Jump to content

NFunky

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    150

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by NFunky

  1. NFunky
    So... These are the attitude dependent things in KSP I know of so far. Main engine orientation, docking port alignment, solar panel efficiency, aerodynamics, and heat occlusion. I was wondering if anyone knows if the sun produces heat radiation in KSP, and if so, if a vessel would be protected by using a heatshield between itself and the sun?
  2. NFunky
    Honestly, docking isn't really any harder than it was before. As long as I've balanced the RCS well enough, the minor rotational and translational tweaks don't affect each other too badly. I do tend to start lining up for docking pretty far out though, like 150-200m, and orient both vessels if at all possible.
  3. NFunky
    Hey guys, I've recently been having a LOT of fun playing KSP without reaction-wheels. It adds a whole new depth to the game. Whereas before, the only thing I ever had to think about was whether I had decent electric charge, I now have to think about where/when to use the RCS (and most importantly when to save it), aerodynamic surfaces, and engine gimbaling. Seriously, it's like I've installed some crazy new mod pack or something, but it's all stock. Becausse monopropellant is limited, not using it whenever possible is obviously very important for a satellite/spacecraft. So I've been playing around with spin-stabilization, and it does in fact work. The only requirement is that you MUST have at least two non-physicless parts attached radially. The physics engine will model angular momentum if there are actual masses whizzing around in circles. A big bonus (to me) is that spacecraft and satellites look more realistic, and very cool, while spinning in orbit. I may even install PersistentRotation so they keep spinning in time warp. Anyway, I have started wondering if there's anything besides main engine orientation that depends on attitude in KSP. Are there any tasks I can do with spin-stabilized spacecraft? Are there any mods that would add extra reasons for attitude control, like antenna/sensor aiming? Thanks!
  4. NFunky
    Thank you, you were right, but it turns out it was a combinsation of factors. BD Armory also lets you change physics range from in game, so I set it all the way up to 100km. I was very disappointed when I still couldn't blow anything up. Then I repositioned the guns so they had a less virtical and more spread out field of fire, and it worked like a charm. I also used "guard moce" instead of trying to manually aim, and even with the guns range setting all the way up, they didn't seem to want to engage until I was closer than about 1.5km, but that also might have had to do with the field of fire again. Thanks again for the advice on the physics bubble.
  5. NFunky
    Hey all, first off, I apologize if I've posted this in the wrong forum. It seemed like the best place to me. I am playing around with BD Armory in career mode with the 5dim pack. I've built a nice little low tech floating weapons platform with a Mk1 Pod, an RT-10 solid booster, Mk16 chute + four Mk2R radials, and landing legs. At this point in the tech tree, I only have the chain gun unlocked, so that's all I can use for the first training mission, which consists of a bunch of unarmed, unmoving targets to the north of the runway. Since I can barely fly planes, I figured I'd just put guns on a slowly falling platform and shoot down at the targets. So I put four chain guns facing downward on the sides of the RT-10, as well as eight boxes of 30mm rounds. My contraption flies up to about 5,000m, then floats back down at around 6m/s (which reduces to more like 4m/s once I use up all the ammo). After it reaches full chute deployment (5k), I arm the weapons and the mouse becomes that nice litte targeting thing. I also see four littler targeting things that try to follow the mouse, which I assume are the aimpoints for the guns. Everything works perfectly! Except that I can't hit a damn thing. I'm visually impaired, but I have enough vision that I can easily put the targeting circle on the selected target (it has a little box around it). I will let myself drift down to 2.5km and open fire for two minutes or so, but nothing goes boom. BTW, the recoil of the guns slows my decent rate quite a bit and, to a much smaller extent, pushes me away from the target. This drift is the only thing I can think of that must be throwing off the aim enough to prevent any hits. I just don't understand how I can pour two minutes worth of 30mm explosive rounds at an unarmored target and not even scratch it. Am I just too far away? I can't seem to find a range number for the chain gun, or for many BD Armory guns actually. It is range? Is it my poor aiming skills? Or is it the recoil on a light vehicle suspended under chutes thowing off the aim? Is this vehicle just a really dumb idea? Thanks!
  6. NFunky
    Another request for a new link here! Seriously, I discovered this contract pack through the 5dim thread and I'd REALLY like to play it.
