Jump to content

Wobbly Av8r

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

66 Excellent

About Wobbly Av8r

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I could be wrong, but I don't think it was a bug... A maneuver node is essentially a "plan" to achieve a certain trajectory. As such, once the node is established, what the Navball maneuver prograde marker indicates is how to continue to achieve that path - both in direction and required dV, not necessarily what was contemplated when placing the node (i.e. x amount of thrust in prograde direction, and so on). Thus, with a low-TWR vessel, in order to accomplish what was planned with the maneuver node, let's say a burn that takes 10 minutes at low thrust (optimally accomplished by star
  2. Indeed! Early in the game I hired some crewmembers, but discovered that as you rescue them from LKO, the Mun and Minmus you add crewmembers to your roster... for FREE! AND you probably get a few Kerbucks in the process! Doing "endless" rescue missions can give you a fairly sizeable roster in no time... while they don't show up as money, they are, in fact, money in the bank!
  3. Because the complexity of the options for the noob can be overwhelming, I think a lot of folks get into the idea that pursuing whatever it takes to complete contracts and science, they don't take a little extra time to "smell the roses" (From the philosophy/saying "As you go down the path of life, it is important to take time to smell the roses") In this case, experimentation as you suggest is really important to developing a real sense of the reality of intergalactic travel! Kudos on the recommendation! However... Yes, recovery of equipment takes extra playing time, but if prope
  4. @Limonadd - In my experience, the reason you had the disparity in location of Center of Mass has to do with symmetry and how you use it during construction. Typically, when one adds a single piece to a single node, we don't pay attention to the symmetry setting - we may believe we're adding a single part at a single node, but OCCASIONALLY (haven't determined exactly why or when) IF the symmetry is set to more than one (a single dot), more than one part can be added at a single node. While there may be a subroutine that goes through your construction before launch and eliminates the duplic
  5. @Le Lynx were you able to get the information you needed? The KAL-1000 is rather similar to the whole of KSP itself: has a lot of different capabilities but many of them not so obvious - because of this, you may need to ask more specific questions about what you're having problems with, but I believe you have a large audience here willing to lend their knowledge.
  6. Anecdotal evidence (experimental with KSP) would indicate that yes, more blades generates both more thrust (requiring more power) and more lift. If you simply right-click on a single blade you get the same readouts at the same deploy angle / angle of attack and RPM. but of course, it's only measuring that one blade. Multiply it by the number of blades and you get the overall result, which is single blade x number of blades. I'm guessing turbulence is not an emulated factor for the rotating installations based on my observations. When I did my test above, regardless of whether I checked on
  7. I'm glad I could help, but must give credit to those who passed the knowledge to me long ago! This is one of those non-intuitive lessons that all aviators must learn - don't get on the backside of the power curve! It is humorously described thus: If you push on the flight controls, the houses get bigger, if you pull back on the controls, the houses get smaller. If you KEEP pulling back on the controls the houses get bigger even quicker! You shouldn't feel bad about having to take time to digest this information - there are still people flying actual jets around that end up stallin
  8. @OHarasums it up nicely (like so many of OHara's posts) but I'd just throw in a couple of extra thoughts as you anticipate other atmospheres... A prop is simply a rotating wing and when measuring the force of wings, they provide lift, but in the case of props it is thrust but otherwise similar. The actual equation for sake of my examples is Lift = Surface Area x CL x (1/2 x Air Density x Velocity2) CL is the Coefficient of Lift, and is determined by both the effectiveness of the cross-section of the surface (something you don't specifically control outside of blade selec
  9. So the short story suggestion is to add reaction wheels sufficient to overcome the gyroscopic wobble but the SAS mode of those reaction wheel(s) must be one which is aligned with some non-vessel-defined reference, such as Radial Out or Normal, which references the body being orbited. Venturing a guess as to why (longer story) is that, because rotating any mass creates an axis along which the torque is directed, if that axis does not align *perfectly* with coincident forces (direction of travel, for one), it will impart a "divergent" force. Aligning TWO rotating axes would create a situat
  10. The truth of the matter is that, for whatever reason, the Cd of Flea in the tutorial is around ~0.23 and in game (Sandbox), the Flea Cd is ~0.04, a difference of more than 5x. (For those unfamiliar, the amount of aerodynamic drag on an object increases exponentially with airspeed, taking into account air density, multiplied by the Coefficient of Drag (Cd) which is mathematically how the shape of the object influences the amount of drag). This is always good to remember when someone complains such-and-such isn't 'realistic'... it is what the program says it is -- not reality -- despite the
  11. Exactly - depending on how you attached things back at the VAB, the nose cone may be acting as the leading edge despite the heat shield (again, I've had similar problems of the same issue and had to experiment with what 'hid' the part getting too hot. I think you're almost at the solution!
  12. One last idea based on issues I've had: Parts that have unnaturally high drag will also incur huge heat penalties on reentry. These are not always obvious - they 'look' streamlined but internally/programmatically, they are very inefficient. One such example I encountered was a thrust plate shroud that allowed the probe core underneath it to heat up even though it was sandwiched between two large fuel tanks and not subjected to aerodynamic forces... supposedly. In your case it could be something like 'because the front of your fairing is not fully closed (terminates against a heat shi
  13. No problem - sorry I wasn't able to help. Good luck - it'll be interesting to see what you find as the final resolution... [ Edit: Maybe your 'nuclear' parts are internally generating too much heat? ]
  14. There exists the idea of heat transfer between parts - you can read about it in the KSPedia (the in-game instruction 'book'). If that is too much reading, you can prevent your type of problem by ensuring that the part that the heat shields are attached to are rated at, say, 2000K. Typically the parts that fail in the manner you've described are usually only rated at 1200K (sometimes 1400K) which allows the heat transfer between adjoining parts to far exceed that relatively low value even though the heat shield is rated much higher. [ Edit: If the part that is getting too hot must be
  15. IMHO, the reason propellers are so difficult to work with in KSP is due to the designers' attempt to mimic the main physical forces to some level of integrity, which not only is very difficult given the resources available to do so, but is frustrating because it tends to amplify one area of force over others (a similar example is vessels that ignore surface friction and slide all over planet surfaces). So first, recognize that while the implementation is trying to be 'honest' about the forces involved, it accounts for some forces and not so much others - in reality, an incomplete list of
  • Create New...