Jump to content

What did you do in KSP today?


Xeldrak
 Share

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, kurgut said:

Don't you accept the contracts just before launching the rockets? I do this, and most of the time I can manage completing contracts without problems since I've a bit more time then and I also often build (duplicate the first one) 2 rockets for each mission, since the most expensive thing is rollout costs, and if not needed, I just scrap it, you get funds back hopefully)

I've done that a few times, but I keep forgetting -- and for sounding contracts (specifically "difficult" and "intermediate") the payload amount keeps changing -- if you don't nail down the contract in a few days after it appears, by the time your rocket is ready to roll out there'll be a different one, with my luck requiring more Sounding Payload to a higher altitude.  Then I have to edit.

At this point (early 1955) I've got my build times down to where, with a very little rush building (a couple clicks on each attempt) I can do three of the A-9/XASR-1 rockets in 90 days, at least two of the heavier RD-103/AJ10-27 launchers, in 90 days -- and be sure I have the payload right before rollout time.

 

11 hours ago, roboslacker said:

Yesterday, I loaded up KSP for the first time on my new laptop and installed Making History. The loading was painfully slow, but it loaded in the end. I messed around building some stuff with the MH parts, and then stopped playing because the load times were too slow. Does anyone know a good fix for this?

Number one thing I'd suggest is to install a CPU/motherboard temperature monitor and/or a CPU frequency meter.  My Thinkpad T430 overheats when I run KSP, and throttles the nominal 2.9 GHz (3.4 GHz turbo) CPU down as low as 350 MHz.  I need to either get my nerve up to open it myself, or pay someone to do it, clear out the dust, put in new thermal paste, and possibly upgrade the RAM while it's open.  Generally, though, laptops aren't the best platform for CPU-intensive processes like games, because cooling will generally be the bottleneck (especially if they're old enough to depend on fans, rather than making the whole case out of metal and using it for a heat sink like MacBooks and machines designed to compete with them).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Zeiss Ikon said:

I've done that a few times, but I keep forgetting -- and for sounding contracts (specifically "difficult" and "intermediate") the payload amount keeps changing -- if you don't nail down the contract in a few days after it appears, by the time your rocket is ready to roll out there'll be a different one, with my luck requiring more Sounding Payload to a higher altitude.  Then I have to edit.

At this point (early 1955) I've got my build times down to where, with a very little rush building (a couple clicks on each attempt) I can do three of the A-9/XASR-1 rockets in 90 days, at least two of the heavier RD-103/AJ10-27 launchers, in 90 days -- and be sure I have the payload right before rollout time.

Yes you're right for sounding rockets contracts, but for others ones it can be useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, kurgut said:

Yes you're right for sounding rockets contracts, but for others ones it can be useful.

I've never gotten further than polar orbit, so far (darn you, Test Flight!).  And the crewed suborbital contracts don't have any rush; they allow a year.  First orbit gives three years.  Sounding rockets are the only ones I've dealt with so far that have a level of specificity that requires customizing the payload or launch vehicle.  I've been putting more upgrades into VAB, fewer into R&D, and none at all into SPH this career.  I hate to neglect the X-Plane contracts, but honestly, I have a very, very poor record landing any airplane or spaceplane, with the condition of the runway requiring flying from the grass, where you can't see the subtle undulations...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Zeiss Ikon said:

I've never gotten further than polar orbit, so far (darn you, Test Flight!).  And the crewed suborbital contracts don't have any rush; they allow a year.  First orbit gives three years.  Sounding rockets are the only ones I've dealt with so far that have a level of specificity that requires customizing the payload or launch vehicle.  I've been putting more upgrades into VAB, fewer into R&D, and none at all into SPH this career.  I hate to neglect the X-Plane contracts, but honestly, I have a very, very poor record landing any airplane or spaceplane, with the condition of the runway requiring flying from the grass, where you can't see the subtle undulations...

Yes ok, I guess you play in hard settings right?

And finally yes, you're right, accepting contracts before launch with a backup rocket is the most useful for interplaneray launches : if no backup rocket, and if your first one fails, then the contract (flyby, orbit, landing, etc) will fail, because have to wait for next window to the planet targeted (200 to 400 days for mars/venus).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Watched warships duel each other in space...

