Jump to content

damerell

Members
  • Posts

    1,304
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

663 Excellent

Profile Information

  • About me
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

8,250 profile views
  1. Error on my part, is all. (In general it would help me out if each claim said explicitly modded or not, my memory is not all it could be...) Were your OPM/Whirligigs modded other than the planet mod?
  2. Done @king of nowherearound Pol, a report I particularly enjoyed. It strikes me that technically an Elcano around a modded planet is "modded", but I think it should be classified as stock if the only mod was the planet mod.
  3. Done Didd. The curse of the Elcano challenge hasn't quite claimed me yet. I'll do Pol too when I have time to review it. Another thing I've noticed is that the comments from earlier organisers seem to have got lost somewhere over the years. I think this is a pity and I'll see about replacing them. Also, some of the links are bust after the forum apocalypse and it would be useful to indicate to the reader which of them actually work.
  4. Update for the corrections to the planet sizes and to give @king of nowhere credit for Ammenon.
  5. Oh, damn. I'm not sure what went wrong there (or where I even got the sizes from). In future it'd be most helpful if you continued to just tell me the dimensions. I'll fix this up and review the most recent when I get a chance.
  6. It's been a little while - although I have a design for the Hangarmoth II - but I wanted to say that while I see what you mean, I think intent is the best way to express it; it's unavoidably subjective, so give as much guidance as I can in the OP.
  7. Hangar puts a toolbar item up with which you can eject a stored craft from the hangar. I don't use the docking port, but AFAIK it's for convenience - you can use it to hold a ship unmoving inside the hangar.
  8. Likewise I've found I can post a reply by removing quotes, making the post entirely plaintext.
  9. Having forum issues, but trying without a quote, to RayneCloud: If I interpret "enable" correctly, you probably want one or the other. This lets you crank the physics warp up and either the burn finishes quickly or the Kraken claims your ship. Persistent Thrust lets you do the burn under normal timewarp. To AmanitaVerna: This just changes the multipliers; you use the ordinary keys (Modifier + . or Modifier + ,) to turn physics warp on in vacuum. The mod doesn't do that because you can already do it in stock. To ctbram: You're probably pressing the key for normal timewarp, like a poster above.
  10. I've added RoninFrog's stock Mun. Not many motorcycles. I looked at my Mun circumnavigation photos (asking myself once again why, with adequate life support, I did half of it in the dark) - not a trace of red, but then it was in 1.0.4. Here's a redraft of the surface rule, intended to take account of comments above and the way it's difficult to write a strict set of rules. (And, I admit, the realisation that 18Watt was not quite so strict as I thought...) Try to stay on the ground or on/below the surface of any water. Jumps over dunes and such are permitted. It can be hard to stay on the surface on low-gravity worlds, but if your trip around Gilly is turning into three suborbital trajectories, consider reducing speed or using upwards-firing engines (also a good way to get some traction to let you get moving on low-g worlds without it taking all week to accelerate). On land trips on atmospheric bodies (Kerbin or mods), don't design a glider that speeds off the top of a hill and comes gently to the ground a kilometre further on - if your craft has wings, that's a bad sign. If you have thrust devices (rockets, jets, props, RCS), it's fine to use them off the ground to slow down or avoid a crash (eg into a terrain scatter) but try to avoid prolonged thrust up or forwards. If you're in any doubt, show us your proposed craft.
  11. Yes, I think that's a useful way of putting it, and perhaps suggests a rewrite more in terms of what is definitely OK. (For example, I might say, on high gravity worlds, if your rover is driven only by ground contact, you can make the jumps as big as you like because there's no way to stay off the ground indefinitely [1]). [1] I await now someone coming up with a gossamer-winged construction which zooms up the first hill West of the KSC at 300 m/s and touches down three hours later...
  12. That's a tricky one (and I'm afraid it's almost impossible to quantify "significant", but RoninFrog is onto something with downwards-angled fins being better than upwards, and your design looks fine to me lift-wise). 18Watt wrote "Thrust devices (rockets, jets, props, RCS) are acceptable, as long as they are only used while in contact with the surface. Using thrust of any sort to control or change the trajectory of your rover while above the surface is not allowed" (where I just say you can't use them to speed up), you clearly said "my rover DOES use control surfaces and prop power in the air"... and 18Watt approved it, which I don't understand. (My rules are intended to be laxer than 18Watt's...) This whole rule is a bit of a mess anyway because who, going across a bumpy surface at speed, is going to be able to have the engines shut off the second the wheels leave the ground? kOS could wiggle the throttle, but a jet engine _can't_ even drop thrust instantly. It's only really a problem on atmospheric worlds, not least because of the magic BG props. No-one is going to charge around Tylo burning a Mainsail the whole way. It's hard to know what to do about this without giving a rule that's objective and impossible to follow (shut off props the instant you leave the ground) or even more subjective than "significant aerodynamic lift". If the longest jumps are "about 10 seconds", though, as you say, that seems like a lot; if you were doing that in Kerbin's gravity but with no atmospheric effects or in-flight thrust you'd have to leave the ground with a vertical velocity of 50 m/s (assuming you've not just driven off a cliff, yes) and would hit a peak height of 125m. That's a lot more than the Dukes of Hazzard ever managed, and on the face of it makes that rover look like too much of a glider. (But on the other hand maybe the time estimate is off...) FWIW, I am not even going to consider disqualifying already-approved entries for one moment.
  13. I don't need you to document the base, but I'm certainly not going to stop you - the reward for the organiser is reading about your adventures, so I'd encourage it. I'm in two minds about this - there's an argument you could just place KerbNet waypoints, so you're not getting any real advantage by using Alt-F12, but also there's an argument not to have Alt-F12 anywhere near the Elcano. I regret to say I'd be happier if you deleted them.
  14. Added RoninFrog's Ike. Some day I must find the time to look at my own circumnavigations...
×
×
  • Create New...