Leszek
-
Posts
490 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by Leszek
-
-
One of them, I think Minmus has an equatorial boost of 10 m/s. So that would be 7 m/s at 45 north and 5 m/s at 60 north. So for all intents and purposes nothing. If your Delta V budget is that tight that it matters, I would argue you have under built your rocket. The Mun I think is less, it takes 6 days to complete a rotation, but I didn't do the math or look it up. It is not going to be much though.
When landed on a planet or moon, just switch the navball to orbital mod and it will say what the boost is where you are.
-
Awesome! <Dancing>
-
At the equator it is something like 172 m/s rounded to 200 above. You can check by changing the navball to orbital while on the launch pad.
At 45 north latitude it drops to 70% of that number. (Basic trig math. Same is true for Baikonur which is also at 45 north.)
For comparison on Earth and Kerban (Assuming 172 m/s which is going by memory.) the numbers are:
Earth -- Kerban
Equator: 464 m/s. -- 172 m/s
Kennedy Space Center (28 North): 410 m/s -- 152 m/s
Baikonur (45 North): 328 m/s -- 122 m/s
60 North: 232 m/s -- 86 m/s
Since Kerban is a ball and it is spinning the simulator takes this effect into consideration automatically, no special coding of the physics is necessary. Taking off retrograde requires double these numbers in extra DV.
P.S. I see from the post above the value is 174 m/s. I don't want to do the math again, the change is small enough really.
-
Retroburning. Put separtrons or whatever so they thrust retrograde, once in orbit, release payload and then fire the separtrons. Don't even need to turn round as you're (hopefully) facing prograde still. Course, depending on the rocket, you may need bigger/more separtrons, but you only need to get the PE below 21km and it'll be deleted. You don't need to care about populated areas (disregarding the fact there are none) as the thing can and should be considered unable to survive re-entry.
This, though I use the KW Rocketry Ullage motors because they look better than sepatrons.
Another thing I do is use the Procedural Fairings structural fairings to hid the probe core, RCS, batteries and antenna. (I use Remote Tech) Then I put the whole sub assembly in the sub assemblies section so that I can add them to the top of any booster after only making them once. I also add RCS by the engine like the real life Centaur. I move them so that you can't see them inside the engine shroud so that they become exposed the same time as the engine during staging. That is a mouthful, I hope it is clear.
-
Feedback for the Atlantis Five.
-The tank and the engine are made to go together, so they should come together in the same tech when researching. If you have the tank without the engine you have a pipe that goes no where for example.
-Is the original already released OMSK Atlas going to be the Atlantis now? (I am cool if it is.)
Otherwise a great alpha so far. I am getting excited for the next release.
-
It works absolutely fine for me as well. While I prefer the B9 struts, I've used the KWrocketry struts on occasion and they work. No idea whether the strength value is working though since I also use KJR.
I can confirm that KW rocketry works fine struts and all in .90.
The issue list is as follows:
-KW rocketry parts don't filter by manufacture.
-KW struts use the old deprecated code. (Still works)
Other than that they seem to work the same as ever.
-
You can also use it to project the Sun on a piece of paper. Never look at the Sun through the eyepiece.
With a 60mm aperture this might be fine, but be careful, it is possible to damage the telescope this way so don't try it with someone else s scope. Especially if it has a bigger aperture than yours. Don't try this with children in the same room. Be wary, accidentally looking through the eyepiece when pointing at the sun will cause instant and permanent eye damage.
There are filters for this sort of thing that go over the front of the scope. This protects the scope and those using it. I would recommend you do not do this without one. Even with a sheet to project on the risk is just to great.
If you check google images you will see what I mean:
Also in the same set of search results is a melted eyepiece, what if that had been somebodies eye?
-
As mentioned above you should align the finder sight first, best to do during the day. Use the 5mm eyepiece and a distant object to do it.
The smaller the eyepiece you use the harder it is to get a good view at night. So after you point it at something like Jupiter you should start with your 20mm eyepiece first. With that eyepiece you have a 35x magnification which is more than enough to see good stuff. Depending on the light pollution in the area the 20mm eyepiece is best for looking at something like Andromeda. (Which will fill the whole view easily. I didn't realize until I saw it with my own telescope, it takes up more space in the sky than the full moon.) After you can find and focus something like Jupiter with the 20mm eyepiece, only then should you go to the smaller eyepieces. Since your eyepieces came with the telescope (I assume) you shouldn't need to refocus after changing eyepieces. (In general this is true for eyepieces that come in a set, or eyepieces of the same type by the same manufacturer.)
