FinalFan
-
Posts
278 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by FinalFan
-
-
When you make your first recoverable stage, including a probe but not batteries or solar panels.
When you think it will deorbit all by itself because the periapsis is in the atmosphere.
When you are making your first "orbiter+lander" Mun mission but you don't have the Clampy Jr., and you're so proud of yourself for the idea to use a regular Clampy and put a Spark on the nose ... and then you detach and wonder why everything is backwards.
When you spend so much time planning your Duna mission, putting together the (very im)perfect ship and waiting for the transfer window ... And then you notice that you're leaving an Eve transfer window and slap together some huge abomination and rush it out the door. It doesn't have the delta V to circularize but we can solve that problem when we get there, right?
-
On 10/8/2018 at 8:46 AM, Aeroboi said:
I made a asymmetrical/lateral asparagus staged rocket using a self invented stage activated mechanical pivoting system for thrust re-alignment to gain Dv for a eve ascent rocket.
More importantly, I found out how to do this while keeping all the contents of the mechanism faired. The system itself only weighs 250kg so is especially ideal for airless world where the fairing isn't required like Tylo for instance.
In testing each booster stage can reach well over 2000m/s above sea level under its own thrust and is as aerodynamic as a typical one stack with nosecone and engine at the rear.It's simple but complicated
and 100% stock. This is how it looks like and I'm still quite some distance away from incorporating it in a finalized vessel. But I'm getting there.
1: Ready for lift off
\\
2: Vehicle lifts off with the engines in their default position.
3: A explosive bolt trigger via the staging system frees the mechanism and angles the engines.
4: Of course in a actual design I will stage pivot one by one opposite of the dropped fuel tank rather then activating them all at once, otherwise the cosine losses make up for nothing I'd gained in Dv. The angled thrust will actually help me in the proper roll position during a actual ascent as it can contribute to radial Delta-V while staying on prograde.
The next picture is just for show
5: The reason the engines are angled is because they are on a decoupler spring which has fuel feed on so it can still drain fuel from the tanks.
Because the mechanism is decoupled the engine thrust angled them at a certain angle. The angle is tweaked by adding to the spring or moving the springs position.
6: Getting the parts insid the fairing properly aligned is the greatest challenge. If they clip to far in the top fairing nasty things can happen. Luckily I figured out how the bugs are caused and Kraken type things seen on the picture below are completely avoidable.
It took me a week of continuous testing with many failures to make it work "properly"
But the result is here
That's a really tascinating solution. I confess I'm not 100% sold on the utility but I hope to see more. Like, what's under the fairing exactly
-
I have been using tinypic to host my pictures. It has worked in the past, but right now all it shows is a busted link. Is this my computer being stupid, tinypic being stupid, or new forum policy?
Example (please ignore if the below is an image)
[edit: TinyPic is dead; long live Flickr. This wasn't the original problem though; I believe it solved itself. Original link forinsanityposterity: http://i67.tinypic.com/r73uh4.jpg ]
-
On 10/3/2018 at 9:49 PM, Gargamel said:
Just as a test, cause this strikes me as a bug or some procedural thing, not an antenna issue....
Create a save point.
Build a really strong relay sat. Get it into a nice orbit near the uncontrollable sat, HyperEdit FTW here.
See if you regain connection.
If not, there's something fishy going on.
Revert to the save so you don't muddle with your career.
Now, this may just be my personal opinion, but I feel that eight RA-100s ought to be enough signal when 9 meters from the vessel, but maybe not
[edit: TinyPic is dead; long live Flickr. Original link forinsanityposterity: http://i67.tinypic.com/r73uh4.jpg ]
Operation Catch and Release was a success, so I guess I can reboot the ones I actually care about. There's one I put in an orbit roughly as far out as Minmus (non-intersecting) that I don't think I care about that much.
-
2 minutes ago, bewing said:
Are you running mods?
No, pure stock. At the moment, not even the expansion.
-
1 minute ago, themonk said:
If the tracking station is updated, and it must be... because you have a comm network showing.... I am at a loss to explain why the satellite icon is Missing on the comm display...
Was it missing during the entire flight?
No: all of these vehicles operated normally until their initial mission was done; then, when I came back to them later in my career for various reasons, this issue was present.
2 minutes ago, Gargamel said:Just as a test, cause this strikes me as a bug or some procedural thing, not an antenna issue....
Create a save point.
Build a really strong relay sat. Get it into a nice orbit near the uncontrollable sat, HyperEdit FTW here.
See if you regain connection.
If not, there's something fishy going on.
Revert to the save so you don't muddle with your career.
This actually sounds kind of fun. BRB
-
Just now, themonk said:
I see the antenna now.... but wouldnt the fact that the uncontrollable satellites are not in the communications network indicate a comm problem?
Ordinarily, yes. That's why it took so long for me to decide that it was actually a game problem. Only now have I got to the point where it's completely unbelievable that the weakness of the antenna is at fault.
