Jump to content

Wanderfound

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,893

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Wanderfound

  1. Wanderfound
    This seems like the place to yet again drop my standard "why Mars colonisation isn't going to happen" reference: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high_frontier_redux.html
  2. Wanderfound
    Similar for me: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90337-Economic-Fuel-to-Oribit?p=1361984&viewfull=1#post1361984 Wet cost: √149322 Recovered: √143321.7 LF delivered: 3727.9 O delivered: 4186.4 Cost: √6000.3 Splitting the bill evenly between the LF and O portions: Price per unit of LF: √0.8 Price per unit of O: √0.7
  3. Wanderfound
    This thread may be of interest: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/90337-Economic-Fuel-to-Oribit
  4. Wanderfound
    Why limit it to RCS? How about a separate leaderboard for the "open class" with proper rocketry allowed?
  5. Wanderfound
    Anyone else having issues with Blizzy's Toolbar and the stock bar FAR/MJ/PAD icons going black after ATM & EVE are installed? Everything still works, it seems to be just a graphics glitch.
  6. Wanderfound
    Does this imply that ye olde FAR wings equals a mass setting of 0.25?
  7. Wanderfound
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID_controller Basically, it lets you fine-tune your SAS. A lot of folks post-update were having trouble with SAS-induced pitch oscillation. This can solve that.
  8. Wanderfound
    My wings just got a lot more fragile.
  9. Wanderfound
    Can you define "acts stupid"? What's in the bay when you do it?
  10. Wanderfound
    DRE allows more than you think:
  11. Wanderfound
    Ferram: wing strength is varying with mass, it's just that unless you use the overly-fragile 0.01 the scale seems to go from "a bit stronger than before" to "adamantium". I've just redownloaded the FAR dev build again, but it's been a clean install each time. It really does feel like an accidental factor of ten slipped in somewhere.
  12. Wanderfound
    The current version goes in a step from 0.01 to 0.12, then up by 0.01 increments from there. 0.01 is too weak, 0.12 is usable but over-strong for many purposes. 0.12 is strong enough for supersonic aerobatics with both large and small winged ships (0.25 makes it easier, though). At a guess, it feels like ye olde Ferram SP+ eggshells were somewhere between 0.05 and 0.1, probably closer to the lower end of that range. A numeric input box would be vastly preferable to sliders.
  13. Wanderfound
    The latest essential spaceplane pilot's mod: regex's PID tuner. [Moderator removed defunct website link] Gets rid of all of your wobbly SAS problems. I'd recommend starting by reducing pitch kp to 1/3 of default and pitch clamp to 1/2.
  14. Wanderfound
    Cutting pitch kp to 1/3 instantly stopped the rocking-horse motion. You've just invented the latest must-have spaceplane mod. Thanks.
  15. Wanderfound
    I've been deleting my previous Ferram folder and installing the Gamedata folder from the zip download at https://github.com/ferram4/Ferram-Aerospace-Research The "up to five" thing was me misremembering; mea culpa. It still seems like the scale is hugely right-biased, though. I can't imagine ever needing anything higher than 0.5, and mostly what I want is 0.05-0.1, with an easy way to set it. Picking the sweet spot between 0.01 and 0.13 at the moment is a nuisance. regex: any chance of a bit of explanation as to what the assorted input values in your tuner mean?
  16. Wanderfound
    Which is balanced by the reducing mass of the SRBs increasing your TWR as you ascend. Spaceplanes and vertical SSTOs stomp all over this, though. I can put fuel into orbit for less than √1 per unit.
  17. Wanderfound
    I'm afraid that I have to agree with Voculus. Things built as stockified replicas of SP+ stuff that previously flew perfectly now fly badly. Things built as new from-scratch .25 designs with all-green analysis screens fly badly. I can make them work, but they're all a dangerous chore to fly and nothing I'd be willing to offer up as a design for anyone else to use. This is with wing weight wound down to 0.12. That weight still seems to give wings much stronger (and presumably heavier) than ye olde Ferram. Given that 0.12 seems to give extra-strength wings, I really wonder why the scale goes up to five; that's well past the point of "ludicrously indestructible". There couldn't be a decimal point out of place somewhere? Is it possible that just getting the weights back to what they were may solve the problem? Going from untweaked to tweaked-to-0.12 certainly reduced it.
