Career Mode Start Impossible as of 1.0.3 drag

[bendyn]

Hi all, so I'm not a rocket scientist, or a good pilot, or anything like that. So I play on Normal difficulty. I restarted to a fresh Career mode game for 1.0.3, and find myself frustrated and disapointed.

The new drag model makes my first few crappy flights riding ontop of the the small SRBs incredibly deadly. I don't have the science to research additional parachutes, but it seems I can't land a mk1 cockpit and two goo canisters with the initial parachute like I used to be able to. Going down to one goo canister creates drag issues as the craft is now unbalanced. I am not sure what to do or try now.

Any ideas? Thanks!

[NathanKell]

Welcome to the forums!

I'd suggest launching with just the chute+pod+Flea. That should give you enough science to start unlocking more nodes.

I'll have to check out any issues with Pod+Flea+2goo+chute, but I haven't had issues with that either; your Flea will explode on landing but the rest should be safe...

[bendyn]

Thanks for the welcome!

I'll try it again with the flea and see if it's just that you can't use the bigger one without radial chutes because it makes you go too fast.

[wumpus]

I re-started for 1.0.x (probably missed 1.0.0 and 1.0.1) and noticed that the basic chute had already been horribly nerfed. Have you changed the height that the chute opens? In 1.0.2 it wouldn't open until far too late for anything past the absolute minimum. Slide it over a bit and you might live with a can o'boom. Haven't checked with 1.0.3

[tater]

You can set the thrust of the srbs in the vab, you know. Try setting them much lower early on. Say 50%.

[bendyn]

Okay, so the flea + 2 goos worked, though it was a bit terrifying.

I tried again with the RT-10, using Wumpus' suggestion (thank you very much sir!) with the chute set to 1,000m and I came down well enough.

I bought survivability as soon as i could and my 3rd iteration rocket could carry the Science Jr. without issues with 3 chutes (all set to 1,000m).

Moral of the story:

500m default chute setting is out to kill Jeb.

Thanks guys!

Edit:

@tater: Yeah I have the Engineer mod installed and i usually dial down to about 1.55-1.6 twr for these early flights which seem to works pretty well for me.

Edited June 22, 2015 by bendyn

[CattyNebulart]

I re-started for 1.0.x (probably missed 1.0.0 and 1.0.1) and noticed that the basic chute had already been horribly nerfed. Have you changed the height that the chute opens? In 1.0.2 it wouldn't open until far too late for anything past the absolute minimum. Slide it over a bit and you might live with a can o'boom. Haven't checked with 1.0.3

The chute and the flea are tweakable, if you are having problems try launching with less thrust or fuel or tweak the parachute settings a bit. What you can also try is to add 2 or 3 Modular grider segments and put parachutes on them, you will probably need the translation and rotation tool to position them nicely... if you go with 3 they make decent landign gear early on.

[Empiro]

I thought that in the patch notes, the default open altitude was also changed to 1000m.

[bendyn]

I thought that in the patch notes, the default open altitude was also changed to 1000m.

I noticed that the radial chutes were set to 1,000 but the nosecone chute default was still 500m.

@Catty, I'm not exactly sure what you mean. You mean stick some girders to the sloped sides of the mk1 pod?

[rofltehcat]

You can also get a lot of science by rolling around the space center (e.g. stick two capsules together) as there are a lot of different biomes near pretty much every building. That way you can at least get more parachutes.

[SRV Ron]

Had no problem flying the flea with two Goo canisters. I tweak the flea to about 33%. It reached almost 8,000 meters. The ship landed OK on flat land East of the pad. You turn it in flight slightly to do so.

Beware that a single tweaked BACC will now fling you to over 160,000 meters or can burn you up on powered flight. A real scary ride.

[wumpus]

Welcome to the forums!

I'd suggest launching with just the chute+pod+Flea. That should give you enough science to start unlocking more nodes.

I'll have to check out any issues with Pod+Flea+2goo+chute, but I haven't had issues with that either; your Flea will explode on landing but the rest should be safe...

I'm going to look for a proper place to report bugs, but this looks pretty strange (largely due to steam updating my windows and linux copies to different revisions).

Pod+Flea+2goo+chute (linux: 1.0.3.0) survives

Pod+Flea+2goo+chute (windows: 1.0.3.859) impacts the ground at 100m/s. I saw one kerbal survive this, but it looked like a bug/lucky bounce.

Pod+Flea+chute (windows: 1.0.3.859) works fine if chute altitude is changed to ~2000m (I suspect the magic height is just over 1000m with goo).

