Claw

Wow, there's more interest in this mission report than I expected. I never built one that did much, other than float and drive around at very slow speed. I have done a challenge to run a rover 1/4 of the way around the planet. So I wasn't overly excited about strictly doing that again, so I thought the boat approach would be an interesting angle. Dude, that's a nice sub! Thanks! I agree, which is part of why I worked so hard to keep the size down. Although it looks rather utilitarian, heh. Aww, that stinks. I'm actually a bit further along than what the mission report shows. I was hesitant to post it at all, but I will start catching it up. Awesome! Good luck! Next installment coming in shortly (once I assemble it). Cheers, ~Claw

Are you using any add-ons? Also, a craft file, or picture of the craft, might help out to see what's going on. Cheers, -Claw

These are great, thanks for the ideas! It will probably still be a couple weeks till I can work on these. I'v been working on a challenge this week, and next week is going to be busy for me. So hopefully that won't be too long. I will try to recompile and do some basic testing to do a release in the next day or so, but I don't expect to add any new functionality for a couple weeks. Cheers, -Claw

That's probably because you are logged in to imgur and it's recognizing your album. You can try logging out of imgur and see if that fixes it for you.

Here it is, for those interested: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/127377 I'm a bit further along than this, but I'm guessing you guys are well aware of the time involved in creating posts. Cheers, ~Claw

Elcano Challenge: A Phoenix Reborn All Planets and Moons Complete! "Our task is laid out before us and it is simple. At least...it is simple to understand, but maybe not simple in execution. So it is with eager trepidation that we begin work on a new effort." So when I first started this mission report, it was only for a circumnavigation of Kerbin. It started out as a possible land circumnav, but ended up as a sea-based circumnav (with some roving in the middle). Some of that design process is included below, with links to the specific posts about it. After Kerbin, I decided to continue on. Up to this point, I've hesitated in posting about my further exploits. I do read some of the mission reports, but I'm not a big poster in here. However, I thought I would go ahead and continue to post some of my travels and engineering work to get there. I don't know if this will be of interest to anyone, but here you go... So, with that being said, I have no idea how many of these I might do. So far, I'm up to four bodies circumnavigated (with only two posted in this thread at the moment). I'll try to keep this index up to date. There's always a strange push and pull with how much “story line to interject into these mission reports. I am sort of on the fence of this for my own mission report. I started writing these posts with a bit of flare from the perspective of pilots, engineers, and scientists while progressing. When I did so, I found that it sort of mirrors my own internal dialogue as I progress through this challenge. It turned into a strange pull of wanting to drive something fast, solve problems in a neat way, and do something useful with it all. Constraints for this mission are per the circumnavigation challenge rules. Also, I'm using the same crew for all of these, so that means that I have to retrieve them and send them on the next adventure. So read on, my friends, and hopefully you will find something useful and/or entertaining within this thread. Sea-Based Equatorial Circumnavigation of Kerbin - Complete Initial Work (This Post) Boat Design Early Field Trials Refuel Challenges Sea Trials and Launch Day Travel Day 2 & 3 (and minor refuel stop) Travel Day 4 Travel Day 5 & 6 Travel Day 7 & 8 Equatorial Circumnavigation of Minmus - Complete Minmus Launch Through Completion Sea-Based Equitorial Circumnavigation of Laythe - Complete Laythe Mission Report Equatorial Circumnavigation of Mun - Complete Munar Start Munar Completion Duna System - Complete Duna Mission Design & Launch Ike Mission Report - Polar Duna Mission Report - Polar Polar Circumnavigation of Dres - Complete Dres Transition Dres Mission Report Jool System: Combined Elcano and Jool-5 Challenge - Complete Initial Analysis Boat Redesign Mothership Failure Mothership Redesign and Shakedown Mission Start (Launch to Laythe Orbit) Pol - Equatorial Bop - Equatorial Vall - Polar Laythe - Polar Tylo - Equatorial Return Home Equatorial Circumnavigation of Eeloo - Complete Equatorial circumnavigation of Eeloo Polar Circumnavigation of Moho - Complete Polar circumnavigation of Moho Eve System - Complete Payload Design Gilly - Polar Eve - Polar “Crew safety is paramount. It is far too easy to become complacent with lives in pursuit of glory. There will be sacrifices...but we will not make them idly, and they will not be in vain." The director laid out the foundation for the next major program: Circumnavigation. The seeds for such an effort were laid nearly a year ago when Wilsey took Bartger on a polar rescue trip by jeep. The young pilot and medical officer drove twelve hours to reach a crash site deep in the arctic tundra. Their persistence showed what we are truly capable of, should we put our patience and minds to it. The pilots remember Wilsey's story well: a newly minted pilot who went out of his way to rescue a friend. The engineers salivated at the thought of conquering a new project, and the scientists were skeptical, waiting for the glory hogs to once again absorb the entire spotlight. The pilots were excited, each of them vying for a coveted spot on the roster. Nobody knew how long this project would take, or how to get to the finish line...but they all quickly went to work devising a route to circumnavigate the globe. In the meantime, the engineers wasted no time digging out Wilsey's famed jeep to see what improvements needed to be made. The Elcano Challenge dictates that the vessel be manned. However, I've learned from past experiences (namely Wilsey and Bartger's adventure) that terrestrial vehicles are finicky things, especially if you want to do any time warp. In my previous challenge, I probably could have finished the challenge faster had I simply done the challenge instead of spending time on creating a vehicle that could withstand up to 4x warp. However, I wanted to ensure the best chances for crew survival. So herein lies the engineer piece; it's one more problem to solve. The scientists, sadly, are being a bit left out in this sandbox game. Quite frankly, I didn't feel like unlocking tech tree parts or dealing with monetary concerns just to get up to the point of executing this challenge. (I find it far too annoying how deep rover parts are in the tech tree, but that's just me.) So, to get on with it... Here is the old rover, aptly named "Jeep." It isn't spectacular, but it's fairly capable and robust. Unfortunately, I figured out that a lot of the parts are now obsolete. I had used the small control surfaces to provide downforce when driving (to improve wheel grip) and used probe cores to provide torque. The torque was just enough to flip the vehicle back onto its wheels after a crash. Alas, these parts no longer work quite the same way. The good news is that there is now a smaller torque wheel and it provides a descent amount of torque. So here is my first round redesign: The modified Jeep, which under v1.0, costs over 100k (yikes) mainly due to the four RTGs. After “testing" the jeep for a while (by which I mean playing around), I finally realized that at some point it's going to need to go into the water. Not surprisingly, it sank up to the windows. So I tried to modify it for some aquatic work, but after trying several different parts I realize that I have limited (or no) experience building a boat, let alone an amphibious rover. I hear intakes work well for floating, except they don't hold the rover up very high in the water and they don't really withstand being bumped into the ground much (which a rover likes to do). Also, it quickly becomes clear that actual movement on the water is going to require something other than a rover wheel. The rover is definitely too small to carry enough fuel for any appreciable water crossing, and the pilots planning the route discovered there's a lot of water to cross. I have what I think is a really strong rover, but no idea how to get it across the water. (The challenge says no separately boating a rover across.) So I pretty much finish up this session feeling a bit dejected.

