arkie87

Re-entry heat can be scaled back/calibrated to account for reduced drag. This will have to be done anytime game physics are changed... I thought skin friction is a significant component to heating (in addition to compressibility effects)? True, i calculated x_crit at 1 kPa, and its 700 m at 1m/s velocity. But even so, velocity is about 1000 x faster at re-entry, so x_crit is still small enough...

While i will admit that i study mostly in-compressible, laminar, internal flow (and also, this argument is mostly irrelevant), it seems to me that you will always get turbulent boundary layer far enough downstream since Re = V/nu*x Flow is laminar as long as Re_crit < 5e5 Once x gets long enough or V high enough, bam! Turbulence! For a 1 m/s air stream at stp, x_crit is 7.68 m... so i think its pretty clear that it will be turbulent... unless your rocket is less than 8m long and you plan on taking off to space at 1 m/s...

I have to humbly disagree with ferram on this one. Just because they are both technically "Mach effects" doesnt mean they should both be disabled as a group-- that is like arguing that since N-body physics isnt used, the patched conics method shouldnt be either since they are both caused by gravity (ok, a bit of an exaggeration but you get my point). I think its obvious that this game has to pick and choose which physics to simulate and how accurately to simulate it, and there is no inconsistency in choosing to model Mach effects for heating from not for aero. The fact that they are technically caused by the same thing I think is irrelevant (though it would make grouping things into checkboxes in the difficulty window easier). Personally, I would prefer the game to have NEAR like aero (though FAR aero with aerodynamic disassembly disabled is good too). But just because NEAR doesnt include mach effects for aerodynamics, doesnt mean it shouldnt include them for heating (though it could/should still obtain Mach number from NEAR/FAR).

Yes, that could work. You should be able to set (maybe even via tweakables) how many people it attempts to board upon launching; this obviously does nothing once launches, just like you cannot adjust your control surface configurations after launch.

The reason this will always be an issue is because each time before launch, it always boards whoever is next in the queue. It cannot just take the same people because they might have gone off on another mission and are not available. The only way to fix it might be to load the seat with an "empty" placeholder, so it doesnt load Jeb into that seat even though you wanted the seat open. Or, if you have a satallite capable of controlling the craft, it shouldnt board anyone unless told to.

OP was not concerned with relative velocity, but rather, relative orientation, which target mode in stock KSP does not address.

This sounds awesome. and it gives a purpose for the courage-stupidity ratings of kerbals (and maybe, if you manually do the flying for kerbals/complete contracts, kerbals gain experience points and their stats improve). I think there should be an autopilot system in the game, but i think it should be unlocked via tech tree in modules. New players should be forced to learn how to get a rocket into orbit-- this is one of the reasons why the game is fun and educational. But once you know how to do it, it gets boring to have to do all the tedious tasks. When you become more experienced with the game, the design stage is more fun, and so, an autopilot that lets you sit back and let you manage your space program rather than fly every mission would be cool. To clarify on the unlocking of autopilot modules, to get autolaunch, you need to perform a successful launch. To perform a targeted landing, you need to perform a targeted landing. These missions could be specified via contracts, and so, the game would know when you completed them.

I would argue that you should be able to "check" a contract, and then the requirements pop out to a small window which you can move around on screen, so it is always in view

You know you can adjust staging while in flight....

Someone a while back posted an idea like this. I suggested a separate button in the VAB/SPH (a yellow rocket called "test") that allows you to test your vehicle. This is basically a simulation mode, so there is no cost to build or for failure, but you cannot earn any science or complete contracts (though it might show you that you completed it). When you click test, it would load a window asking you what planet/orbit etc.... you want to test your craft (so you can instantly warp to a planet to test it, instead of having to set up the maneuvers etc.... or edit save files or something). This idea would be useful for both career mode, as well as for players wanting to mess around and have fun...

Oh, i see. you are saying the opposite. Right now, they wont get destroyed without you manually deleting them, and you are saying, the game should automatically delete them for you, since you went through the trouble of making sure they re-entered atmosphere.

Are you saying that chase mode is OP's suggestion #1?

What for? Players can get rid of debris by clearing it in tracking station, so there is a way around this requirement?

