pincushionman

Members
  • Content Count

    952
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

538 Excellent

About pincushionman

  • Rank
    Junior Rocket Scientist

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. pincushionman

    Detachable ring structure

    Well, the most straightforward way to leave a structure on Mun is to integrate the structure into a landing stage, with an ascent stage perched on top. When you leave, all that stuff stays behind. But it won’t be ring-shaped. It could be ring-shaped with a plug in the middle. If the ring is a firm design requirement, things are about to get complicated. First, you need to understand that the “tree” structure of vessels makes rings notoriously difficult to build. You can build parts into a circle, but the ends that come together won’t be connected even if they look like they are. You have two options to close the shape: struts and docking ports. Struts will simply connect, but docking ports at each end will still be unattached until physics loads. Search on this forum for more details on building rings.
  2. pincushionman

    How to predict a planet's distance in the future?

    @ElWanderer is right, the tricky step is the mean anomaly -> eccentric anomaly conversion; everything else is plug-and-chug. But if you have the current Excel, I’ve got your back. Just follow these three easy steps: 1. Use the spreadsheet 2. … 3. Profit! …Actually, that’s a lie. There’s more than three steps. But you’re a smart dude (I mean, you play KSP, right?) Just read the instructions first so you know how to set the time. You’ll find the anomaly values and radial positions for all the bodies on the “Body Info” tab on row 24.
  3. pincushionman

    Bending mechanics in ksp

    Is there structural deformation? Yes there is. The physics engine KSP is using simulates structures as a number of rigid bodies connected together, but the joints between them are allowed to be flexible. The vehicle you’re showing here is very long, but the parts making it up are individually quite short. Therefore, there are a lot of segments, and by extension, many joints, which makes the whole structure quite flexible. This has an effect on early-tech-tree gameplay - all you have at your disposal are short parts, so you’re forced into building small rockets until you can buy the ability to build something not so wobbly and noodle-y. EDIT: Welcome to the forums!
  4. pincushionman

    1.4.5 is something wonky with crashing into water?

    Somethimes the game forgets to make the whole spent stage go all ‘spodey when it should. I’ve found mostly-intact Mun ascent stages on the ground after I’ve ditched them and left their physics bubble before they hit.
  5. WELCOME TO KOMET! Or, Yet Another Third-Party Orbit Simulation! They seem to be pretty popular. KOMET is a simulation of the Kerbal solar system implemented in Microsoft Excel 2016. I wrote it to help me plan my missions better. Specifically, I wanted three things: Orthographic views. Since KSP is a game, it makes sense that there is a perspective view in map mode. But I find perspective makes it more difficult to see what's going on in the big picture. KOMET displays orbits in three orthographic views instead, like an engineering drawing. Views of SOI. I still get surprised when I make an encounter with...well, pretty near anything. KOMET draws the spheres of influence around all bodies so you have some idea how precise you need to be with your orbits. Time control. The maneuver node system is very useful, but it has some limitations for several orbit segments ahead; and of course you can't see your past track at all. KOMET allows you to view the state of the system at any arbitrary time. Here's a comparison of KOMET and the in-game map: In addition to showing you the state of the solar system, KOMET allows you to enter a user-defined orbit and follow the position of that object through time. As of version 0.1, only one orbit segment is plotted, but future revisions will include patched-conics orbit propagation and maneuvers. Please see the Readme tab for more details on current limitations. KOMET is implemented in Microsoft Excel 2016, and is not guaranteed to work in earlier versions of Excel. This spreadsheet also relies heavily on macros and user-defined functions. You will need to enable these in order to interact with the tool. For those of you who are wary of macros in files you get from a stranger (and good on you for that!), Excel will disable macros unless you press the "Enable Macros" button when you open it, or place it in a Trusted Location. I encourage you to open the macro editor (Alt+F11) to inspect the code. The code is found in three places: Forms: Right-click on any form and select "View Code" to see what makes that form tick. Modules: Double-click any module. This is where more general-purpose code goes. ThisWorkbook: Double-click this object. A short code snippet is here which controls what happens when you select different tabs. Download KOMET here. KOMET is licensed under the BSD 3-Clause License. Hope you enjoy, and don't forget to leave feedback! - Dan B. (pincushionman)
  6. pincushionman

    Aircraft cannot make banking turn

    Banking turns have been a thing since forever in KSP, so I din’t see what is the suggestion? Is this a gameplay question or tech support request instead?
  7. Try setting the “turn wheels” controls to something different from the yaw (they are the same by default). Wheel steering is usually fine for taxiing (when rudder is next to useless), but once you’re at speed it’s dangerous for even the best analog steering setups. You should be relying on rudder at that point. This, of course, is easier said than done, especially on keyboard setups, so a feature where wheel authority is cut off or ramps down at a certain speed (selectable in the tweakables?) would be welcome. In the meantime, though, you can also try using Docking Mode to use the steering keys for wheels only, while removing the wheel steering from Staging Mode entirely. If you want to get really fancy, you could use the two Docking Mode sub-modes as a sort of “plane mode” where you switch between rudder and wheels with the spacebar. But that’s kind of playing with fire if there’s no indication of which sub-mode you’re actually in.
  8. pincushionman

