un-docked after the previous picture. Problem (minor inconvenience) Whenever I undock the rover after being re-docked it seems the brakes on the rover are active even while the brakes aren't activated as seen on the picture above. When I click the brakes action group and toggle it off again the wheels become free. I can see why this is. Apparently the Devs decided to do this so your rover doesn't freeride of the ramp. This is good but it was very confusing to find out the brakes were active. Annoyingly it doesn't highlight the brake action group icon as if the brakes weren't activated. Either remove this function or make sure the brake action group is lid up
  12. It is possible to blow up the decoupler but that depends on the engine, typically you require a powerful engine to create the necessary heat plus the necessary gimbal on that engine to blast the exhaust unto the decouplers edge due to a decoupler being hollow. If that fails you always have "Object thrower LEFT ALT + F12 (RIGHT SHIFT + F12, Unix and MAC) to open "Cheats" menu. Click the "Cheat" arrow to unfold the cheat pane on the left side. Click Object thrower from the list. Put size and speed to lowest and leave mass to default. Check "unarmed" to swap to "armed" Press F5 to save or use save function to create seperate save. Rotate camera on the ship so that the decoupler is in view but not obstructed by anything else. Click middle mouse button to release object to destroy the decoupler. If it doesn't then increase "speed" on the object thrower. If ship starts to rotate due to torque induced by the object thrower after the decoupler is destroyed simply use the "." button to forward speed time acceleration to stop vessel rotation. Continue docking both vessels together
  13. I use Bettertimewarp mod using 100x physical timewarp on some vessels. For reference, 100x 0.05TWR = 5 TWR in real seconds (or 0.05 times 100). If my intention is to visit a planet i.e. Eve I would create a maneuver that has a trajectory that doesn't intersect the target but instead make sure the orbital line is in front of Eve instead of a direct encounter. The reason being is that Eve keeps traveling at it's orbital velocity around the Sun so that it will drift away from the encounter by the time you meet it. Think about leading the target like in a ballistics game. The result when aiming ahead (leading the target) that you would just end up with a eccentric solar orbit that has no target encounter but would just continue to circle the Sun. Some ION craft of mine have 40K+ Dv. So for a quick Eve trip I would expand 20K Dv from Kerbin and another 20K to slow down. Based on the craft velocity, solar eccentricity, target eccentricity, inclination and target speed (Eve's orbital velocity) I can both calculate or roughly estimate how much the orbit line has to be in front of the target body Eve. Once done I don't even have to create a maneuver node. All I have to do is know how much time it takes to decelerate (use mechjeb for burn time) This time is the time it takes to get to the orbit intersect line. So if you require a 2 day burn you have to start your deceleration burn 2 days before entering the orbit line of your target. By the time you do your deceleration burn make sure your at 0° on the AN/DN relative to the target (Eve) As you try to decelerate 2 days prior to the targets orbital intercept line (that is if you require a 2 day burn to decelerate) you'll notice you come nowhere close to a encounter only when you get very close to pushing the last 1K Dv from the budget. This will look confusing as you'll find out that the encounter doesn't come until the very end. Just trust the calculations and you should hit spot on. In any case creating a maneuver node 2 days before the expected encounter shouldn't be a problem.
  14. I'm not to fond of this technique due to it having very little savings. IMO the reversed nosecone trick has a effect in practice beyond a graph but it is incredibly negligible and only offers any benefit in terms of drag reduction if the space plane has draggy outer parts to begin with. It is much more effective to change your wing incidence by 1 degree so that your nose is directly through the velocity reticle and you gain much more effect. There's a general consensus that the weight limit per rapier to push a vessel into orbit is 20 Ton's per rapier, with the expected higher limit is in the area of 25 Tons. This is false. While it requires many optimizations I found out that I could do 37.4 Tons per Rapier and probably more using more wings. This vessel has ISRU with RTG's (to visit Jool and Eeloo) with 7700m/s Dv with LF only tanks and can reach moho's surface from Kerbin albeit with a good launch window and a Eve assist. It Weighs almost 75 Tons. I share the following vessel because it has just enough thrust to stay above sea level after exiting the runway during takeoff using the LV-N as assist. However, it is so aerodynamic that it can get past 400m/s while climbing at 4 degrees when above 300m/s. The reversed nosecone trick would cut the total Dv budget (regardless of how low weight it is "and 2 extra parts") so I couldn't be bothered. To reiterate another way, the reversed nosecone trick would deduce the Dv budget while not requiring the trick in any case because the takeoff thrust is just barely high enough not to sink into the sea after liftoff. Mind you that I have optimized the craft completely and can reach Minmus with 3/5 Tank in which case it can race to orbit whereby the nosecone has even less effect. That's less reason to bother. I only wanted to share this so people understand that the reversed nosecone trick isn't always a added benefit. I only use it when a nearly capable vessel fails to accelerate past Mach 1.20. If I try to optimize a craft for drag it never fails to do so, and when it is a interplanetary SSTO/SSTA the nosecone cripples the budget, albeit marginally.