GJGViUM.png

Took screenshots of a conference room for The Kerbin Escape...

5p6ZXaZ.png

And took a break by quickly putting together a Kerbal B757 of sorts and flew it around—a pretty slow plane when full of fuel, despite having considerably more powerful engines and being lighter than the real thing, but it eventually reached comparable speeds.

cgvjUxl.png

sOyXf0w.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Zeiss Ikon said:

hate to neglect the X-Plane contracts, but honestly, I have a very, very poor record landing any airplane or spaceplane, with the condition of the runway requiring flying from the grass, where you can't see the subtle undulations...

Is there any way you could fly them from the VAB? Use solid boosters to get airborne and land using parachutes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Zeiss Ikon said:

I've been putting more upgrades into VAB, fewer into R&D, and none at all into SPH this career.  I hate to neglect the X-Plane contracts, but honestly, I have a very, very poor record landing any airplane or spaceplane, with the condition of the runway requiring flying from the grass, where you can't see the subtle undulations... 

Speaking from my limited experience, I didn't really feel like the SPH and X-Plane contracts were really worth it. I know for one I pretty much just strapped a kerbal into a cockpit with a ton of boosters underneath on the launchpad which apparently counted as a "plane" enough to complete it. But other than maybe some quick cash in the beginning of the program.

I would also suggest in investing more into R&D. Its quite helpful for later game stuff when things take a good quarter of the year to research or longer.

9 hours ago, Zeiss Ikon said:

At this point (early 1955) I've got my build times down to where, with a very little rush building (a couple clicks on each attempt) I can do three of the A-9/XASR-1 rockets in 90 days, at least two of the heavier RD-103/AJ10-27 launchers, in 90 days -- and be sure I have the payload right before rollout time.

Huh that seems kinda slower compared to what @Ultimate Steve and I have been doing. In early 1955 we were both launching unmanned lunar missions. Somewhat curious why that might be. Maybe its because we are on 1.2.1 and you are on 1.3.X and something has changed in between? Could also just be play style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing spectacular so far today.

A rescue drone executed it's ejection burn out of Duna's orbit, bringing back a stranded pod. Also doing some driving on Vall, grabbing the science as I go.

RNenEgl.jpg

There are also a couple of detected anomalies to visit -I just haven't gotten there yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Valkyrie has been kicking around in my head for months.  I'm really happy with it except that I have to refit it for 2.5m fairings as this prototype 1.5 is too small.

In this shot, Valkyrie circles back to encourage the rover it just laid, mid-air, to head for the ground.

MzV4Iuw.png
 

Spoiler

 

ECsCqpl.pngKHz1RiW.png
OdyzbTV.pngexzrdOH.png
oJInlfm.pngcgSqU4p.png

 

 

 

Mach 4+ with a 1.24 kal/sec draw and 5,500 kallons onboard.  Rotation is a bit late at 60 m/s (probably a nose-low attitude on the runway) but it lands like a feather (35 m/s).

Edited by Hotel26
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't do this today. In fact, it was late last night when I did this... But here it is... two shuttles docked at my new exploration vessel...

In case you're wondering, the Excursion, the exploration vessel, uses parts from @Angel-125's Mark One Laboratory Extensions (M.O.L.E.) and Deep Space Exploration Vessels 

moRih91.png

AwajBq2.png

5mZOfEu.png?1

rXnZLNM.png

 

Edited by adsii1970
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was decided that there can never be too many electrics components installed....especially when the kerbal administration just approved the request for a full blast cinematic theatre!

xtYwjoc.png

So everybody gathered and a group photograph was taken just before it was realized that Bill had forgotten to install the TV screen...

ToJo8SZ.png

:huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to crazy: I'm starting a new project of huge Mun base camp (or other vacuum world), now building and testing in sandbox, but one day career, sure it'll be put on the mun!

