Wanderfound
-
Posts
4,893 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by Wanderfound
-
-
Planes are far more efficient and I always use them for the kerbal to orbit, orbital tests or rescue missions unless I have lifeboats in orbit.
Downside with planes is launching heavy or bulky stuff,
It can be done, though; my SSTO heavy lift spaceplane is good for at least 40 ton, probably more.
It also looks like something out of the Thunderbirds, however. Nine sets of landing gear on that thing and I still had to strut like crazy to stop them collapsing on the runway.
-
In short, Kerbin is not Earth. I personally prefer FAR, but thats the beauty of mods. My game is a little different from the devs vision, and that's ok.
While I expect they'd like to keep the simplified aero available, I think Squad are shooting themselves in the foot if they don't include something like FAR as at least a switchable option in the stock game. Ditto for at least the flight instrumentation features of Mechjeb. When a very large proportion of your fanbase regard a mod as essential, it's time to start copying.
-
I have started using a LOT more SRBs in order to keep costs down. I am also starting to take a good look at making a working SSTO so I can have a better profit margin.
Planes are more fun for me, but if you want an instant SSTO, remember that rockets can use turbojets too. Ram intake + engine nacelle + two radial intakes + turbojet, mounted on a radial girder. Think Thunderbirds.
Attach a dozen of these to your favourite circularisation rocket, keep the fireworks off until the fans choke and don't forget to shut the intakes when you turn off the jets. You will go to space today, especially if you put some chunky aero surfaces on it (use delta wings + standard control surfaces for tailfins, maybe some canards on the nose) and go for a low and flat gravity turn to keep the jets going as long as possible.
-
Now that Kerbin is no longer a socialist utopia with limitless resources and nothing to do with them but launch them to space, how have your career mode builds changed?
In 23.5 I was using flashy overpowered asparagus things, but they're way pricey now. So I shifted to cheap and nasty solid booster based designs, but I'm no longer using them. Three reasons.
1) I don't like them. Not as much fun to fly. Liquid fuel rockets just sound better.
2) Launch failures can turn cheap rockets into false economy. The inability to throttle solid boosters significantly increases failure risk, and solid booster failures are much more likely to be fatal.
3) Spaceplanes! Since if you land on the runway you get 100% of your money back, the only expense in flying SSTO spaceplanes is their relatively tiny fuel bill (well, that and the wear and tear on prototypes...). And because you're only paying for fuel, there's no reason not to trick out your jet with every expensive widget that takes your fancy. No need to scrimp for efficiency; it doesn't cost that much more to run a spaceplane that handles like a fighter, accelerates at 4G and looks really cool. May as well go to orbit in a Ferrari if you can.
My standard runabout costs √50,000, but it can get to orbit and back for just a couple of thousand in fuel. Ditto for the √150,000 heavy lifter. Compared to the solid rockets, they're more fun to fly (for me; each to their own etc.) and also a lot more profitable.
-
So I tried to play 0.24 in stock. Made millions in a relatively short time. What should I do to spend all this √? Maybe realism mods that will force me to spend extra?
Stock or hard mode stock? Removing revert and quicksave is the biggest realism mod there is.
But yeah; as others have noted, it's not hard to acquire funds. But I think that this was a deliberate design choice: it's not about having you always be on the brink of poverty, it's about rewarding missions with the ability to build completely ridiculous huge things or crash fifty spaceplane prototypes in a row.
I can also run up masses of cash in a couple of milk-run missions, but my total available still hovers around √300,000. Any time the funds start to pile up, I blow it all on fun stuff.
Yes, if they wanted they could make the contracts system Nintendo hard. But I'm glad that I'm not obliged to grind for my fun. For those who do like a more score-focused challenge, it wouldn't be hard to add a widget to the debug menu that applies a multiplier of your choice to the cost of all rocket parts.
-
What's odd to me is that re-usable spacecraft play no purpose as of yet. Maybe they will, I don't know, but so far I've stuck 2 little probes in orbit with no intention of bringing them back down, and have only returned the top stage of my rockets.
I've got an SSTO spaceplane that can haul 30 tons into orbit (two turbojets, four RAPIERs, all stock parts). Since it lands on the runway, the only cost of the launch is the tiny amount of fuel it uses in the few seconds between Mach 5 and orbit. Profits are over 90%.
