Dinlink
-
Posts
22 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Dinlink
-
-
I find them annoying too.
About the realism: on the contrary, they are not realistic at all... The wing tip contrails appears on the core of the strongest vortices (main wing) on very specific conditions (high lift manouver, high humidity)... The more familiar contrails generated by the passenger airplanes are caused by the jet engines exhaust...
So, I do agree, they're not a good addition... nor realistic nor pleasant...
-
What about to let it in the original version voice (Kerbalish language), with subtitles? ...
-
Well, among other questions, I asked if It could teach me Haskell... It answered positively... But just gave me some hyped summary of the features of the programming language and general recommendations aplicable to learning anything...
SpoilerCan you teach me Haskell?
Sure, I'd be happy to help you learn Haskell! Haskell is a functional programming language that is known for its strong static typing, expressive type system, and elegant syntax. It is a popular language for developing high-performance, concurrent, and distributed systems, as well as for writing robust, maintainable code. Here are some key features of Haskell:
Haskell is a purely functional programming language, which means that all functions are treated as mathematical functions and are expected to return the same output for a given input. This makes it easier to reason about the behavior of a program, and it helps prevent many common programming errors.
Haskell has a strong static type system, which means that the type of every expression in the program is known at compile time. This allows the compiler to catch many errors before the program is run, and it makes it easier to understand and maintain large programs.
Haskell uses lazy evaluation, which means that expressions are only evaluated when their results are needed. This allows programs to be more efficient and to use fewer resources, but it can also make it more difficult to reason about the order in which expressions are evaluated.
Haskell has a rich set of built-in data types, including integers, floating-point numbers, characters, strings, lists, tuples, and arrays. It also supports user-defined data types, such as algebraic data types, records, and type synonyms.
Haskell has a powerful pattern-matching system, which allows you to easily destructure data and bind variables to the components of a data structure. This makes it easy to write concise, readable code that processes complex data structuresTo learn Haskell, you will need to install the Haskell platform on your computer, which includes the Haskell compiler, interpreter, and standard libraries. Then, you can start learning the basics of the language by reading tutorials, watching videos, or working through exercises. You might also consider joining a Haskell user group or online community, where you can learn from other Haskell programmers and share your own experiences. Haskell can be challenging to learn at first, but it is a rewarding and powerful language that is well worth the effort.
-
On 12/9/2022 at 3:24 AM, Spacescifi said:
By uber I literally mean 1000 tesla strength permanent magnets and beyond.
Why?
I was thinking if such could be built you could configure them into a magnetic nozzle that would not need any power input for it's magnetic field.
Unless you are going to tell me that permanent magnets lose magnetism overtime... right?
There is your natural ocurring "Uber permanent magnet":
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetar
It can get between 1 and 100 billion Teslas...
So.. I think physics doesn't forbids it ... Just that it could be a little inconvenient to use as a rocket nozzle...
-
On 11/14/2022 at 5:16 PM, javiarrebolis said:
It will be great that KSP had realistic gravity.
In KSP1, if you calculate TWR in an excel document for a rocket in orbit,is not the same one that the game gives you,because the game use g as a constant of 9,81 m/s2,and the real g decrease with the distance.
KSP 1 has realistic gravity... That's the reason behind rockets following elliptical trajectories and following the Kepler equation in general.
What KSP doesn't do is to have the most complete model of N-Body dynamics which takes in account the small effects of gravitational pulls of the rest of the bodies in the kerbolar system... These effects would translate in unstable orbits and special region in space like Largrange Points...
The TWR is shown relative to the reference surface gravitational acceleration of the body in which SOI your ship is flying. This is the right way to report the TWR so you can easily calculate the acceleration of your ship "on the fly"... And have a sense of the capability of the ship to take off from surface. It wouldn't make sense to report the TWR relative to the local gravity field, given that would make more difficult to swiftly calculate the acceleration and would loss it's meaning of giving you the sense of how good is your ship on supporting its own weight on take off/landing.
-
6 hours ago, t_v said:
Just a question: Would you be able to make the same place with forwards-sweeping wings? A lot of the more interesting-looking plane designs in KSP 1 use wings at strange sweep angles. And, if you are interested in an even harder challenge, could you try to approximate @The Aziz's train in FAR? It doesn't have to be stable, it just has to be able to barely control its flight trajectory.