The smaller the eyepiece the higher the magnification (Focal length/eyepiece) but the more difficult it is to focus. The aperture is the important stat. The bigger it is, the more light you collect, the easier to see faint stuff and the easier it is to focus. The 5mm eyepiece gives you 140x magnification but with a 60mm aperture the best you can do with it is viewing things on the ground during the day and very bright things like the moon at night. That isn't to say don't try to view Jupiter with it, sometimes it is bright enough, just don't expect crystal clear pictures.
If you live in the city, check to see if your telescope came with some eyepiece filters. One of them is usually for filtering out light pollution. It isn't magic, but it does improve things a bit.
More expensive telescopes can give you a better view but also come with other things you need to learn like cullimating the telescope. Just out of curiosity, what is the brand name of the scope you have?
-
well Supersonic in the real world is 343 m/s, so it's not THAT far off. Keep in mind, Kerbin is ~1/6 scale to Earth.
That is 1/10th scale to Earth, and what speed is supersonic changes with air density and thus altitude. Mach is your speed relative to the speed of sound at the altitude you are currently flying. FAR calculates the speed of sound properly and following the correct rules. 340 m/s is the speed of sound at sea level.
Not to be too picky but these details do mater.
-
"1. Fair point - stock aero is probably the new target, since 1.0 will probably hit before the Kliper is finished (just a guess)."
Even if not, it will be perhaps a month or so and then the current version will need an overhaul.
Symbols is a bit harder though. Might I suggest it should be a 3 point star, that way you still have something on the dish to break up the monotony and it isn't political. (Err that I am aware of.) Another possibility is that it doesn't have to be red. Personally I am fine for symbols on rockets, I have a slight aversion to human symbols though because Kerbals aren't humans. Having said that, I personally don't care if you change it or leave it, I am just bringing up possibilities.
-
Well before this necro thread gets locked. I am surprised that more wasn't said about this:
"It doesn't seem to exist mostly because it's kept hidden from the mainstream, because multinational corporations need WW3 to expand, not give access to everyone free energy. "
Really, WW3 to expand. That should be a full and complete stop. No one needs WW3 to expand. WW3 is very likely to result in human extinction. That includes all the people in "multinational corporations." Any conspiracy theory that depends on WW3 to happen has to be based on suicidal conspirators or you can disregard it out of hand.
Someone else already did point out that "free energy" would be an instant cash cow to any multinational corporation so I am not going to touch that part.
-
Wrong. The people who claim that "humans are part of nature!!" fail to even grasp what the word nature means. Nature has multiple meanings, and the most common of which is the natural world with the exception of humans.
So "unnatural" things are things that are caused or created by humans, in this context.
And you don't have to believe me, just query dictionary.com-
You are correct that natural has many meanings. Perhaps I should have been more careful in my wording. It doesn't change the fact that the word is abused all over the place, and it is still fair to ask exactly what they mean by natural. There is a good chance that they never completed the thought beyond it "isn't natural." In their head unnatural is synonymous with bad or unhealthy.
My over reaction in regards to the previous post is meant to not just point this out, but impale it with a 5 meter spear.
I have the same sort of overreaction to "keep an open mind." Keeping an open mind is a good thing but very often those that say the phrase really mean "You have a hopelessly closed mind if you don't agree with me in the end and no I will not have an open mind regarding your counter opinion!"
-
Anther GMO: Humans.
Every human has on average about 100 random genetic mutations. Other life forms have their own rates of genetic mutation. Somehow if the genetic change isn't random, it is dangerous? Why is that? The assumption that it is, is the only thing the anti-gmo crowd has.
The term unnatural bugs me, by definition anything unnatural would be supernatural. You show me a ghost fruit, and I will change my mind about GMO's. (And lots of other things besides.) In the pseudo science community there is a lot of words and concepts that are used incorrectly. I like to ridicule each one without mercy. It isn't being picky, not knowing what these words mean and not thinking about what they imply is how these things continue to live. A very many pseudo science claims become absurd at a glance if you know what the charlatan is actually saying. </cut-off-rant-before-pages-long-essay-off-topic>
-
Alright, since I was finally able to close all the bug reports and get the last little thing I wanted in here, v3.1.2 is out with the docking fix and some additional tweaks to make stiffening for parts attached in symmetry to a single part a little stiffer; should prevent some phantom oscillations.
Awesome, thank you very much Farram4
-
Thanks for explaining that same thing for the nth time!
http://www.ferneanimalsanctuary.org/uploads/images/website/Seal%20photo%204%20520.jpg
Some people will need N+1 times. Really, this isn't the first time I have seen this one on a forum. This one just doesn't die.