It will feature habitat for 10 kerbals, life support autonmy (only food not), rover and his garage, science lab, and more :)

Just started designing few minutes ago:

far right is the garage, right habitat module, and left is the airlock module

kS4F7ua.png

 

And just ended the first garage designed, with folding door

2SglNGM.png

And.. yes, our engineers don't know yet how we'll send this to the mun, but that's just a detail of course :sticktongue:

Edited by kurgut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just added to the temporary named Munok Base Camp: Life support room and power room module, both in open preview at moment:

R5dZvuo.png

Almost 1 year of life support, 23000 ec, all nuclear powered because our Kerbals wanted theirs skin to be purple instead of green thanks to radiations

:)

Edited by kurgut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Zeiss Ikon said:

I've never gotten further than polar orbit, so far (darn you, Test Flight!).  And the crewed suborbital contracts don't have any rush; they allow a year.  First orbit gives three years.  Sounding rockets are the only ones I've dealt with so far that have a level of specificity that requires customizing the payload or launch vehicle.  I've been putting more upgrades into VAB, fewer into R&D, and none at all into SPH this career.  I hate to neglect the X-Plane contracts, but honestly, I have a very, very poor record landing any airplane or spaceplane, with the condition of the runway requiring flying from the grass, where you can't see the subtle undulations...

 

6 hours ago, qzgy said:

Speaking from my limited experience, I didn't really feel like the SPH and X-Plane contracts were really worth it. I know for one I pretty much just strapped a kerbal into a cockpit with a ton of boosters underneath on the launchpad which apparently counted as a "plane" enough to complete it. But other than maybe some quick cash in the beginning of the program.

I would also suggest in investing more into R&D. Its quite helpful for later game stuff when things take a good quarter of the year to research or longer.

Huh that seems kinda slower compared to what @Ultimate Steve and I have been doing. In early 1955 we were both launching unmanned lunar missions. Somewhat curious why that might be. Maybe its because we are on 1.2.1 and you are on 1.3.X and something has changed in between? Could also just be play style.

 

I do agree, the X-plane contracts weren't worth it for me either. I tried making one plane, tested it 4x and flew it once, it exploded. The main obstacle was the terrain gaps.

I would also put emphasis on R&D. In our current campaign I have been limited by one of two things, build speed and R&D time. It's been R&D time for about 75% of the time.

The version is one reason for the discrepancy... The other could be Test Flight. We're playing without it mostly because I had a bad experience with it in RP-0 0.90 when it took an hour to load the game and it would crash an hour later, and Test Flight reduced the actual progress to very little. But now I'm warming to the idea, TBH.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Played around with Principia and discovered this interesting orbit (ground reference frame). I can imagine that it would be practical and actually quite useful in real life too, why isn't it used at all?

zkBYOhI.png

In an intertial reference frame the trajectory describes an inclined orbit whose period is one half of a day.

This orbit covers every point on Kerbin's surface in one way or another every single day.

Wouldn't an Earth equivalent orbit be useful for communication satellites?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Laie said:

(...) only possible because Kerbin is dense and the Mun close by.

The Mun actually worked against me here. It actually gets things out of alignment, is a pain and, as I had to realize, makes geostationary orbits an impossibility. Any satellite placed there will inevitably drift away from the position it was supposed to keep.

I was trying some orbits that were neither geostationary nor geosynchronous, yet still came back to themselves and formed a closed loop.

Interesting structures included many, MANY epi/hypotrochoids and orbits that looked like Reuleaux triangles. Then I came across an orbit that had 1/2 the period of Kerbin's rotation (forming an sort-of 8 with an extra loop in the middle) and added inclination to it. The result was this orbit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Ultimate Steve said:

 

 

I do agree, the X-plane contracts weren't worth it for me either. I tried making one plane, tested it 4x and flew it once, it exploded. The main obstacle was the terrain gaps.

I would also put emphasis on R&D. In our current campaign I have been limited by one of two things, build speed and R&D time. It's been R&D time for about 75% of the time.

The version is one reason for the discrepancy... The other could be Test Flight. We're playing without it mostly because I had a bad experience with it in RP-0 0.90 when it took an hour to load the game and it would crash an hour later, and Test Flight reduced the actual progress to very little. But now I'm warming to the idea, TBH. 

 

I'm running testflight on RP-1 (1.3.1) for a little time now and well, works fine, you should download from RP-1 discord

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...