Leszek
-
Posts
490 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by Leszek
-
-
That's the thing - N-1 never flew correctly. At that point Russia hardly was a beginner at space stuff. So when a top-tier rocket fails spectacularly five times in a row, it indicates something wrong is with the project.
It does not. The Russians expected the first few to be failures because they tested things in operation much sooner than the US did. The US got all the bugs out of the system during static tests. There are good and bad sides to doing it this way, one of the bad sides is that you have to go through several large expensive rockets to get things working.
-
Absolutely I would. If you build your rockets correctly the Kerbal variety are much more safe than ours. No engine failures, no engine explosions. I almost never lose a crew in game and even on rare occasions when I crash usually my Kerbals survive.
-
The issue is that nothing was said. The dev version apparently works, it has no issues that affect me that I can tell. Since nothing is said about what is going on then, the non release is left to my imagination. That is a bad thing. Because people in general have dark imaginations. No one upon hearing a noise out their window thinks "That must be Ed mcMann out to give me the million dollar prize." Nope, it will be assumed a burglar, or a racoon out to wreck the garbage or something else bad.
I understand that even now after you have said something, some idiot will come and post tomorrow that you should release the next version already. I have seen it a dozen times and I don't doubt it will happen.
But not all of us are idiots. I see your message and I understand your message and it makes it easier to wait. I will not be bugging you to release and I suspect I will not be the only one.
Your mods rock and I appreciate them greatly! You will release your mods when you feel ready for release and you don't owe us anything. I understand this.
Perhaps I am just being long winded but the point to all of this is that a little communication can go a long way, leaving things to peoples imaginations is always bad unless your purpose is to raise tension. Don't sweat the idiots, they don't go away, trust me I used to do tech support I know.
My two cents.
Finally I would like to say I am not much of a writer so I hope this doesn't come off as anything but useful and encouraging.
-
It's worth noting that the animation is somewhat misleading. The stack of four spacecraft deployed all at once, set to separate from each other as they approach their final positions.
There's a video from an onboard camera of the stack of four separating from the Centaur... I'll have to try to find it.
EDIT: Crap. I swear I'm not making this up. A physicist close to this project for ten years mentioned this, even though every link I can find seems to indicate separation from the Centaur stack one by one.
EDIT #2: Apparently, there was some misunderstanding. I'm trying to get clarification. Apologies if I've gotten the wrong idea and led people astray.
I was confused there. They spun up and then spun down the Centaur after every separation. 4 Times in all. They would only have to do that once if they let go all at once. Which brings me back to my original question, why not just keep spinning at 18 degrees per second since they aren't doing any maneuvering between separations.
-
2 now deployed. I wonder why they bother spinning down between each separation?
- - - Updated - - -
Success. All 4 deployed as intended.
-
Three way symmetry of the lander, over the four way symmetry of the booster creates a thrust imbalance. Draw an imaginary vertical plane from the VAB door though the center of you rocket. Notice the boosters are symmetrical on the left and right of this plan, however the lander has that two engines on the right while only one is on the left. Thus, imbalanced.
The rocket probably pitches south immediately at launch, the thrust vector boosters spin the rocket trying to compensate.
I very much doubt that is the issue. The two on the one side have less moment arm from the chosen datem. In fact if that was the case then ANY 3 way symmetry would be unbalanced.
If moving the fuel lines made a difference then what was happening is you were draining fuel from tanks in a non-symmetrical way. Probably one of the lines where wrong. I have heard (but never tested) that it is possible to have non-symmetrical fuel drain even from a symmetrical rocket under certain circumstances but I don't know what they were. If you eliminated a wrong fuel line then I would check out that possibility. I wonder if anyone here knows the details?
-
We have orbit 319 by 89 NM
-
We are a GO!
-
Come to think of this mission, do you think that KSP should have stock magnetometer science experiments?
(22:22)
I think KSP should have all sorts of science experiments, and that they should give only certain kinds of science that can be spent on certain parts of the tech tree. I also think the tech tree should be much more expansive with fewer parts per node. I think the prerequisites should be more flexible. For example, any aerodynamic tech is available once you have half the proceeding level of aerodynamic techs.
Then you could study towards Aero, or towards larger engines, or towards more efficient engines, etc...
-
Now we have two streams, the general public see the launch at 10:44, the Kerbal Kommuity gets to see the launch in 6 hours. No! We at NASA are not EVIL!
-
Glad it worked out for you. They make it much more easy.
Play with it as you like, I personally have the SRB's set to full and only throttle them down a bit with the main engines to keep 1.25 TWR at launch. I drain the fuel from my overly large ET, bottom part first to get the DV I need. Just the way I do it.
