Wanderfound
-
Posts
4,893 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by Wanderfound
-
-
1) Have you unlocked the steering on your front gear?
2) Your rear gear is way too far back. Think of the gear as a pivot in a see-saw, with your CoM sitting on one end and your pitch-relevant control surfaces at the other end. Put the gear between the two.
3) Wing-mounted gear is dangerous unless you have very rigid wings (i.e. not too long, and heavily braced with struts). As the wing flexes, it alters the geometry of the gear, which messes up your steering. It's usually better to mount the gear to the fuselage.
4) Planes do not glide well under stock aero. Most flyers use FAR or NEAR.
5) It looks like you're using stationary winglets as your only yaw-relevant control surfaces. That helps to stabilise yaw, but it doesn't do anything to control it. Get some control surfaces or all-moving winglets up there.
6) Your CoL is too far behind your CoM. This makes it hard to lift the nose. CoL should be behind CoM, but only by a bit. Make the indicator spheres overlap.
7) SAS and RCS aren't just for rockets. A well-built plane doesn't need them, but they make things more forgiving while you're still working out how to do it.
-
Is that with jets only? While I respect your enthusiasm I can't wait for the day that Squad corrects the performance curves for turbines so they operate in a realistic manner. No turbine in the world could do that kind of speed with out melting it's own blades, much less past mach 3.5 without doing that. I can't wait until jet engine over heat and melt downs are properly implemented to end air hogging as it's soo unrealistic it's mind-boggling. That and a complete redo of the atmospheric modeling, but thankfully a lot of this has been covered through mods. Sorry I shouldn't tell others how to play the game, but to see people getting absolutely ridiculous speeds out of a turbine, without even the thought of a precooler of some sort, is just mind blowing to me. You know why those Skylon SABRE engines in the real project require those huge powerful precoolers? They need them because the air breathing components, like the turbine used to force air into the rocket motor, would literately melt without them. Sorry to rant, it's not you personally just more of a general thing. I wish the game wasn't so cartoonish in these aspects. Like people building rockets without nose cones or fairings, yet still manage to send ridiculously non-aerodynamic payloads into orbit. Just like people send Kerbals on multi year missions without even the slightest provisions for oxygen recycling, water, or food. I guess some day there won't be a need for those 'certain' mods. No offense to any vanilla players of course.
As well as fixing the aero, the latest version of FAR nerfed the power output of the air breathing engines by 50% and added some reality to their altitude/speed thrust curves. You can still get to Mach 5 on a single non-airhogging turbojet if you do it right. There ain't a lot of drag at 30,000m.
-
I was referring to my own craft data, but thanks for the useful link. I think you guys answered my question, thanks. I was hoping they would have had this data readily available to the pilot in vanilla.
I suppose that the game gives you a pretty map illustration of your orbital information in graphical form as opposed to numerical data, but real life orbital mechanics is virtually impossible without it.
Unfortunately, the KSC design team seem to have this bizarre idea that giving you the sort of minimal flight instrumentation that was routinely included in aircraft eighty years ago would somehow take the fun out of the game. Hence, the popularity of Mechjeb etc.
I don't use Mechjeb as an autopilot, but instead as a customisable instrument panel.
-
I'll even take it one step further:
Science: The art of figuring out how miracles happen.
Engineering: The art of figuring out how to make miracles repeat on demand, and then selling those solutions for money!
Engineering: the art of using inaccurate approximations to achieve a solution that's good enough to get the job done.
Science: the art of being good enough at academic politics to keep the research grants flowing.
-
Got it. I guess it means no SRBs since those can be hard to turn.
Nope. Just use the tweakables to keep the TWR below 2 and make sure the solids burn out before you want to shut them down. With a bit of practice you can make an all-solid boost stage and save the throttleable engines for circularisation.
-
Keep in mind that not everyone uses timewarp heavily; I'll warp forwards an hour or so to get to a manoeuvre node, but I never warp days at a time. My Kerbals would get bored sitting around for all that time, and I like having a bunch of missions running in parallel. If I want to launch a mission to Duna and can't be bothered waiting for an optimum transfer window, I just stick more fuel on it.
-
Hi all, there's probably somewhere to click to get this info, but where do I get my orbital ephemeris data, primarily inclination and period, but right ascension of ascending and descending nodes and true anomaly would be nice.
i know I can push the little "i" on the right side of the screen to get velocity and altitude, but the other info isn't there.
-
After 515 hours on KSP, I am (shockingly) yet to send Kerbals beyond the Kerbin system. There's a Duna transfer window coming up, and I don't know what to do. I will be sending a variety of things, one of which will be a manned mission. I want it to be as realistic as possible though, so I have a couple of questions:
1.) If NASA sends man to Mars at some time in the future, do you think they will launch the entire ship from Earth in one rocket, or send up parts separately and dock them in orbit?
