Posts posted by Kasuha
Main problem with uneven gear height is in my experience that the game will drop the plane on runway from greater height and parts may start falling off.
My best experience is with putting two wheels slightly behind the plane's CoM (so the plane does not turn under its own weight but it needs only a little force to do so), one wheel at the same height below the nose, and one elevated wheel at the back to protect the engine from touching the ground on liftoff/landing.
The model below has also two stabilization wheels at ends of its wings but these are not mandatory.
This is really insulting, especially to those of us who would like to see our daughters grow up in a world free of ancient gender stereotypes designed to keep women under the thumb of men, like so much property. The whole "they're aliens" argument doesn't fly when Kerbals have such obvious human male gender cues. While I have plenty in KSP to be disappointed about, I'm quite happy that SQUAD have the good sense to add female Kerbals in so we can have realistic space programs and women can feel more a part of the fun.
I am glad to notice that you agree with me that male characteristics of Kerbals are the core of the problem - at least for certain, sensitive people. That's why I think they should be removed, and that's what I meant by my post.
I can remember from our previous discussions that you're great realism enthusiast. As such, I am surprised to find out that you're not welcoming that idea as you are sure aware there is no scientific support at all for the idea that eventual alien race, should we ever meet any, will have two genders, and if it happens to have, that it will use typically human stereotypes like hairdo or makeup. Adding these elements to the game constitutes sexism.
Sorry for stupid question but to determine where the problem is, I have to ask:
Can you point the ship at the maneuver node manually?
Lego pieces definitely do scale (meaning are available in the same shapes and colors in at least three different and mutually compatible sizes) and some KSP parts would be great to have in different sizes as well. It's just not something I'd want most at the moment.
There used to be an immensely useful thread stickied, containing fixes and workarounds for numerous bugs in the current game. I wonder where did it go and why.
Anyway, try to look into this thread, maybe it will help you.
If you have not launched it yet, you can recover it for 100% refund. You only lost some time on the game clock.
It is kind of funny how we keep applying human stereotypes on a fictional alien race. How can we be sure that eventual alien race would really have two sexes? Perhaps they would be hermaphrodites just like quite a few Earth species are. Or they could have seven sexes with strict rules which ... can mate with which two other sexes...?
Of course devs can only blame themselves as they made Kerbals so human-like that people can apply these stereotypes on them. I don't think it would make the game all that much less fun if they looked kind of like [this] (or cuter, this is best I found in a quick search) and I believe few people would be asking for a version of opposite or different gender.
Of course I'm sure we'll be getting female Kerbals in the current state of things. Not because Kerbals need females. It is because we need them to feel being politically correct.
Rotation of the attachment node is irrelevant for radial attachments. The node is not used in that case. And the girder appears to be aligned perfectly in that picture (horizontal/vertical).
That of course does not mean it is fine, I'll take more detailed look at it when I get home.
Not all parts have a right-click menu. Those which don't do completely nothing when you right-click on them. So it would be probably good to describe in greater detail what part do you have on mind and perhaps provide some screenshots.
You should have around 4 RAM intakes per turbojetIntakes per mass are IMO much better measure
I don't see anything wrong on my statement. TWR of course plays role, too. I was not arguing with that.
are the surfaces properly set to yaw/pitch/roll only, the rudders should be only yaw and the rest roll/pitch
Majority of designs experience no problems at all if you leave all functions turned on for all control surfaces. Actually it gives you more control authority.
Can someone tell me how to use that in order to have the album embedded in my post like with claws post ?
There's a link under the "BB code is on" message at the bottom of this page. Search for "imgur".
Part welder is obviously excluded because welded parts allow you to create much longer ships.
You can't get orbital velocity from any amount of intakes and jet engines if you want to take this argument to it's logical conclusion. So, you are engaging is sophestry.
Is that not the point? The craft I posted will probably take one ton of rocket fuel to get it to orbit leaving it at around 9T total mass, a third of which is fuel. That's quite efficient. And yes, with one RAM intake this craft will reach orbital speeds, just not on turbos alone. An obvious point I responded to Stratzenblitz75 which, you already know is implied in the statement you made.
Seems to me you're turning the discussion from technical to linguistic. I believe you can understand quite well what we mean so it's a puzzle to me why are you doing that.
Is that a fact?
That depends on what you consider orbital speed. From my point of view it is suborbital speed/trajectory. But it can be called near-orbital, too.
I'm not saying you cannot fly an SSTO with one RAM per 10 tons, you just can't get it out of the atmosphere on jets. And since the topic is how to use least fuel to orbit, that's what you want - use jets for as much dv as possible, leaving only a little to circularize with rockets.
