-
Posts
6,422 -
Joined
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Everything posted by Claw
-
A clarification of "On Rails"
Claw replied to GarrisonChisholm's topic in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
The atmosphere profiles changed some, but I believe the altitudes are pretty much the same. The big difference is the physics bubble extension. When dropping boosters on ascent, they won't necessarily insta-disappear at 23km if they are within ~23km of your active ship. (It used to be outside of 2.5km, but that range is bigger now.) Cheers, ~Claw -
Stability of aircraft (CL-alpha curve?)
Claw replied to paul23's topic in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
Yes, I think that's a reasonable comparison. Though I would say stock aero didn't take a "deliberately unrealistic" approach. More of a, "left this piece out" approach. I can promise you that stock aero wasn't limited the way it is purely for the lulz factor. Well, if you want to paper and pencil it, based off your text books...then yes, FAR would likely be a better option. Because it will give you much more fidelity and detailed information. If you want the puzzle of figuring out something new/different, I think they can probably both give you that. The other nice thing is that you don't really have to pencil and paper it if you don't want (with either model). It's sometimes easy to get hung up on things when trying to optimize too much (I'm guilty of that at times). There are also a lot of people who stick to stock aero for a while and play/abuse that, then eventually shift over to FAR when they decide that's what they prefer. I often advice people to play with the stock game for a while, then decide which aspects of the game are important to you (though your approach to playstyle is always up to you). That usually helps people pick add-ons that suit their play style and interests (be it physics, parts, airplanes, space stations, science progression, life support, or whatever). I think what Cantab was getting at there is that the shape of the wing, or even where they are at, is irrelevant in stock aero in terms of lift/drag performance. They can be straight wing, swept forward, swept back, split so that half are out front and half are way aft. Stock aero doesn't really care about any of that, in terms of lift/drag from the wings. I'm not sure if there's more comprehensive info elsewhere, but here's what I have put up on the forum (linked earlier): http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/119108-Overhauls-for-1-0?p=2182068&viewfull=1#post2182068 The CoL for the wings on a real plane is in front of the CoM, but KSP shows a composite CoL. And, just like real life, if you want an inherently stable bare aircraft, the composite CoL needs to be behind the CoM (or you need some good computers to help compensate). KSP does not have "good computers" to compensate for CoL being on top of or in front of the CoM. "elevators point 'up'" - I'd have to ask which way you mean. Typically I see this referred to as "Trailing Edge Up/Down," so I'm going to assume that's the nomenclature you are using. To pull the nose up, the elevators go trailing edge up to create LESS lift on the tail (or even a negative lift vector). You need less lift on the tail to rotate the nose of the aircraft up. Generically speaking, this causes the CoL to shift forward, which makes the plane rotate upward around the CoM. It's certainly more complicated than that, which you either already know or will be getting into soon. Well, this could be for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it is due to slightly misaligned wheels. Sometimes they are too far aft (making it difficult for the airplane to rotate for liftoff). Sometimes it's due to having too much downforce on the nose or main gear, which causes some fuselage bending and the plane to turn. So this looks okay to start with, but one thing to watch out for in KSP is there is a bug with control surfaces being attached to swept wings. If it so happens that the root of the swept wing is attached forward of the CoM, but the control surface is aft of the CoM, the flight controls will reverse. So beware of that (if you haven't run into it already). That's not an "aero" problem, it's a bug in calculating the deflection direction. You may also wish to start out with a classic aeroplane design (with a horizontal tail or canards) and play with that for a bit to get a feel for how either aero model works. Try moving the wings forward some and putting a mirrored set of those fins on the tail too. You can also right-click and lock out specific axes for each flight control surface, which limits the amount of control coupling that can occur. (I believe FAR also includes sliders, so that you can adjust the control range of the surface.) That's a fairly slick airplane, so yeah, I suspect it's difficult to slow down in it. You could add some more control surfaces (such as the tail I mentioned), and you can also add some "flaps." Put some control surfaces on the wings near the root and right click. There's a "deploy" option, and you can add those to the action groups for easier deployment in flight. They can take some fiddling, but can help you slow down. You can even overlap two surfaces and provide a sort of spoiler type device, which is often helpful because it doesn't much change the effective CoL vector. The other approach is to cut your engine much further out, and make sure you are on a 2 to 3 degree glidepath to help bleed off speed. If you post more pictures, try to leave the CoM and CoL markers on. That can also help us help you better. Generally, I try to keep the center of the CoL marker near the back edge of the CoM bubble. That's about the sweet spot for control vs. stability. Though you can certainly move it around a lot from there and still have a solid design. (Again, this is stock advice.) http://i.imgur.com/lUiPBWK.jpg It lifts off.... But that's about it, make angle of attack seems to be 2-3 degrees, and landing is as said impossible, since I can slow down enough in air. [noparse][/noparse] Yeah, I can agree with pretty much all of what you're saying. I'm starting to think maybe it's more of a case of misunderstanding that stock has inherent limitations from pieces being left out / ignored, rather than set up as some cartoony simulation of reality (maybe as it was more in 0.90). Cheers, ~Claw -
A clarification of "On Rails"
Claw replied to GarrisonChisholm's topic in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
Craft on rails are still subject to gravity physics. So orbits are still dependent on the SOI, and orbits that encounter another body's SOIs (such as a moon) will stilll be effected. This can change orbits, including flinging things out of the original SOI. Getting ejected from the solar system seems fairly unlikely though. So you either got really lucky, ot there was some other glitch (which happens from time to time) that sent them racing off. Craft on rails are just packed and treated in such a way that they don't have physics applied to the rigid bodies directly. This means that thrust, aero forces, drag, etc are not calculated. That also means that things like Electrical Charge and resource harvesting aren't calculated either. Cheers, -Claw -
Stability of aircraft (CL-alpha curve?)