I'm using it to build orbital infrastructure; there's already a refuelling station and a tug. The SSTO can lift a full Rockomax Red, so keeping the station full isn't a problem. Now, anything that I want to send interplanetary can be lifted empty, saving most of the launch weight.
-
Well, at least give him a capsule with another kerbal! Bob gets lonely!
I might send up a Hitchhiker pod. If I'm feeling generous, it may even have a solar panel.
Hey, I think I've finally found the crossover between Kerbal and Prison Architect...
-
Guys, they're called funds. Just call them that instead of going full-on ham with the K syndrome.
Yours are called whatever you like. Mine are called Kerbucks.
-
Bob is the last survivor of the Kerman brothers in my Hard Mode game, so I'd like to keep him alive. However, being a Kerman, he naturally took every opportunity to slip into the pilot's seat. Getting Security to throw Bob out became a standard part of the pre flight checklist.
But Security screwed up. On the recent launch of the SSTO spaceplane Kerbodyne Overshoot, Bob slipped past Security while they were distracted by the last-minute addition of a testing part. The stowaway wasn't noticed until the drone-piloted ship reached its target: the stranded Aldfrey Kerman.
This presented a problem, as the Kerbodyne Overshoot is a single-seat spacecraft. Solution: throw out Bob, bring home Aldfrey.
Bob is now securely stashed in a 100km parking orbit. Try and stow away from there, you sneaky little SOB.
-
Although I'm easily able to grind contracts for funds (spaceplane to orbit, test some parachutes on the way up, science from space, rescue a Kerbal, land on runway; no expenses but a small amount of fuel, √profit√), I'm still finding that my bank balance hovers around √300,000.
Every time I collect a million, I blow it on prototype testing. That gets expensive fast when they're √80,000 spaceplanes and you lose three or four to takeoff instability or aerodynamic failure before getting it right. And then there's the joy of seeing your new √100,000 megabooster design disintegrate on takeoff...for the third time.
What are you spending your cash on?
-
I lost Jeb, Bill, and Bob trying to build a spaceplane. And also two other kerbals.
Jeb died on his third flight; he was trying to save a failed booster with a combination of thrust and parachutes when the chutes detached. Bill died when his pod had an aerodynamic failure on reentry from his first Mun landing that left him in the part without the parachutes.
Bob is still with us for now...
All of my rockets now come with escape systems: engine shutdown, capsule decoupling and parachute activation all linked to the Abort button. I may start adding Sepratrons to the capsules, too. And boosters get tested with probes when possible.
-
A lot of the complaints seem to be "this contract is something that I have to actually do, rather than something I can pick up in passing" combined with "this test requires me to use a part in a way that I wouldn't normally use it".
They're test pilot missions. That's what test pilots do; it's about precision flying, not acrobatics. It's also about seeing how components behave under extreme stresses (incidentally, high altitude/high velocity solid booster ignition has an obvious application to spaceplanes).
I like these contracts, and so do some other folks. I find it an interesting puzzle to work out how to do the tests in an efficient way; hopefully there are some really difficult test contracts in the later game (e.g. "activate this booster while pulling more than 4 but less than 6 negative G's").
if you aren't into this sort of stuff, that's all cool; you don't have to do these contracts. Go visit the Mun or rescue stranded Kerbals instead.The wide diversity of ways in which people enjoy KSP is why there are a good range of contracts on offer. Hopefully the variety of contracts will be increasing even further in future; it's an obvious place to crowdsource ideas for creative challenges ("Kerbo-Cola wants you to construct a huge advertising billboard in geosynchronous orbit, then build a skycrane to erect the giant magnifying glass that we'll use to see it...").
Making the game so that everyone can play how they want inevitably means that there are some features that some players don't use much.
-
I've noticed that many of the product testing contracts come with very tasty science rewards. I'm quite keen on them; playing test pilot is fun, and science is often more valuable in game than funds (which I'm choosing to call Kerbucks, personally).
If you're getting into product testing, you want to build a fast and stable basic aircraft. It lets you easily get to whatever speed and altitude you need, and so long as you land it back on the runway the cost of running it is trivial. If you're unsure of your piloting, either use drone pilots or stick a decoupler behind the cockpit and strap some parachutes on.
They're also good for soaking up science; stick every scientific instrument you have on it, hook them all to a single action group and trigger them periodically as you're flying around. Eventually you'll pick up all of the biomes around the place, especially if you get into high-altitude hypersonic stuff.
