Jump to content

vyznev

Members
  • Content Count

    317
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

436 Excellent

1 Follower

About vyznev

  • Rank
    Curious George

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Very well, thank you. It basically stays upright the same way as a real bike: when it starts to lean e.g. left, the contact point between the wheels and the ground moves slightly to the left, which makes the bike turn left, which makes it lean right again. Also, it cheats a bit by having a small reaction wheel set to SAS only. But you can turn SAS off and it's still decently stable at low speeds (about 10 m/s feels close to optimal). At higher speeds it tends to wobble without SAS, though. The wheel geometry matters a lot. The Mk1 version only had a single row of grip pads on
  2. Inspired by @king of nowhere's run, I also decided to give this a try. I actually flew this mission in Science mode (since I happened to have an existing save with all tech nodes up to tier 4 unlocked, just for challenges like this), but I made sure to respect the part count and launch mass limits and not to use any SAS modes other than attitude hold, prograde and retrograde. Up to Popestar if they want to count this as a valid entry or not. Anyway, here's my lander (craft file on pastebin): It's based on what's basically my standard early-game manned Mun lander design, with a f
  3. Since no-one else seems to have entered yet, I decided to have Val grab her motorcycle and head for the mountains. Now, while cool and fun to ride, this bike is hardly the fastest thing on Kerbin's plains, and I'd done no route planning besides "let's aim for that mountain pass, it looks potentially climbable." But it's pretty stable, so I could leave it running while surfing the web, and after a little under half an hour of leisurely cruising Val had made it to the foothills and reached the first altitude target of 750 meters above sea level. Of course I didn't stop here,
  4. So I downloaded your save and gave it a try. I might post a more detailed report later, once I've sorted through the bazillion screenshots I took, but to summarize, so far I've landed on the Mun, rescued two kerbals (yes, I did edit the save to make them wimpy first!) and taken three tourists for a tour around the Mun. My general impression is that this isn't really all that different from a normal career game: SRBs are tricky but doable. Fine tuning their thrust takes some trial and error. I flew my first two suborbital missions using SRBs only just to see if I could, but the easy
  5. Hmm, this sounds potentially interesting. I assume "no uncrewed/automated missions" effectively means "no probe cores"? In particular, sticking a probe core on a crew capsule so that it can take over if the kerbal passes out seems like it'd be at least against the spirit of the challenge.
  6. Does it involve a Convert-O-Tron? Because if so, I see it too now, but IMO it definitely violates the spirit of the rules, and arguably their letter too (insofar as, even if you didn't mine it, turning ore into fuel could be considered refueling). Of course my guess could be wrong. If you've found some other loophole, I'm certainly interested in seeing it. (IMO, finding clever loopholes in challenges can be fun, even if the entries end up getting disqualified and the rules patched. I forget who first came up with it, but I've always liked the "meta-rule" that if you find an interest
  7. Is there a convenient way to see a vessel's mass in stock KSP outside the VAB/SPH without mods? (Of course it's easy if you have KER.) I know the Alt+F12 aero GUI can show the gravitational force on the vessel, and as long as you're reasonably close to sea level you can divide that by Kerbin's surface gravity of 9.81 m/s2 to calculate the mass, but that's kind of awkward. I would guess that "no VTOL" includes no vertical landing — that's what the L in VTOL stands for, after all.
  8. Seeing as the hardest part of flying planes is landing them safely, I thought I'd make you a plane that's extra safe to land. As a bonus, it also highlights the silliness of Kerbal aerodynamics. Let me present to you: The Flying Brick More screenshots on imgur. This is a spiritual successor to my old "CuBoid" 8-way symmetric aircraft, trading some symmetry for ease of use and raw power. It's powered by three Panther engines with afterburners (off by default, use action group 3 to enable) and thrust vectoring (on by default, use action group 4 to disable). Despite its awkwar
  9. That's odd. I never had any serious takeoff issues with my survey plane in Val mode, even though it looks pretty similar to yours (except for the lack of a JATO unit, that is). One real-world pilot trick I did use was keeping the brakes on until the Junos were fully spooled up. That way you get to start the takeoff at (nearly) full thrust and don't waste any runway length crawling slowly forward.
  10. That'll be a lot harder to pull off on Earth than on Kerbin, though. If I didn't mess up the math, on Kerbin you need to fly westward along the equator at 174.5 m/s to track the sun; on Earth, you'd need to fly at 463.8 m/s, or about Mach 1.35, to pull off the same trick.
  11. I just felt I had to post the obligatory note that, due to Ike's presence, a constellation such as depicted in your image would not be stable under realistic gravity. At best, you could put three satellites at the Duna/Ike Lagrange points 3–5 to get a (nearly) equilateral triangle. Still, nice challenge.
  12. So how does one make an internal combustion piston engine in KSP, anyway? Use a jet engine to push the pistons? (Also, I feel like adding an "easy mode" division that allows electric-powered BG pistons could be a good idea. That seems like a hard enough challenge all on its own.)
  13. That looks correct to me. I'm not sure what calculator apps you've tried that don't agree; the first one I tried does.
  14. It might help if you were a little more specific about what counts as (not) a rover. For example, is this motorcycle a rover? It has wheels, but only two of them. And technically neither of them include any "wheel" parts, just grip pads attached to rotors. Anyway, if it qualifies, it scores 0 points on speed (max speed on flat ground < 30 m/s) but fairly highly on reliability (quite stable especially with SAS on, although terrain obviously matters). And it's technically disqualified due to running on fuel cells and having no ISRU gear, but that could be easily fixed by sticki
  15. I know it's been a while, but I finally completed this challenge (and another, more recent one at the same time). The trick seems to be to fly far enough from the KSC to give you plenty of time to gain control and line up the approach. It took me about half an hour to fly this plane back to KSC and land it (the video is considerably speeded up), and that was just about enough time to actually get it done relatively safely. Fast maneuvers using this control method are strongly contraindicated. FWIW, this was my third attempt this time. (The first one fell short and ended u
×
×
  • Create New...