Users can view results of the poll, even without voting. That box will attach user names to specific poll votes, which means any user can see not only poll results, but which users voted vor what. Cheers, -Claw

I would guess it probably has more to do with the fact that KSP only calculates shadowing at the part's root, rather than over multiple points. I didn't confirm that is how it's done, but based on what I know of other parts I am fuessing this is the case. So yes, this will likely lead to exactly what you describe. The alternative is casting multiple rays or testing multiple points. Probably feasible for low count craft, but adds up. Idk if this will get addressed, but it's the first time I recall this specific complaint. Probably something to keep an eye out for, but I can't recall having this problem myself for arrays that pop out of cargo bays. Cheers, -Claw

It might help if you could upload a log file. The sticky in this forum will tell you how. So, what you describe is what happens when parts are removed from KSP's database of parts. Generally this happens when uninstalling mods, but you said you don't have any. Based on the "parts missing" list, it looks like many your stock parts are missing. Was there anything else that you did or happened to your computer (or steam install) at the time? If it did, in fact, give those errors, then all of the craft are deleted from that save. I would not load up any more saves from that install till you figure it out. First, I would make a copy of the entire KSP directory to keep whatever is left safe. After that, inside steam, you can right click on KSP and view the properties. There is a button to verify the game cache. Run that and hopefully it will repair any broken game files. It won't, however, recover your save. After it fixes the files, you can try loading up another save and see if it works. If so, restore any quicksaves you have from before they were eaten. (Hopefully you have a recent quicksave in there somewhere...) Good luck, -Claw

I agree. I don't know about Lenovo, but the ALT key on all other PC laptops I've used does not control the special functions on the keyboard. Sounds like something else is interfering, such as windows key remapping or incorrect keys. Try setting the modifier key to something else completely (not the Fn key) and see if that works. If so, then something else is up. Cheers, -Claw

Pictures help us diagnose, but what are you using to measure TWR? Some add-ons (MechJeb specifically, not sure about KER) report Vac TWR. Which means some engines will report enough TWR, but will be incapable of lifting off at 1 Atmosphere, because their Atm thrust isn't high enough. You can find out if it's the launch pad by sliding the rocket toward the doors in the VAB. Then, on launch, the rocket will be off the pad and on the ground. Cheers, -Claw

This post is a bit ole (i.e. greater than two years), and the info is a bit dated. I'm going to go ahead and close this, but if there are other questions about the new mechanics, please feel free to post a new thread. Cheers, -Claw

That option allows users to see how other users voted, which is maybe different than what you mean by "see the results." While Mad Rocket scientist stumbled upon some of the secrets, the way mods have been brought on board often varies a bit with the personality of the Community Manager. For a while now, moderators have been selected from the community at large and invited directly. In the past, I believe there was a process for users to apply to become a moderator, but I don't recall how long ago that was. Cheers, -Claw