Pod+Flea+2goo+chute (windows: 1.0.3.859) survives with default "open chute on liftoff". Extremely kerbal flight, may grant enough science to get started.

Pod+can o'boom+2goo+chute+separator (linux: 1.0.3.0) must open chute <200m/s speed. (does not make it into space)

Pod+can o'boom+2goo+chute+separator (windows: 1.0.3.859) must open chute >400m/s speed (chute burns if opened >700m/s), "must" have chute set to >1000m (does make it into space)

Note that it might be possible to survive some of the descents in windows with a stock set chute, but the timing is *very* tight. My last attempt involved 3 mystery goos (which may have blocked a spacewalk and only allowed just barely cleared space at 72,000m) opened the chute between 690-700m/s and hit the water at 20m/s.

I thought that in the patch notes, the default open altitude was also changed to 1000m.

It is at 1000m now. It isn't quite enough to survive under windows (but is enough under linux).

I was going to rant about the issue that launching the most basic rocket (what I would recommend beginners start with) simply will not survive without detailed knowledge (I assume bendyn knows how to play, just didn't realize about the parachute slider). And that this has been the case for at least 6 months after "release". I think the real problem may be that you are shipping different linux+windows versions and that testing under one tells you little about how the other works.

Edited June 23, 2015 by wumpus
fixed name of OP (had moderator in place)

[bendyn]

Yeah, it is a bit disconcerting that they change how "flying / falling with style" works, but then you go and play the first few flights and it's not at all beginner friendly. As I said, I'm awful at this game. And if I didn't know about this forum, or wasn't brave enough to post "I don't know" on the internet, I could imagine feeling like the game was just programmed to be nitpicky and hard for no good reason and move on.

It might just be the case that in order to have a real sim, you need it to work like this. But my #1 complaint with Kerbal has been that I have no idea what I'm doing, and that does have consequences now. At the risk of flames of doom, I'll bring up World of Warcraft. The devs said not too long ago, that they didn't feel that it was a good thing to have to have their players going outside the game, in order to learn how to play the game. Just something to think about.

Thanks for all the help and replies guys! Let's keep on until we find out what exactly is going on.

[wumpus]

The problem with your complaint is that WoW isn't rocket science. KSP doesn't have that option.

My basic recommendation is to start watching Scott Manley (although I'm pretty sure he doesn't encounter the parachute problem). https://www.youtube.com/user/szyzyg

Warning: this may take awhile. He has several series. The most obvious would be "career mode for beginners" which is just hitting spaceplanes and sending a probe to Duna. It is 7 hours (so far) of video. He has another 20+ tutorial videos (at ~20 minutes a pop) that detail particular issues (orbit, docking, planetary transfer), but don't expect them to be remotely current for 1.0.3. (but the basics of rocket science don't really change).

The basics piloting a rocket are blindingly simple once you understand them (but first you have to understand Keplerian mechanics), and largely consist of firing pro/retrograde to move the radius on the opposite side of your elliptical trajectory. Rocket building is mostly understanding delta-V, looking up the handy subway chart http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Cheat_sheet and breaking your rocket into a reasonable amount of stages of roughly equal delta-V (which adds up to at least the magic delta-V figure you need).

The details keep us playing the game and take awhile to learn (the bit about docking was literally Buzz Aldrin's doctoral dissertation: http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/12652 ). Squad also keeps changing every things release (some because of nerfing parts similar to a WoW nerf. Others because things like the aerodynamic upgrade make things closer to real rocket science).

[Beowolf]

At the risk of flames of doom, I'll bring up World of Warcraft. The devs said not too long ago, that they didn't feel that it was a good thing to have to have their players going outside the game, in order to learn how to play the game. Just something to think about.

If there are any hardcore WOW players who don't use outside references I'll be shocked. WOW may be casually playable without them, but outside references will always provide an advantage to the player who uses them.

IMO, KSP's whole reason for existing is to give us a fun way to learn hard things about aerospace and orbital mechanics. Much of why I'm still playing it two years and a thousand hours later is because while I'm looking up something I need for my game I learn other fascinating things I'd never have known to look for. It happened just last night when I was having trouble with a transfer orbit to geosync in my Realism Overhaul game. A casual mention of how some other transfer orbits use Lagrange points to save dV sucked me in, and KSP doesn't even have Lagrange points. But now I understand them better than I ever have before, and that makes me happy.

Very few games have that kind of staying power. But I've never thought of KSP as a "game", anyway. It's a set of digital rocket Legos to play with. The gameplay parts, like career mode, are basically bolted on. There aren't even any victory conditions. In career, you play until you get bored or a new release breaks your save. How many games can't be won? Minecraft's a better comparison than WOW. These are creative toys, rather than games, to me.