Or to put it another way, it is a comm problem in that the satellites can't talk to the network. However, I believe it's wrong that the game won't let them talk to the network. -
3 minutes ago, themonk said:
I think you just answered your own question....
Your satellite needs an antenna of suitable range and a line of site back to Kerbin or a communication relay satellite. Remember planetary bodies can block Line of Site...
I think you need to reread the OP. Kerbin is controlling probes with only the probe antenna at greater distances than the satellite in the picture that has a real antenna and you can see the planet in the background.
P.S. "Line of Sight" -
2 minutes ago, Geonovast said:
What do your signal lines look like in the map view?
If I set it to show full network, there's a crazy quilt going all over the place but not touching the satellites in question.
-
I've begun to notice that some of my older satellites were partially unresponsive. (I can still command it to turn prograde/retrograde, but not elsewhere, nor can I set up maneuver nodes or control the throttle.) I was suspicious because it seemed like they should have been in range for full control, but all they had was the probe antenna, so I chalked it up to that, even though I noticed that the probe icon was not orange or red but completely absent. However, now I have found one that seems to have no excuse: It's only orbiting the Mun, and it has line-of-sight to Kerbin, and I have finally set up a relay network, and it's packing an S-16 antenna! And yes, it has power.
I'm at a loss as to what reason could rightly exist for me to have less than full control of these satellites. Does anyone know? Do you think that it would be fixed if I went out there with a Klaw to wake them up?
[edit: TinyPic is dead; long live Flickr. Original link forinsanityposterity: http://i68.tinypic.com/xlguo0.jpg ]
-
10 hours ago, wumpus said:
Can I keep my old "Hammer" graphics as a drop down? Hammer based design was something I loved when I was a new kerbal player, and don't take my hammers away!
More delta-v indicators? Is the engineer report going to include delta-v? Pretty to include how much delta-v each burn requires if the delta-v during design is a deep, dark secret. Although the blog implies that hitting the launch button (and reverting) may show you such things, although since you can't lay in a burn from the launch tower (one of my long standing gripes) you are unlikely to access that data. A whole launch, lay in a burn, read the delta-v, revert to construction seems way to silly to get delta-v in unmodded KSP).
You want a hype train? Try Balsa Model Planes. To me, hype trains require an observable delta between old and new. KSP is just too established and polished for much of a hype train.
I agree that it is too bad the Hammer's design is unrecognizable, though I do like the new look of "two Fleas glued together".
I get that you're unsatisfied with the delta V readout implementation, something is better than nothing.
"KSP is just too established and polished for much of a hype train."
-
1 hour ago, Foxster said:
I'd say the biggest cause of failing to get off Eve is the temptation to add stuff to a craft that doesn't quite work. I mean, it makes sense to add another engine and a bit more fuel when you are just 100dV short of making orbit, right?
In fact, quite the opposite is the way to go. You need to use the slimmest parts, the smallest possible number of stacks, with not one unnecessary part, and optimal engines. If the craft won't quite make orbit then look what you can take away.
I can't say I speak from experience (soon...), but it seems to me this is mostly but not entirely true. This is due, if I am right, to the differences between Eve and Kerbin that can trip people up if they are designing according to habits developed on Kerbin.
Generally, adding a lot of fuel and just enough engine is the best way to add dV on Kerbin, but on Eve the atmospheric thrust penalty is much greater so launch TWR is much more valuable (yet paradoxically going too fast is also even worse). So shedding weight as you suggest has not only the benefits we are used to but Eve's conditions (in theory as I understand it) significantly exaggerate the benefit of improving TWR to get into a decently reduced atmosphere faster (unless TWR is already quite high). So going the extra fuel and engines route can also work but you probably should add more engines than you would expect to with habits developed for launching from Kerbin.
Adding engines is more expensive than adding fuel, but the simple fact of making an Eve return vehicle means you should probably just pay whatever it takes to get the payload you need. Needless to say, removing things is usually cheaper than adding them, so payload you don't need can be discarded on the planning floor.
-
On 9/29/2018 at 5:56 PM, OHara said:
If you notice the oscillation while at KSP, you can go back to assembly and (selecting 'advanced tweakables') set a weaker spring and/or stronger damper.
Just a quick side note:. I believe you'll find that advanced tweakables is not required for leg spring and dampener adjustments.
-
On 9/29/2018 at 8:37 PM, Geonovast said:
I'm toying with the idea of sticking some SRBs under the nose which would be tuned to tilt it up about 30-40 degrees right before flooring it, in case it's ever on not-great terrain and "driving" somewhere better wouldn't be an option. I could even use the landing legs for a little extra leverage so it doesn't tilt on the wheels.
That definitely sounds like it could work, once. But I imagine the SRB would have to be calibrated for a range of gravity wells ... what it takes on Tylo would probably flip you completely over on Minmus. Are a bank of Vernors on the underside of the nose not strong enough? It would be more controllable and reusable if it works at all.
-
14 minutes ago, Aeroboi said:
No, why? Two of the same capsules just with different looks. If they can create 2 separate paintjobs for the new mk 1 cockpit can't they make 2 different models for a single part?
