Jump to content

teelaurila

Members
  • Posts

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

6 Neutral
  1. Are you using SAS? Because it seems one really should not under present circumstances with complex craft. Give the thing some angular momentum manually, and then manually slow it down to meet your burn marker. That's how I now somehow manage most burns - it's doable long as you're not trying to land. You will not be able to burn exactly to the right direction, but fluctuating around the right direction, with decreasing acceleration as necessary, has let me converge burns to pretty much exact. But with much hassle. When SAS is off, the wobble should be slowing down. Another trick to help a bit is to move control point as close to the com as possible, as then the attitude will not wobble as much, helping possibly greatly with the feedback loop that causes the wobble. Yes, if you insist your "lego" pieces are the rigid blocks that are set from the start. One should be able to form large rigid objects that have simple single-body dynamics by "re-meshing" snap-together parts as necessary. It is still possible to analyse impacts, and even stresses within the mesh, so as to again break it if under too much punishment. I truly hope they go that path with KSP2. That would likely necessitate "calculation breaks" when ships merge or break, but that is a cosmetic flaw compared to the difficulty we now have in working with large craft.
  2. I see. Each to his own, but seems to me like this is abusing a bug on how service bays work to create a craft of artificially too low drag. Another, more straigthforward and probably less effective, way to use clipping would be to create a massive-density craft by clipping 20t into a small bay. But since this craft would face "legit" drag of one bay, it probably wouldn't be able to impact with more than a few hundred m/s, or else it would melt Or in other words, if one doesn't use clipping, the impact velocity that can be achieved by dropping alone is an order of magnitude less? I though on-rails physics wipes the craft in atmo when pressure becomes quite high. Can this be Kerbin only? Didn't even think of testing it before... https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Atmosphere :
  3. Thank you greatly! Impressive work, and seems to show simple wins. Could you run me through what is the impactor made of? It is just a 2.5m service module with a little bit of engines to deorbit (and some weight) in it? As I understand your picture, you managed to impact at almost 3500 m/s with that thing, using only gravity to "propel" you down? I am still baffled that it neither melted nor slowed down more. Looks like I was way off using mk2 pieces for their heat resistance, somehow drag seems leagues more? There is one big question that remains, though: How much actual science that yields? Because I get like 0.1 or less science with 1000 m/s impact, assuming it is proportional to v^2, this impact would yield about 10 times more, or 1 science or so. Out of 100 or so. So only 99 such impacts to go? This seems to be due to a bugged out impact detection while the impactor is on full physics.
  4. This would be the first expectation, as time in atmosphere is proportional to 1/v, whereas drag and heating is v^2 (or higher power)
  5. Would be extremely interesting to see this! I have my doubts, given that at >1000 m/s at low Eve atmo my impact rocket isn't just facing the heat, it's actually aero forces tearing it apart. But might be due to the control surfaces, so who knows, this might be doable with a heat-shielded blop of a craft- or an asteroid.
  6. The new alarm clock looks like it was done by what Microsoft does when they turn good 3rd party tools into their own features. The interface is worse (eg why no automatic naming with vessel name like the mod, why no convenient manual "X minutes before event", why loose the helpful colors), but now you cannot get rid of it. Also, using Galaxies Unbound, I seem to get wrong transfer windows, whereas the mod works ok, but I'm not 100% sure if the new feature is actually the better. I just know they're different and I've done fine with the mod.
  7. Ouch, I feel you. I've managed to save a couple of my modular craft using struts left on them due to how they were attached for Kerbin ascent. A single "pin" left over, can actually be attached again to a working pair by an engineer. For the crafts that happen to have an engineer aboard, though mining parts tends to increase the odds.
  8. Do try that 'roid. Klaws seems to work a bit better than ports. And turning slowly probably shouldn't be a huge problem. Beside, you can always stop rotation with a time warp.
  9. One issue is that it seems you will almost always get nothing when impacting with full physics. I.e. when the impactor is the active vessel. Do it on-rails, and you will get x1000 more. Maybe this is avoided often for very large speeds, but I've ran into this constantly. At least makes doing this at Eve "interesting". Probably the hardest straightforward science (or career contract) to do in the stock game imo. https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/203634-gather-grand-slam-seismometer-data-from-eve/&tab=comments#comment-4000251 But for mun/minmus, make sure you are not watching the impact (too close). It's usually sufficient to switch to the Experiment Control Unit on the ground, since full physics is only a few hundrer meter range.
  10. This is a huge issue for me. Basically every station I built has become a huge pain to dock to because of all the wobblyness. And every larger mission ship a pain to control. Using engineers to manually EVA construct struts after every dock is not just meh and a pain in itself, but since I can have only so many engineers in career it's really a non-option. Perhaps making everything Rigid Connect from the start could help, but I doubt it would too much, since it's the docking port connections that are made of blubber (like, how hard is it shove a titanium bar through once docked to make it as rigid as you have mass for). If anyone knows of a mod or some other way to make things of metal instead of blubber again, would appreciate greatly.
  11. I did make a low-drag craft (see the links to reddit), and it didn't work. This one appears so easy when you just think about it, but let's see you do it
  12. Dropping anything will almost certainly not get anywhere. It will either burn up and explode, or slow down to ~200 m/s. If it is something that does not slow down to ~200 m/s at sea level, it will come in way too hot and just explode around 30 km or so (>3500 K easily). Theoretically one could use engines to slow it down to survive re-entry, while it is still dense enough to hit the ground at ~1000 m/s? Probably easier to use the engines to boost up at the very end, though. I tried the asteroid route, though only once. It blew up at ~40km height when dropped from ~Gilly orbit to ground. Now one presumably could find the optimal "stone throw" that still survives (pretty sure from low orbit it survives since rocks tend to be like huge heat shields). Fairly conviced it would amount to practically zero science because KSP rocks are not that dense. But would be interesting to see just how big a rock yields what.
  13. This one is actually a stock contract that seems nigh impossible. Just gather Grand Slam data from Eve. Suggested this is Reddit too: https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/oe2ya7/challenge_gather_grand_slam_seismometer_data_from/ The thing is, impact doesn't seem to calculate right with full physics, giving negligible science. While you can go around this on non-atmo worlds by just letting the impact happen on-rails, obviously that won't work on Eve. On top of this, there's the "legit" challenge of actually hitting Eve with any reasonable speed and not melting in atmo before impact.
  14. It would seem I lost asteroids from Kerbol system with this? I have 2 IR scanners, one above and one below Kerbin. I have ~45 objects found, all of which are around the other stars? Also have a find comets contract (around Kerbol), and not looking likely to find any? Thanks for what seems like amazing work. Wanted to earn my way to the stars, so starting up with Far Future.
  15. Ok, thanks! Managed to find some under ksp parts, and it works.
×
×
  • Create New...