When I talk about these issues being negligible in 99% cases, I mean cases where the player takes care that the rocket will not spontaneously disassemble during use, particularly when deployed on launchpad or when launched. Struts are here exactly for that purpose. The rocket is like a tree, it branches out but never in, struts are here to keep these branches together. You don't need to use too many of them but you need to find places where to put them to do their job. If you do it right, all that's left will be some amount of wobble or roll that is no problem to compensate.
Things used to be way worse. Part connections we have today are rock solid compared to what used to be in game not even a year ago.
Next mod I'd like to see integrated into stock is Editor extensions. Or just complete VAB/SPH overhaul to make them user friendly and to get rid of all bugs.
And another question regarding this - is it possible to make inclination change burns without affecting your AP and PE? When I tried, I inevitably stretched out my orbit height, even though I was burning at 90 degrees to my velocity vector and shouldn't have been adding any velocity to my orbit.
Another option is to set up a maneuver so your final Ap/Pe is the same as your initial Ap/Pe, and then follow that maneuver. You need to mix normal and retrograde burn, the bigger the change the more retrograde impulse you need to keep them.
2. Air intakes. You should have around 4 RAM intakes per turbojet to get into that efficiency zone. You can do it with less but you need a higher TWR. TWR and intakes have a direct relationship.
Intakes per mass are IMO much better measure - at least in stock aero.
1 RAM per 10 tons won't get you to orbital speeds. 2 are enough, more are just for comfort.
While we're having a whinge: what lunatic decided that having different camera controls in VAB vs SPH was a good idea? I'm constantly trying to do SPH-style zooming in the VAB and vice-versa.
I think that's matter of evolution. VAB was first and since it was completely useless for SPH, it got a different one.
How to fly a spaceplane to orbit
Impressive instructions but let me add my own experience. I am assuming stock physics and aerodynamics here so I'm not sure if it applies to OP.
A/ build your plane right. Rules for intake air distribution have already been linked so I don't have to do that. Use enough engines for the plane mass, the more engines the less time and fuel will you need. Optimal engine numbers for planes, minimizing problems with asymmetric flameout are 1 and 4. 1 engine is obvious, 4 engines need to be interleaved with intakes properly and placed in order outer-inner-outer-inner. For instance: (1)-(2)-(4)-(3). Why? Because when first stage flameout occurs, both your outer engines will flameout at once and inner engines will keep running. No asymmetry, and giving you enough time to lower the throttle. One RAM intake per engine is enough to reach orbital speeds, but two or three make it more comfortable. Don't make the plane too heavy, have 2 intakes per 10 tons at least (some will call that airhogging)
1/ reach 10 km as fast as possible. Use maximum pitch that allows you to keep your speed. 70 m/s is fine as long as you're getting out of the soup fast.
2/ above 10 km concentrate on building your speed. Switch to map view and watch your apoapsis. Switch navball to orbital mode. Raise your apoapsis to 20-25 km, not higher until you reach at least 1000 m/s. Regulate the apoapsis with pitch, don't be afraid to burn below prograde if your apoapsis is too high. Then raise it to 30 km and build your speed to about 1800 m/s. Then raise the apoapsis to 36 km and burn strictly prograde. If you have enough power, your orbit will grow out of atmosphere at this point. If you don't have enough power and reach the apoapsis, pitch up and keep the plane at the apoapsis (or rather the apoapsis below the plane) by changing pitch slightly up and down, continue burning until the apoapsis jumps to the other side of planet. After that, burn prograde.
3/ build orbital speed by burning prograde. As you lose air, your engines will start decreasing their thrust. When you get a flameout, decrease thrust to 2/3, then 1/3, and then go to just one tick above zero thrust. You can use physics time warp at this phase to wait till your plane gets out of atmosphere.
That's a good idea. But I'd probably prefer if editor was not changing the symmetry automatically and instead refused to place the part until I choose compatible symmetry. Perhaps allowing me to use subsymmetries, such as x2 or x3 on x6. Or to even allow me to break group already placed in higher order symmetry to several lower order group, such as x8 into two x4.
Delta v is change in velocity, it does not have to have anything to do with any particular kind of propulsion. If you change your velocity (direction or magnitude) in any way, you "used delta v".
Even if you start rotating your ship, then decouple/undock a part to send it on different orbit, you "used delta v" since you gave it an impulse and changed its velocity.
So I'm not really sure what is this challenge supposed to be about.
in KSP1 Discussion
I made an experiment and I don't see any problems here - the only misaligned thing is the green sphere.
The test construction uses all kinds of attachment: axial, radial to the end of the girder, radial to the side of the girder, and both radial either with angle snap on and off. They're all perfectly aligned on the other end.