Leszek
-
Posts
490 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by Leszek
-
-
That is normal for a stage separator which is what it is. Stage decouplers stay attached to one side or the other. Oops I was thinking of the Tantares. The Almach has a decoupler that should keep everything attached. Not sure why yours doesn't without a pic to look at it.
The Almach pod is stable both bottom first and nose first. When you first enter the atmosphere you should turn bottom first then while up high and then turn off SAS and it should stay. I personally like to turn off the battery in that craft after I get to orbit and use the the RCS for orientation until reentry. Also note that the pod should consist of just the pod and parachute, if you add anything else you might get different results.
For making sure the craft is correct, you can download the craft files and put them into the game, or you can view the pictures and build to match. Both are in the first post of this thread.
This pic shows how I build it, the fuel could be moved up a bit without issue.
-
-
Hubble's law can be overridden at local levels by gravity. As has been said the local group is a cluster that is close enough to each other to overcome expanding space. Hubble's law also affects you and I, but we are close enough to the earth that the gravity swamps this effect. Same thing.
This doesn't undermine anything from the big bang at all. All around the universe there are groups of galaxies that are stuck together by gravity, each group is moving away from it neighbors. It might be more illuminating if not technically correct to say that Hubble's law applies to galactic groups and not individual galaxies. If you happened to be in another galactic cluster, you would see the exact same thing hence no center. If you play the tape backwards, the groups get closer together until they all end up in the same place at about the same time. Hence the big bang.
I have seen this kind of oversimplified cosmology before from creationist websites. That topic is not for discussion here, I would just say that if on the off chance that is where this information came from, you should consider getting a second opinion from a science forum somewhere.
-
Technicalfool is right, this is a known bug with the decouplers. Nothing to do with FAR. The effect goes away after 750 M/s. There is a fix. See this thread for details:
Also there is a fix where you can just edit the text files but I don't have the link ATM.
-
Wow progress is moving along nicely. Looks awesome. Is that a procedural fairings on the front?
How will the LES work or will there not be one?
-
This tread may have been dead for two months but I am going to take this opportunity to suggest that if we are going to build sci-fi ships, they should be B5 ships.
-
I have been using Tantares for a while now and I have to say that I love the crap out of it.
I can't wait until the R7 comes out.
-
There was an issue where EVERY texture was duplicatex after the .25 release. Fortunately it got corrected rather quickly. This just goes to prove that you should always check to see if you have the latest version if a problem pops up.
If more mods had the version checker. I know when my Kerbal Engineer is out of date. I know some people find it annoying but really who wants to check every one of a dozen mods every day?
-
Well I don't know about the OP but I updated my active texture and the issue went away.
Good Catch Taki117.
-
I have this same issue.
It isn't double copy of flags. I looked over and over, also I have a custom flag I made myself that I only copied once and it duplicated. As well as flags from mod packs like KW rocketry.
I have Active Texture Management, I will have to go check it out to see if I have the latest version. I don't know what the OP has but I also have Tantares, KW rocketry, and Klockheed Martin SSME's, and then a bunch of mostly utility mods like Kerbal Engineer and KAC.
-
I keep forgetting to check if I can do this with key bindings, but for me a better solution than stage lock is two key staging. In Silent Hunter 3 and 4, the enter key used to fire torpedoes. But that led to many poorly time shootings so I set it to be CTRL+Enter.
Now that I am thinking about it, I am going to try to set staging to ALT+Space and see if it lets me. Much better than stage locking IMHO.
-
The whole launch setup isn't that good. For every single launch first thing is "TRZ". And if you press it to quickly it is, "TRZ...T". And in addition RCS ports have a toggle but they don't have a definite off or on so that you can't set action groups properly, and just to be more annoying, the toggle doesn't work until after you start the engines. So you have to go and disable all your mono prop fuel tanks if you want to use veer governors and other similar silly solutions.
However, Squad has said that polish isn't a priority right now but that it will be after the move to beta and .9. That and bug fixes.
So I am keeping these things in mind and ready to post them as constructive criticism when the time comes. In the meantime this game is still already more finnished then the last Ubisoft title I have ever (and will ever) purchased (SH5). So I will have patience and hope for the future.
-
If it is just for temporary then you can F2 to clean things up a bit.
-
Inclined orbits change their heading constantly. Point in the right direction at launch and just let it drift after the initial 10 KM's. You will have to do an orbital incline correction regardless but from 0 inclination it is about 250ish DV so you should be more than able to get better than that.
-
If you are using fins, you should turn down their control authority and then you can keep using SAS. Without fins SAS helps a lot.
-
Ignore the parachute placement. I was thinking aerodynamically and that means put them back farther. Like a shuttlecock. But that is an upper atmosphere stage so probably not much difference. By weight you want it forward. My bad.
Glad the video helped.
If you want to do aeroplanes and spaceplanes, you want FAR. I don't do that so I just use NEAR. I tried to do aeroplanes with NEAR the SPH can lie to you about where your COL is and other variables. Big headache.
The good news is that the aerodynamics between them are similar. It is the same code after all. Mostly it is the scary looking FAR window that scares people off I think. It isn't worth the effort to change from one to the other unless you are doing space planes though.
-
I made a video of a copy of your rocket as close as I can make it. No Fins.
