Jump to content

IncompetentSpacer

Members
  • Posts

    90
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by IncompetentSpacer

  1. You have limited yourself to Kerbal Space Center as launching facility or do you have some flexibility there? Woomerang Launch Site is much closer to the North pole. Also if you unlock aviation (45 science, level 3 node? Or 2? dont remember). It is much easier to explore the domes around Kerbin (and cheaper, especially if you manage to return to Kerbal Space Center or one of the other facilities).
  2. I have heard of Yak-38 (from VTOL documentary many,many years ago) but it was the first idea that was presented to me when I watched Scott Manley's video on building VTOL aircraft. However I really wanted a harrier type of solution so I went my own way with robotic parts but unfortunately it is not a good solution in KSP (you can make VTOL/SSTO with rotatable engines but if in an atmosphere the drawbacks seem to be many compared to separate engines solution - not so much in vacuum though) . Rocket engines, installed the way they are now in the design, were suggested to me when I asked for tips and tricks in a separate thread here on the forum .
  3. After earlier attempts at VTOL/SSTO combo were getting nowhere (rotatable servos from Breaking Grounds DLC simply are too weak to hold several engines together and M25 servos which manage to do that are too heavy) I shaved over 10 tons of weight of reducing number of engines to 2 for horizontal travel and installing two airspike engines in a cargobay. This worked of course but it is a lazy solution which guzzles fuel. Sorry for bad pictures during landing, the screenshot was an afterthought. Since I released the brakes by accident when taking picture, the attempt below were failure because the aircraft rolled off the roof of the VAB when I went for the coffee. After 40532 more attempts I finally managed to land on the helipad on the roof of the VAB AND stay there!
  4. Well I tested number 1 option and changed M-12 servo to larger and heavier m-25 servo. It did work, the speed of 1400+ ms was reached with only slight flexing but no breaking. However by this point the mass has increased to a point where VTOL is almost impossible due to extra weight. I actually think that contrary to real life rotating engines seem more costly and less efficient than having separate engines for hoovering (solution which is simplest but the one I wanted to avoid because it entails having extra weight which is dead weight outside VTOL operation) for my VTOL design. In pure SSTO mode the design in first post can be reduced to 42 tons - with M25 servo, extra engines to keep it hoovering, it is reaching 57,25 tons (in SSTO pure mode, the design needs only three rapiers I discovered). So for option 3, except me going for airspikes instead of Vector (4 tons vs 2X airspikes for 2 tons and 1,4 TWR for Kerbin at sea level which also give me better air dynamics since they can be fully hidden inside MK2 cargo hold), I can get away with design weighting 44 tons, although I loose lot on fuel efficiency by using rocket engines to hoover in atmosphere....
  5. Being bit empty for ideas for what to do in KSP but still keen on space related games , I tested two games that are both related to space programs (although not in a way KSP is) - the focus is the management of such programs - but both of them have chosen very different approach . This is my take on those two games so that other forum users may get idea on what to play next OR what to avoid. TLDR version: Both games are good in their own way imho but do your research to see whether this is something for you. These games are space program management games with Mars Horizon being more user friendly and easier to get into with a more lightweight approach to the matter, while Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager is more management simulation oriented and bit harder to get in with far less hand holding. Mars Horizon Reading reviews on this game, it is often compared to KSP to explain what type of the game this is - which I found to be a bit lazy writing since it is like comparing horses to radish on account that they are both carbon based life forms... The game itself is a space program management game, where you pick your space agency (NASA, ESA, Soviet, Chinese, etc...) starting in 1957 and have as the ultimate goal to achieve crewed landing at Mars. To achieve that you must accomplish so-called milestones (first satellite, EVA, landing on moon, etc...) which will be unlocked mostly through mission research. You are competing with AI led space agencies for being first to achieve these milestones and rewards they give - being second, third, etc reduces the reward you get for doing this. On more practical terms this means that you are managing the space program directly - you are in charge of base building, research of rockets, missions and buildings, very simplified rocket design and finally also launch dates. All of these activities are financed through research points (unlocked through rewards for missions and milestones) and monthly money income which is increased through public support for your program (mainly) which again is increased through successfully completing missions and achieving milestones . Simply put - the better you are at your job, the easier it gets. Since if you are reading this, this being KSP forum and all, you will be perhaps interested in how the rocket design and piloting of such designs is implemented. Nothing at all as in KSP.... You are basically setting up pre-designed two parts rocket, consisting of a booster and upper stage which you have unlocked through research. The rockets you create cannot be used outside of the missions AND the piloting is being done through puzzle mini games (which can be skipped, but I did not because of the extra resources you get if you are very successful). What I think: The game is extremely easy to get in, with a very good UI and can be surprisingly challenging on higher difficulties - in a good way. Competition with rival agencies really spiced up this game - I launched in the middle of storm, suffered electric errors which increased difficulty in the subsequent puzzle game, all in order to beat NASA's mission to the moon. Easy is really Easy in this game, so I recommend to play in higher difficulties. But if you are playing chiefly KSP because you are enjoying building your own designs and are looking to scratch this scratch - this game is not for you. Gameplay (I am not affiliated with this guy, he was the first result in youtube) Buzz Aldrin's Space Program Manager If you know what Slitherin stands for or BARIS is a game you played in 90s, you don't need to read further. And probably you know already about BASPM. For the rest of you this game is in same venue as Mars Horizon except being limited to the race to the moon as end objective, where this is just intermediary goal for Mars Horizon . Both games share many concepts but differ in implementation. Just as in Mars Horizon you are in charge of base building (technically here you are just upgrading buildings), research (much more complicated than in Mars Horizon) and deciding on which program to focus on. The biggest difference is the complexity of manpower management - recruitment and training of astronauts (each having several skillets) , researchers (which have 5 areas of expertise) and mission controllers (again - several area of expertise). People don't get productive at their job the day you hire them and they are not 100% experts in their field. This means that all you employees will sooner or later need additional training/education to become better at their job and all of this takes time. If you want to be landing on moon in 1969, you better lay groundwork for it in 1954. And finances are much tighter here in the beginning compared to the Mars Horizon. BASPM is a much more complex game where you really need to plan years ahead. In this game I first checked out the moon landing mission and then worked my way back to the first Sputnik mission (played as soviet). Notepad (electronic or paper) is a recommended secondary tool. My experience with project planning IRL helped here - it made game definitely easier. Research is organized around programs and rockets and unlike Mars Horizon, the launch dates are organized abstractly. However you have directly hand in picking the team/crew that is organizing and expediting the launch of the rocket/misision. And unlike Mars Horizon there is no a puzzle game here but rather you are observing entire mission from sort of a mission control overview where you can see how the mission progresses through rendering of trajectory and videos/animations showing events. If things go bad (and often they did for me) you can call in extra teams to help or use your own crew to try to solve them. Both Mars Horizon and BASPM have really interesting ingame encyclopedia which are good reads. What I think: User hostile GUI, not greatest graphics out ther, hard to understood details of the game and generally very punishing game if you commit some early mistakes in your career may be discouraging for many. I restarted 4 times so I could correct early mistakes (I run also three saves with end of season time stamp, beginning of new season, current save). That said, the sense of accomplishment here is much greater than in Mars Horizon (and I am no fan of puzzles). If you are fan of Slitherine as publisher, you know what you are in for - both the bad and good. If you have no idea what I just wrote, do yourself a favor and watch a gameplay video before buying this game. Me? - I will now do a replay as director of NASA. Gameplay (again, not affiliated to the guy).
  6. Did as you suggested and.... Edit - I removed the engines and saw that unbalanced landing gear was making the plane jump up and down. Fixed that and it solve the problem when aircraft was landed. In air - no good.
  7. Honestly, I never thought about it, since I consider problem with high speed level flight to be the biggest issue but in my case it rotated the aircraft to the north. Autostruts dont cut it... I have created separate thread about the problem so we may move discussion at to not pollute this thread with my problems
  8. I get the message that it cannot lock the servers while they are moving . Tried to lock them several ways but no good. Not really. I have tested the same setup dozens of times on Kerbin and two times on Laythe. Of course my modus operandus is for this vehicle to go to LKO or in case of Laythe to do drop from parking orbit into the atmosphere. I am not trying to do atmospheric breaking with this thing or tested it on EVE so maybe that is why i never straggled with heat issues.
  9. Not very complicated - in theory. Below I am hoovering - since CoL, thrust and CoM are perfectly aligned (fuel consumption moves the center of mass only few mm) it can hoover with no input from me, although it drifts bit backwards during the launch. Lets say I want to drift forward i will pitch the aircraft bit forward but never more than 5 degrees. Same princaple backward or to side movement. But what happens is that I have horizontal drift induced by doing this and when I below tried to compensate for it I end up loosing 100 meter of height as shown example below, where I ended up bit to the right of the runway. Also the engines have delay before reaching a certain output (up or down) which means that you have to plan things ahead if it involves reducing or increasing height). This is not an easy aircraft to fly in VTOL mode in reality since it has zero margin for error. This aircraft has a inline docking port pointing below (although I haven aligned it with thrust vector - it was left for future iterations of this design) so by changing to it as a point of control you end up with same POV (and NAVBALL controls) as you are used to when flying rockets. Technologically it seems to be a dead end since servos seem to be wobbly, both increasing the problem of control and limiting this design to 250 ms speed.