It might be useful since in the latests games ive started, the game seemed to forget about minimus and never asked me to explore it... so it would be nice to be able to manually correct that

There are some videos of scott manley using Kerbal Attachment System with a parachute-- it's really difficult for him to move it where he wants because RCS ports are not aligned with center of mass causing him to rotate and go every direction he doesnt want to go, so i'm not sure how practical this suggestion is... More likely, you will have to make specially designed vehicles to move large parts and/or attach RCS ports to the parts you want to move (and maybe the external command seat to control it) EDIT: i think that's actually the main purpose of the external command seat, now that i think of it...

So i could be wrong, but to me, what OP meant by "airhogging" is directly related to asymmetric flameout i.e. one engine receives more air than the other (even if both engines and intakes were placed with symmetry), and causes the other to not receive enough, resulting in asymmetric flameout.

I see. You might not be able to give options to disable each individual effect, because it might lead (incorrectly) to instability and cause an inundation of complaints. But what about adding an option to switch groups of options that maintain stability, or, at the very least, make FAR essentially become NEAR?

I'm confused. Why go through all the trouble to determine which air intake is feeding an engine, when you can just always split the air between all active engines (using their thrust limiters as weights, if needed)? Doesnt that solve the problem as well? Or am i missing something?

No problem :-) It's actually funny if you read it as a troll hehe

Well, you suggested it first, so consider me supporting you - - - Updated - - - Not sure if actually supporting or trolling...

It's possible, though highly unlikely. I think i actually read somewhere (sorry, no reference) that earth's gravity is not enough to sustain 1 atm, and actually, the pressure should be much lower already. Luckily for us, its being replaced by gasses that are leaking from earth's crust or something like that...

Not that i dont like (love) your work in general Ferram, but why not make FAR have options so that players can tweak how realistic they want it to be (i actually think all plugins should allow you to turn them on or off so that we dont have to uninstall if we dont want it running). I'm pretty sure you can already turn aerodynamic dis-assembly off, why not add further "realism" options that allow players to decide if they want lift/drag to be a function of mach number (thereby approaching NEAR), and maybe even an option to make it not a function of AoA either and/or shape but rather, just mass (to approach stock). I'm sure you could add many more detailed options, and probably also groups to allow users to select "easy" "medium" or "hard" mode, which correspond to different sets of options being on or off. An added advantage is intrinsic compatibility (mods that work with FAR dont always work with NEAR since sometimes it looks for files/configs with the word "FAR" in it; doing this would avoid that problem). What do you think?

I thought infinite fuel would also mean infinite electricity (and infinite RCS, while we're at it). But in my experience, it does not. I lose all ability to control the craft if i run out of electric charge, even if i have infinite fuel and RCS enabled, which is silly. Also, it happens regardless of whether craft is kerbal controlled or controlled via satellite.

I dont see any reason why the prediction cannot be within this accuracy. The only difference between stock aerodynamics, and something like NEAR/FAR is AoA, and since player can change AoA while aerobreaking, the ultimate prediction might be unrealistic. However, some prediction is better than none, and the aerobreaking predictor can easily assume a reasonable AoA, such as 0° or 180° depending on whether it is a splaceplane or pod i.e. choose whichever orientation is stable (i would argue for 0° default rather than a constant one relative to heading, since the initial AoA might be unstable once thicker atmosphere is reached; nevertheless, the player might want to know how much dV he would lose if he hit Kerbin's atmosphere at 36 km at 90° AoA, so i would still support advanced tools). The only catch would be is if 0° requires too much deceleration and/or heating (if aerodynamic disassembly or deadly reentry is enabled) for high speed/interplanetary kerbin captures, though i suppose the aerobreaking predictor could warn of that as well. To fix that problem, one could try to adjust AoA on the fly until it Apoapsis is not interplanetary. Thus, i think this predictor should be integrated into the patched-conics trajectories which are drawn on the map screen. Finally, as for the argument that Squad hasnt developed it since they would have to redo it once more complicated aerodynamics is implemented, i think that is bubcus: all they would have to do is make the predictor as general as possible (i.e. more complicated than would be required for stock aerodynamics) such that once new aerodynamics is added, it would still work. For example, even though in stock ksp, lift/drag is not a function of AoA, rather than using this fact when writing the prediction, it should call a function that gets the lift and drag coefficient as a function of AoA (and maybe even Mach). When stock aero is used, it would return a constant value, independent of AoA and when more complex aerodynamics is used, it would return those values. Thus, i dont think the predictor would have to be redone after stock aerodynamics improves...

Exactly. It would mean you cannot have fuel tanks (or science equipment) in between crew-able parts, unless kerbals can swim through fuel (or materials bay experiment). I'd also rather them work on something else anyway....