Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About konokono

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Thanks for the advice. Mapping the wheels control to separate keys helped. Turning off reaction wheels also helps. However, I did notice that initiating forward or reverse driving would *still* pitch the vehicle, even if all reaction wheels are turned off and using keys mapped only to the wheels. The pitching is worst when starting from a stopped position. Once the vehicle is in motion, the driving controls don't pitch the vehicle as much if at all. Raising traction control on the wheels also stops the pitching. So I'm starting to wonder if the unwanted pitching has to do with the p
  2. I have a question about Rover controls. Basically, whenever I use WASD to control the Rover, W not only drives the rover forward, but it also pitches it forward. That makes control dificult on low gravity. And if I press S, it not only reverses the wheels, but it also pitches me backwards. I've tried looking up some forum posts. One suggests using IJKL, but none of those keys do anything (I checked and they are indeed mapped to translation controls). Another post suggests switching to Docking Linear Mode. I did that too but then WASD do nothing. So I'm wondering what I'm not
  3. My advice to you: If you can't see how the math you're learning is used in practical applications, ask your professor to give some examples. He/she should be happy to oblige. After that, you hopefully won't view it as "plugging in numbers" and instead see the equations for what they mean and what the solutions represent, in the "REAL" world.
  4. Isn't it more likely we'll continue to lower the cost of propulsion based methods of reaching space, until it becomes a simple everyday task?
  5. I would change the laws of physics as they locally apply to me, and then go to the costume store.
  6. I see boarding actions as more likely than in current aerial warfare, conditional on cost/risk, but I agree it will be far in the future and we are not close to that state of technology now. Still, it is interesting to speculate about it. To me the question is not whether there might be a reason to board, but would it be cost effective to do so?
  7. Before the topic gets locked, I'd like to disagree with this slightly. I actually learned a LOT about phase angles / optimal flight paths precisely by using MechJeb. Everyone has to learn somewhere and you can either watch a youtube video or you can learn from your autopilot. Either way, when I first started KSP, MechJeb was an invaluable tool for showing me how to plot a somewhat optimal course for various maneuvers, and now I can do them myself. Also, I like how MechJeb is implemented in career mode. It starts off without any autopilot features, so you still have to do stuff yourself. As
  8. That seems to be one of the main questions. It seems to me that a couple questions need to be answered in the following order. 1. Is there any incentive to get close? It seems to me the answer is yes. Without teleportation, it would be the only way to board and capture a vessel. Unless a vessel can be completely captured by hacking... but it seems to me that this wouldn't be likely when there are actual crew members aboard the target vessel. 2. Will it be feasible to get close? (Will you be shot down? Is it the risk/cost worth the reward?) I don't know the answer to this. As has been men
  9. Back to the original topic, which I think of specifically as "orbital dogfighting"... is it really infeasible? Suppose there is a very valuable target in orbit that you want to capture but not destroy... say a construction facility or something. You would want to rendesvouz with the target, and the target will either want to avoid you or engage you. Suppose the target cannot avoid, then it has no choice but to engage. Wouldn't that give rise to the possibility of dogfighting? Perhaps as a method to execute precision strikes or to shoot down boarding shuttles that are hard to hit by the sta
  10. Boring as it sounds, I think vanilla KSP could use more parts. Especially fairings, robotics, cargo bays, etc. Then, I'd like to see some kind of incentive for establishing permanent bases in various biomes.
  11. I haven't forgotten parachutes lately, but I did forget my comm unit on my trip to low Gilly orbit. D'oh!
  12. Let "o" be the top of your navball and let "+" be your retrograde marker. Burn at the "x" Navball: o + x That is, burn in a direction such that your retrograde indicator is between the burn and the top of the navball. This will push your retrograde marker towards the top. When your retrograde marker is at the top, you have only vertical velocity
  13. The expected payoff is infinite. But if there is even an infinitessimal opportunity cost of time (for every $1 you can earn $(1+r) in the time it takes to make a flip, r>0), then the expected present value becomes finite.
  14. It is a moot point. Even assuming that "humans" are united under a single governing body (a big assumption), I do not believe the governing body will be politically capable of maintaining any sort of prime directive for a significant length of time. There will inevitably occur some event for which people demand intervention
  15. None at the moment. Bill Kerman was stuck in a high inclination, elliptic orbit over Eve for a while though. Rescued him with a dedicated ship designed for rescue and interplanetary transport operations
  • Create New...