-
Orbital refuelling infrastructure and fuel delivery by cheap SSTOs that get most of their lift from air-breathing engines are probably the way to go. Jets cost more than SRBs, but you get all of it back if you can land it at KSC.
Precision landing matters; spaceplanes make that easier, but they're not the only way to do it. I've been having fun with rocket powered parasailing...
-
some of these contracts make zero sense. one of my first few was to test the BACC solid booster at just above 4800 @ 380m per second. seriously? you want me to go supersonic and THEN fire a giant solid booster? the amount of additional boosters that it took to propel myself to the speed of light cost so much that recovering all but the capsule was impossible because radial parachutes cost 700 per.
Testing how a booster performs at high velocity sounds like a valid question to me.
And I think you'll find it's much cheaper if you use a simple jet to get it up to speed...
wait wait wait holy crap for $126 I get to test a decoupler that costs $400 and will be unrecoverable because I am going to decouple it? what am I missing?You get science and reputation, which in turn gets you more valuable contracts. Think of it as a loss leader.
-
That's interesting but seems complicated. I usually just do a test flight that I fully expect to purposely flame out and revert. From then on out I know what altitude my engines can take.
The altitude that all of your engines can take is not the same as the altitude which some of your engines can take. 30,000m won't have enough air for five engines, but it may have enough for one.
The altitude they can tolerate at full throttle differs quite a lot from what they can take at partial throttle, too; back off the juice and you'll extend the air a long way. It's also affected by speed, thanks to the ram air effect. The faster you're going, the higher your engines can breathe. Gentle climb rates, minimum angles of attack; these make a big difference in peak altitude.
-
I'm not great with SSTO planes, so can't add much, except one thing. Jet engines don't necessarily run out of intake air at the same time (at least, that appears to be the case, unless I'm confusing it with something else), so if you have multiple jets, they can cut out at different times, causing a loss of control. So set them to toggle on an action group, then switch them all off together when your intake air gets low enough that one of them is likely about to go.
You can build so that this isn't a problem, thanks to the bug/feature that the last engine placed is always the first to sputter out (although the others will follow very shortly after if you're climbing at all). Use an odd number of engines, and make sure that the centreline one is both air-breathing and last-placed.
Because it's on the centre of thrust, it can flame out without unbalancing the aircraft. As soon as it does, either shut down or shift to closed cycle at least one pair of the other air breathing engines. As the air is diverted from the pair of shut down engines, the centre engine will return to life, to repeat the process the next time that you need to shut a pair of engines down.
You still need to set action groups to toggle the engine pairs, but the central flameout gives a very obvious and early cue as to when to trigger the shut downs. It allows you to run air-breathing engines right to the edge of their tolerance.
-
Any critiquing is welcome.
It's hard to tell from the image exactly how your lifter is built, so a few basic principles:
1) With the exception of specialist vacuum engines (nukes etc.), you generally want every engine that you're carrying to be firing at full power from launch. When you're building, try to arrange things so that this is possible. If you don't fire them all at once, you're carrying dead weight, which takes more fuel. If firing them all at once makes you accelerate too fast, your rocket is bigger than it needs to be.
2) You want to ditch weight as soon as you can. Use fuel lines to concentrate your fuel consumption on as few tanks as possible and drop them (and the engines on the bottom of them, usually) as soon as they're empty.
These two points are the basis of onion and asparagus staging. Onion staging drops rings of tanks from the outside in; asparagus staging is similar, but empties and drops alternating pairs instead of rings. Asparagus is slightly more efficient, but onion is simpler to build and control.
3) Watch where your exhaust is going. Rocket go boom.
-
I've been doing it all wrong then as well, running into the same roadblocks.
I've been shooting for an AP of 80k when my surface V is only about 1200+/- . I haven't been able to get much higher than 1500 m/s though, even with a TWR around 7.
Serious speed is about height and air, not power.
To get something to crack 2,000m/s, I get it as high as possible (~30,000m), turn off all of my engines except one (so all of the intakes are feeding a single burner) and throttle back to about 1/3 power so as not to empty the air tanks. Then it's just a matter of waiting a few minutes as you slowly accelerate, monitoring your climb rate to keep it as close to zero as possible (climb at less than 10m/s until the engine sputters, then descend a smidge), before turning off the engines and gliding around the world a time or two.