Yes, there are actually two kerbals in command seats inside the service bay. Not the best accomodations, but like I said, 1.0.4 put a crimp in my plans and I need to get moving on the challenge. I have a couple pictures of the inside of the bay (can't post atm), but there is a drill, fuel cell, two large solar panels, and two kerbals in there. Amazingly, that stuff isn't all clipped on top of itself. Although the drill does run into the fuel cell when it deploys. Cheers, -Claw

You may also be suffering from a bug with the brakes on those wheels. The rover wheels brake tweakables are broken, which causes them to be nearly ineffective. You'll have to use "drive backwards" to slow down while going downhill. That has it's own problems, but might help. Cheers, ~Claw

So my mission is finally underway, at the expense of working on my mod and many other things. Though I have reasons to get it pushed along, or it'll end up getting shelved again. 1.0.4 has caused me some issues, so I am cutting short the asthetics and getting this thing moving. Not sure if I'll do a full mission report elsewhere. (I started one locally which chronicles my boat building learning process, but idk if I'll post.) Anyhow, here's a peek at the Cockroach. Approximately 10% of the journey in this pic. Cheers, ~Claw

The fact that I can do absurd things with a space game. Such as:

Yes, I know. I was using your metaphor in my own post, as a reference toward moderators (as you used it for Squad). And therein lies the balance. The best way to test your theory is to use the report button. We will see the reports. We will not necessarily see every post or thread on the forum. Without having any knowledge on the specifics of your thread, I can hypothesize that if it was posted at the height of sexist remarks being made on the forums, that's would increase the reason for it getting shut down. Again, I don't know the specific of your thread or the context. Yes they did, despite stating multiple times that they planned on releasing female kerbals (because they wasn't fast enough for some, and pointless to others). At the time of release, the forum was quite overflowing with comments, both appropriate and inappropriate. "Female kerbals" were also added to the "What Not To Suggest" thread. Not because we are heavy handed brigands, but because it was (yet again) another polarizing topic that seemed to encourage sexist remarks or personal attacks. Not to mention the fact that they were already a planned feature (so no need to suggest them again). I will conclude by saying that the moderators are generally (or should be) reactionary by nature. We don't go out of our way to find things that break the rules, and we also rely on the community itself to help in maintaining the right culture. If there's an isolated thread that seems to be running rampant, it's likely because the people who are happy to banter about it are the only ones there (and hence, we don't notice). If someone posts a remotely sexist remark in a high traffic area at the height of female kerbal release, then it's more likely to get flagged, noticed, or otherwise closed down. I will also conceded (as I did earlier) that I don't expect any of what I ramble about to change your mind. I do, however, feel saddened by the fact that you feel unable to post a new thread (because that's not what we want). I also appreciate you providing some specific feedback that can be addressed. Thanks, ~Claw

Not sure what you're asking about Wink? Cheers, ~Claw

I'm sorry to hear that. And I already know there's nothing I can say or do to ease your mind. We are also not a bunch of monkey automatons bandying about on the forums. We are humans, and we aren't necessarily able to see all and hear all. Nor do we wish to "keep down" the forums. I can't swear that rules are always 100% enforced in a perfectly balanced manner in every circumstance, again because we are all human. Also, perhaps in a more constructive manner, you could explain what the moderators have done to promote hate on the forums, because that certainly isn't what we want. Nearly all the hate I see on the forums is how people like or hate MechJeb, like or hate FAR, like or hate x64, like or hate what Squad decides to do with their own game, and so on. If you feel you are being unduly attacked by a moderator, we have a process of review. We do, in fact, have moderators on the team that are about your age. I'm also sorry if that's a measuring factor of what's a "good moderator" for you. Not that age is a strict measure of who is "above" who, and who deserves being sucked up to, because none of the moderators should be getting sucked up to anyway. Cheers, ~Claw

Well, the reasons are more than just canard aircraft. But primarily it was a way to move the CoG forward on standard aircraft configurations. Several changes were made to make CoM management easier (such as air breathing engines sucking fuel from every single tank). These changes make CoM management a little easier for basic planes, but make it much more difficult for anything even slightly complex. Personally I'm not on board with all of the changes. The CoM for the jet engines needed to be moved forward some, but it's way too far now. Also, I'm not a fan of jets sucking fuel from every tank. Cheers, ~Claw

Yes, VTOL jets have taken a bit of a beating in the last couple updates. The CoM for jet engines is indeed intentionally offset for the reasons stated above. Cheers, ~Claw

If you upgraded your KSP install (rather than a clean, new install), then I recommend getting rid of your physics.cfg and downloading (or if you're using steam, verifying your game cache) to get a fresh Physics.cfg. Old values can cause issues with the new system, and I know a few people have been suffering from this problem. If that doesn't work, let us know and keep experimenting so we can help you figure it out. Cheers, ~Claw

Feel free to discuss the ramifications of making updates to the games physics, but refrain from insulting people or telling them to get out simply because you disagree with their points. On that accord, I've removed a couple of posts. Cheers, ~Claw

I suggest reading this thread (which is stickied in this sub forum). It will hopefully act as the primer you are looking for. The only change of significance from the OP in that thread is that drag coefficients based on part shape are now modified so that pointy parts act a bit more pointy (which is explained in the last post in that thread). Cheers, ~Claw