  7. NFunky
    Yeah, I actually originally started out by trying to use BDArmory's AAMs in vacuum, and learned my lesson. So I started messing around with modular missiles, but since the guidance wasn't any better than the stock SAS at hitting the target, I got curios about other options. The "Small High Explosive Warhead" works spectacularly by overheating the part(s) it collides with. You can even manually detonate it with an action group, but as noted above in this thread, it does no damage unless it makes contact. I've been having some good luck putting verner thrusters on the missiles instead of RCS. They are way more powerful, and I can now just translate until prograde is on target instead of having to rotate the whole missile. Somewhat off topic, but I really think there needs to be a way to "look" around with the navball. It's fixed field ov view means that I can't see my prograde vector and target sometime when having to do violent maneuvers. If I could look the navball on target, I could maneuver more precisely.
  8. NFunky
    This is really awesome info, thank you! I don't really know kOS at all, but it sounds like that's the only way to go with guidance. The fact that I can hit the target with manual orientation makes me think it really shouldn't be difficult to program. I'm firing at "stationary" targets, but because everything is in orbit, I get between a 4 and 5 m/s drift when I'm at a kilometer or more in range. All I need the autopilot to do is put the prograde vector on the target marker, just like docking, only at really high speeds. Any thoughts on using a docking autopilot to not care about approach speed and just point me in the right direction?
  9. NFunky
    Just an update on some experiments I've been running. And I'm still having to guide missiles manually, which means missing 80% of the time. I've tried several parts as warheads, and as far as I can tell, there is very little difference in damage. However, I discovered that the more parts you can hit at once, the better chance of destroying the target. So, I gave the 10m inflatable heat shield a try and it made a pretty big difference. It looks like penetration power is not a big factor in KSP, which makes sense, given the fact that we are dealing with unarmored parts. So a big, blunt surface is actually ideal. Not only does the 10m heat shield do more damage, it makes a bit of difference as far as scoring a hit as well. The large surface area means more like a 50% chance of me manually guiding it to impact. Only problem is, the 10m heat shield is a big part, even when stowed, so it's not easy to mount on a 0.62m missile. Still working on guidance. I've tried several experiments with MechJeb's docking autopilot, but no luck. I am about to start testing with the manuever planner executing an intercept node. This is all with an imobile target BTW.
  10. NFunky
    Hi guys, I have a couple questions about stock space missiles. I've built a nice little missile with a probe, battery, reaction wheel and four seperatrons. My first question is, what is the best part to use as a warhead? I guess I mean which part will cause the most damage on collision with another vessel? My second, much more important question is, how do I make it guide properly? The 'hold target' function gets it close, but because everything's moving in orbit of Kerbin, it doesn't fly the exact direction it's pointed. I've had good luck just manually maneuvering it to bring the prograde vector onto the target, and have had some pretty spectactular collisions, but I'd love to find a way, or a mod, that will automatically allign the prograde to target. Does this exist? Can MechJeb2 do this, and if so, what section is it in? Any other mod suggestions?
  11. NFunky
    Thank you so much for the answers! Everything is making sense. I had a thought, and was wondering if it's at all doable. I'm something of a rookie, but I know the basics of editing cfg files. I was wondering if I could insert a simple reaction wheel module into the cfg for the AIM-120 to allow it to steer without air? Would the weapon guidance even use the reaction wheel? Also, I've built a nice little modular missile, but the guidance does not seem to work. I can't tell exactly what's happening, but the missiles fly in the right direction, but miss the target. They then continue to perform turn-around maneuvers to try again, but still never hit it.
  12. NFunky
    Thank you all for the replies. I couldn't seem to find answers in any past threads, so this has been very enlightening. I've got a few questions in light of this information. Is it worth searching/waiting for a mod with vacuum capable missiles? Is anyone working on that? And, can I make my own missiles using the 'missile guidance module' and the 'small high explosive warhead'? Could I just attach them to a small rocket of some sort? Finally, are there any mods whatsoever, that I may not have heard of, that are more focused on space warfare?
  13. NFunky
    Hey guys, I've only just started messing around with BD Armory and it looks really cool. The only thing is, all the videos I can find online are about combat in the atmosphere, and I'm more interested in exoatmospheric fights. I'm thinking classic space battles meet real physics kind of thing, so no need for realistic scenarios or special space weapons. While experimenting, I sent up a couple craft to test out short range missile combat in orbit. They were easily able to lock on with radar at about 15 km, but when I fired AIM-120s at the first target, they all missed, no matter what the range I fired at. I didn't even bother to try the sidewinders, as I figured they'd only home on a ship making a burn or otherwise heating up. So does anyone have any experience with BD Armory in space? Why are the missiles missing? What weapons DO work in space, and are should I be using a different type of missile than air-to-air for space-to-space purposes? Also, I had a theory about the 120s. I thought they used reaction torque and engine gimballing, but if they are only using control surfaces, that would explain why they are unable to guide properly. Is this right?
