Jump to content

KerikBalm

Members
  • Posts

    6,096
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

3,385 Excellent

6 Followers

Profile Information

  • About me
    Capsule Communicator
  • Location
    Switzerland

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. This is not true, equatorial orbit is always aligned with the planet's rotation, the display of east should be relative to the planet's axis. A tilted axis relative to the ecliptic shouldn't display as tilted unless the player changes the camera view.
  2. A "cushioning" effect near the ground that makes slowing descent rate to a tolerable limit/avoiding colliding with the terrain easier, but putting the plane down before running out of runway/ putting down on rough terrain harder
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket#Pendulum_rocket_fallacy https://handwiki.org/wiki/Astronomy:Pendulum_rocket_fallacy It is behaving as it should. You'll have to rely on either differential throttling of the rotors (can be done via a kal controller, but its not ideal and has quite some response lag), If you enable pitch, yaw, and roll, control on the propeller blades, you can make it work somewhat, but once you increase blade pitch to their optimum AoA, any change (increase or decrease) will decrease lift, so as you approach your max altitude, this won't work either So lastly, there's the aerodynamic stabilization with good ol' fins/wings. This can work if you climb rapidly, but as you slow to a near hover at maximum altitude, this doesn't work so well either. That's why my eve ascent vehicle designs were planes flying nearly horizontally
  4. That's like saying that we shouldn't say that making the atmosphere of Duna thinner won't affect new players getting to low kerbin orbit. The atmospheric thickness of Duna literally has no effect on getting to LKO from the surface of Kerbin. Atmospheric tilt literally has no effect on getting to LKO from the surface of Kerbin. Player experience does not change this
  5. They won't have to deal with it at all until they are going beyond kerbin orbit. Going to Mun with, say 2 deg of inclination, will be rather insignificant, there won't be anything to deal with, unless you are going for perfection. Going to Minmus will be the same, as it's already an inclined orbit. But this does raise a point, will there be a view mode that aligns with a planets axis/ rotational plane? Can we switch between a view alignment with the ecliptic an the planets axis?
  6. 1) axial tilt has no effect "as soon as you get off the ground", it would only become a factor once trying to go to Mun, Minmus, or farther. 2) it's exactly equivalent to getting to Minmus with Minmus' orbit being out of Kerbin's rotational plane. So essentially, you have to deal with a slight inclination difference when going to Mun, instead of a larger one when going to Minmus. My way would have players likely notice something is going on if they don't adjust inclination, but given the low tilt, and Mun's size and proximity, you'd still easily get to Mun without adjusting inclination. Minmus on the other hand... if you don't match inclination, you will easily miss the intercept or arrive on a very inconvenient trajectory (unless you are meeting it at an An/Dn). It wouldn't do much at all to the difficulty curve, it might even help. 3) personally speaking, getting rid of these 0,0,0 orbits (no eccentricity, axial tilt, nor orbital inclination) would help with suspension of disbelief. The parameters are defined anyway, it's not like it increases the computational load. I don't care if it's miniscule: if it's barely noticeable, and only skilled players notice it, then that's great. It doesn't harm/ overwhelm the new players, and it adds some depth for the experienced ones
  7. So my thoughts: - within Kerbin's SOI: axial tilt is equivalent to having Mun and Minmus inclined. Giving Kerbin an axial tilt of 6 degrees, and Mun an axial tilt of 6 degrees in the same plane changes nothing as far as getting to Mun A degree or two of axial tilt doesn't change much. Even putting Mun at a 6 degree tilt doesn't make much difference given its size and distance (although it is quite relevant for Minmus Kerbin could easily take 1-2 degrees of axial tilt, enough that new players will notice it has an effect, but not enough to really screw up their early missions. - outside of kerbin's SOI: * it won't change things dramatically for interplanetary transfers, as the effect of axial tilt will be much less than the effect of kerbin's orbit not being coplanar with the target body Currently duna has an ever so slightly inclined orbit, and even Eve has a 2.1 degree inclination. Have you ever really noticed issues with Eve and Duna's inclination? No? Then a few degrees for Kerbin won't matter either Many players won't even insert into an orbit of kerbin within 2 degres of an equatorial one anyway, its within the margin of error. Overall, I think they should ditch the bodies with perfectly circular, 0 inclination, 0 tilt orbits. Add a little eccentricity, tilt, and inclination, but for the starting system, keep it small, within the margin of error of newbie orbits anyway. 1-3 degrees of axial tilt for Kerbin is fine for new playes, 23.5 degrees is too much for new players. If larger axial tilt is introduced, then players might ask for dynamic ground/planet textures to reflect growing and shrinking icecaps to go along with seasons.