Maybe that isn't your thing, and that's fine. I think WOW's just mind-numbing boredom, but obviously plenty of people disagree. Differences are what makes life interesting.

[Juicy]

As rofltehcat said, there's never a reason to launch on a flea.

Start the game with 2 capsule tests - one on the Launchpad, one on the Runway, just a capsule and Science! experiments. You'll get enough to unlock the first 2 nodes just from there.

I tend to save my planetside experiments and reports for when I get the lab. With a lab, just park it someplace convenient, and rover around the KSC to fill it up. If you made something VTOL-capable, visit the roofs of the buildings too, and you've got a full laboratory producing enough knowledge to fill out the bigger part of your tech tree.

Anyway, the REAL problem right now is, that parachutes don't produce enough drag anymore. Even a flea already lands a bit too hard. I tried tweaking the .cfg file for the first parachute. I managed to make it slow down faster, so it reaches a "constant" speed quicker, but so far didn't manage to make its constant speed while fully deployed significantly lower.

[SRV Ron]

I don't think that the drogue part of the MK-16 is working. The flea pod combo points down until the main opens. Speed is not slowing down much from 250 m/s until the main opens. This is likely the cause of hard landing from flights coming straight down. They hit the ground before they have slowed down fully under the main chute opening.

[NathanKell]

If the area of a chute doesn't produce more drag than the draggy part of your vessel, then the draggy part of your vessel will be at the rear.

Parachutes aren't magic "point-the-other-way" devices, they're drag producers like anything else.

[Nich]

So I just did a test and this is already fixed in 1.0.4 as they have changed the default open point of the starting parachutes to 1000m. What really shocked me was you can now get suborbital with 2 fleas lol

[nobodyhasthis]

I don't think that the drogue part of the MK-16 is working. The flea pod combo points down until the main opens. Speed is not slowing down much from 250 m/s until the main opens. This is likely the cause of hard landing from flights coming straight down. They hit the ground before they have slowed down fully under the main chute opening.

If the area of a chute doesn't produce more drag than the draggy part of your vessel, then the draggy part of your vessel will be at the rear.

Parachutes aren't magic "point-the-other-way" devices, they're drag producers like anything else.

You are correct. It all comes down to drag stability and terminal velocity. I noticed that the MK 2 cockpit in one of my designs had a fatal aerodynamic performance in 1.0.3. It had a terminal velocity that could shred stock parachutes due the sharp aerodynamic shape. The fix was to use the new radiator parts to produce stability drag to keep the blunt end facing down. Whilst helping to lower the final terminal velocity to a speed more suitable for stock chutes.

- - - Updated - - -

Here in this test we see the an early career air-break parachute protector in action with the aerodynamic forces overlay. Just to be even safer on this mission I included a back up chute system just in case the primary set failed.

- - - Updated - - -

Here we have the same thing working in 1.0.4 with an even more early career design. Here there is no pilot skill input or SAS at all. Three goo containers are placed up high on Mk1 pod. The drag flips the pod the right way up and the blunt end kills the terminal velocity down to a parachute friendly speed.

Edited June 24, 2015 by nobodyhasthis

[Nich]

UM I hate to break it too you but capsule is more aerodynamic (i.e. should fall faster) with the blunt end down. Think of a rain drop. The reason it has that shape is because the blunt area creates a shock boundary that keeps re-entry heat away from the capsule. Pointy things are mm away from the shock boundary and have very little mass and thus end up melting very quickly.

[nobodyhasthis]

UM I hate to break it too you but capsule is more aerodynamic (i.e. should fall faster) with the blunt end down. Think of a rain drop. .

So you are saying blunt objects go faster that aerodynamic ones?

Nope you got it wrong. As the speed of an object increases, the drag force acting on the object, resultant of the substance it is passing through, increases. At some speed, the drag or force of resistance will equal the gravitational pull on the object At this point the object ceases to accelerate and continues falling at a constant speed called terminal velocity (also called settling velocity). An object moving downward with greater than terminal velocity (for example because it was thrown downwards or it fell from a thinner part of the atmosphere or it changed shape) will slow down until it reaches terminal velocity. Drag depends on the projected area, and this is why objects with a large projected area relative to mass, such as parachutes, have a lower terminal velocity than objects with a small projected area relative to mass, such as bullets.

