Fizwalker

Members
  • Content count

    386
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

36 Excellent

About Fizwalker

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

913 profile views
  1. My figures are all arbitrary (meaning I chose them based on what sounded reasonable to me) If there is enough feedback (and given inflation, there will be) this will change. I want to create a thread where one can get an idea what they need within a few posts. I want to create something that people don't have to comb through thousands of posts to figure out. So I hope to keep the 2nd post up to date with what is current thought.
  2. Greetings fellow Kerbals and friends! It's getting to be about time for me to get a new computer and instead of just getting parts and mashing them together-- (I know! I know! How un-Kerbal of me! ) I figured I'd see what you fine people thought! I also thought that this could be a tool to help people who might be looking for ideas or don't have a clue where to start use to help them get said clue. Would have loved to have seen a thread like this idea back when I built my last machine. Just a couple notes though. When suggesting specs and machines, lets think of a price bracket for the recommendations/thoughts. Call them Low, Middle, High, and Fantasy (Greens for low/entry level machines, Blues for middle of the road, Reds for high end machines and Purples for machines where price isn't an issue. Hence Fantasy. You can access colors by clicking the A underscore icon and I will suggest price brackets further down in this post.-- Please code your set ups you submit!) This also assumes that KSP is the game you're primarily using it for, but it might not be the only one. There are people who like AMD and there are people who like Intel. That's cool. I would ask that you refrain from bad mouthing your competition though or going on a bloody rant. Please keep in mind that these thoughts are for other people's consumption and to help other people get the best equipment for their buck. Not to score points. Also I expect that there will be people just looking for recommendations for certain parts (Video Cards come to mind....) Carrying on about how Intel/AMD is a better processor isn't particularly helpful to them People aren't going to rebuild their entire computer because of 1 aspect isn't working they way they want it. Usually. Um.... Yeah, I think that covers it except the price brackets *LOW: Less or equal to $500 US Dollars *Middle: $501-$1000 US Dollars *High: $1001-$2500 US Dollars *Fantasy: $2501 and up US Dollars *: I live in the U.S. and these brackets are arbitrarily chosen. For those of you who deal with other currencies, I apologize. I expect these will be different. For now the US Dollar is the common benchmark and I am a jerk so I won't be changing it if that does change. I should also say that these are all estimates. One might find prices when you come time to buy your machine vary. Also keep in mind that people want to get the best bang for their buck. I want to maintain at least 1 build (if possible) for either AMD or Intel in the next post per category with a price for each, and to maintain those recommendations. I won't guarantee they are equal in capabilities, but they fall within similar performance, based solely on budget. (Basing it on performance assumes that people have unlimited wallets. This isn't the case, so we must judge performance upon what we can AFFORD. It doesn't matter if a chip can make cookies and run nuclear tests if the user cannot afford to buy it. There's my bias, so take it with a grain of salt.) In the next post I will try to keep the most popular set ups listed. These will be updated around once (1) a month-- Hardware and the game doesn't update sooner than that. Might be less frequent if I deem it appropriate, (or those I appoint to maintain this in future deem it appropriate.) I hope the Devs. will help in this regard in suggesting changes in hardware beyond those already posted. Premise here is that that KSP is a primary or major component in the requirement in deciding the specs for a new computer. I will post the specs of the machine I am looking to get SOONTM (This may neither be the cheapest nor most expensive out there) (Will Edit once I get a design I like) When Making a suggestion, please let us know which bracket (with color) you are suggesting it for. It will make my life easier. Than you all for your help! If I have missed anything, please say so! Again, thank you for your help!
  3. So this is not compatible with RSS (the Kerbin scale version) so I expect it won't be compatible with RO either. Just for further info.
  4. Wierd.... Whenever I've clicked it; it's failed to connect to the page... I'll try it again. Aaannnd it's working now.... Figures. Nevermind on that now!
