mossman

I'm quite sure that I'm missing something obvious here, but how do I map inputs to pilot commands (Pitch/Yaw/Roll/Throttle)? Oddly the input settings screen accessible through the main menu seems to be missing them. Not sure if they're supposed to show up in the axis bindings column, because there's nothing there. http://puu.sh/3O8Ck.jpg Thanks for reading and for the prompt responses.

This addon is a continuation of Duck's addon (as is stated on the OP). As such, it has all the base features of his addon with the additional features being added like the interplanetary dish and some code optimization. As it is still in development, see the above about why MechJeb is handled the way it is right now. Where this addon (right now) is really good is for rovers. You send your ship to wherever using MechJeb and leave it off the Rover part so that when the rover becomes active, you are driving with rovers. In the future, when MechJeb integration is fully supported the right way, when you tell MechJeb to do something, it will not actually do that until the delay has run, just like with the real thing.

So how does the speed of light signal delay effect maneuvering with delays over a few seconds? I'd think it would be very difficult with round-trip delays over half a minute just to do simple stuff like precise attitude control without having onboard automation (And I really don't care for mechjeb; Even if I did I hear that it functions as an artificial onboard pilot instead of actual remote fly-by-wire which isn't much fun). Which brings me to another question; How exactly is signal delay simulated? Do you simply delay the ship's response to a command by the round-trip time (As I would expect)? I know that Duck's original plugin featured signal delay, but didn't see much mention of it in the OP for this thread.

Some small structural parts for rover construction would be useful. It's kind of difficult to build rover bodies out of just wings and fuel tanks...

I've been getting closer to rendezvous using the protractor-measured angle.

My first encounter with Duna I tried aerobraking with a periapsis of about 25 km; That didn't even get me out of my hyperbolic orbit so I did some retrograde burns to get to about a 5000km apoapsis. Then I tried aerobraking at a 10km periapsis, and I had to turn the engines back on to get out of the atmosphere again safely. Good thing I had plenty of fuel.

Been using this to plan trajectories to Duna, and I've noticed a discrepancy between the phase angle measured with the plugin and my protractor. Protractor measures the angle to be about 44 degrees when the plugin measures it to be 49 degrees - And I'm fairly confident that the protractor is correct. The ejection angle display however has proven invaluable to me.

I notice that you've scaled up the M-50 engine into a 2 meter version. What happened to the normal M-50? Why not call the 2 meter engine the M-51 or something and keep the 1 meter M-50? I was rather partial to the 1 meter M-50 and I prefer to use 2 of them on a 2 meter tank instead of one large one just to keep the height of my launch vehicles down.

Then the answer is À/2, which as I'm sure you know is 90 degrees. Also,

r = 670 m v = 3361 m/s μ = 3530.5 € = 33612/2 - 3530.5/670 = 5648155 h = 670*3361 = 2251870 e = sqrt(1+(2*5648155*22518702)/3530.52) = 2143756 θ = cos-1(1/2143756) = 89.9999 Ejection Angle = 180° - θ = 90.0001 I've done this calculation several time and I keep getting the same answer, 90 degrees, (Which is WRONG, according to this.) This is for a transfer from Kerbin to Duna. The answer should be close to 150 degrees and I have the right ejection velocity and μ. So what's going on here? And yes, I am using degree mode on my calculator.

I ran through your math, Centauri, and got the same answer (With some precision loss - I did some rounding) so you're correct unless we're both wrong. Also, this thread has motivated me to actually study for my trig exam next week instead of blowing stuff up all day - Thank you for that.

Dammit, I still can't even download the update because the store page won't load.

It's either vapour or ice on the moon because there isn't an atmosphere. Higher gravity does compress substances more, but really only gasses as solid and especially liquid substances are for the most part incompressible.

No it won't. It'll have the same density it does anywhere else, regardless of local gravity. Both the water and the object floating in it would be heavier. Since buoyancy is based on the relative density of two substances, it isn't dependent on the strength of local gravity.

And why not? We've launched several nuclear powered spacecraft before which used RTGs (The Voyager probes and the recent Curiosity Mars rover, among others).

I'm pretty sure that the only copyright protection on any mods for this game are abstract and informal "Don't-claim-this-work-is-yours-when-it-isn't" internet guidelines. The very nature of intellectual property like this is informality and as I understand it getting something formally registered under copyright protection with a government isn't exactly trivial and I can't imagine anyone doing such for a mod pack for an alpha game. My previous question was, "What's changed"? As Tiberion himself stated, he got by informally for quite a while. Why not anymore? He's given credit to the original authors; I can't imagine why the original authors of the parts would want to block the development of this.

Why not, exactly? What's changed? This doesn't make much sense to me.

Theoretically, if the atmosphere contains a large fraction of combustible gas (Such as methane and hydrogen, which most gas giants do in fact contain), theoretically it would be possible to run a jet engine that carries it's oxidizer on board instead of the fuel. Yet another reason why a drastic overhaul of the fuel system is necessary, but I'm getting ahead of myself.

Just heard on the stream that the bright neon-green gas planet's colour will be toned down a bit and that the colours in general will be changed up a bit. I'm in favour of this.

The image of Eve looks rather off what with the lack of atmospheric haze - I'm just going to assume that bit hasn't yet been implemented in the current Dev version. I also find the neon purple colour rather disagreeable; it seems to me that a more washed-out colour would better suit the planet. Although I'm sure I'm the only one that thinks this. Right?

Are you implying that chemistry has nothing to do with physics?

I simply don't like that argument. I would much rather the KSP game world be based upon real-world physics, which we already have an understanding of and therefore can make somewhat accurate predictions about. And anyway, the real solar system in my humble opinion is far grander and more interesting then any fictional system based on fictional physics.

To be fair, the Apollo missions didn\'t use EVAs for crew transfer; they directly docked the CSM with the LM. I think it was the proposed N1/L3 russian plan for a manned moon landing that using EVAs to transfer crews between the lander during orbital rendezvous.

5 meter parts? Wow. For tanks that big an adapter that splits it into 3 or 4 nodes sized for 2 meter wide engines would be useful.

That doesn\'t change the fact that rebalancing needs to be done. Just pointing it out.