-
I think he means this as kind of a forum game. but just see it that way.
if so. I hate how long it takes to load.
I am treating it as such. It didn't occur to me that it would be serious. With the sneering and such.
-
6 minutes, and here I thought I was showing up to the party early.
Ahh it is a 30 minute planned hold. Sneaky guys.
-
Why does this game NOT COME WITH DEATH STAR PARTS STOCK!
-
Some of this I can't answer but one of the key differences to KSP reaction wheels is that they spin up. A reaction wheel can only spin so fast and as it gets faster and faster the torque output gets less and less. When the wheels reach maximum speed they are unable to provide any more torque in that direction. At that point you need to use RCS or other methods to dissipate the torque. In KSP they always provided the same amount of power and never spin up. This means you can use KSP reaction wheels for things such as holding attitude in atmosphere and to fight asymmetric thrust. If you tried to do those things IRL the wheels would quickly spin up and you would loose control. Hence any vehicle equipped with reaction wheels would also need RCS.
Another difference is how much mass they have. You could make IRL reaction wheels have the same power as KSP reaction wheels easily enough, but that would mean powerful motors attached to heavy flywheels. On the most efficient rockets we can expect to make with current fuels you will need at least 8 to 9 pounds of fuel for each pound you put in space. (And I am sure the number is higher than that since I don't think any rockets we have are near max efficiency for the fuel we have, perhaps someone can let us know.) Since the vehicle will need RCS anyway the reaction wheels can often be left out all together at considerable savings in mass.
-
You should use the Klockheed Martin SSME mod for that. No need for the SAS or verniers to help if you do that. Also your ET goes way too far down, way too far, both in KSP and in real life the ET ends well above where you have yours ending. This greatly helps because you keep the CoM out far enough the engines don't need to gimble as much to track it. In your pic that top tank is going to drain fast and then the engines will not be able to track the CoM and it is all over folks. (The Klockheed Martin SSME mod also comes with ET parts that will look better and allow you more flexibility in how you make your ET.
http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55985-0-90-Space-Shuttle-Engines-%28Dec-27%29
-
I have been using the Waykeeper engines from the Tantares pack. They do the job nicely and they show how verniers should be done. (Non of the RCS stuff.)
-
This is why we should be able to set two button staging. Alt-Space.
I have used this technique on other games with great success but many people don't seem to get too enthusiastic about the idea. It really works well.
-
I have a model Atlas V sitting on my desk and it will be nice to launch something that looks like it up.
Side pipe is good, in fact...
There is a second flat side pipe mounted on the tank that goes almost all the way from the top to the bottom. It is located 90 degrees clockwise from the pipe you have and can be seen in this picture below. I am not sure what kind of detail you want to get into but IMHO it is part of the Atlas booster.
-
I started a new career recently, took the opportunity to update my Tantares and install OMSK.
The new paint schemes look nice
the N1 ROCKS. Completed my first Mun missions with the N1 (I would post pics but they aren't showing up for people, no one told me!), I gotta tell ya, these two mods are awesome. Together my total Delta-Squee is OVER 9000! -
Some quick feedback for discussion.
The decoupler at the bottom for ejecting the booster engines is currently too high in the tech tree IMHO. I moved it down to general rocketry on my install. The issue is that by the time I get there in the tech tree I don't need the Atlas anymore. I need that decoupler down somewhere near the other Atlas parts so that I can use it when I am going for orbit the first time otherwise I would just never use the Atlas at all.
I am not sure what all or you people think about this but that is just my two cents.
-
Now all we need is a stock alike Atlas V and some Titan's and life will be awesome.
-
I have about 30 mods, it is hard to count. I am right up against the memory limit with ATM set to normal. I can make it crash by doing things like visiting the Kerbin northern tundra and ice caps. If I avoid them there are almost no issues. If I go there, I can get the science and then the game crashes, I restart the game, recover the craft, good to go.
If I used ATM on aggressive or took out some mods I could go to the north just fine meaning that the issue is in my control and I have tuned to taste.
Now I will be happier when Unity 5 and proper 64 bit support comes out but until then the game is very stable and playable so I just chill, relax, lets visit Duna!
-
On the off chance do you have Kerbal Joint Reinforcement? If so check out the latest in that mods thread for decoupler fix.
OMSK Space Products - Stockalike Atlas rockets & more! [Omich-L Beta]
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted
I am getting excited. It will be nice to have a real launcher. (Well I have Tantares LV's which are good also but some US ones would be nice.)