  5. Found this mod the other day and it... is.... AWESOME!! However, I did notice that the download link in the OP is dead. Is this on purpose? (I did find a link in one of the posts later in the thread) --Glitched on my end! Also, is this compatible with RSS/RO? If not, any thoughts about it being done at some future date? I don't want to be a pest, but it would be really cool if it became so. Thank you Daniel I and Seanth for this glorious mod!
  6. This is not the case in game. (I hope that is clear....Please ask if it isn't.....)
  7. Bare with me for a bit. When you put your hand outside a window while traveling in a car, you experience lift from the deflection of the airflow deflected from your vector of travel. That's because your hand is being propelled forward by the car. Generally speaking once the car is at cruising speed, it is 1G. Equal force opposing the constant acceleration of the car. Now that is horizontal acceleration. That is what it is because the point of thrust is horizontal. Meaning it is along the surface of the Earth. Now, when you launch a rocket in this game and mod, the atmosphere seems to behave in a similar fashion to sticking your hand out a window of a car. That is to say, that the horizontal travel is more important than the direction of thrust. I posit that horizontal force is less than the force applied by rockets along the direction the force is being acted upon. This isn't being modeled properly in my opinion. It is my theory, that action upon an object going to orbit will find more force being applied to towards its direction of travel based on it's length. Meaning it will not be deflected off track by random atmospheric forces while a constant source of thrust is behind it.
  8. It is a linear 3 engine design. The outboard engines are responsible for Roll. The Center engine controls pitch and yaw. That said, atmospheric forces seem to apply more on the nose, than the section applying the thrust. Like I am launching during a hurricane. Edit: Not going to a 3rd party, so yes I understand that I can post to Imgur.....I won't because I do not wish to go to a 3rd party.
  9. This forum doesn't allow the posting of pictures, so I cannot post a picture of my craft (Not going to a third party just for a picture, sorry). Suffice to say, it is powered by 3 in line engines. The outboard engines are locked to controlling roll. The center engine is locked to Pitch and Yaw. Overall, the rocket is over ~35M long. 18M is in the first stage, by the end of the first stage, where the center of gravity should have move further to the nose... Honestly, it behaves like I would expect it from gale force winds. Given that weather isn't modeled in the game, it seems off Edit: The force is applied to the bottom with a relatively high center of mass As the CoM moves f.urther up, the rocket loses stability. That's what is incongruous. Top is narrow and there isn't anything that could create drag. Bottom is wider horizontally. Design moves the Center of Gravity further to the nose, rather then backwards towards the engines.
  10. Yes. I am. I think there is too much horizontal force being applied to my rocket. It's like firing a mortar and having the round land behind you. It doesn't make sense. I don't know the physics involved.... But I know it's wrong.
  11. Ok. I have a cylindrical rocket with a force of 1.5 TWR and increases as fuel is burned off. What horizontal force is being applied to it? Should it not fly down it's velocity vector? Why would it deviate from it? Shouldn't the acceleration of the rocket trump the stasis of Kerbin's atmosphere? Just saying because there is NO WEATHER on Kerbin. This overall is a great mod... But the mods physics would mean that an arrow fired from a bow would hit it's user.....
  12. This is really cool! Anyway, I've been away for a bit, but I did want to apologize for my comments earlier. I didn't mean to start anything when I started, but I am an amazing idiotic person that will treat others the way I get treated... Didn't mean to create drama for you and everyone else. It won't happen again. Love your work and I am looking forward to the new landing gear you're going to make! Edited for accuracy
  13. Here is what I meant. Take the A6M2. Mitsubishi didn't have to construct it from pre-fabricated parts as we do in KSP. The wing, fuselage, and various parts were built FOR that plane. The plane was also designed around the bloody engine and a set of flight characteristics the IJN wanted. In KSP we CANNOT DO THAT. All we have are jig saw pieces of prefabricated parts (which have their own generalized mass/weight--to be used in the widest variety of applications), and the best we can do is make it look like the plane. Maybe I didn't say that as well as I could have, but that is what I meant with my first response. If you didn't understand, bloody well ask me to clarify. If you don't want to read this, that's fine... That's on you.