Helpful 1.0 observations

[GoSlash27]

This thread is intended to collect random observations that we make to help each other transition into the physics and gameplay of KSP 1.0.

It should not be used for bug reports, complaints, or anything that other players won't find particularly handy.

Please note at the beginning of your observation which aspect of gameplay your observation applies to (physics, engines, aerodynamics, etc).

I will do my best to keep the observations organized here in the OP.

Thanks,

-Slashy

Physics

*Kerbin LKO takes about 3,000 m/sec (using MJ). -Geschosskopf

*Kerbin LKO takes about 3,400 m/sec (calc using vacuum Isp)- GoSlash27

*Eve LEO should take about 7,300 m/sec DV (unconfirmed) -GoSlash27

*The edge of Jool's atmosphere now extends to 200km -Camacan

*Radial air intakes no longer act as floats -KerrMu

Aerodynamics

*Fins are helpful for stabilizing rockets during launch -worir4

*Drag is negligible above 45km -eddiew

*Lifting bodies are simulated, so you can adjust your landing location by steering your capsule -Hcube

*Keeping velocity below terminal during the launch greatly aids stability -GoSlash27

*Spaceplanes should show good results with the lift/ mass in the region of .25:1. -GoSlash27

*Airbrakes can be used as yaw controls when mounted horizontally. -Veeltch

Parts

*Wing sections make a very effective heat sink when arrayed around parts -Torham234

*Turbo Ramjets top out around Mach 3. -GoSlash27

*Batteries and solar panels overheat very easily -almhuran

*Reducing the gimbal authority is a good way to reduce SAS overcorrection during launch -Spuds

*Heatshields are flagged as physicsless and can cause your capsule to tumble. Fix here-Endersmens

*The aerospike makes 271 s of Isp near sea level on Eve and 106kN thrust. -Starhawk

*The Mammoth makes 193s of Isp on Eve at sea level and 2500kN -Starhawk

*Struts create a lot of drag -Zipmafia

Gameplay

*Warning: Switching to docking mode will not lock out staging -Randazzo

Edited April 30, 2015 by GoSlash27

[worir4]

Aerodynamics- Fins are a must now Launch stages are easy to tip over without them. I find with fins you have a larger area to deviate from the prograde marker.

[RedDwarfIV]

Even tiny planes with only two engines can reach OMGWTFBBQ speeds at extremely low altitude, when such planes could barely reach 250m/s before.

[Torham234]

Ohh I have some!

So, Heat. I have been working on a good radiator to get rid of that pesky heat. It seems the best part to use are the wing sections. They have naturally high heat resistance, they are very low mass, and great surface area. Its a win, win, win scenario.

I have been running some test of cooling the nuke engine. Each of the screenshots was taken when the fuel tank at the center maxed out at the temperature and started cooling down. The lower left corner is the control. As you can see, one of the wing sections actually managed to cool the tank down WHILE the nuke was still firing. the beam section(top left) only seems to be working great, but I quickly found out that they are only good at accumulating heat, and they are very bad at radiating it. Also they are really heavy compared to the rest of the parts.

For comparison, the "official" solar panel suggestion is a really last option scenario, It clocked in around 840 degrees...

http://i1289.photobucket.com/albums/b514/yes753cac/Radiators_zpswynzbrwq.jpg~original' alt='Radiators_zpswynzbrwq.jpg~original'>

[eddiew]

Aerodynamics first impression; there's basically no drag past 45km.

(If you have an AP of 72 by 45km, you'll end up about 71. Past 50km, you lose less than a metre of AP per second of flight. Effectively this reduces your target for orbital altitude since you could cruise at 50km with a low-thrust high-efficiency engine while you circularise right where you are.)

Engines first impression; you can take away about 1 in 3 of your air breathing engines and still take off like a bullet fired from the back of a bullet. If you chose not to remove engines, y'all are gonna explode in orange fire

[Jovus]

Heat shields do not appear to be under the 'structural' or 'utility' tab (maybe I just missed them), but they can easily be found by filtering on resource - in fact, ablative is the first resource in the stack.

[EladDv]

they are aerodynamic

[Hcube]

Re-entry :

It _seems_ to be a good idea to tilt your capsule apollo style while re-entering the atmosphere to fine tune your landing site location. Lifting bodies are now modeled ingame ! (what i suggested has nothing to do with the re-entry bugs everyone seems to have, its just a way to land a spacecraft that already re enters fine)

[GoSlash27]

Physics: I ran a much more efficient profile with the same ship. 3,316 m/sec to 70x70 LKO.

Best,

-Slashy

Edited April 27, 2015 by GoSlash27

[EladDv]

3.4 Km/s is shaping into the new LKO Delta V well let's start making maps

[GoSlash27]

Physics:

I have found so far that if I keep my velocity below terminal, the SAS is adequate to keep me on course without fins. This also seems to be very efficient in terms of DV.

[lajoswinkler]

Aerodynamics- Fins are a must now Launch stages are easy to tip over without them. I find with fins you have a larger area to deviate from the prograde marker.

No, they are not. I've managed to launch this without any problems.

[RedDwarfIV]

Further on the subject of planes, the system seems much more forgiving now. A sudden movement in centre of mass (such as parts exploding at 900m/s) doesn't send the craft careening out of control like it used to.

I will say, I find it much harder to land now. Even at low thrust, engines can really make a plane move.

[GoSlash27]

Engines:

The turbojets seem to be limited to Mach 3 now. Turbojet/ OMS SSTOs seem to be a thing of the past now.