More power is just more weight in this situation. There isn't the air to feed it. Even if you add more intakes, you're better off using the added capacity for more height rather than more power.
-
SSTO spaceplanes take a bit of trial and error, but they aren't that hard. Under F.A.R., a plane that is just a pair of wings, a bit of fuel, a single turbojet and about four intakes can easily crack Mach 6 at ~25,000m. Once you're doing that, it doesn't take a lot of rocket to get into orbit.
Beginner spaceplanes are usually too big and too heavy. Start small and simple.
Aim to maximise the amount of use you get out of your air-breathing engines. If you've got multiple air-breathers, shut some down once the air gets too thin (or switch them to closed cycle if they're RAPIERs). Also keep in mind that air pressure is partly a function of speed; once you kick the rockets in, the ram-air effect can breathe new life into gasping turbojets.
I climb as fast as I can without rockets until I hit 13,000m. From there, I gradually level off, aiming to reduce my climb rate to a low and steady amount (below 30m/s) by about 20,000m. Once I'm settled in to a high altitude shallow climb, the turbojets start to sing and the speed should rise to somewhere between 1000m/s and 2,000m/s depending on how good the plane and the piloting are. Keep doing this until the plane stops accelerating or the turbojets start to choke, then kick the rockets in, pull the nose up to 45 degrees and keep burning until the apoapsis hits 70,000m.
As mentioned, the air-breathers will get a boost from the velocity increase; monitor their output and gradually shut them down as they die. Close the intakes if they all choke before you finish the burn, but if you're doing it right you can ride air-breathers all the way up.
Cruise to apoapsis, burn to circularise, enjoy.
The hard part of spaceplane piloting is getting back down intact.
-
while I agree on the learn sooner thing, its also akin to asking a first grader to solve the general theory of relativity. No, he should at least reach "high school" first, as in, proficient at all the basics, then, run up difficulty.
I've only been playing a month or so, and I've got probes, stations and landers at every planet and SSTO spaceplanes that are solid and stable enough that if you deliberately flip them into supersonic spins you can fairly reliably pull them out of it intact (eventually...). Just the stock parts, and they're fun to fly; struggling for control in the thin air at 25,000m at Mach 4 just before you kick the rockets in is always a hoot.
http://i1378.photobucket.com/albums/ah120/craigmotbey/imagejpg1_zps9e3153eb.jpg
Your mileage obviously varies, but personally I find it easier to fly when things behave as I expect them to. That happens with F.A.R.; it doesn't with stock. It's still a very forgiving flight sim. I honestly don't understand why you think F.A.R. has such an effect on the difficulty.
I use Proc. Fairings myself, and I can tell you this much: unless he makes that payload way more rigid, its STILL gonna sway. Ive watched payloads sway during launch and peek out of the Proc Fairings. He needs a good combo of fairing AND stability in the payload.Yup. As everyone says: struts. At least four. That will detach when the decoupler goes if you start them from the lower stage.
-
It is a shuttle im looking to build. "First Contract" seems to be targetted heavily towards reusable "space crafts". I would think a shuttledesign would be obvious for such a task
Vertical take-off
Vertical launch makes it more difficult. You're paying the weight and drag penalty for the wings, so you may as well use them. The climbing period allows you to get it cranked up to ~1500m/s or so of lateral velocity by the time you need to swap from air-breathers to rockets.
If you're dedicated to vertical launch then it could be done, but it's trickier. You may find you need to use some detachable (recoverable...) boosters instead of building an SSTO.
-
While folks are recommending mods, you might also want to try Ferram Aerospace Research. It vastly improves the stock aerodynamics; without it, your fairing will look pretty but it won't actually do anything to help your rocket get into space. It'll actually hurt, by adding purely cosmetic weight.
With F.A.R. installed, the things under the fairing will be shielded from drag. It also makes spaceplanes fly more sensibly.
-
Building a hook from girders could work, the arch is smaller than i thought. Problem will be if it slips down one side...
Two hooks, one each side of the peak of the arch. Possibly with station-keeping thrusters built in for fine tuning.
What else do we need? Merry-go-round? Slippery dip? Rover dodgem cars? Roller coaster?
0.24's Cost-Effective Lifters Challenge
in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas
Posted
Make it cost after recovery if you want the spaceplane crew in. My heavy lifter costs √176,000 for a payload capacity of around 50 ton, but the only expense is a few thousand in fuel.