    Please, PLEASE explain what Delta V is SIMPLY

    Now, @The_Cat_In_Space, we know you wanted a short, simple answer, but the reality, like everything else in rocket science, there's actually a lot going on. The previous posters have already given good descriptions of what it means in terms of describing what a rocket can do, but I'm going to go at it from the other direction - describing what your rocket is attempting to do. Orbits are paths of constant total energy within a gravity field. We know that energy is a function of mass and position (potential energy) or mass and velocity (kinetic energy). However, because the mass of an object doesn't change throughout an orbit, and because of how gravity works, the mass terms actually "fall out" of the orbital math and we're left with position and velocity being the only important variables. When we describe orbits in KSP, we usually use orbial elements to do that job, since they're easier to digest. But an orbit is equally a set of positions and the velocity vectors at each point. And we don't need the whole set - it is sufficient to use only a single location and the associated velocity vector to uniquely describe an orbit. KSP, in fact, does have to use this formulation - in order to do patched conics, you find your xyz position and xyz velocity vectors at the SOI boundary, transform them into the new reference frame, and then derive the new orbital elements from that information. And if you're doing N-body physics, you don't have true orbits, you only have position and velocity. All right, this is getting long, but stay with me here. So when we compare two different orbits, we need to compare both the position vector and the velocity vector for each. However, when we're trying to describe a maneuver, we're not describing any two old orbits - we're describing intersecting ones. We're moving from one orbit to another where the position is the same in each orbit. Since the positions are the same, the only difference between the orbits is their respective velocity vectors. And the math you need to do those comparisons isn't calculus, you only need arithmetic. In terms of describing these maneuvers, delta-V (change in velocity) is exactly that - the vector difference between the two velocity vectors. Note that I didn't say speed, but I emphasized vector and velocity, because that's important. Most maneuvers are of the increase/decrease speed variety, but if you've ever done a pure plane change, you'll notice your starting and ending speeds are the same. The velocity change is due entirely to direction change. We normally assume that pointing your vessel in the correct direction is a free action. And to make things more confusing, this has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that you'll be moving at different speeds at different times during an orbit (fast at periapsis, slow at apoapsis). That's a whole different thing. So the delta-V of a manuever is the cost of doing that maneuver - how much do I need to be able to change my speed and direction to get to that new path. The delta-V of your rocket (described by the other posters) is a measure of how-much-maneuver-can-my-rocket-do-before-I'm-out-of-gas.
  9. pincushionman

    Monoprop Oberth Assist: Good idea?

    If you already have the monoprop onboard AND you have enough time to make your burns AND you make sure you retain enough for your other maneuvering needs, there is no downside to it. Un-burned…un-shot…un-disassociated? Un-used monopropellant is dead weight. A mixed LFO/MP burn is less efficient than an LFO-only burn of the same tonnage of fuel. However, you’ll have two things going in your favor. First, you will shed more mass during the burn, so all subsequent burns will be more efficient. Second, you’ll have more thrust, so the maneuver will take less time, meaning you’re closer to the theoretical instant maneuver and you’ll lose less to cosine loses. Of course, the efficiency thing is most true if the monoprop is used first, while the thrust part is only true if you burn both fuels sumultaneously. How much will it help? That we can’t tell unless you give us more info on your craft. You’re transporting a load of fuel, which is a heavy payload. Unless you way over-budgeted your MP, I’m guessing your MP is actually a small fraction of your mass, so the actual efficiency gain will be minimal. Likewise, unless your LFO engines are small (less than, say, 200 kN of thrust), the extra thrust isn’t going to be all that helpful, either. But you’ve already got it there, so you might as well use it. If, on the other hand, you haven’t launched yet, you’d be better off putting in a smaller MP tank to begin with.
  10. pincushionman

    Accelating a Planet

    Not exaclty the question, but Kurde…Kiuzedg…Kurzgemahhozit…these guys touched on the “would it change the Earth’s orbit” question in this video. Didn’t go into any of the details the preceding posters touched on, though.
  11. pincushionman

    Construction Grouping

    Regardless of whether you use merge, subassembly, or build in situ, you may need to re-think how your wings are built. Attaching wing sections to the fuselage ahead of/behind existing wing parts will continue to make “strips” of wing parts like you do now. If, however, you choose one wing part to be the “wing root”, so to speak, you can build a whole wing like a tree branch, adding more wing parts to existing ones (which may mean parts are put on “sideways”), able to pick it up and move it as a unit as long as you remember which root part to grab. This will, however, change the distribution of forces within the wing. Instead of a number of wing strips each cantilevered off the fuselage, you’ll now have the entire wing force being beamed through the network of wing parts back to the root, which may introduce deflections and moments that are significantly different than what you’re used to. In the past, this has required (for large wings) extensive use of struts to re-distribute the forces back to the fuselage components along the entire chord. Someone with better recent plane-building experience will need to weigh in on how autostrut and rigid connection change things (that is, I could be full of … from being out of the plane-building game).
  12. pincushionman

    How to see Kerbals through windows on Console

    Are you talking about the interior views from the Kerbals’ perspectives, or are you talking about seeing into the pods from the outside?
  13. pincushionman

    How to set up fire alarm panel

    Before dismissing the thought of professionally-installed or -monitored systems, check with your insurance. Not only is it their business to be able to make reccomendations on such things, it may result in a reduction in premiums, especially if this would fall under an existing business/farm policy.
  14. pincushionman

    R&D Building Biomes bug?

    There is a map on Reddit of the minibiomes, but it only shows the locations on the fully-upgraded KSC…and certain biomes are available at certain levels. Does anyone know of a better set of maps that has all upgrade levels?
  15. pincushionman

    Unity Analytics and the GDPR

    There used to be a popup about that. But it’s been so long since I’ve seen it I don’t remember what it was or exactly what kind of data it was asking about.