Claw replied to paul23's topic in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
This might be a start. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/119108-Overhauls-for-1-0?p=2182068&viewfull=1#post2182068 I am neither for nor against FAR. As with most of my advice...It just depends on what you're after, and what you prefer. Edit: It also occurs to me thet the mix up might actually be that two small wings that have the same lift rating as one large wing produces the same lift at a given AoA/speed, regardless of shape. Perhaps that's what you read? Cheers, -Claw -
Ah, well that's a different problem entirely. For launch, you'll need to build the lift stage downward, then also strut up from the lift stage to the ring. That's about the only way it'll be stiff enough to handle the launch. You will also have to contend with the excess drag and lift created by launching a ring made out of Mk2 parts placed at the top. (As if you added a bunch of control fins and some modular girders.) If it were really me, I would get creative with engine placement below the ring, then find a way to mount fuel above it. Then strut down from the fuel tanks to the ring in a hub-and-spoke fashion. That setup would use the station ring as a stabilizing structure. You'll likely need enough fuel in the first stage to establish a suborbital, so that you can safely separate the first stage. I would continue on, but I already feel like I'm telling you how to have your fun. Good luck, -Claw
-
Many parts are disabled while inside cargo bays. Engines aren't the only ones, but I understand that the bug that doesn't unshiled them is an annoying one. Disabling the shielding and fixing the bug that makes it stick around after unstowing are two different things. In probably less than five minutes, I can make a plugin that kills this feature. However, that doesn't fix the root problem. There is zero reason to hack the .dll to disable this feature. So anyone distributing a hacked .dll is not only breaking the EULA, but could also be attempting to spread malicious code. You assume a lot. Rewriting a huge portion of the game's code, including virtually the entire GUI, and migrating to a new core engine takes a lot of time and effort for a small team of developers. Cheers, -Claw
-
Yep, struts. Tex_NL wrote a tutorial on this very topic. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/62130-Tutorial-Circular-station-building Cheers, -Claw
-
Extracting ship(s) from SFS
Claw replied to problemecium's topic in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
Yep, it was written in 0.90. I have't tried it in 1.0.X. It had maybe 6 downloads, so I never bothered to update it. Cheers, -Claw -
Stability of aircraft (CL-alpha curve?)
Claw replied to paul23's topic in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
That isn't exactly true. In any case, stability in stock aero is pretty simple. Ensure the CoM is a bit behind the CoM, and you'll want enough control surfaces to provide enough authority based on how large your plane is. The stock game does not spit out stability derivatives. If you haven't found it, there are three buttons in the lower left of the editor to toggle on CoL, CoM, and CoT. As hinted at, stock aero is a simplified model. Wing sweep, aspect ratios, and wing thickness are not considered in the aero model. For some reason, that makes people quite passionate. It really depends on what you're aiming for out of the game. If you're looking for something to augment your studies, then FAR is probably a better choice. If you don't care and just want to fly around, building things in stock is quite achievable (and you can get away with some interesting designs). So really, the choice is up to you. If you'd like help with specific stock questions, there are plenty of folks here with stock experience. If you choose FAR, there are plenty with experience there too. I will say (regardless of the areo model) it helps us if you can post pictures of your craft. That helps us give specific advice beyond "install FAR." Cheers, -Claw -
Kraken attacks that should've been fixed in 1.0.4
Claw replied to RA3236's topic in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
We really can't help much without more info. Unfortunately, a dark picture of a craft racing off to the distance doesn't help us figure out what the specific cause is. Perhaps if you can pull some more info, like providing a log file or the save, then people could help more. Some help on how to find that info can be found here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/92230-%21%21%21-PLEASE-READ-BEFORE-POSTING-%21%21%21-Stock-Support-Bug-Reporting-Guide Cheers, ~Claw -
[KSP v1.1.3] Stock Bug Fix Modules (Release v1.1.3b.1 - 10 Jul 16)
Claw replied to Claw's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
I believe RealChute replaces the stock modules with it's own. My mods plug directly into the stock modules. Since RealChute replaces them, the two mods are, unfortunately, not compatible. It's something I could possibly look into after 1.0.5 is out, but I can't make any promises that it'll work. I try not to replicate or interfere with other modder's works. Cheers, ~Claw -
Is your goal to go faster? Or go faster using only wheels? The wheels themselves have a limit to how fast they can push. But (as noted), you can get going with extra thrust. Ion is certainly a favorite, and should work well on Minmus. Something else to be aware of...above about 34 m/s, the wheels start to lose their ability to steer effectively. And if I recall, going 50 m/s on Minmus can result in a lot of air time. (Dunno if you are eyeing the Elcano challenge.) Good luck, -Claw
-
Fix intersecting decouplers in the field?