-
Well it is America after all the choice should be obvious.
Name the rocket mcDonalds and get some advertising revenue.
-
If after all of this discussion there is still someone out there unable to understand why the plane flies just fine, consider:
If the plane was just sitting there, with the engine off, parking break off, and you started the treadmill, the plane will not move. Well not at first. Eventually bearing friction will make it move but ignore that for now. That treadmill will speed up and the plane will just sit there with its wheels spinning.
Planes do not push off the ground to get speed. They push off the air. The engine doesn't care how fast the wheels are spinning.
The wings only care about airflow. Once the engine pulls the plane forward it is only a matter of throttle.
-
RE: #2
General rule of thumb with FAR is that you want to keep your heading vector inside the prograde vector while in the lower atmosphere. Less stable vessels won't even manage that much, more stable can manage 15-20+ degrees of deviation
^^ This. If you deviate too much from your prograde vector you will flip out. Keep inside the circle until at least 30K altitude and then deviate slowly at first.
RE #3
General rule of thumb with FAR is to launch with a Thrust to Weight ratio of about 1.4 and to keep it below 2.0 inside the atmosphere
I personally go for a starting TWR of 1.25. I do a 5 degree pitch at 75m/s (You can go out of the prograde vecotor to do that because you are not going fast enough to flip out.) After that I follow the center of the prograde vector as needed to flip to mostly horizontal by 30k altitude.
You can do whatever TWR you want but be consistent at first. I personally click on my rockets and set the thrust limiter before launch to get the 1.25 on exactly every flight. If you want to pitch over faster, point at the leading edge of the prograde circle. If you want to pitch slower, point to the trailing edge of the prograde circle.
In the following video I get a rocket out towards orbit using NEAR which for our purposes is the same as FAR. (I use FAR mostly now) Some of what I say at the very end about the rocket isn't quite right but if you ignore that you can see the general gist of how it is done.
-
I have had issues where SAS suddenly fails. I have found in each and every case, it has been turned off in the capsule. Right click on it and click on toggle torque. See what happens. Good luck.
-
My definition of science is:
A methodology for systematically searching for truth about the universe in which we live while eliminating or mitigating as much as possible our biases in thinking.
For example, a good experiment is one that can prove the theory in question wrong, not one that can prove the theory in question right. This is because we Humans have a confirmation bias to overcome. The more we know about the limitations on how we think and reason, the better our protocols for doing experiments and the more likely we are to derive something correct about our universe.
Knowledge and facts about the universe are the products of science, not the science itself.
-
I am glad those changes worked out, everything I tried to get it to work without torque was a failure, as far as I can tell nothing made any difference at all. But as you can see as long as you have torque the changes I proposed lets it fly just fine.
As for the landing gear, and I suppose RCS jets, if they move the CoM back to much we can just push the it back forward a small amount to compensate. The rule is the closer they are the better the maneuverability, the farther the better the stability. The mono propellant on that thing is at the CoM so it's use doesn't matter to stability.
-
Well I had some trouble getting used to stock aero again. (My rockets kept flipping over, oh yeah, fairings don't work in stock!!!) I moved the CoM from .45 to .15 which is still ahead of the CoL and I have had some success. I even landed it without parachutes.
Now I figure it has too much drag and maybe not enough lift but I am still working. It occurs to me though is there some standard set of parts I should be putting on this thing instead of plain by itself? Under what conditions does it need to be stable?
____________ UPDATE __________________
With just the plain capsule by itself I have been flying and landing this thing with no trouble with the following changes. I am not sure what kind of parts you envision this thing having on it during landing so I am not sure the changes are satisfactory.
CoMOffset = 0.0,0.15,0.0
dragModelType = default
maximum_drag = 0.1
minimum_drag = 0.05
angularDrag = 1
crashTolerance = 45
maxTemp = 3400
vesselType = Ship
dragCoeff = 0.3____________ UPDATE __________________
Trying to make it fly with torque disabled now.
-
Look a few posts up.
ROFL, I looked and looked and didn't recognize the link. Got it now thanks.
-
Is there a beta download I can use to test it? Perhaps I can do something with the CFG file.
[1.12.X] Tantares - Stockalike Soyuz and MIR [16.1][28.05.2024][{Proton Revamp]
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted
If you have Kerbal Joint Reinforcement, make sure it is up to date. That was a bug in the last few versions. Otherwise I don't know.