Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

121 Excellent

About Aelipse

  • Rank
    Purple Pony in Space

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Heya, I've playing with submarines lately (using the fantastic Otter mod by RoverDude), and I found that if I approach the submarine with another vessel and get into the loading range (2.2 km), I get the "vessel is destroyed" message and the submarine is no more. I tested this while having the submarine both at the bottom of the sea and on the surface, and the result is always the same. Is there something I might be doing wrong, or some clever way to prevent this? I am playing on 1.7.3. Thanks!
  2. Thank you for the quick reply! It's weird because some of the parts on my vessel should withstand temperatures over 3000 K, and they too exploded after a rather short while. I am using an older version of the game (1.7.3) and the respective version of your mod, and I am not sure if there have been any changes in this particular regard... or perhaps the additional heating is caused by light from Grannus. Either way, I am unable to find a way around it. Shame. I was so attracted by the notion of visiting the burning shores.
  3. Thank you for this wonderful mod. I have had it installed for a while, but only now have I progressed my career enough to start dipping my toes into it, and I am loving it. I have a question regarding Taranis, the warmest planet in the game. I have performed some test landings near the lava sea using cheats to see if my ship could withstand the extreme heat, and it seems like there is a script that periodically increases the temperature of the parts on the active vessel. I am still not sure as this is not exactly easy to test, but the heating seems to be directly dependent on the altitude
  4. This is my personal opinion based on several hours I spent testing FAR and I am open to objections. I think FAR is far from an "absolutely accurate" aerodynamic model. It does some things better than the stock game, but in other aspects it is actually worse. And here is what i mean by this. 1) Cambering. FAR takes zero account for cambering (the shape of the cross section of the wing), which means that unless you have a positive angle of attack or a positive incidence, your wings produce zero lift. This is unrealistic and the stock game does this actually better, producing lift even
  5. For SSTOs perhaps. Otherwise you just drop the extra weight of the engines and their respective tanks. Boosters never make any craft less efficient since you just leave them behind. It's true I didn't specifically mention aerodynamic heating. Isn't aerodynamic heating part of the aerodynamics? I imagine the heat transfer must be lower for crafts with smaller cross-section area.
  6. That really depends on the range of mass / thrust / engine efficiency and drag coefficient within which you were performing the tests. I haven't tested this myself and I'll be happy to take your word for it. However, if aerodynamic drag was not significant, everybody would go straight for insane TWR and tilt their rockets directly to the east right after lift off, which is not something I have ever seen from any experienced players. Besides, I have recently launched a large rover attached to a sky crane, which means I wasn't able to put it inside a fairing, and I can tell you, even though
  7. Good question. In an environment devoid of atmosphere, the highest possible TWR would be the best for the reasons mentioned in the original post. Once you are launching from an atmospheric body, the main factor is aerodynamics. If you're launching a large rover and you didn't bother to put it in an aerodynamic fairing, you want to go as slow as possible through the atmosphere and a TWR of 1.2 - 1.4 will be optimal. If on the other hand you are obsessed with aerodynamic shapes like me, to the point of putting solar panels and antennas into cargo bays, you might wanna aim for a TWR of 2 and
  8. This can be actually done in the Cartesian coordinates. The function for the upper half of the ellipse (we can only take one half since it's symmetrical) is: y = b * sqrt( 1 - x2/a2 ). Integrating it over dx requires a clever trick of substituting x for for a new variable z with this condition: x = a * cos(z). You get this formula for the surface area under the ellipse curve: S = a * b * integral( sin(z)2 * dz ) This can be tackled easily with the knowledge of the trigonometric equality cos(2z) = cos(z)2 - sin(z)2, which gives you sin(z)2 = ( 1 - cos(2z) ) / 2 Your integra
  9. The mathematical solutions satisfying the given time requirement does actually involve orbits that barely dip above and below a chosen mean altitude.
  10. Can anybody explain to me what is so appealing about having KSP on a smart phone? I play it on a laptop with a 17 inch screen and all the GUIs from both stock game and mods like Engineer Redux or Scansat cram my screen so much that I had to increase my resolution to fit it all in and now I have to actually wear glasses while playing the game just to be able to read it. Why would anyone want to fit the game on a tiny screen of a phone? How do you expect to see anything let alone control it?
  11. Hello @Hoonter and welcome. It pleases me to see that new people are still delving into the world of KSP. A little tip / trick from me, which has worked for me marvelously in all stages of the game, is to put some radial decouplers under the wings or the hull, set the decouplers to "Enable Crossfeed" and onto them attach a few fuel tanks. Of course, make sure the plane can carry the extra weight (they usually can, KSP engines are powerful enough), and also be careful to place the tanks in such a way that they do not mess up your balance. It is generally advisable to place them where your
  12. This is an interesting mathematical problem. Not impossible, I reckon, but the difference between your periapsis and the mean altitude would have to be larger than the difference between the mean altitude and your apoapsis, since objects always travel faster the lower in the gravitational well they get. In mathematical terms: |M - P| > |A - M| where M is the "dividing" altitude (60 km in your example), A and P are Apoapsis and Periapsis respectively. Not sure how serious you are about the answer, but I could imagine the simplest way to calculate this using the Kepler's laws.
  13. Hello there. I've noticed that the Grannus Expansion Pack (an absolutely beautiful mod, by the way) developed by OhioBob uses names of the Celtic gods to name his planets and moons. I personally find this to be a great idea, so if you struggle with naming your celestial bodies, you might want to search the wiki for some polytheistic pantheons. To give you some idea: Sumerian gods (Shamash, Inanna, Enlil, Enki,...) Egyptian gods (Ra, Osiris, Horus,...) Slavic gods (Perun, Mokosh, Svarog,...) Nordic gods (Odin, Thor, Freyja,...) And many many more. There's a lot to chose
  14. I suppose this is as much a plead to the modders as it is a question whether there is such a mod already. It would immensely improve the quality of life to be able to filter the offered contracts by a celestial body. For example I am planning a big mission to Eve and thus I am potentially interested in all the contracts that have anything to do with Eve. It might not be of a particular issue in a stock game where the number of offered contracts and the number of planets and moons are limited, but I play quite a heavily modded game and going through 30 contracts to see if there is a
  15. Issue resolved. For anyone who might be as dumb as I am - there was another config file which further adjusted the properties of the part in question and it interfered with the main config file.
  • Create New...