vyznev

Members
  • Content Count

    130
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

204 Excellent

About vyznev

  • Rank
    Curious George

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. vyznev

    Extreme Career Mode Challenge

    Does entering a new SOI while under tweaked gravity still completely mess up your orbit? Because if it does, that would indeed be brutal. For values of "brutal" approaching "unplayable".
  2. Well, in the mean time, I chose an easier target and sent Val to Tylo and back: More (many more) images in the imgur album: https://imgur.com/a/1MHxKm4 Craft file here, if anyone else wants to give it a try: https://pastebin.com/t2CYzHUW BTW, I forgot to mention that I flew this mission in 100% stock KSP 1.6.0 with no mods (really, not even KER) on my standard Sandbox settings, i.e. the same as "normal" difficulty but with plasma blackout and all pressure and g-force limits turned on, and resource transfer obeying crossfeed rules. In practice, the only part of the mission where those tweaks could have made any difference was in the Kerbin re-entry, where Val got close to passing out from too much acceleration. Fortunately, she's fine.
  3. vyznev

    My First SRB To Orbit Rocket!

    Also, here's an "SRBs to orbit" challenge from the micro-challenges thread, with an optional extra challenge to rendezvous and dock two vessels in orbit using SRBs only.
  4. vyznev

    Impossible Station

    Really? I see no particular reason why the method I used for that challenge couldn't be scaled up to whatever you consider to be a proper space station. Just needs more sepratrons. (In theory, you could even use a combination of offset sepratrons and thrust-blocking elevons to rendezvous and dock without using any liquid-fueled engines, RCS or reaction wheels. But that really would be insanely difficult. Of course, now that I've said this, I'm sure someone will go and pull it off...)
  5. vyznev

    My First SRB To Orbit Rocket!

    It looks like they've renamed them to "posts" and tweaked the UI a bit, but you can still create new albums via the "New Post" button in the top bar. Here's one I just made as a test.
  6. vyznev

    Civillian sector contracts

    I googled and found this thing: Is that anything like what you're looking for?
  7. Oops, I guess I overlooked that rule as well. Which means my science rover run to the mountains and my first flight are disqualified, since I had an OKTO core on them to provide stability assist for Bob. Although, looking at the rules again, technically they only say that landers can't have probe cores. Neither of those craft were ever going to land anywhere (well, except on Kerbin at the end, that is). The rover never even took off to begin with (unless you count a few jumps off bumpy terrain). Anyway, at least I have a save from before I unlocked the OKTO. While I could easily redo the science run and just replace the probe core with a second command pod, I don't think I'll bother. Even going to the mountains only earned me 84 points of science, which is nothing compared to what I already had from KSC. And it turned out I had more science than I really had any use for, anyway; the only tier 5 parts I ended up using on the Kerpollo mission were some FL-T800 tank, which can be easily replaced with two FL-T400s, and the OKTO core that I wasn't supposed to use anyway. So I'll just rebuild the craft without those and refly the mission. (Oh, wait, solar panels! I had those too, and I guess I do want them if I'm going to take a detour to Minmus orbit. But that's OK, I have enough science from KSC to unlock them. And I can actually unlock the FL-T800 tanks with just KSC science too, so all I need to do is dump the OKTO. I wonder if I should replace it with a second pod and bring Jeb or Val along? That'd increase weight a lot, but I do have delta-v to spare. But I'm also pretty sure I can fly this mission without stability assist, so I don't really need a pilot. Then again, leveling up a pilot now could be useful for the next mission... )
  8. Fair enough. Although it turns out that the amount of science you can get from just KSC alone if you really milk it is pretty crazy. I started a game in hard mode (60% science rewards) and managed to unlock the entire tech tier 4 (yes, one full tier at a time, as specified; counting tiers from 1, so the 2HOT Thermometer is in tier 2 and the Science Jr. is in tier 4), and have over 300 science left to spare, using only rollers and rovers and without ever leaving the KSC. And I didn't even do any deliberate jumps to grab crew reports and thermometer readings from the air, although I did get one or two by accident while trying to roll up the stairs of various KSC buildings. And I did have Bob climb the flag pole for an "EVA report while flying over Kerbin's shores". Since I already started doing this, I think I'll keep going with it at least a little longer, and see just how far I can take this crazy science farming scheme. But I did also consider just doing a self-imposed "no Kerbin science outside launch pad and runway" restriction, which would probably be closer to how you intended this challenge to play out. OK, but looking your edited rules, they seem to say that I actually can fly a plane all over Kerbin (as part of a mission), and grab atmospheric science along the way, as long as I only land it once. Is that correct? Also, another loophole occurred to me: with all the parts I've unlocked from exploring the KSC, I'm pretty sure I could do (at least) a Mun / Minmus fly-by as part of the first LKO mission. I don't see anything in the rules that forbids that, as long as I don't land there. If I can reach tier 7 on the very first mission, that would give me a whole bunch of extra science instruments to bring along on the later missions (and to drag all over KSC, of course ).
  9. Does this mean that building a science roller and rolling it around KSC to get e.g. goo readings from the various KSC sub-biomes is allowed? And what about rolling all the way to non-KSC biomes? (At least shores should be easily accessible, and grasslands and water should be reachable with a bit of effort.) And what about sending a plane to fly around Kerbin to collect "flying low above" / "flying high above" science from different biomes? And if I can't do that freely, what about if one of my nine missions just happens to include a spaceplane launch / return stage with some extra jet fuel for finding the optimal landing site? (Don't get me wrong, I think this sounds like a really neat challenge, and I'll probably be trying it in any case. I'm just trying to figure out just how far I can stretch the rules for that all-important early extra science.)
  10. vyznev