  14. NFunky
    Amazing, thank you!
  15. NFunky
    Help! I recently lost a save game that had all the various stock real-world rocket replicas, and now all the downloads are for 1.1.2 or 1.1.3! I am still running 1.0.5 because I can't get a high contrast navball in 1.1 or later (I'm visually impaired). Is there ANY chance anyone has a collection or can point me to where I can download replicas for 1.0.5? I mainly had modern launch systems like Falcon 9, Delta IV, Proton, Soyuz, etc., but also a bunch of historic classics like Shuttle, Saturn V, Energia, etc., and future vehicles like SLS and Falcon Heavy. Thanks!
  16. NFunky
    Hey all, sorry to resurrect this thread, but I had another question and I thought it'd be better not to start a whole new thread. All these answers really got me thinking about non-standard rocket shapes. I've particularly been thinking about lifting bodies. I'm envisioning a flattened Sears-Haack style shape with engines at the back, mostly filled with fuel/oxidiser. I'm looking into mods like procedural parts to build this. So I want to use this design to allow wingless, heats-hieldless reentry of a fairly large vehicle. I'm pretty sure that it'd be able to generate enough lift to let it gently reenter and glide back down. However, in designing the launch system, I came upon an idea that might let me add even more dV to it. Once in the air, if my rocket has enough lift, do I really need a TWR of greater than 1? I was thinking, use cheap solids to loft the vehicle, then they drop away and the thing flies more like an airbreathing SSTO would, though purely under rocket power. You can get a lot of dV if you aren't worried about having an initially positive TWR. Or at least, this is my working theory. My question is, would this work? Will I lose so much dV to drag/gravity losses, even with a high drag/lift ratio, that it negates the extra fuel I pack? I'm thinking of testing this hypothesis with a winged rocket for now, has anyone else tried this? Also, could I simulate a lifting body with a long Mk2 rocket?
  17. NFunky
    When designing aerodynamic rockets, I've been very curious as to whether the engine shrouds make any aerodynamic difference. If I build a nice cylindrical rocket with a Mainsail lower stage and Poodle upper stage, is it really considered a cylinder by the game? If not, would it ever make sense to use an interstage fairing or are they just too heavy?
  18. NFunky
    Very interesting! That makes complete sense and I'm now wondering if maybe similar considerations go into the Proton or Arianne 5. I thought upper stage diameter was primarily an aerodynamical choice, but this makes much more sense. Back to KSP, if I were building an Eve ascent vehicle (which I am), is asparagus staging still the ideal? Does the sheer fuel efficiency of asparagus staging still trump the drag of radial boosters? Would it actually be more efficient to build a large stack instead?
  19. NFunky
    Really good point about the context. I was mainly talking about Kerbin, but also real Earth (or RSS Earth). Although, I suppose Eve is actually probably a better analog for real Earth than Kerbin for this topic. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm under the impression that aerodynamic forces are even more extreme IRL than on RSS Earth (with or without FAR). I've been quite curious why more rockets aren't built as slim cone shapes. I know the N1 was, but I can't think of any others off the top of my head. Especially for single-stage-to-orbit vehicles, a cone seems an ideal shape for minimal drag on ascent and maximal or reentry, especially if engines are mounted radially so the bottom of the cone can be one big heatshield. I've been toying with some SSTOs like this with RSS/RO. On a slightly different subject, in KSP physics, is there really much difference between a cylindrical rocket (one tank in diameter) vs a composite of multiple cylinders like most Kerbal rockets are. I mean, is there any advantage to using a single large Kerbodyne tank with four Mainsails mounted under it (on radial attachment points or something) or four orange tanks with a mainsail under each? Mass wise, I believe these two configurations are identical, but do they differ much aerodynamically?
  20. NFunky
    Hey guys, been a while since I've been here, but man, I love these forums. Hey all, been a long time since I've been here, but man, I really love these forums. Anyway, I've been building rockets for a while now, both in stock and with Realism Overhaul. I've also become fascinated with real world rockets through all this and I've noticed there's one topic I rarely see posted about here that I'm very curious about. What's the real deal with rocket shape? Feel free to talk about KSP or real world, even though I know they're quite different. I'm primarily concerned with multistage stacks and the dimeter of the various stages. (But I'm also very interested in anything to do with this topic.) My big question is, what are the considerations when designing rocket's stages as far as diameter? I've seen rockets like the Falcon 9 or Arianne 5 have upper stages with the same diameter as the lower, while others, like the Saturn V or Atlas V don't. I would think that, aerodynamically, a rocket that is a consistent diameter with a good nose cone would have less drag than one that tapers, but I'm not positive about this. Also, in stock KSP, it's much more mass efficient to use smaller diameter upper stages, except that you then need an adapter, fairing, or other inter-stage element. In real life though, the upper stage shape doesn't have as much effect on mass, so it makes much more sense to go with a cylindrical rocket.