2.) Which engine is best for interplanetary travel? I've been hovering around the nuclear engine because I've heard it's quite good for long distance, but is there any that is better (I have KW Rocketry too)?
3.) How many Kerbals would be a reasonable number to send? I've been thinking three, but that seems monumentally too few for such an important mission. There's a mod part that is a 7 seated capsule which looks very interesting. Do you think 7 is too many for a first mission?
It'd be great to hear your opinions. I know in KSP there's lots of free range to do whatever you want, but I quite like realism too, so if anyone knows realistic methods then that'd be great to hear about.
Thanks for your time!
1) I don't think NASA will get a manned mission to Mars before they cease to exist. However: orbital docking isn't just about construction. Even with a single-piece spacecraft you can save a lot of launch weight if you send it up with empty tanks and then refuel it in orbit.
2) Look at the vacuum ISP stats; higher is better. In some circumstances TWR can compensate for inferior ISP, but that's mostly about ultralight probes, not heavy manned missions. You'll likely find this useful: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Parts#Liquid_Fuel_Engines
3) With this, it's all about whatever feels best for you. Nobody's done it yet, so nobody knows. More people gives more options, but also more chance for interpersonal conflict. See http://www.jamesoberg.com/04142000assualt_rus.html
You would probably enjoy this book: http://www.maryroach.net/packing-for-mars.html
You'd probably also enjoy this mod: http://www.curse.com/ksp-mods/kerbal/221022-tac-life-support
-
When I get to an altitude of about 14km up and I try to level my planes angle it just dives forwards out of control, has fuel changed the COM or is it a lift thing?
Could be a bunch of things; if you can give us side and top screenshots in the SPH with the CoL/CoM/CoT indicators on, we'd have more chance of figuring it out. But for a few possibilities:
* Yes, it could be a fuel use CoM shift. Try to cluster your fuel tanks as close as you can around CoM, and use fuel lines to control the order in which the tanks drain. Avoid putting tanks near the nose. In the SPH, always check to see how the CoM moves when the tanks empty; you can empty tanks by right clicking on them and adjusting the tweakables. You may also want to shift your CoL a bit further behind CoM to make the plane less sensitive to mass shift.
* You may have problems the other way, with CoL too far behind CoM. Too far forward is unstable, but too far back makes it hard to keep the nose up.
* You may have been climbing too steeply, leading you into a stall when levelling due to insufficient speed. This can be related to insufficient wing area; the less wing, the higher the stall speed.
* You may have insufficient pitch authority. To control pitch, you want substantial control surfaces that are placed as far away from CoM as possible. Surfaces on mid-mounted wings are for roll; they're useless for pitch.
...and an assortment of other things that aren't coming to mind right now. Post the screenshots if you can.
-
I also have trouble withe spaceplanes and SSTO's. I started a thread about that
tread:SSTO question
And I had a few things to say there, too.
If you're still having trouble, I'd suggest using the example plane I linked to over there (Kerbodyne Scattershot) and flying it to orbit following the hints I gave regarding ascent path. Once you get back down, go into the SPH and tear the plane to pieces so you can see how it was put together, then try and build your own one.
-
Granted: some tests are outright impossible, others are expensive to do (like, heavy part on the surface of the Mun). So decline these.
The low-paying test contracts often come with very tasty science rewards.
-
In my experience the most cost effective way to do rescue missions is an SSTO spaceplane. Netto cost after 100% recovery on the runway is √1000 at max.
Yeah, that's how I do it. All my spaceplanes have a probe core stashed on 'em somewhere so they can be flown as unmanned drones.
My issue is more "how do I get rid of all this cash?". So, whenever it gets too excessive, I start prototyping spaceplanes. You can burn through the funds pretty quick when you destroy a dozen √200,000 planes while sorting out problems (another reason for the probe cores...).
-
Spend some time in the sandbox first, and get the hang of Kerbin SOI using only 2,5m parts.
That, or use Kerbal Engineer or Mechjeb to make your rocket designs more efficient.
...and try to get the hang of SSTOs and accurate landing. It doesn't matter how much your ship costs if it's single stage and lands on the launchpad.
-
* Mk 1 Lander Can with a few legs suspended by a launchclamp. Whenever you get a "test part landed on Kerbin" mission stick the required part on top. Drop the lander on the launchpad (landed) and test the part. Recover the whole load for 100% refund.
You don't even need to go that fancy. My standard "test while landed" rig is nothing but a couple of girders and a Stayputnik.