[TheSoundOfTrees]

I am quite new to the game. For me, this patch just means that I have to restart my Science save and re-learn how things work now : more dangerous re-entry and descents even for basic level 1 rockets, different behaviour in the atmosphere ( for instance, one of my very basic rockets, who before always deviated a little to the west, now deviates a LOT to the east : free gravity turn ) , formerly safe designs becoming unsafe...

I am not complaining : I like testing basic rockets, or I would not be playing Science. But other players may find this a little hard, especially just after a big sale.

I wonder how my "homemade landing pad and science lab protector" will do now. Back to testing.

[nobodyhasthis]

I am quite new to the game. For me, this patch just means that I have to restart my Science save and re-learn how things work now : more dangerous re-entry and descents even for basic level 1 rockets, different behaviour in the atmosphere ( for instance, one of my very basic rockets, who before always deviated a little to the west, now deviates a LOT to the east : free gravity turn ) , formerly safe designs becoming unsafe...

I am not complaining : I like testing basic rockets, or I would not be playing Science. But other players may find this a little hard, especially just after a big sale.

I wonder how my "homemade landing pad and science lab protector" will do now. Back to testing.

Yes indeed. Welcome to a brave new Kerbin world of space pioneers. It is going to be back to drawing boards for a lot of us. A lot of previous guides to the game are now dangerously out of date. The safe operation atmospheric envelope is tighter that before and more unforgiving of errors. We all will soon we get to grips with it. It is a fun journey to the stars on Kerbin.

Well until something like a "nu-nuFAR" mod gets published which puts us back in another exciting exploration frontier. Hey we are not working for NASA. So failure is an option and sometimes a hilariously funny one.

Edited June 24, 2015 by nobodyhasthis

[bendyn]

As rofltehcat said, there's never a reason to launch on a flea.

Start the game with 2 capsule tests - one on the Launchpad, one on the Runway, just a capsule and Science! experiments. You'll get enough to unlock the first 2 nodes just from there.

And you are a disgusting monster for bringing WoW into a KSP forum. Welcome to the game!

*high fives to you* Yeah, it might be easier to do that, but launching on the flea is so much more FUN! By fun i mean scary, and hurtling along at 1 km up at 300m/s is my kind of scary-fun! I hope this game is supposed to be fun.

You are correct. It all comes down to drag stability and terminal velocity. I noticed that the MK 2 cockpit in one of my designs had a fatal aerodynamic performance in 1.0.3. It had a terminal velocity that could shred stock parachutes due the sharp aerodynamic shape. The fix was to use the new radiator parts to produce stability drag to keep the blunt end facing down. Whilst helping to lower the final terminal velocity to a speed more suitable for stock chutes.

- - - Updated - - -

Here we have the same thing working in 1.0.4 with an even more early career design. Here there is no pilot skill input or SAS at all. Three goo containers are placed up high on Mk1 pod. The drag flips the pod the right way up and the blunt end kills the terminal velocity down to a parachute friendly speed.

That design is interesting. So by putting my goo canisters further down, hoping the weight would keep the fat part pointing at the angry atmo atoms that I am assaulting with my craft, I am actually creating more drag than the mass is worth and making it want to tip around? Interesting.

I am quite new to the game. For me, this patch just means that I have to restart my Science save and re-learn how things work now : more dangerous re-entry and descents even for basic level 1 rockets, different behaviour in the atmosphere ( for instance, one of my very basic rockets, who before always deviated a little to the west, now deviates a LOT to the east : free gravity turn ) , formerly safe designs becoming unsafe...

I am not complaining : I like testing basic rockets, or I would not be playing Science. But other players may find this a little hard, especially just after a big sale.

I wonder how my "homemade landing pad and science lab protector" will do now. Back to testing.

I'm feeling you man. I got a C+ in Astrophysics when I went to university, so alot of the posts in this topic are about curves, or nodes, or points, or something that I have no idea what they are but am now rather curious about. Yeah okay, I have a Bachelor's of Arts. I'm artsy. So it's going to take me a while. I've managed to figure out what "prograde" and "retrograde" are, mostly from Scot Manley's wonderfully awesome videos. I'm american so the accent amuses me. I was actually following along with his beginner tutorials in a different career save before 1.0.3 hit, but then things started blowing up that didn't before. As you and some other people have pointed out, now his videos have gotten dangerously outdated so I will have to just revert-revert-revert-OMG WHAT WAS THAT REVERT!-revert some more until I figure it out.

I enjoyed the "flames" about WoW (I'm not offended don't worry). I wonder what would happen if I said something else, like... Eve Online? No, I'm just kidding. This thread isn't about that!

Edited June 24, 2015 by bendyn
typos