  15. The point in gravity assist's is not that it speeds your vessel up but changes it's trajectory relative to the greater local gravity well. Usually That is the sun, in the Joolian system it is Jool. So what you want to do is enter the target planet (on which you want to use a gravity assist "Tylo" apparently.) on the right or left side depending on whether it is left or right from jool relative to the *ecliptic (*relative to which is left and right) So if you want to decelerate using Tylo play with the maneuver node by dragging the radial/radial out to see if the orbit line decreases after the slingshot when it's in front of Jool. You can use the maneuver node many days before entering Jool to see if Tylo will be at the correct spot to meet. If this isn't the case you should create a maneuver node so you arrive at Jool sooner or later so that you'll meet Tylo at the correct spot. In any case Tylo could be on the other side of Jool at the time of entering so you should plan ahead that way. What do you mean? In the KSP settings there's a conic patch limit slider. Each number past 1 presents another calculated orbit line. So that would be Duna <> Ike but nothing else. If it were 3 you could see Dres if that were your next destination. The point is to use as much fuel to make a 2/3 resonance outside of Kerbin to meet back with Kerbin to rise the Ap above the sun. You have to match orbital time period 1.5x that around the sun compared to Kerbin to meet it back two orbits around the sun. You should use Better timewarp mod. It could then slingshot you to Duna to get to Dres for very little fuel and plane change also but you'll have to calculate ahead to see if Duna is at the right place. Here's Mark Thrimm's trip To Dress using the Kerbin <> Duna Gravity assist after refueling his SSTO at Minmus.
  16. To Moho and Dress I always use gravity assists. You can use Duna gravity assist to help the plane change to get to dress, at least partially unless your close to An/Dn in which case Duna can plane change enough. So if you take the transfer planner and Duna is in line with your Dress orbit transfer trajectory you can take Duna as target to help you get there. Personally I always use a combination of Dawn ION and LN-N to make sure I have enough Dv. I often make SSTA's with a ISRU and a few more EC points past 30 (required for ISRU) makes enough EC for 4 Dawn engines at full throttle so I try to make use of that Dv gain since the coupled ISP of one LV-N and 4 Dawn engines is somewhere around 850. You can also use Eve as a gravity assist to get to Dres. For Moho you also use Eve. Eve can easily catapult your inclination to meet that of Moho without to much hassle. Luckily there are many Moho transfer windows so that shouldn't be hard. Always try to meet Moho at it's Ap around the Sun where it's relative solar velocity is lowest so that your approach is slowest while matching it's inclination path.
  17. To be blunt, there shouldn't be a issue with this. Part unlocks and facility upgrades are necessary to launch a vessel. It shouldn't be necessary to get inside a vessel with high tech that player (A) does not have and he/she could simply ride the vessel if another user launched it? Is that a problem then? If user (A) is asked to launch a Tier 5 node tech rocket while he has only Tier 3 nodes unlocked he will have to make due and not play. On top of that there should be a user save swap file during a multi/single player loading screen that has the "tech unlocks" listed of each user in that save file (multiplayer game) IIRC many multiplayer games (MMO's) have levels and other high tier achievements and those are played as grind for months to get to a higher leveled pace in general. If you were to jump in a career environment bare naked with everybody having the higher tiers unlocked you are free to join as long as you choose. Or you simply don't and pick another server. Regardless: It seems the high days of KSP seems to be over so to boost the popularity and playing activity Multiplayer or a alternate version of it seems to be a very logical step to unison the player base and for other people to join in. If it can work a multiplayer KSP environment is the best thing KSP can get. If this is a logical solution I hope it is picked up and looked at seriously.
  18. So if I had the Nyan cat yesterday and 8 days ago I got a lucky streak?
  19. I would very much like this idea. Some are heavier with more output while others are lighter with less output. Sometimes I require a mission plan whereby I only require the RTG power generation for 5 years so I could do with a 10 year halflife RTG type. It would also involve packing extra to add surplus EC generation for expected power degredation or have extra solar panels to fill in the RTG decay over time as the mission time elapses.
  20. I want to know the mod with the largest cargo bay that looks stock a like or is otherwise white colored or looks okay-ish in that respect from your view. Preferably one that has a very wide cargo hold above 5m that I can stack...
  21. Not sure what you mean by dynamic diving, but just above water it goes faster indeed. IIRC the above Sub does 66 m/s max instead of 62 m/s underwater. The Vector is slightly more negatively buoyant. The radial holding tank is the heaviest of the ore tanks. Plus points are that they are small and can be dragged inside any cargo container to shift the heavier then water mass. The 1.25m service bay is small and the radial holding tank just fits in to create small lightweight vessels that are hydrodynamic. The vector has to be shrouded or contained in a cargo bay as it suffers drag underwater more so then a service bay. The Mk2 and Mk3 cargo bays does also shield the content like in the atmosphere. In a way water is just air but heavier/soupier. But for some reason opening the doors creates a buoyant effect. The same with one landing leg and inflatable heatshield. So the bottom line is that the service bay contains the mass (buoyant or negatively buoyant) and yes it also shields from drag. That's for the SM-25, 1.25m and 2.5m service bays (The latter though is quite buoyant) I also create my slightly negatively buoyant. With vectors I can stage to add weight as I burn of fuel.
  22. @boolybooly MTOW Mass = 2.797.278 Kg - 1.311.489 = 1.485.800 Kg (cargo) 1.485.800 Kg / 2.797.278 Kg = 0.531. That's more then 53% payload fraction. This is for the Maximalist record. The SSTO is only intended to bring cargo to orbit. This can be flown stock without mechjeb at MTOW. I recommend 2x to 3x physical timewarp in flight for better control response. Use Action group 7 at highspeed for front spoiler for proper balance. Pics. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Roll to stop skipping 15. 16. 17.
  23. Sea dragon style. Aren't parts inspired on things real or prototype engines Like Rapier is? So can that engine