NecroBones
-
Posts
4,820 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by NecroBones
-
-
Also, orange tank delivery anyone?
Nice! That's a respectable delivery system.
-
Forget to use struts? Impossible! My problem is only in not having enough of them. And then I added KJR, and don't need so many... But still, what is this "forget" you speak of?
-
Yeah, this was one of my largest builds in that case.
-
That's a lot of struts.
Yes, it is. They add up really quickly when you're stitching engines to tanks, tanks to other tanks, adding diagonal and cross-brace struts to strengthen the center of the ship and keep it from breaking between the lifter and upper stages, and brace the payload to minimize wobble. After adding KJR, I went back to one of my existing designs and pulled off as many struts as I could, and still get a successful launch, and I pulled off something like 160 struts. It was nuts.
-
It's always nice when your ship just decides to detach and fall over, leaving the asparagus staging still on the pad, before even starting the engines. I have no idea what happened. The next attempt launched fine.
-
The main thing that kept me from using the saved subassemblies is that it would screw up my struts. With 100+ struts (necessary with stock KSP physics with large lifters, IMHO), going around and re-doing them was more painful than taking an entire saved ship, and just rebuilding the payload section. With Kerbal Joint Reinforcement though, I may rethink this. The strutting requirements aren't so ridiculous.
-
Sometimes I'll start with a design I already have, and change out the payload (or use the subassemblies to save boosters), but more often than not lately, I've been building new lifters for different payloads. Sometimes not even bothering with full asparagus staging (rather, more like onion, rings of stages, than asparagus pairs), just to save time.
-
I have over 100 pieces of debris in total, but some of it is crashed bits from spent stages that are on moons/planets, so not really a hazard. I probably have about 20 or so spent boosters orbiting in highly eccentric orbits around Kerbin though, mostly from the early days of my space program.
Now, I design stages that I'll drop at orbital velocities (not suborbital during launch) to have small "reserve" fuel tanks attached, that are turned off. Plus, a probe controller and RTG. That way, I can come back to it at apoapsis, and turn on the reserve tank, and de-orbit the booster.
-
Usually I just de-orbit things when I'm done with them. It's just too much of a pain to try to "rescue" them with parachutes and the like, if it wasn't designed for return.
As an example, I decided to change out the science section on my Mun space station (replacing it with one that had more docking ports, and no cupola). I built an orbital stage with a "cage" to grab the old one, complete with parachutes, which also brought up the new section. Below is an image of docking the decommissioned science section into it, and another with it parachuting down. That entire mission took WAY too long to complete, and required a lot of docking precision (done by hand, didn't have MechJeb or any other autopilots at the time). I don't do it anymore.
-
As others have said, the KSP physics/aerodynamics encourage you to build wider, not taller. I'm trying really hard to get back to more vertical staging, and using nose-cones, but it's hard when KSP makes it easier to get things into orbit by building a pancake.
-
I go back and forth. For some of my larger interplanetary vehicles, I felt like I had no choice but to use wide asparagus-style staging. When I started doing smaller satellites again, I had the option of doing simpler vertical stacking and using nose-cones again.
-
I started out in sandbox, but switched to career pretty quickly. The thing I like about the career/science mode is that it forces you to start small, and learn your skills and what the various parts do, in a gradual manner. In that respect, it taught me how to build better rockets. But I do see your points. The sense of accomplishment came from *my* goals, not the tech tree.
-
Pure awesome. I agree.
-
The way you're doing it with struts is exactly how I reinforce those things. It usually works for me, but I also do a lot of asparagus staging around it, and strut those to the upper stage as well. Usually I also add struts to brace those girder pieces to each other (make a nice square around that orange tank).
If you install Kerbal Joint Reinforcement, it solves this for you pretty well. I just started playing with that tonight, and it tightens up those joints quite a lot.
-
the only thing i'd change on the material bay, is it's radial attachment point, from the side to the back. - it's not really usable in rotation based symmetry right now because of that
QFT. I really hate having them rotated in strange directions when I try to attach them with radial symmetry. IMHO, the doors should face outward by default.
-
I trusted MechJeb a little too much, last night. It decided to start my escape burn quite early, and put me down into the atmosphere. Living Jeb would have been much batter. After a quick reload, I did the burn manually as two burns with an orbit in between, and that was MUCH better.
When I was watching MechJeb from the map-view, I though it looked a bit low, and switched back to the spaceship view to find this:
-
In the spaceplane hangar, I love watching the fuel trucks drive around doing donuts out in front of the hangar.
-
I don't think this will aid KSP's performance, AFAIK it uses 32-bit floats, which will perform the same either way. Or, to use your analogy, a four lane road gains you nothing if there's only one car on the road.
I think they mentioned that they switched to double precision, which would be 64-bit floats, if I recall. It'll save clock cycles to use actual 64 bit instructions.
-
Core i7-950 + Gigabyte GA-X58A-UD3R board
12 GB RAM (yeah, I know, 32 bit)
NVidia GTX-760
I really wish the game would go to a multi-threaded, 64-bit model. While the GPU is newer, my system is about 3 years old. It's behind the times a little, but it's no slouch either. But I still get some ugly frame rates with larger vehicles, or docking space stations.
-
That's awesome! I love it!
-
If I'm understanding correctly, it would allow for applying physics in terms of the forces acting on the ship (gravity from multiple bodies, solar wind, engine thrust, etc) at all times, relatively accurately, no matter the time scale / warp factor, in a computationally inexpensive manner? That alone would make it worth it, I think. Otherwise, I think the game is doing what it set out to, in terms of teaching basic orbital mechanics and building fun gameplay around it.
-
That sound you heard was my brain exploding.
It's not for the feint of heart.
As Pecan mentioned, it's not usually necessary. I'll also add that it's not usually safe either.
That ship actually worked, but it had its issues. I built it specifically to avoid having to do a docking maneuver. -
A friend found it (either on Steam or Youtube, not sure which), and told me about it. We've been sharing screenshots as we go, since then.
-
WOW. Yes. Almost exactly (add one more rocket booster per outward facing liquid fuel tank). I guess my design wasn't as insane as I thought it was lol
Oh and also--- just wait until you start putting 19 mainsails in a lifter... lol (OK, actually it was 18, with a skipper in the center.)
You Will Not Go To Space Today - Post your fails here!
in KSP1 Discussion
Posted
The sepratrons blew up my booster!