Wanderfound
-
Posts
4,893 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by Wanderfound
-
-
Further...
unless you have a huge number of clipped-into-invisibility ramscoops on there, you have WAAAAAY to little air intake for that monster.
To keep 8 turbojets fed and happy, on a SSTO vehicle, your want about..... 48 ramscoops facing the wind.
I count 4 of the feeble circular air intakes, and thats it!
Not so much. My big SSTO spaceplane (two turbojets, six RAPIERs) manages fine with 8 ram intakes, 8 nacelles and four radial intakes. And the radials are probably unnecessary overkill.
So long as your engines don't choke below 30,000m (at low climb rate and angle of attack; if you're climbing steeply, they'll choke much earlier), you're all good.
-
I have tried to go to the mun for 1 day now
One day is not very long in KSP terms.
Learn to enjoy failure; it's an integral part of the rocket building process. And when you finally do get there you'll enjoy that too.
-
As others have said: your pics aren't showing up. Chuck 'em on Dropbox/Photobucket/Imgur etc.
I recently had similar issues adapting my old planes for the new nerfed-jets FAR. You might find some things of use in this thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/88200-Power-or-aero-%28issues-with-old-planes-under-new-FAR%29
-
Can I ask a newbish question? Once you do get that orange tank in space, how do you dock it to your space station? Does your tug dock with it, then haul it to the space station? Is the tug basically an LV-N with a small fuel tank and a docking clamp?
I don't mean to derail a useful thread, so feel free to ignore me; I'm just so newbish that I struggle to refuel at all, never mind refueling economically. I have three half-empty orange tank "space stations" around Kerbin, and another two around Minmus. I don't know an efficient way to join them all up!
The way I usually do it is to put a probe core, a solar panel, a docking port, a roundified monoprop tank and a few RCS thrusters on the orange tank itself. Detach tank from spaceplane, dock tank to space station, done.
Alternately, dock the spaceplane to the station, pump the fuel across and then carry the empty tank back to KSC. It all depends on whether the station just needs fuel or whether it could use some extra tank space as well.
-
http://www.muppetlabs.com/~breadbox/txt/al.html might be of interest to some folks, BTW. The theory of relativity explained in words of four letters or less.
-
Imagine all you want, but it still ain't gonna happen.
Anything that a manned space fighter can do, a drone or missile can do better. And space combat is likely to see a return to the early 1970’s F-111/Foxbat style of long range speed and missile based fighting. Stealth in space is impossible (the heat signature of a spacecraft is clearly visible from across the solar system, and there's no way to avoid emitting heat without cooking the crew), so it's all gonna come down to whose missile gets there first.
And, sorry, but warp drive doesn't exist;looks like Einstein was right about that whole speed of light thing. While there are a few theoretical methods to get around that (wormholes etc.), the power requirements and engineering involved are beyond anything that could ever be realistically achieved (for example: the "how to make a wormhole" thing starts with "tow a black hole into the same position as a white hole...").
-
Yes, it costs 111713 to built this thing.
WHAT!? THAT IS EXPENSIVE!!
But wait.
It launches the payload orange tank to a 72x72 orbit, and has about 320m/s of rocket d/v remaining to assure a return to a soft landing on the runway of KSC. (4500d/v on turbojets)
Runway recycle value is... 100%
Returned cost is... 108902
Total cost expended, not counting the payload itself: 2811
I can live with that
Same here; my Rockomax 64 lifter costs nearly √200,000 to build, but as it lands on the runway the delivery cost to orbit is something like √5,000.
-
the first pic it doesnt have control surfaces, also, what do you mean by post-nerf and pre-nerf? i think that pic was after the engines turned off from loss of intakeair, and i leveled out and couldnt get it to go any faster
The latest release of FAR (v0.14.1.1) reduced the thrust of air-breathing engines by 50%. They were unrealistically overpowered before.
Pre-nerf, I could get a single turbojet basic plane (delta wings, fuselage, engine, intake, not much else) over 2,200m/s at altitude. You just had to be willing to fly around Kerbin a time or two at 30,000m while you gathered speed. At that height, very little thrust is required to continue slowly accelerating.
Haven't tested the limits post-nerf yet.
-
I struggle with the ship I am trying to dock to rotating below me. Or am I doing this wrong??
1) Switch control to the target before docking and turn on its SAS or whatever to kill any pre-existing rotation.
