pincushionman

Members
  • Content Count

    1,039
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

607 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. Try making it stiffer. Struts, autostruts, KJR mod. Pics would still help, there may still be something apparent to us that is not obvious to you. Also: rockets are easy; planes are hard.
  2. There isn’t any reason why they shouldn’t extend such a feature to include a true pause; though if a slow enough slow-mo is available they’re practically the same thing.
  3. “Next time” being like 2 weeks from now.
  4. Since normal/antinormal doesn’t change throughout an orbit, once the vessel gets done pointing the behavior is exactly the same as SAS hold.
  5. Unless you’ve added a control point that is aligned with your (rotated) thrust vector, your thrust won’t be aligned with “vessel prograde”. You’d need to eyeball an offset from prograde during your burns, which would be kind of awkward.
  6. PC user here, but it’s hard to argue against a Mac for media work. In order to do what? Ideally you can find a system that runs all your applications natively (that is why you’re asking, right?) Dual-booting or virtualization aren’t terrible options, but they certainly are a hassle you shouldn’t choose to deal with unless you have to.
  7. Since you’re not averse to using mods, you might also consider KAS/KIS and send up Kerbals with wrenches to affix it to the cargo bay.
  8. The crew hatch is on one of the ends. Usually this is not helpful (since these are often covered by other parts), but if the only object is the cabin, it works out perfectly!
  9. I’ve destroyed an antenna deploying a (clamshell) fairing in space, and deployed the same without damage after rotating the fairing 90 degrees. I cannot, however, guarantee that this was the only change, since the fairing had to be re-built. There may be a clearance issue.
  10. Well, “when pigs fly” is sort of a challenge here, innit? KSP player #1: There’s no way you can get that to the Mun, y’know. KSP player #2: … KSP player #1: Uh oh. KSP player #2: Hold my beer.
  11. Bring a whole new meaning to “You’d forget your head if it wasn’t attached to your shoulders…”
  12. Send a small satellite with only a powerful-enough relay antenna to reach Kerbin, a probe core, and a sufficient power source. It can then serve the lander, and all your craft already there. You don’t need to fly the whole thing there again.
  13. As Bewing noted, wheel drag is a very common problem. But this statement also caught my eye: …Do you happen to have the rear gear attached to the wings? KSP has a bug where mirror symmetry gives parts slightly unsymmetric stiffness, which can manifest as veering to the side on takeoff or landing, and the way to combat it is by attaching your gear as rigidly as possible to the center fuselage. Some even cheat wing gear by attaching to the fuselage and shifting them outward with the offset tool. Otherwise, avoid wing gear like the plague. Any additional joints between the center and the gear make the problem worse. If this is your problem, you’ll also see behavior like unwanted roll occurring during hard pitch-ups. You may need to find ways to add stiffness to your design.
  14. Version 0.4 is now available! Download it here! Capture by other bodies within the same SOI is now implemented! Do note that I have been unable to match the behavior of the KSP simulation precisely with regards to captures, even for a small system like the Jool sub-system. There may be several factors at play, which I will investigate further before the next release. However, I have also been unable to set a precise orbit repeatably in-game using either HyperEdit or the F12 cheat menu, so it may be that the best that an Excel simulation can accomplish is a "close enough" answer. The next release will focus on adding maneuvers to the user-defined orbit, which will allow the user to iron out any errors in the KOMET simulation, regardless of their sources.
  15. All other things being equal, it is more efficient to correct it right at the get-go. But if you’re far enough away, the difference between the two is pitifully small. But there is also the consideration of being precise - you need to balance being far enough away that it requires a small enough maneuver that you save fuel with being close enough that it requires a large enough maneuver you can actually control it without overshooting, requiring an additional correction that wipes out your fuel savings.