Claw replied to Waxing_Kibbous's topic in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
Ah...Well, unless I'm seeing your picture wrong, it looks like you are using a docking port and not a decoupler. If that's the case...Docking ports will only decouple/undock from parts that are attached to the top node (the docking side) and will not allow you to decouple/undock parts that are surface attached. Even if those parts are surface attached to the docking side. However, you can do some save file editing shenanigans. Let me know if that is, in fact, surface mounted on a docking port and I can dig up some instructions. If I get time, I can also verify/fix it if you are able to post the save. Cheers, -Claw -
Fix intersecting decouplers in the field?
Claw replied to Waxing_Kibbous's topic in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
Can you by chance post a picture? Maybe some closeups too of the particular area of concern. Cheers, ~Claw -
Well done good sir. It's nice to see the awesome things people are accomplishing in KSP. Cheers, ~Claw
-
Delta-V or TWR on takeoff?
Claw replied to Saltless Lemons's topic in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
Everyone please remember to address the questions of the thread, vice get into a debate about who has a better rocket. The question is about dV and TWR, and pics can go a long way toward collaboration. Yes, drag used to have a mass component to it. That's because, at the time, it was easy to use mass as a stand-in for other parameters and likely was simple to code (to get KSP up and running). The drag system was updated as part of the aero overhaul in 1.0. I won't go into huge details because there are several other threads covering this topic. However, rocket shape and design does factor in to drag now. This is probably a big reason why people still debate "how much dV to LKO?" Since dV expense to LKO is now also tied to rocket shape and flight profile (due to differences in drag). Cheers, ~Claw -
The Elcano Challenge : Ground-based circumnavigation
Claw replied to Fengist's topic in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas
It's totally possible. This particular ship carried a 925t payload to orbit. It would need a refuel in LKO to get to Minmus, but would land with excess dV and extra payload space for landing gear (etc) for an 860t tank. (I put MJ on there so you can see the vessel stats. ~1200t in LKO.) Granted, you'd have to get creative with attaching engines... But you can do it! ~Claw -
Electrical charge uses different flow logic, so isn't constrained by the crossfeed options by either parts or disabling through docking ports. Right-clicking and disabling is the most fool-proof way to prevent draining batteries you don't want drained. But I am also curious what you're trying to do exactly. It might be that there's another way to accomplish what you're after. Also, welcome to the forums! Cheers, ~Claw
-
Master Thread: Unresponsive Kerbals in EVA
Claw replied to Claw's topic in KSP1 Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
This is in the wrong spot, but it's no problem. I don't want to sound like you're being ignored, but this particular thread isn't quite for general bug fixing. Sounds like your issue is a bit different from the frozen-on-EVA bug as described. So I will point you to the modded support forum, where you will likely get a better/faster response to your question. You can click on the link below and post your problem. If you can provide a few more details (such as the steps of what you are clicking on, and possibly even upload the save file) that often helps out. Modded Support Forum: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/forums/77-Support-%28modded-installs%29 Good luck, and welcome to the forums! Cheers, ~Claw -
Might be blocked by your library at a higher level than the computer. That's a local (usually firewall) sort of policy. Cheers, ~Claw
-
[KSP v1.1.3] Stock Bug Fix Modules (Release v1.1.3b.1 - 10 Jul 16)
Claw replied to Claw's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
Fantastic! Glad you got it sorted out. Cheers, ~Claw -
Master Thread: Unresponsive Kerbals in EVA
Claw replied to Claw's topic in KSP1 Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
Glad it helped. ... And Welcome to the forums! Cheers, ~Claw -
[KSP v1.1.3] Stock Bug Fix Modules (Release v1.1.3b.1 - 10 Jul 16)
Claw replied to Claw's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
I did get a chance to fly it briefly as well, though I didn't get to trouble shoot in depth. My first thought was similar, that it looked like the payload needed a strut or two. It looks like the payload bay is simply breaking out from the rest of the ship, but only when maneuvering significantly. The plane is actually pretty maneuverable for it's weight, and it might be that you're simply ripping the cargo bay out from the wings (ISRU stuff can be heavy). I will still try to poke around a little more though to see if there's anything else going on, or if the other ship has something different. Cheers, ~Claw -
Consistent across the forum. Not exactly. If you edit a post within ~2 minutes, the post time does not change and the "Edited" line will not appear. After ~2 minutes, the post time will not change but the "Edited" line will appear. Cheers, ~Claw - - - Updated - - - *raises hand