Best,

-Slashy

[NathanKell]

Jets perform like jets now. That means thrust varies with atmopsheric density and current mach number. The basic jet will taper off past Mach 1, the Turboramjet (note name change) peaks around Mach 3 but can still provide thrust past Mach 4, and the RAPIER (in air breathing mode) peaks around Mach 4.

[Starwhip]

You really, really, REALLY need to tweak the thrust limiter on your SRB's early on. Even at 30 percent, the "Flea" and a capsule goes at a ridiculous clip.

I warned ya.

[allmhuran]

Engines:

The turbojets seem to be limited to Mach 3 now. Turbojet/ OMS SSTOs seem to be a thing of the past now.

-Slashy

I spent about 30 minutes this morning in 1.0 and built this, which can do 1300m/s at 22000 - 24000m, but only with the Mk1 pod on the nose since it has an extra 400K of heat tolerance. What I learned: the old adage of building the smallest possible aircraft for speed is no longer true. The tapering thrust curve now gives you a reason to throw a bunch of engines on an aircraft if you gottagofast.

Also: precoolers are your friends. Regular intakes explode third in the list of explodybits (first are batteries, second are solar panels). But precoolers keep on keeping on.

[GoSlash27]

I spent about 30 minutes this morning in 1.0 and built this, which can do 1300m/s at 22000 - 24000m, but only with the Mk1 pod on the nose since it has an extra 400K of heat tolerance. What I learned: the old adage of building the smallest possible aircraft for speed is no longer true. The tapering thrust curve now gives you a reason to throw a bunch of engines on an aircraft if you gottagofast.

Also: precoolers are your friends. Regular intakes explode third in the list of explodybits (first are batteries, second are solar panels). But precoolers keep on keeping on.

http://i.imgur.com/hjuFGxB.png

Allmhuran,

That looks slightly better than what I saw with a very simple single seat/ single engine aircraft. I got 1100 m/sec and 21 km altitude before it went all explodey.

Early to tell, but I think adding engines doesn't give much in the way of additional performance.

Thanks for the mention of the batteries and solar panels being fragile. That's good to know!

Best,

-Slashy

[moogoob]

Can second the fragile batteries. I had a transfer stage with nuke and did a munar transfer burn. 3/4 of the way through the whole thing is glowing dull red and my four radial batteries mounted near the engine explode. Need to try that heat-sink wing strategy.

[allmhuran]

The order of explodybits was provided during the KSPTV stream yesterday, I believe it was KasperVid who laid it out - batteries, then panels, then air intakes. We didn't get further than that. At first I thought this meant precoolers would be pointless, since there's no point improving the performance of an engine that isn't getting any air! But as it turns out, precoolers themselves have intake air as well, but don't seem to count as air intakes in terms of explodiness (I haven't actually checked their heat tolerance but I'm guessing it's 2000, same as the space plane parts). This also means you can use batteries as "canary" parts. If your batteries start popping, slow down!

- - - Updated - - -

Allmhuran,

That looks slightly better than what I saw with a very simple single seat/ single engine aircraft. I got 1100 m/sec and 21 km altitude before it went all explodey.

Early to tell, but I think adding engines doesn't give much in the way of additional performance.

I would say 18% is somewhat more than "slightly" better But more pertinently, I also briefly tried a smaller single engine craft and three engine craft after this test. The order of ascending max speed was consistently 1 engine, 3 engine, 7 engine.

Previously more engines just meant reaching the 2400 m/s limit sooner. But now you'll never be able to reach that limit, so more engines actually does seem to result in a higher potential top speed. (Sure, you might get to the same speed eventually on one engine if you empty all fuel tanks and turn on infinite fuel, but it will take an unreasonable amount of time).

Edited April 28, 2015 by allmhuran

[GoSlash27]

allmhuran,

I'm not knocking your achievement, so apologies if it came off that way!

My point is that the difference is very little as compared to where you need to be to hit orbit.

Since we need to be at 2.3 km/ sec and 70km altitude to establish orbit, the difference is relatively small.

The extra thousand-odd m/sec DV to make orbit requires fuel and rockets. At what point is the extra mass better- spent on those than more jets?

Best,

-Slashy

[allmhuran]

Oh not at all, I didn't read it as a slight, I just thought you meant that more engines didn't seem to matter much so I wanted to be more specific about my brief testing. And absolutely, there's still no way we'll be going orbital on jets and a bit of RCS.

I will spend more time after work today, the very first thing I thought to do in 1.0 was to test out hypersonic aircraft in the new atmosphere. The atmospheric heating and the thrust curve on engines are both a bit daft right now. Mach 1 before the end of the runway (LOL), then throttle down to 10% to avoid exploding from overheat at mach 2-3 all the way up to about 15000m, then you get about 60 seconds of effective 100% throttle before you start running out of thrust.

Edited April 28, 2015 by allmhuran

[Spuds]

I've found that reducing the gimbal amount for your engines helps reduce wobblyness in the atmosphere, likely because the SAS overcompensates and your gimbal is either all or nothing.

Luckily the gimbal limit can be adjusted mid-flight, to prevent uncontrollable wobbling.

[peachoftree]

you can fit 4-5 goo containers in a single 1.25m service module, great for biome hoppers

[Starhawk]

Physics/Aerodynamics/Engines

ISP continues to fall off with pressure as pressure increases above one atmo. The Terrier hits zero ISP at about 3000 m on Eve.

Happy landings!