  10. Do anyone have tips and trick for building a VTOL that is also SSTO capable for at least LKO? I have tried below an idea which relays on Rotation Servo M-12 and KAL-1000 (Breaking Ground DLC) to rotate engines. With 6 rapiers (two more than the design below needs to reach space in a normal setup) I can (carefully!!!) lift off vertically. The problem I have is that once I turn engines horizontally and start flying once I reach 200 ms (and even before that) the engines start flailing around and disintegrate the aircraft in ensuing vibrations. I have experimented with rigid attachment and autostruct settings but did not solve the problems just change how they manifest themselves. The culprit is the servo component that seems to flex with increase in speed (see the bottom picture for an example). Any ideas or alternative solutions on how to design an VTOL? Or solve the rigidity issues with servo components? Image below shows engines pointing inwards more and more as speed increases.
  11. Since I stranded two kerbals due to loosing frontal landing wheel on their aircraft when landing on a island on Laythe, something I have written about earlier (kraken attack in WARP forces reconfiguration of the rocket on the fly), I have decided to build VTOL "SSTO" combo which I will send for rescue. Not a true SSTO because it will hitch a ride to Jool system with ordinary rocket but will land and reach orbit in Also inspired by @Corona688 and his post above me, I was thinking about using rotator and KAL-1000 to change configuration of the engines on the fly. I have managed VTOL... I have managed SSTO in Kerbal orbit... But not the two together... Regardless, it was interesting and learning experience - KAL-1000 was bit disappointing though but did what I needed to do.
  12. This - Bon Voyage Mod opened up entire gaming loop for me with rovers in KSP. Before that I couldnt be bothered with rovers except as tool to give kerbals means to explore beyond the landing site and for those contracts which demand report from surface (i play career).
  13. Comet being visible in the sky of Kerbin (and still kick myself for not taking a screenshot). I came back to playing KSP after looong break and comets where not a thing back when I stopped. For moment I was thought it was debris from my previous experiment still falling down but realised it "stayed" in same place than burning debris would have done.
  14. Daily Kerbal - I thought I pitch in among the regulars here. This is one hour planned gaming that turned into two days mission. What I wanted to do: - revisit Jool system (I have been everywhere , including Dres but I havent revisited Jool since early days). - Also wanted to take an airplane on Laythe for spin. - I did simplest possible design with enough MS to get me theres, old airplane design strapped to the side and secondary vehicle for coms and as counterbalance strapped to the other side. I did not want to spend two days designing special custom Matt Lowne/Scott Manley/Shadow-wahtever-his-youtube-nick-is super duper design. What I ended up doing (I do have dangit mod but it did not contribute to the chaos at all): Kraken attacked midway to the Jool and moved my Rover from the top of the rocket into one of the midsections. It exploded and the sound ( I was in kitchen getting coffee, getting sound via headphones) made spill the coffee in surprise and shortened my life by couple of years. Since midsection (science + com equipment) was behaving strangely I undocked the bugged part from the main section and thought about having command+ISRU section docking to the mainsection. Then the docking port stopped working.... So I had to dock command section to the secondary vehicle and transfer 30 tons of fuel from it, shot down two engines to try to minimize effects on unbalanced weight (I have now 51 tons on port vs 43 tons on starboard side of the rocket). https://imgur.com/a/tqHnQQthttps://imgur.com/a/tqHnQQt Maybe all of this totally destroyed my initial transfer window and Inow have spent too much fuel to get in a stable orbit around Jool (I suspect it is a bug too - I was supposed to intercept with Tylo for some gravity breaking but ended up way off) So right now I am in orbit around Bop moon with 400 ms to spare for command section to land and refuel and maybe save the mission. Did I say that I have installed Dang-It mod because I felt my KSP experience is getting stale? - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Update - after several trips down to Bop, I refueled communication vehicle and just enough fuel for Main Engine section to bring us 70 K above Laythe. Time to finally do what I wanted to do - test my airplane in atmosphere of Laythe (I have ditched the ISRU section and will travel back to Kerbin with command pod docked to communication vehicle - 5600 DV should be enough for return trip) : Unfortunately - I discovered just when I was landing that previously mentioned explosion have also removed my front landing gear!??? (I double checked in VAB - it is there. But if you see on pictures above it is missing, so it is not engineering problem!) So lost one engine, one airbrake and frontal nose cone... Parachutes saved me Maybe I can avoid rescue mission? Time will show.
  15. Just SRB flying right up. Dont remember the part (it was many,many years ago) but I remember being exited of reaching 7000 meters.