2) Try not to create any new rotation by ramming the target. You should be moving at about 0.1m/s when the docking ports connect, and you should try to line it up well enough that they connect on the first attempt.
-
I've heard some report that they find docking harder than rendezvous, and they're using the terms correctly as near as I can tell. Mystifying to me, I find rendezvous more challenging, though less satisfying, than docking.
For me, rendezvous is trivially simple (match inclination, higher orbit to slow down, lower orbit to speed up; how hard is that?) but docking is a time-consuming chore much of the time.
A lot of my docking antipathy is due to the fact that my first space station got heavily hit by 23.5's docking port bugs, though. Nothing more frustrating then spending half an hour trying to get two unwieldy station sections together, only to eventually realise that the docking ports aren't working.
-
I'm reading that as "a big maybe right now" as in "we'll do it after we add biomes to the existing planets".
(it had better be that, in any case..)
Certainly hope they get onto it soon. One of my biggest disappointments in 23.5 was spending weeks getting an orbital lab and lander to Duna (early days for me in KSP, long list of epic stuffups requiring repeat launches) only to then find out that it was pointless to land on Duna more than once except for sightseeing.
I would love a Saturn equivalent, though. Gotta have a ring system somewhere.
-
It would be slight if people hadn't been playing on stock aero for so long. It's going to be a future update, and it's going to mess with the majority of people (i get that stat from <50% of people using NEAR/FAR).
Which is why I'd expect Squad to implement it as a switchable difficulty/realism option. Keep stock aero for them that wants it, but integrate something equivalent to NEAR/FAR into the stock game. Ditto for things like reentry heating and the like.
-
Uh, how long ago was that? I'm not a huge fan of stock aero (the mass=drag thing is incredibly obnoxious), but planes from 0.22-onwards most certainly respond to both wing orientation and control surface input.
Of course, thanks to mass=drag, your dead sticking will result in falling short of the runway unless you're fairly close by
This was under 23.5.
The plane was still responding to control surfaces in the sense that I could change its orientation however I liked, but nothing I did would alter the velocity vector or rate of descent. I had about as much control as an unpowered reentry capsule, even after I got down into the thicker air.
It was a big plane coming in hot from orbit, though; there may have been some subtle effect that wasn't apparent at the time.
In contrast, with a similar plane under FAR I can usually glide to KSC even if reenter halfway around Kerbin.
-
thanks for your reply.
btw, can you teach me any tips or some skills about this problem??
first when I add procedural wings, I mean any wings, center of lift slightly lean front. and It make fly unstable. Im going crazy.
and the other one, is the stabilizer problem. can you help me?
Unless the wings are angled down at the front, I'd expect any lean in the CoL to be caused by the tail section. Non-vertical tailfins act as wings, and having part of your lift generated from the top rear of the plane is going to tilt your CoL a bit.
Anything that looks too much like an F22 is likely to be somewhat unstable. Modern fighter planes are built that way on purpose, to enhance manoeuvrability. If it wasn't for all the fancy fly-by-wire computerised avionics stuff, they'd be completely unflyable.
-
I struggle to find a way to bring a rover along with my lander. I'm not good enough to land a rover separately. Any tips on how to land a combo rover/lander (or how to build it)?
There are a few ways to get landers down. The simplest is probably to attach the rover vertically to the top of the lander (be careful to balance the mass) then lower the landing struts on one side and decouple to drop the rover onto its wheels. You'll probably blow some tyres, but they're easy to fix. Or you can make the rover into its own lander. A rover with detachable thrusters along its sides (a few of the mini radials or some of the new monoprop engines should be enough) shouldn't be any more difficult to set down than a conventional lander; just make sure that the thrust is balanced around CoM and that you've got an upwards-facing probe core or docking port on board so your navball is aligned right for landing.
Alternately, skycrane. Build a lander with a rover slung underneath it (arranging the lander jets so they don't fry the rover). Land, decouple, take off again.
-
*drools* .craaaaaaaaft
Seconded.
I think a Mun bike is going to be tomorrow's design project.
-
I'm going the other way: Vernors.
While a decently built plane shouldn't need it to fly, adding some vectored thrust to an aircraft massively increases the performance window. Slamming a plane into supersonic aerobatics is way fun; waiting to see if the wings will tear off provides an amusing amount of tension.
Gotta save it for when you need it, though; fuel goes fast in atmosphere.