The forwards-sweeping wing version of supersonic drone:
1) With a Goofy big tail (It flights like a charm, no SAS):
2) More serious version (a little bit roll unstable on take off, but stable cruise flight, no SAS):
The @The Aziz's train is just a rocket in disguise that takes off from the runway , you just need a TWR greater than 1, and hide some flywheels for control. i added 8 small flywheels inside the cargo bay which gave me total control of this pseudo-supersonic-train:
Pesudo-train sonic flight:
At mach 3 in low atmosphere:
I don´t know why so much PTSD with FAR... The rest of the game is about the same difficulty as making planes that flight perfectly with FAR... or even getting Grand Piano to flight (SAS and TWR>1).
Rules of thumb to make plane with FAR: same as Stock KSP, and a big tail, far back tail or multi-tail... in my experience take-off runway problems with FAR are normally related to having not enough tail to get laterally stable (roll/yaw). Second recommendation: use only trimming, because SAS tends to oscillate too much, a stable plane flights by itself.
FAR (and aerodynamics and airplane design in general) Just needs a guided tutorial like stock KSP. When I started playing I didn't took any tutorials at first, killed Valentina, felt terrible and closed the game... and didn't tried again for months... but when i tried again i did the tutorials, and now I have more than 600h of gameplay, playing career in hard mode. I have learned a lot about Orbital mechanics and rocket design well beyond my wildest imagination. I think with FAR would be similar for everyone if it had a well made guided tutorial and documentation.
-
The Expanse: No serious Kerbal would believe a show where spaceships comes without snacks... Who goes into space without snacks?? Nonsense...
-
This is a supersonic, probe-controlled airplane drone for simple science exploration and reconnaissance that was made by me using FAR tools to flight with FAR aero physics :
I dont know if you find it uncreative or unreasonably difficult to design. It flights just fine, without any SAS, just trimming. It is gliding at relatively low speeds. It was designed to be performant for supersonic, so maybe not the best example for gliding.
The first pictures shows the FAR overlay, that gives a lot of insight on how the plane is behaving, the most important parameter for me is the Lift-to-Drag ratio L/D, which for this glide is about 7... Real jet airliners and combat airplanes normally get L/D about 20... and specialized planes can even get to the range of 30... But Kerbals being Kerbals, we can assume they don't use airfoils, but flat sheets of metal... which could justify the crappy performance of their planes xD...
The second picture shows more of the details of the plane. I think a realistic aerodynamic model does not hinders the player experience, but enriches it.
I do agree that for KSP2, the user interface should be a lot better than the presented by FAR mod... and approachable tutorials and documentation should be included to introduce the player to the basics of aerodynamics and airplane design, like it probably will be with rocket design and orbital mechanics, which are concept about the same complexity or even of greater complexity than the aerodynamics knowledge needed to design airplanes in KSP with "realistic" aerodynamics physics engines like FAR.
-
59 minutes ago, Master39 said:
ED, like NMS and a bunch of other sci-fi space games follow their own version of what realism is for KSP, which is a specific style of sci-fi.
NMS prioritizes looking like a vintage sci-fi music album cover over everything, realism and gameplay included. ED prioritizes keeping the old Elite from the 80s as canon as possible over any kind of consideration for gameplay or style in this decade (that's why almost every ship looks like a door wedge or an arrow head).
You can find a similar trap in KSP when realism is considered or the educational purpose of the game is considered.
I don't use FAR, but I want a more realistic approach.
FAR is a bad target for a game because is pure realism without any consideration for gameplay. KSP2 should aim for a better model than what is stock now, but still something way more forgiving than FAR while also keeping in mind that they're erasing a decade of intuition in building planes in KSP while changing model and that requires a ton of in-game tutorials and explanation to get people up to speed as fast as possible on the differences.
I don't use FAR because it goes against everything I learned on how plane work in KSP and I don't want to start digging in 5+ years old forum discussions or YT videos to learn how to make planes in it. It's not worth my time.
I must disagree, I have found FAR mod more fun and useful than stock aerodynamics... FAR is not unforgiving, the opposite, it helps you to design planes that fly by themselves, it helps you to know your plane before you even launch it... It's true that the User Interface is not perfect, and that's what I would expect from KSP2, to improve the user interface expérience while keeping a realistic aerodynamics model.