  16. Well, this time there was not many reloads or stuff that triggered it. I saved and then retested reloading and could not load the latest save. https://imgur.com/RrAN1Xo
  17. Heh, I never tried that specifically before now. But I just started a game, made new quicksave and then launched an airplane and took it up to 1000 meters above sea level and tryed to reload. It loaded the wrong save (not the one I made in space center just after I started the game) but it loaded alright. Could be, because I was experimenting in all circumstances (launching several versions of same rocket or trying to get perfect atmospheric breaking) which involves lot of loading and reloading. Now the save file...I have not idea if it large or small, but persistance SFS file size is 3.8 MB. Judging by stuff happening in my game (55 objects including flags and asteroids are being tracked), I don't think it should be counted as "large".
  18. I have figured that one out couple of years ago, so that is not the problem. In situation I describe you can hold the F9 for minutes and nothing will happen.
  19. Last few weeks I experience more and more often that quickload doesn't work sometimes. I wanted to test atmospheric breaking today in Kerbal and just as I realized that I have started burn too early - Quickload and test something else? - no cant do. Try to load the game through load menu selection. Nope.. Force exit the program and load again? - no problem, I load at the place in game where I saved before being barred from reloading. This happen so often lately that I am really getting annoyed and thinking about shelving the KSP for good and wait for KSP 2 (provided they dont inherit the tech debt through reuse of code). I have tried to see if anyone else have experienced this but google search shows nothing except few comments that they have changed how quickload works and that under some circumstance you cant go back to earlier save (but FFFFF if I know which...) KER, Kerbal Alarm Clock and Transfer Planner are the mods I have installed but these are recent installations - the above mentioned problem is older than these. PS: I have over 400 hours in KSP so far but not all of that has been in one go, rather spread out over the years ever since the game was launched. I have even used Kerbal to spice up the physics class when I was being part time teacher. I have to say that unfortunately KSP these days seems to have more bugs than earlier in development cycle (more than I would expect).
  20. While for "some reason" nobody thought about buzzing Christopher C. Kraft Jr. Mission Control Center with a Saturn rocket raging 50 meters over ground I assure you that would be a sight to see. That said, I was speaking figuratively, I haven't really tried to do that (but now I thinking about making variant B just to see it done...) - I just turned rocket here and there to see if it would vibrate too much (follow the line on NAV ball) or flip over just because I turned too quickly or too much. I kept 4 verniers for when outside the atmosphere but wasn't really needed so I deleted those. Also winglets at the bottom are gone now.
  21. I did wrote the longer response with test results but it all went away. Basically doing as you suggested but replacing RCS with dialed down vernor gave best result with 80 MS left in fuel tanks even in crap orbit because I messed up in final burn. I think I had 79+ KN of total drag at 10 KM but I am not sure. Same weight reductions but without airstream fairings left me 20 MS of dv in fuel tanks in a standard circular orbit at 78 KM. All test did not use perfect flight path but rather stright up to 10 km and then turn to east at 45 degree climb (so I could recreate same situation every time. So the take here is - weight distribution through fuel use gives stability, airstream shell is fine but in my case only had an effect when itss effect could be offset by reduction in weight elsewhere.
  22. What did the trick was to to prioritize the flow of fuel as Streetwind suggested. I tried that suggestion first because I am very skeptical that drag is an issue at 20 000 meters and makes rocket flip over (but see how that may be an issue looking at fuel consumption and maneuverability in thicker atmosphere below 14 000 m). Now the rocket can do Split S if needed at any height - figuratively speaking, she is no nimble beast below 7000 but rather maneuverable outside atmosphere. I did test the drag with shielded docking port and it improved the drag by 30-40 KN at 10 000 meters (worth mentioning, thanks for the tip). Improving the fairing for Nerv engine had minimal effect what so ever (that is what you are seeing on the middle of rocket - default fairing is even worse). The rocket has no shaking what so ever, so I am leaving that one be. Removing antenna removed another drag factor but difference is 20 m/s gained at 10 000 meter. Total drag at 10 000 meters stands now 351 kn*. *Using shell to encase entire upper stage reduces drag to 127 KN but increases weight and fuel consumption leaving me with less fuel at 10 000 km. So drag is not everything in this game...
  23. I returned to this game after many, many years of hiatus. Last time I played was right after careers were added. So coming back to the game after this long time, it is like playing new game all over again. I have managed to land on Mun and Minmus several times and so on but some elementary stuff eludes me. I am trying to simplify my design and the R-7 version is 42 tons lighter and can achieve pretty much same as previous iterations at same cost (I am playing career mode). This is also my first design with Nerv motors in upper stage. The problem is not to get this in orbit... The problem is that due to the flight path I end up using first stage before reaching orbit and have to use upper stage for that final push. Simply put the rocket starts to flip whenever I try to angle it over 2-4 % towards the east before I reach 20000 meters. Which means that I am flying stright up too long and have too low horizontal speed before I make the sharp turn. I want to understand why this happens. See below for the design: https://imgur.com/a/aTrZbKF
×
×
  • Create New...