    Duna InSight Challenge

    That's pretty darn minimalist, indeed. Congrats! I do suspect that dropping the reaction wheel and replacing the Ant engine with a Spider (which can gimbal) could save even more mass. The only detail I'm not 100% sure about is whether that could be made stable enough in Duna's atmosphere. I may need to test it...
  11. vyznev

    Duna InSight Challenge

    Considering that even just the OKTO2 probe core alone is both bigger and heavier than the actual MarCO cubesats, that's pretty much unavoidable with stock parts. Unless you tweakscale them down to a tiny fraction of their normal size, at least. I did manage to cobble together something that at least looks vaguely similar: But it's still several times bigger than the real ones, and over 50 times(!) heavier.
  12. It's a suggestion; @sturmhauke is not on the micro-challenge team (see first post in this thread). But it did occur to me that recreating the InSight mission in KSP would have plenty of targets for a full-blown "tick the boxes" challenge. I couldn't find one on this forum yet, so I just might try my hand at making one, if sturmhauke doesn't call dibs. Anyway, that would be something for a separate thread.
  13. vyznev

    Kerbal Galatic LKO tourbus challenge

    You post it in this thread, of course:
  14. A seismic scan seems reasonable enough to me. (The really annoying thing here is that the DTS-M1 antenna is not relay-capable. )
  15. vyznev

    Sun Atmosphere Sampler

    KSP heating mechanics get wonky in time warp. I've built craft that were perfectly fine sitting at their Kerbol periapsis in 1x warp, but would overheat and blow up instantly at 5x warp. I think what happens is that the game is still tracking the heat in time warp, but using much larger time steps. And it probably uses simple Euler integration instead of some fancier integration algorithm -- that is to say, on every time step it just calculates the net rate of heat gain/loss over time for each part, summing up all heat sources and sinks, and then multiplies this by the length of the time interval (and divides it by the part's heat capacity) and adds the result to the part's temperature. Now, the rate of heat loss through radiation (and conduction to adjacent parts, etc.) is generally proportional to temperature (both in KSP and in real life), while the rate of heat gain from the sun is constant (or, rather, proportional to the temperature of the sun, which of course is pretty constant). So what happens is that each part will basically have an equilibrium temperature where those two rates are equal: if the part is cooler than its equilibrium temperature, it will gain more heat than it loses, and if it's hotter than its equilibrium temperature, it will lose more heat than it gains. The problem is that, if the time step is too large, the temperature change calculated in the simple way described above can easily overshoot the equilibrium. For example, let's say you have a part on your probe that would be at equilibrium at 2000 K, but is currently only at 1999 K. And just to keep the numbers nice, let's say that its temperature gain/loss rate at 1 K below the equilibrium, as calculated by the game, is 1 K/s. At 1x time warp, the game does something like 100 physics time steps per second, so on the next timestep the game will increment the part's temperature to 1999.01 K. And on the next time step it will heat up by, say, 0.99 K/s, so its new temperature will be 1999.0199 K. And it will keep gradually heating up more and more slowly as it approaches its equilibrium temperature, and all will be fine. But if we're instead at, say, 1000x time warp, then the game obviously cannot do 100,000 physics updates per every real-time second; your CPU isn't that fast. Instead, it just keeps doing 100 updates per second in real time, i.e. one update per 10 seconds in game time. (Well, OK, for a simple craft it probably could do 100,000 updates per second, if the heat physics code was optimized enough. But the point is, there's always a limit and the game doesn't even try to scale the physics update rate with the warp factor.) So that means that, after one physics update tick, the part will now be at 1999 K + 1 K/s * 10 s = 2009 K. And what's worse, on the next time step, the game will see that the part is now 9 K above its equilibrium, and calculate its new temperature gain/loss rate as something close to -9 K/s, and thus its new temperature, one ten second time step later, as 2009 K - 9 K/s * 10 s = 1919 K. And now the part is 81 K below its equilibrium, and thus heating up at a rate of about 81 K/s, so one more time step later it will end up at 1919 K + 81 K/s * 10 s = 2729 K. And then it will blow up, because it just exceeded its heat tolerance of 2500 K. Now, if the KSP devs wanted, they could pretty easily replace the simple Euler integration with something more advanced like fourth order Runge-Kutta (which can still blow up if the time step is too large, but is a lot more accurate and less likely to do so) or even the backward Euler method (which is no more accurate than the normal Euler method, but tends to undershoot rather than overshoot at large time steps, and thus won't blow up). Both of those are a bit more complicated to code and require more time to calculate (since they need to recompute the heat gain/loss several times per timestep to find a solution), but they would solve, or at least mitigate, the stability problem. Unfortunately, I suspect this this is probably not a high priority for the devs, since few players will ever put their craft in situations where it really matters, and those who do will probably just chalk it up to low Kerbol orbit being inhospitable to spacecraft. (As a disclaimer, I should note that everything I wrote above is just informed conjecture. I have not looked at the KSP code to see how it actually updates part temperatures. But I have written physics code myself, both for games and for scientific purposes, and the simple Euler integration I described above is pretty much the simplest and easiest way to write something like the part temperature tracking in KSP, especially if you don't actually realize that what you're implementing is an integrator. Also, the symptoms fit.) (Edit: After some testing, I think there must actually be something more going on. It feels like KSP is doing something like scaling the heat gain/loss rates down under time warp, perhaps precisely to avoid the overshoot effect I described, but doing it in some weird way that can cause the equilibrium temperatures to go up or down depending on the time warp factor. I dunno. I still stand by my initial statement that things "get wonky" under time warp. )