You don't need a ton of tutorials to build a good plane, in fact with FAR is just looking one graph, the lift graph and one number, the speed for sustained flight. FAR even helps you to position and size the tail of your plane to have an improved and smooth stable expérience (with the stability graphs)... Which in FAR user interface is not that obvious, but with a nice interface building planes would be as easy or easier than building rockets....
What's sets KSP apart from all the other games is its capability of making realistic simulations approachable... If we remove the realism of KSP we end up with another run of the mill "space game"...
-
Stock aerodynamics is so broken, that you can stabilize a rocket only by adding boosters, because, even if the center of lift indicates that your rocket is unstable, the fake drag of the boosters automatically stabilize any rocket...
If it's about intuition, I think this and other derivative behaviours get very not-intuitive,. Like you drop the boosters and suddenly the whole ship is unstable... Or if you add any part to the command pod, it's automatically unstable on re-entry... And so on...
In my opinion, simplified Lift/drag per part makes the game not intuitive and frustrating when trying to play with the aerodynamics (No SAS flywheel control).
-
14 hours ago, The Aziz said:
[snip]
Jokes aside, they said there's no preorder in typical sense. As in, you're buying early access title so technically that's preorder of the full game.
The meaning of a pre-order of the Early Access would be to show our support to the development, and show our commitment to support the beauty and masterpiece KSP series are, even if unfinished.
I see it more of a symbol... The devs have been honest, is not about flashy trailers and smoke... Is about to continue supporting the development of KSP and beyond!
-
I don't care what ppl are saying, I'm hyped! Even with all pre-alpha footage!, Now, when the pre-order of the early-access?
-
I like docking... But I have never used RCS...
Just point each ship to each other and make a nose-to-nose dock... It's even easier when you have SAS target tracking on both ships... Lateral docking could be done without RCS too, just correctly aligning the ships with a nice reference... For example one aligned normal/antinormal and the other prograde/retrograde.
Rendez-vous is what makes me impatient... I'm still experimenting on which would be the shortest fastest way to get a rendez-vous (in less than a full orbit), that does not require infinite DV xD...
-
I have done a detailed walkthrough of an example calculation on this thread:
Hole you find it useful!
-
I don't know if the hardest... But the most stressful docking I have ever performed was an emergency docking to save a Kerbal that went out of fuel trying to reach low orbit from the surface of the Mun...
The Kerbal was on a small exploration wheeled rocket... And I miss calculated the DV needed to reach low orbit and got stuck on a suborbital trajectory without fuel with an AP of 14km...
Luckily I had an automated (probe-controlled) fuel delivery rocket in a close orbit... I had to rush for an intercept trajectory 40km or more off target, get into a rendez-vous in suborbital trajectory with both rockets falling towards the surface of the Mun...
I made a quick nose to nose docking (No RCS) and transfered all the fuel to the Kerbal ship ... Then I completed the burn to get into the low orbit with the Kerbal ship at about 8km altitude... Letting the empty automated refueling rocket to crash into the surface of the Mun few moments later... Saving the Kerbal in the process
-
If by "Obeth" you mean the amount of DV you need to change your peri or apoapsis, I usually use the instantaneus orbital speed equation [Orbital Speed]
Given your ship be positioned at the periapsis or apoapsis (r=PE+R or AP+R), and you can calculate your actual semi-major axis (a = (PE+AP+2R)/2) , then you can obtain how much speed would you have to add or remove from your PE or AP to change the other one...
For example, you are at periapsis of 70km on Kerbin Orbit with AP of 100km ... And you want to circularize and bring your AP down to 70km:
Kerbin radius R = 600km
Kerbin Standard gravitational parameter \mu = 3.5316000×1012 m3/s2
Your actual semi-major axis a = (70+100+1200)km/2 = 685km
Then your actual speed at PE in your actual orbit is:
Vi~ sqrt(3.53e12*(2/670e3 - 1/685e3)) = 2320m/s
Given that your PE will not change if you change your speed fast enough at PE, only AP will change, then the speed that you should have at PE for a circular orbit can be calculated given the semi major axis a= (70+70+1200)km/2 =670km
Vf~sqrt(3.53e12*(2/670e3 - 1/670e3)) = sqrt(3.53e12/670e3) = 2295m/s
Which means that you would need to reduce your speed from 2320m/s to 2295m/s burning retrograde at PE, consuming 25 m/s of DV
-
Could you "orbit" Minecraft? Assuming that the max size of the map is a differential slice of the surface of a gigantic spherical body... So we can justify it being flat... What would be it's radius? It's density? ...