-
Exactly. FAR is not even close to being friendly to new players, and the current model, while not making a lot of sense, is enough. So I understand they don't wanna change that, since there are replacements for any skills (NEAR and FAR) that are doing extremely well.
Why fix something that isn't broken ?
The difficulty bump from stock to FAR is slight, and stock aero is spectacularly broken.
The event that finally inspired me to go to FAR was attempting a dead-stick landing with an out of fuel spaceplane under stock aero and realising that the orientation of the plane made absolutely no difference to its speed or direction when the engines were off. That's just ridiculous.
-
Post-nerf or pre-nerf turbojet?
Make it a slow enough ascent (<10m/s) with a couple of climb/dive bounces (between 35,000m and 25,000m; "skip" off the denser atmosphere, similar to a too-shallow reentry) to build speed beforehand plus some careful throttling down at altitude and you should be able to get that thing close to Mach 7.
-
.24 added roll on engine gimbal and I did not add it in MJ code yet, so MJ think there is less roll torque available than the plane actually has and you get oscillation. It's on the top of my list, I wanted to refactor some code first but I may do a quick hack.
Cool, thanks.
-
Presenting the Kerbodyne D7 Heavy X5, updated for post-nerf FAR. Capable of lifting a fully loaded Rockomax 64 into orbit, or whatever other payload you see fit.
As a matter of pure lift, it can probably handle better than 70 ton. However, the landing gear struggles at that weight; warranty void if payload exceeds 40 ton.
Make sure to check the action groups; it isn't designed to use staging. Keep the Vernor thrusters turned off until it's time to lift the nose for the final burn at 30,000m/Mach 4. The abort system works fine in flight, but raise the nose before ejecting if something goes wrong during takeoff unless you feel like having 100 ton of spaceplane run you over. The degree of deflection on the forward flaps can be adjusted in flight by right-clicking. The forward-facing Sepratrons (triggered by action group 0) are for emergency braking assistance on short runways.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/o0mgvh9jws...avy%20X5.craft
-
Nice.
I'd be interested to see how you constructed that all-moving tail. Stacked AV-R8s?
-
Hey all... so I have updated to the newest KSP 0.24.2 (7/27/14) and build 270 of mechjeb. I too have had some pretty severe over-corrections.
Video: http://youtu.be/El0jwN8O3VM
Sorry for the vertical video and potato quality. Not sure whats going on... even with autopilot off and no inputs my craft still moves around on its own. I turn SAS on, and again the craft gets wonky.
Smart A.S.S. has been going haywire for me as well. Previously I could use it in surface mode as a cruise control on my planes. Now, if I engage Smart A.S.S. the plane starts an oscillating roll that increases the longer you keep Smart A.S.S. on. The plane flies fine on its own, and the roll quickly dampens if you turn Smart A.S.S. off.
I don't think the problem is in the plane. The behaviour of Smart A.S.S. seems to have changed dramatically with the latest version (2.3.1.0).
-
If, however, for some reason you do need to continuously balance some tanks, there (of course) is a mod that will do that: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/25823-0-23-0-23-5-TAC-Fuel-Balancer-v2-3-22Dec
CargoSSTO Flat Lining at Low Altitudes
in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
Posted
Eight turbos on four circulars are certainly underfed, but I was speaking in general, not specific; I hadn't seen the images. Regardless, forty eight ramscoops is extremely excessive and unrealistic unless you're dealing with a 200 ton vertical SSTO.
If you're looking to maximise speed and altitude on a spaceplane, you want to be shutting down engines as you ascend to concentrate the remaining air. By the time I crack 25,000m, the RAPIERs are turned off and don't come back on until it's time to start burning oxidiser. My smaller planes generally have a single turbojet on the centreline that is their sole source of high-altitude thrust.
The RAPIERs are only used for the initial climb to 20,000 and the final push to orbit. You just don't need a lot of thrust for high altitude level flight; two turbojets are enough to get my 100 ton spaceplane to Mach 4.5 at that altitude. The poster should also be shutting down engines as the air thins; the eight turbos may be handy for getting off the ground, but they just aren't that useful at altitude.
Adding more intakes is usually a waste of time; keeping more engines running isn't going to make you significantly faster, because once you approach Mach 5, the turbojet thrust (which reduces greatly at these speeds, no matter how much air you feed them) begins to be outweighed by the intake drag. Hypersonic is rocket and scramjet territory.