-
This one is tricky, because of the way KSP builds crafts.
Basicly, the way this works is like a tree. You start with 1 part, this is the root. And than you add new things to those parts, and those are branches, which can branch out themselves, ect ect. This system however does not allow for loops.
Now there are a few workarounds for this, but they are pritty convulted. For example, you could force a loop with docking ports (upon loading the rocket on the launchpad, the docking ports will connect, which creates a loop). But I don't think it's actually possible in stock to make this work properly (I could be wrong offcourse)
It takes some trickery, but it can be done. Basically, you build 'em like a tuning fork and then tie the back together with struts.
-
Quick and easy ways to accumulate vast amounts of √:
* Stick a satellite in orbit with a probe core, a battery, a couple of solar panels, a thermometer and a radio. Whenever a "transmit science from orbit" contract comes up, switch to the satellite and send in a temperature scan.
* Stick a satellite in orbit that consists of a dozen or so cheap "escape pods": probe core, one man capsule, battery, parachute, RCS fuel and thrusters. Whenever a "rescue a Kerbal" contract comes up, detach a pod and send it to get him. You only need a tiny amount of ÃŽâ€V to rendezvous and deorbit.
* Leave a Kerbal sitting in a permanent base on the Mun. Whenever a "plant flag" contract comes up, get him to walk outside and add to his forest of flags.
-
Will have to do a daylight flight to demo that this ship can reach 2400 m/sec at about 35,000 meters so that only a very short burn is needed to circularize the payload into orbit. The fins act to stabilize lift at high altitude for the speed run to space.
http://i.imgur.com/oOkte8s.jpg
The jet section is recoverable but unflyable once the payload is staged.
I've been working on something similar, albeit on a slightly larger scale...
It's pricey, but it should be 100% recoverable; it parachutes onto landing legs. As you can see in the second shot, the Rockomax 64 is the payload, not the lifter fuel. Whack the nose to 30° just after takeoff, wind it up to Mach 4.5 by 30,000m, then flick on the Vernors to hold it stable while the 20 RAPIERs take you to space.
It's quite nippy. Surprisingly manoeuvrable too, so long as you keep the Vernors on. Bit noisy, though.
-
I did that myself and it didn't work out. Neither being captured by Moho, nor the contract popping up in time.
What was the problem with the Moho probe? Not enough ÃŽâ€V, or just missed the target?
-
Maybe the creator don't wanna use mods? because stock crafts? That or launching them with the high weight/power would be not possible because of the seperatrons being not that powerful on things with high weights, and i thought we were talking about Missile/Rocket launchers and not bombers, eh?
It was a suggestion; the poster is free to do whatever they wish.
And yeah, a Sepratron wouldn't cut it; you'd need an RT-10. Which is why I said "booster", not "Sepratron".
-
Tried using NRAP test weights? Indestructible, high density, tweakable size and weight, appropriate shape if you skinny them down from default.
You'd need to strap a booster on the back or use them as deadfall bombs, but the weight should punch through nearly anything. Any time I crash a plane while testing its lifting limits, the resulting scene usually involves the NRAP smashing its way out of the cargo bay and sailing into the ocean.
-
This is all to say that I hate the (anti-?) stigma people attach when they learn my profession. Suddenly, nothing I do is average, acceptable, or good enough. Good grief--it's really just engineering, you just get to engineer the really shiny toys. Yeah, I know, poor me.
Heh; hang around scientists long enough (ex-neuroscientist here) and you'll probably hear the phrase "rocket science isn't rocket science".
But we are grateful for the engineers, despite the occasional teasing (ever hear Sheldon Cooper's description of engineers as "the semi-skilled Oompa-Loompas of science"?). Y'all make all the best toys.
BTW:
-
I've stuck mainly with vanilla KSP except for Kerbal Engineering Redux mod for designing. If I do try a mod the first one I'll go for will likely be FAR + Deadly Reentry.
Whatever you'd prefer to do is cool, of course, but: it's a single part parts pack that has zero impact on the game apart from adding the NRAP as an option on the science tab in the VAB. It's about as lightweight a mod as it's possible to get.
-
Not familiar with NRAP test weights - which part is that?
-
Depends on what you want to do.
If you're going out of low Kerbin orbit, you'll need solar panels. If you want to hurry through the tech tree, go for the science instruments (but you don't have to do this; you'll get there eventually anyway). If you care more about fun than rapid progression, grab whatever looks most amusing at the time.
Personally, I'd spend some time enjoying the challenge of making basic rockets with limited ingredients before rushing on too much.
How would you get this whackovian sized engine core into orbit.
in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
Posted
What exactly is going wrong? Failure to lift, loss of control, breaking up in flight?