-
On 6/16/2022 at 11:47 AM, Nazalassa said:
This game has a simple rule:
Post a word or an expression related to the previous post's one.
And have fun!Is true that in the Ostrogoth article "Astronomy" is not mentioned, I thought it would because many ancient tribes practiced it...
What I understood by the rule above was to have a continuous thread of linked words from article to article to simulate when you start reading a wiki article and click on a link in a word on that article and repeat the process until you find yourself on an unrelated article...
I guess ppl understand this rule different than me.
-
4 minutes ago, ColdJ said:
It was a reference to "Top Gear"
They use to say for their time trials that "They had put a Star in a reasonably priced car"
I don't know which Star article are you using, but clearly is not the one in the line "Ostrogoth" >> "Astronomy" >> "Stars"
I can't find your quote on the Star article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star
-
I will take it from the Star wiki article that follows the Astronomy one, given that "Reasonably Priced Cars" is not in the Star article.
From Star article --> Jeans instability
-
I would like to point out some details on the origin of subsonic lift phenomena:
- When explaining lift everyone centers around describing how airfoils are able to deflect the flow field and hence, cause a pressure difference... But very little try to explain why... Why an obstacle on the flow field is capable of deflecting it at subsonic speeds...
- Turbulence... airfoils works in turbulent régime Indeed, turbulence is not the same as boundary layer detachment, which is the culprit of lift loss. Turbulence is a flow regime where inertial forces are higher than viscous ones (High Reynolds number) and hence the flow becomes unstable and create a cascade of swirls, big to small, to the smallest at molecular level where energy is dissipated (Kolmogorov scale)... This disordered regime appears almost from the leading edge (front tip) of the airfoils on normal conditions... Only at very low speed the laminar-turbulent transition can be delayed... Or even you can have a full laminar flow regime in very small flying animals or in very viscous media...
- The magic is all due to the viscous boundary layer, the fundamental phenomenon ignored by most science educators. If your remove viscosity completely, lift becomes impossible, no shape would be able to create any lift at any subsonic speed... It's called potential flow, and has exact mathematical solution. When you add a little bit of viscosity, even a very small amount, viscous effets become very important very close to the walls, this viscous effects create "detachments" of the flow, that means, the flow instead of following the walls of the profile and go around the edges as they would in potential flow, they detach. When the flow is below the airfoil (at the intrados) and tries to go around the trailing edge (rear tip) as it would in potential flow, it detaches, causing a depressions that guides the flow on the upper side of the airfoil to the trailing edge, causing the deflection and hence the lift... No viscosity, no lift... But it can be detrimental too, if the angle of attack is too high, the flow can detach trying to go around the leading edge, creating a big recirculation zone on the upper side (extrados), and causing the upper side of the flow to ignore the curvature of the airfoil and pass straight, destroying the deflection and hence the lift. This can also be observed on laminar regime and is called "laminar recirculation Bubble".
I hope these explanations helps to clarify some confusions that can arise from the information found on the internet about the origin of lift.
PS. I would like to add a Direct Numerical simulation of an airfoil in a slow flying glider, showing the laminar - turbulent transition and the corresponding turbulent flow on the extrados, intrados and wake. The trailing edge detachment zone is shown too (incipient separation). Hope this serve as complement to the explanations above.
-
I would second everyone who said aerodynamics!... It would be nice to see something like Ferram Aerospace mod but with a better User Interface integration :).
I would add that a DLC with N-Body dynamics with a better User Interface than Principa mod would be really nice too!.
-
3168 -- average rate ~8.36posts/day -- time left ~ 32 years
Given the average rate of posting in this thread to this very moment... assuming it will not get any better, it will reach the 100,000 post in ~32 years xD.
Calculations:
~ 379 days have passed from Friday, 23 July 2021 to this day.
The average post rate is 3,167posts/379days ~ 8.36posts/days
The time left = (100,000 - 3,167)posts/(8.36posts/day) ~ 32 years
-
I think it would be nice to add a Hardcore option or DLC that enables proper n-body dynamics and proper aerodynamics
(With better interface and UI integration than Principa and Ferram Aerospace mods)
Free KSP2 Giveaway!
in Announcements
Posted
I can't wait to share the joy of building and exploration with my friends with the upcoming feature of Multiplayer along with colonies and interstellar travel!!!