  21. NFunky
    My bad, forgot the picture. Here it is https://www.dropbox.com/sh/k4s0d4bmflb9lmb/AADLHfDWTa-acvBnExPa0tuGa?dl=0
  22. NFunky
    Hey guys, I play with a bunch of mods, but one of my favorite 'cosmetic' ones is Real Plume. It looked pretty awesome in 1.0.4, but for some reason, since I upgraded my setup to 1.0.5, plumes in the lower atmosphere look pretty bad. This picture is a perfect example of what i'm talking about. Big stripes of gaps in the plume. This rocket was burning 11 kerolox Mainsails. Could this be an issue with the RF Stockalike and not Real Plume itself? Could it be an interaction with another mod such as Scatterer? The mods I have installed are: Chatterer Collision FX Deadly Reentry Docking Sounds Dynamic Texture Loader Engine Light Environmental Visual Enhancements Ferram Aerospace Research Flight Manager for Reusable Stages Fusebox G-Effects Kerbal Alarm Clock Kerbal Engineer Kerbal Joint Reinforcement Kopernicus KSC Switcher Landing Height Mech Jeb 2 Modular Flight Integrator Module Manager NavBall Texture NavHud Persistent Rotation Persistent Thrust Precise Node Procedural Fairings Procedural Wings Procedural Parts RCS Sounds Real Fuels + RF Stockalike Real Plume Real Solar System Remote Tech SCANsat Scatterer Smoke Screen Solar Sail Navigator Solver Engines Texture Replacer TAC Life Support Trajectories Sorry, I actually didn't realize how many mods that was.
  23. NFunky
    Hey all, So I recently posted a thread about trans-Mars injections, and some of the responses really got me thinking. Thanks to you all, I've finally learned that transfer orbits do not have to be in the same plane as either the origin or target, so long as you can put the AN/DN at the intercept point. For some reason, this topic seems to be rarely discussed here or in almost all the articles about interplanetary spaceflight I could find. I feel like I've discovered a well kept secret that holds the key to efficient transfers. Anyway, in fiddling around with a maneuver node at the appropriate launch window, I can see how important it is to be as close to the correct ejection inclination (as shown by Precise Node) as possible. Adding a normal/antinormal component to the ejection burn can help a bit, but not by much without adding a hefty amount of dV. So, as in almost every other aspect of spaceflight, launching into the appropriate inclination is crucial. I figured out a pretty good method for placing the LAN where my ejection burn with take place, but I have no idea what inclination to go for. My relative inclination to target is 1.6 degrees, but Transfer Window Planner says I need an ejection inclination of 0.1 degrees. How can I figure out what inclination to launch into in order the get the desired ejection inclination? Am I correct that it will NOT work to simply launch into a 0.1 inclination orbit? Thanks!
  24. NFunky
    Hey guys, So I've been playing with RSS for a while now, but only just begun trying to send probes interplanetary, namely to Mars. I've got a good launcher, a decent probe design, and what I think is a good window, but I'm running into unexpected dV issues. I've read a lot of material about trans-Mars injection burns, and a good amount on the Earth-Mars transfer window and the minimum energy window, but nowhere can I find any material on plane change maneuvers. When I attempt to get an intercept from LEO, I simply can't. Mars is about a 1.5 degrees inclined, and the minimum energy transfer window will always have me crossing Mars' orbit about as far from the AN/DN as you can get. This means I end up having to do an 800+ dV correction burn during the transfer, and that's about 115 days from the injection burn. That means that I have to carry extra hypergolic fuel, since hydrolox or anything using LOX will have long boiled off by that point. Carrying an extra 800-900 dV's worth of hypergolics (which are heavy) means I now need a much bigger launcher and that, in turn, means it's going to cost a LOT more. Anyway, does anyone know how real world rockets deal with this? Is there anything in particular I should be typing into google to find info on this subject? How do you all go about solving this problem?
  25. NFunky
    Oh! I had no idea there was a dedicated thread. Is there an easy way to cross post or should I just copy and paste the text? Thanks!
×
×
  • Create New...