I note that your rocket is a bit touchy, easiest fix is to move the parachutes to the bottom of that stage. After engine cut off I did lose stability, I didn't try that hard to keep it stable and the reaction wheels in the stayputnik aren't up to the challenge. If I had throttled down for the second stage I would have been able to keep it and the whole thing would have looked better for the coasting to orbit. The video ends with a 100 KM Apoapsis.
Sorry for the picture quality, it was my first game screen capture and I had to figure it out on the fly, I might try to fix it later. (Quality fixed itself, too bad the sound is not so good.)
-
There is a lot of arguing going on but there is one simple piece of advice that is most important.
When I started with NEAR I tried fins and verners and I extra SAS modules. They help but I don't need them anymore. Ignore the COM and take the winglets off, you should still be able to get into orbit just fine reliably with anything that is remotely aerodynamic.
The trick is this, if you point the rocket too far off the direction you are going, you are going to flip out and lose control. All you have to do is keep your rocket inside the circle that is your velocity vector. That is it. Also you can judge how close you are by watching how much control SAS is putting in to counter forces.
Everything else is learning when to start your gravity turn (and I mean a real gravity turn, I have done it without SAS and no control inputs for something like a dozen seconds on end.) so that your velocity vector doesn't fall too fast.
What I do is start my GT at 75 M/s. I like speeds because it auto compensates for different rocket TWR's within limits. I Normally go for a starting TWR of 1.25, but anything in the ballpark should work. I tilt to 85 degrees when I get to 75 M/S. After that I follow the velocity vector down until 25 degrees. I try to aim to be there after 20,000 meters. So if my velocity vector is falling faster, I will lag behind it but still in the circle to slow it down. After about 30 KM, you can point the rocket much more aggressively. After that every time my Apoapsis is 10 km higher I aim 5 degrees lower. So at an apoapsis of 30 KM I am at 20 degrees. At 40 I am at 15 degrees and so on to horizontal at an apoapsis of 70KM. You can get to orbit with 3600 DV. (And that is with a wide margin, last rocket I sent up got there with 109 DV to spare.)
-
Ok who made the capsule out of heatshrink?
Ba Dum Tish.
So who wants to bet China is the first to put a human on Mars?
-
After a quick check I can see that they are not always rotated to the same angle. The first and fourth screenshot shows this. All I had to do is move around. I wasn't going to put up the night shots but shot 1 and 4 show the movement of the KSC. You should still be able to see just fine.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3iw39o77a10yrk6/AAAp6nejjiq-d_RBoIrFcXjga?dl=0
-
I don't know what rotation they are supposed to be, unless they are all supposed to have an east west runway. KSC rotated 180 the last time I tried it. I tried going back and forth to rotate it again but I wasn't successful. I will do some testing and see if I can nail down the minimum steps needed to reproduce the issue.
The falling is an issue with scaled planets. Hmm ok, but it isn't just for planes, if you land in the water for example, it can be hard to eva and do your science. He is often shown as flying. I mentioned the planes because that is the quickest and easiest way to reproduce the issue.
-
The way I see it, EmDrive is not very plausible. Perhaps it works, perhaps not. The test so far done are not definitive, you can think of them as preliminaries. They need to be tested and demonstrated in more complete and rigorous ways.
I am not an expert in the relevant physics but there is one big red flag that needs to be addressed, ALWAYS be wary of results near the margins of what we can detect. This lesson was learned from such examples as N Rays. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N_ray (N Rays is also a good example for other lessons such as confirmation bias and the need for double blind tests.)
When EmDrive survives more experiments, we will have no choice but to accept that it works. Until then it is a candidate technology that currently works on ghosts and magic.
If you are a betting man, then go with scientific consensus. The device probably doesn't work. However do not forget there is no shame in suspending judgment on the matter until more data is in. Notice that I avoided saying outright it doesn't work.
-
While you guys sort that out, I have two polish issues that perhaps can be fixed?
1: When going from launch site to launch site, the facilities are rotated. Intended so far I think, but if you then go back to KSC main or other launch sites, they can be rotated from their original positions. Last time I played KSC was rotated 180 degrees from its normal orientation.
2: When landing in water or on terrain, the height of the visuals don't match the height of the physics. This leads to spacecraft floating in the air over terrain or under ground. Easiest way to observe this is make a space plane that is just a capsule and launch. It will be submerged into the runway.
-
When I build my rockets, the performance of my engines determine what I use in the end.
First I build vertically.
If I find my rocket needs radial boosters I won't be doing asparagus if my center stage TWR is less than 1 G. This is by far the more likely case as the core stage(s) usually has enough or almost enough to reach orbit. When the onion staged boosters run out, I will have a TWR >1. (I will size the stages and adjust the thrust limiter to make it so.)
Once in a blue mun, I will have a situation that calls for Asparagus staging but it isn't often. My current career has only 1 and that is for a heavy payload before I have 3.75 M parts.
Hubble's law and Andromeda-Milky way collision? I'm confused
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
Absolutely and I never said otherwise. In fact you can be critical of evolution without invoking creationism. That is part of what it means when something is a scientific theory. I also didn't say the OP was a creationist. I was very careful to be neutral and use unassuming language.
The way the conversation flowed on the first page of the thread was almost identical to some of the stuff I have seen creationists use, I know full well that this doesn't prove anything and is a unreliable indicator. That is why I was careful to make no allegations on the matter.
This is getting off topic though and I will say no more on this issue.