  18. Wanderfound
    Same here. Reducing wing weight and getting the aero analyses perfect reduces the problem, but it never goes away. Deltas, big tails, canards, whatever: all of the planes are determined to fly in a sine wave. All of the designs I've shown as examples would have flown fine pre-25; now, they're flapping about like the crap I made when I first started doing this. Active control of pitch is constantly required, whereas previously I could fly hands-free to orbit (literally: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/94490-The-Hands-Free-Mission-Challenge?p=1433461&viewfull=1#post1433461). Maybe some sort of unintended interaction with the body-lift stuff? Is the wing weight stuff getting somehow applied to fuselage parts as well? I'm also finding that Smart A.S.S. has once again become suicidally useless, although I don't know if the problem is in Mechjeb or elsewhere.
  19. Wanderfound
    Kerbal Flight Data. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/80842-Kerbal-Flight-Data-R8-(05-08-2014)
  20. Wanderfound
    Loving the flame-torch effects when things are about to overcook. Did you guys spice things up, or is that the interaction of DRE with the new KSP explosions etc?
  21. Wanderfound
    More experimenting... Using the second-lowest possible weight setting (0.12, next down is 0.01) in the dev build, the wings still seem substantially stronger than ye olde Ferram. They're light enough to fly with, but nowhere near as gossamer as before. For example, I took up this plane (0.12 all over) and then threw it into a flat spin reentry. Tumbling from orbit, bouncing the g-meter into the red the whole way, the plane was still intact at ~10,000m when I gave up and hit quickload. Still a bit of calibrating to be done, looks like.
  22. Wanderfound
    The current release has extremely overstrength and overheavy wings that make generating sufficient lift at altitude very difficult with all but the lightest planes. It also discourages the sort of broadwing builds that are best at sharp turns. Fortunately, the dev build includes a weight tweakable that returns things to normal (and more!). About 0.1-0.15 seems to be the sweet spot for the weight tweakable. If you have a look at the Kerbodyne link in my sig, you'll find piloting and building guides. What speed were you trying to turn at? Tight aerobatics are a thing that only happens at subsonic speeds. Also see http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/94343-Spaceplane-Speed-Challenge-IV-Up-and-Down for some examples of possibilities.
  23. Wanderfound
    What weights are people playing with the dev version using? I'm finding 0.15 to be light enough to fly with but still needlessly overstrong; trying 0.12 now.
  24. Wanderfound
    Okay; I'm not producing any official Kerbodyne product until the situation with Ferram stabilizes, but I do have something for you in the meantime. Kerby I. Requires the latest dev build of Ferram, wing strength set to 0.15. Minimal in-game tech requirement, assuming a player who prioritizes aircraft bits; this was built in my early-stage career save, where I've just returned from Minmus for the first time. High-speed, high-altitude stability. Clean through the midrange as well. Ludicrously easy takeoffs. Watch the tail. Smooth at low speed. And at high. Clean across the range. Level off by 20,000m. Take it over 30 once you approach hypersonic. And kick in the rocketry once the air runs low. Plenty of fuel in orbit. Comfortably sized cargo bay. Simple, clean design. https://www.dropbox.com/s/w52zsbjzme3dc2h/Kerby%20I.craft?dl=0
  25. Wanderfound
    I'm thinking perhaps that 0-1 in 0.05 increments might be the way to go. With standard strength wings, it's easier to break the fuselage than to snap the wings off. Increasing that is unnecessary. EDIT: just discovered that the latest dev build permits 0.01 adjustments. Nice.
×
×
  • Create New...