  8. Well, to be realistic, the LV-N should overheat after thrusting, and you should have radiators on standby to cool it after a burn. This would be rather complicated to model. You'd also have to pre-heat it before thrusting, and again, a radiator would be useful there. Anyway, want more TWR? That's exactly what the LANTR is for. Fwiw, I never had issues with lv-ns overheating, except in earlier 1.0x versions. Maybe it's the clustering that is the problem, because all my designs that I can remember have 2 or less lv-ns per nacelle, and don't overheat. I remember some 4x clusters, I don't remember if they had heat problems. Anyway, 1.0 m/s/s I consider to be pretty decent. The LV-N has been nerfed a lot from it's earlier iteration of 2.25 tons (3 now). And there are more advanced plans for higher TWR NTRs (project timberwind). If we have to deal with radioactivity in ksp2, I wouldn't mind a "timberwind" style thrust upgrade. Of course, we don't know if ksp2 will have part upgrades
  9. https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Parts/Cargo/GroundAnchor/groundAnchor.cfg Please tell me how
  10. So I don't have that mod, but from the wiki, they have a colorized heightmap, which I have circled candidate spots: Don't know how deep those spots are. I wonder if they are above Crush depth. On another note, I am now playing 6.25x, with 0.35x modifier to heigh (thus 2.1875x modifier to heights and depths), so I'm looking for depths of 140-180 meters (depending on if crush depth is 300 or 400 meters, I must test). Plus, you know, making such a long/tall vessel is also a pain, so something shallow but still out of sight of land is what I'm looking for
  11. I had to text edit the stamp o tron underwater, but I used it here to anchor an offshore mining rig to the seafloor, where I could mine. But... it's not practical to mine very far from shore. Especially with part pressure limits on. Don't think that it will allow me to have a fueling base in the middle of the ocean (Kerbin or laythe or eve)
  12. 2 of the new ones do: https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/S2-33_"Clydesdale"_Solid_Fuel_Booster - only 1 degree though https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/S2-17_"Thoroughbred"_Solid_Fuel_Booster - only 2 degrees
  13. I will just link to 2 of my previous posts. Without Breaking ground: With breaking ground. The propellor/helo blade/fan blades don't seem to work, but control surfaces do:
  14. Since I'm playing with part pressure limits on, I'd like to know what the limits are to my submarine aspirations. 1) Do all parts have the same crush depth, or can some go deeper than others? 2) Does Crush depth vary from planet to planet? (Assuming the same water composition, Crush depth should be deeper on Laythe than on Kerbin, due to the lower surface gravity. Crush depth should be higher on Eve IF the seas are made of something with the same density as Kerbin and Laythe's oceans) 3) Can anyone provide a map of the seas of Kerbin, Laythe, and Eve that have an accessible sea floor to craft with part pressure limits on? 4) Is there any resource that can show the parts of the seas that are shallower than X meters? It would really help with some mission I'd like to pull off.
  15. So now questions for discussion 1) Does anyone else want to show their ocean bases? 2) Is there any way to make a floating base with hanging drills stable, are waves a stock thing, or scatterer/Kopernicus thing (stock I think, I don't think Scatterer does anything to the oceans except visually - I used kopernicus to rescale the system to 6.25x, but I don't think that would cause wave/jumping effects in the ocean) 3) Where are good locations for this sort of base? Does anyone have a resource for looking at seafloor depths? I'd like to see some proposed locations where the sea floor isn't too far down, but the nearest land is still far away. (Yes, any thing other than a shores biome won't have ore without modding, I am willing to mod that) 4) Can anyone confirm that stamp-o-trons can't be placed by a kerbal underwater? It would be great if there was actually some trick that would allow them to be placed under water without text editing. 5) Does anyone have any good ideas for how one can actually build/launch and transport a base like this, and get it down to the surface of Laythe/Eve (I also have in mine my modded Duna with some seas, and my "Rald" planet based on Mars, which has a large northern sea). I was thinking of making several sections of the pipe/tube/hanging bits, and dcking them together in orbit, then docking them to the floating base... But getting the height right for the place where the base lands is going to be very difficult. Also, moving the base via docked boats at the surface is... not effective as the CoM is way down below, and resistance is very high. I'm thinking I will have to cheat this... get the base somewhere in the ocean, then cheat the base to the right part of the ocean where the ocean depth matches the depth of the hanging bits... I'm going to have to cheat the stamp-o-tron in position anyway... Any ideas for how this could be made adjustable through the use of engineer construction?
×
×
  • Create New...