TronX33
-
Posts
199 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by TronX33
-
-
Maybe you didn't look hard enough
Ahh.. Thank you.
-
So yeah. While building a craft, I needed to offset something, but it could not go far enough. I heard of a mod for this, but A forum and google search turned up no results. Any help?
-
Ah!... I see it now. Yes; That's Mun Arch #2. I was just there a few days ago. I landed in the crater, EVA jet-packed up to it, climbed it, and then took a leap off and jet-packed back to the lander. Weird thing about it was that when I climbed it, nearing the top, my pilot kind of went into the rock of the arch, and when he came out up on the top he was invisible (no 'skin') ... I had to switch to the lander and then back to the pilot for his 'skin' to appear again.
Ahh, yes I do believe Danny 2462 fund that glitch.
-
This looks very good, and also what's that bar across the bottom, and how do you get it?
t's a mod called Kerbla Historian I believe. KER may have that feature too.
-
1. Circular orbits are best when you're trying to rendezvous with something, or want to get to another celestial ody.
Launch your ship, at 5000m, press d and get it to about 25 degrees or so, keeping it on the line. Then, at 10km, turn to 45 degrees. At 20km, get to 60 degrees. At 40, go to 70 degrees. At 60km, turn to 90. By then your Apoapsis should be somewhere in the 100km range. At the apoapsis, create a maneuver node so that the Pe and Ap are clsoe to the same altitude. Burn at a bet less than half of the actual burn time. So, for a 60 sec burn time, burn at 23-27. For a 30 sec burn time, burn at 12-17 secs until the node
2. You can decrease it by turning lateral earlier, but the time is just how long it takes to get there. So, you can cahnge it to less by making your orbit almost an orbit then burn , using less fuel then, but not earlier, or make it less, and burn longer using more fuel then but less fuel earlier. Overall fuel use should still be similar though, as long as your ascent is not horrible inefficient.
-
+1 to Danny's answer. Minmus is by far the cheapest, though it calls for more piloting finesse. It only takes around 100 m/s more dV to get there than to the Mun, whereas landing and takeoff are enormously cheaper on Minmus.
Minmus is so easy in terms of dV that a kerbal on EVA who's standing on the surface can go all the way home to a landing on Kerbin without a ship, using nothing but EVA thrusters.
The Mun's escape velocity is about 800 m/s, whereas Minmus' is 240. Therefore a landing and takeoff is over 1000 m/s more expensive on the Mun when approaching from outside the SoI. Minmus wins hands down.
Thank you. This was what needed.
-
Assuming I have a ship orbiting at a 100 x 100 km orbit, weighing in at 23.5 tons, and using a nuke for propulsion, and an optimal escape trajectory, would it take more fuel to capture, land, take off, and return to Kerbin from the Mun, or Minmus?
-
Cool! But how does the speeder bike work?
-
is the hub just for aesthetics? Or do we stage, and it acts as a separate thing?
-
Make sure the existing decoupler is in the middle of the payload, to ensure it doesn't have it's nose pushed into the aircraft, or the rear. Then attach the struts.
-
Was re-entering my MK2 SSTO, when, like others, I pitched up too hard and tore off my right wing and engine. Now, with assymetric thrust and a plane that want's to spin like a top, I somehow managed to get it pointed and spinning aornd 5-10 degrees off prograde, and slowed down enough to lithobrake, so that the crew cabin and cockpit survived.
-
Title says it all. So far, all my SSTOs are crew transfer vehicles, an I would like to go to the Mun or Minmus in one. How would I go about landing? Use RCS for retro-thrust, and approach it as a normal landing? Or Do a rocket style landing, and flip onto my belly when I'm close to the ground?
-
Are these all in context menus, or do they use mouse movements like PWings?
-
Pics Please! Even if not done, I'm sure forum members want to see your progress!
-
Actually, it does. Are you talking about the drill? I mines ore, which the ISRU converts, only the drill has "retract" and "deploy"
-
Hmm... Any chance of a set of stock-alike textures?
-
If you are trying to get a base module to dock with your Cargo plane, do some testing, add landing struts, lock suspension, and adjust until lowering the legs gets you aligned and docked. In the SPH, just build it attached to a docking port, at destination, right click, decouple node, and your module is disconnected.
-
Hmm... How about a Cyan and white flag, with 3 cyan hollow hexagons arranged kind of in a triangle, surrounded by a cyan ring, with a cyan stripe form one end of the rig t the other, but not in the middle. Offset the hexagon and ring structure about 1/3 of the way from the left, and make everything else white, and it'll be fine. Basically this: http://imgur.com/8sGT3Mb
but better, and with thicker lines
-
Hello EduAcornBurr
-
Hmm... Maybe have a decoupler that the payload is mounted on, and a docking port that is very close to docking with the other docking port. Then, use a thruster to attach the docking port, decouple, and like that? What exactly are you trying to accomplish? I think I'm just being stupid right now.
-
What is that? I can't find anything on it.
Dammit, said it wrong. It's the F-16XL
-
Hey, there is no way to attack docking ports as docked. However, it fll function the way you want, if you attach the two docking ports with the nodes, in flight, right click one of them, and click Decouple Node. If that does not pop up, right click the other. After this, you can still redock them, as they will be functioning as normal docking ports. So think of the docking ports as reattachable decouplers that don't show up in the staging menu.
-
What about the F15XL?
-
The SSME thrust is.... weird
The KA-25: A Private Jet! [WIP]
in KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange
Posted
I think you could possibly use struts to divide it up to look more like windows. It'll be a bit tedious to make them straight though. Also, I think it woud lok better with another pocket I-beam (possibly clipped into the one behind it to fit) instead of that flatter i beam would look better. As you can see, right now it is a lower elevation than the I-Beam behind it, but If you raise it, the "flaps" stick out and ruin the sleek look. Finally, in that gap between the fuselage and the body, maybe add anther backwards intake, as right now there's a little visible gap, so clip one slightly into the fuselage, and the other slightly farther out than hat they are right now. Other than that, this is great plane! I really suck at making interiors