Jump to content

vyznev

Members
  • Content Count

    340
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

466 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. A gimbaled engine can work for that. So will RCS, although the restriction on using each part only once is going to make RCS port placement a bit more of a challenge than usual. Heck, technically you could even steer a craft using differential thrust from normal non-gimbaled rocket engines, although doing that in stock KSP without something like a kOS script to map steering inputs to engine throttle would be a huge pain.
  2. You could slightly abuse KSP's simplified aero model by clipping a bunch of extra draggy parts (like sideways fins) inside your probe. Maybe even use them as structural / decorative elements.
  3. Stick a reaction wheel on there and it'll go sideways too just fine. (Well, OK, not exactly fine. It's kinda janky to control because the reaction wheel keeps "slipping" and letting the craft rotate by a few degrees every few seconds so you have to keep correcting the attitude. That might be a bug, but KSP reaction wheels work by pure magic anyway so who knows. But it flies and is basically controllable enough to land anywhere you want.)
  4. Technically, the original version of my BYOA had only three parts — a command chair, a sepratron and a cubic strut (to serve as the root part for attaching the other two) — and used no exploits. But it was basically uncontrollable after chute deployment, so the only way to land it without breaking any of the three parts was by pure luck. (I did realize that I could trim the six-part version I posted earlier down to just five parts, since the reaction wheel can serve as the root part, making the strut superfluous. And technically I could even get rid of the grip pad too, if I'm allowed to
  5. LF-only career definitely seems doable. I'd say something like this general plan should work: Grab enough science from the launchpad (and/or the runway) to unlock the thermometer and the barometer. (FWIW, you can just get the required 20 science in a single launch of a capsule with two goo canisters if you make sure to get a crew report, an EVA report both on the ground and while jumping, and grab the data from one goo canister while on EVA and recover the kerbal and the capsule separately.) Collect EVA reports and temperature and pressure samples from enough KSC mini-biomes to unl
  6. Does this count as a valid craft? This was just a test run to see how far I could get with two sepratrons, and I forgot to take a screenshot of the F3 screen so I only have the flight time (about 7:40; no video, so I might be off by a second or two there too). Anyway, I'm sure this plane can do a lot better with a few more engines. As you can see from the screenshot, it does take off without SAS, although control is very limited without it due to the lack of a tail fin. And it does sort of take off horizontally, although it must pitch up pretty quickly since it only has grip pads f
  7. I thought this seemed vaguely familiar… (It's not quite the same challenge, since that one only allowed one sepratron per craft, but all entries there should qualify for this challenge too. Modulo possible physics changes in three years, at least.)
  8. Does a Kerbal with a parachute count as a lift-generating part? If yes, let me present… KerbalX link: https://kerbalx.com/vyznev/BYOA-Rocket-Paraglider
  9. I developed some tech a while ago that might be useful here. If it works for docking in orbit, it should work for a Gilly landing. Those are basically the same thing anyway.
  10. https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Tutorial:Sharing_craft_files You can also give https://kerbalx.com/CraftManager a try. I don't use it myself, though, so I can't give any personal opinion on it.
  11. Something like this. Unfortunately, it seems that KSP 1.11 kind of broke that bike. I'm still hoping to find some way to fix it, but I haven't had much time to play with KSP lately. The major issue seems to be that rotor torque was nerfed, but that's easy enough to fix in the SPH by setting the rear wheel torque to 100%. But it seems that there was also some other change that somehow made the bike a lot less stable. It used to run nice and straight on flat ground in 1.10, with only minor and occasional course adjustments needed on hilly terrain. I could literally leave it running while I
  12. Hmm, I think I just found another loophole in your rules that basically allows reducing the refurbishment penalty as low as you want, making big SSTOs competitive after all. But it's kind of a tedious one to exploit, so I'll just suggest a fix: require that all tourists must land at the target in the same vessel at the same time. (While you're at it, consider also disallowing ore mining and conversion on Kerbin. That's a separate cheesy exploit, but it happens to synergize well with this one.) Otherwise, one could just:
  13. Either that, or maybe a reaction wheel attached to the swashplate could work. I haven't tested it yet, though. So basically like a real helicopter, then, only with fewer parts.
  14. You mean like with an actual swash plate built using robotics parts and same-vessel interactions, as opposed to just enabling built-in cyclic control on the rotor blades? That sounds like a potentially interesting engineering challenge. Also probably liable to summon the kraken if the RPM gets too high. I guess the real challenge would be making it work with SAS...
×
×
  • Create New...