My idea is to keep the original one also. Have a toggle to choose between 2 different versions of the lander can. Just like we have toggle options for engine shrouds we can have the same for a mk1 lander can I reckon.
They're not the same. It weighs two thirds more. That's a big deal on small vessels. With your proposed change, that extra weight would be in return for ... high impact tolerance, basically.
-
9 hours ago, Aeroboi said:
But that lander can calamity that you have, I share completely. I never liked it. It simply looks odd on almost anything. I don't mind it being there and would still think it looks ok on some craft like airless landers but I would really like a grey cylindrical version.
Considering that "airless landers" is literally the intended design space, I can't share the sentiment. I've certainly had a fair few times that can made things awkward for me, but I pretty much have to shrug it off with "oh you silly thing!"
It seems to me that having a cylindrical version would be functionally the same as "go throw your inline cockpit in the trash". Wouldn't it?
-
32 minutes ago, Snark said:
(And if you had objected, my response would have been "not my fault that the C7 is wrong"...)
I never said I had a big sample size
-
1 hour ago, Snark said:
Gave it a 9:1 wet/dry ratio, same as all the other LFO tanks. Stats visible here:
I was about to object on the basis of all the classic fuel tank size adapters having extra dead weight (e.g. C7 1.25-2.5 weighs 4.57t for 0.07t extra dead weight), but then I double checked the wiki for stats on the Making History stuff I do not yet have. They are the same as regular tanks. Interesting!
-
20 minutes ago, Snark said:
...the only major size transition that we don't have a fueled adapter for is 2.5m-to-3.75m. Fortunately, it's easily remedied with a mod, which is what I've done, and so now it does exactly what I want and I never have a reason to use that (to me) utterly useless unfueled adapter. Used a MM patch to mod it right out of my game so that it won't be cluttering up the parts panel in the VAB.
Out of curiosity, how much extra dead weight did you build into your fuel adapter?
-
9 minutes ago, Snark said:
No, there really isn't. Because "big empty structural adapter sitting on top of a fuel tank" is bigger and wastes space. I want a conical fuel tank adapter from 2.5m to 3.75m.
It's a glaring omission from the game, IMO. We've got conical fuel tanks for pretty much every other size transition in the game:
- 1.25m-to-1.875m (two of these!)
- 1.25m-to-2.5m
- 1.875m-to-2.5m
- 3.75m-to-5m
- 2.5m-to-Mk.3
- Mk.3-to-3.75m
Fixed that for you
-
2 minutes ago, Snark said:
Moving to Suggestions.
Well, they're certainly revamping some old parts. I'd be careful assuming that they'll be revamping any particular part unless they've actually said they're doing so.
I've never cared for this particular part myself, mainly because it bugs the heck out of me that it doesn't contain fuel. It's just a huge, empty structural part, which I have zero use for-- every single time I've ever used this part in a rocket, it's been in a place where I would much rather have had a conical fuel tank instead.
What I'd really like to see is not "make this part prettier", but rather, "give us a new stock part which is a conical fuel tank in this size".
In my own gameplay I cope with this by just running the MissingHistory mod, which provides a part that has the same form factor but does contain fuel-- and, by the way, looks a lot nicer, because it's a rescaled Making History part, meaning it was modeled more recently and is therefore prettier.
I used to feel this way, until I realized that the double Mk3 adapter workaround that many people use has more "dead weight" (in addition to the normal wet dry ratio) than the structural part, and you can fit the ADTP adapter AND a 7200 tank in less space. You obviously get fuel with the Mk3 adapters which almost certainly improves the ship's ratio overall. But the 7200+adapter option has less extra dead weight, while also being smaller, and has MUCH less extra dead weight, proportionally, than the C7 stock fueled size adapter. So really, it seems to me that there is already a stock way to do what you want while the structural adapter also has a use (space efficiency). There's just no penalty-free way to adapt sizes and I think I'm actually okay with that.
But I'm more than open to being shown that all of the above is stupid and wrong.
-
I don't have the expansion pack and I can't really articulate why. Perhaps I feel I need to be "done" progressing through using the regular stuff; I have all the base game's research nodes unlocked but I am still in the early phases of executing my first interplanetary missions. I think that after I have a few of these under my belt I will probably celebrate by getting the expansion pack.
-
11 hours ago, GrandProtectorDark said:
"We've detected some ore inside a black hole's event horizon"
Truly, kerbal science is incomprehensibly advanced!
... I wonder if the ludicrously long duration is because it's taking time dilation into account? -
I doubt I will do it, but I am interested enough in the concept to ask a clarifying question: When you say "no mining or refining until you land on a body", does that mean it's prohibited to launch with the two ore tanks pre-filled and refine the contents into extra fuel?
and 100% stock. This is how it looks like and I'm still quite some distance away from incorporating it in a finalized vessel. But I'm getting there.
The 1.5 Hype Train
in KSP1 Discussion
Posted
"across multiple stages" Do you think that is why the burn is 38 seconds long but we're being told to start burning 11 seconds before the node?