storm6436

Having read over the thesis bit for the first time, I'm actually pretty impressed. If you need any help, I'm in the last year(-ish) of a physics undergrad and have a background in electronics from prior service in the Navy as a communications Electronics Tech whose training focused on UHF/VHF communications. Only caveats I have on my time is that classes take precedence and I'm trying to write my fourth book. :p

That's basically what I've done. Not sure myself either. Random question re: development of RemoteTech2, how do you figure you're going to deal with signal strength? I was talking to my wife about this mod earlier and realized halfway through that digital and analog transmission systems react differently to poor signal. It seems to me the "It lowers the amount of science you can get" bit works well for analog, but with digital transmission that doesn't really hold up. Simulating packet loss might be an option, ie. longer transmission times instead of lower science yields... How exactly you'd handle this, I'm not sure other than to include a property on each receiver for analog transmission and a researchable upgrade somewhere in the middle of the tree that patches them all over to digital? Anyway, was something interesting to think about.

That's sadly very true. Call me silly, but one of the things I'd hoped for before we ever hit beta was that they'd spend at least one patch cycle updating rendering engine stuff to better balance what was done where; say, like making something like SVE a stock visual option and having integrated it, pushed more of the heavy lifting over to the GPU.

Any plans for provisional pre-release testing? Say, once you get the comm model and UI rework done? Just curious, never used the flight computer and part of the reason I got burnt out playing was wrestling with commnet vs remotetech. Admittedly a minor part, but non-ingorable nonetheless.

My use of abbreviated codes is partly being lazy (ie not wanting to type out all sorts of crap) and somewhat a case of utility... consistent naming conventions mean you can tell capability at a glance provided your convention revolves around that. Saves screenspace, too. P-3-D us a lot shorter than "Duna Passenger craft - No science - Life support (3y) - 8k dV+lander"

Initial naming scheme goes down two lines: X-1 series - Distance/altitude X-2 series - X-1 derivative but with geared toward science gathering. X-1 craft is the first built, small solid booster, crew capsule, and the only version with any science modules. Once the science is processed, the X-1-A uses the upgraded motor etc I just researched and queued for build (I use KCT) and then I add science modules then save as the first X-2. Several get queued for build as I'm lobbing them at the easy science nearby. Subsequent X-2 models are build once overall range has seen a significant improvement. Once I reach orbital capability, both X-series are discontinued. The C-series are cargo vessels, P-series are passenger craft for tourist trips, S are science specific models, DL-series handles satellite launches. Series numbering is determined by reach. Eg. C-1 is a Kerbin-only capable craft. P-2 passenger craft can handle trips to either moon. P-3s are capable of near-orbit transfers like Eve and Duna... subseries indicate updates or additional major equipment. Slightly more life support, increased battery capacity, additional antenna support, etc. Specific mission-named ships are generally done for purpose firsts, like Apollo-1 is my Mun focused first-lander with heavy science capability. Apollo-2 is generally slightly refined but similar and focused for Minmus. KGN series are all rockets for erecting my Kerbin Geosynchronous Network, Hermes series are planetary body uplinks to provide baseline coverage for each body... and Cerberus missions are my minmus orbiting refueling station and associated nuclear tugs. I might be a little obsessive? Or lazy? *shrug*

Oh wow, how did I miss this? And by LGG? Damn, between you, DMagic, Kell, and a handful of others... Are there any mods worth having that you're not a maintainer for? :p

I should point out that even with the unibody (not the right word, but it's 2AM) of real rockets like Apollo, they still flexed. Which is why they had accelerometers placed in a variety of locations fed to a central computer that calculated the rocket's bend (amongst a whole host of other things) and compensated for the bend. Our current system in KSP doesn't even bother, requiring some creative sidesteps like piloting from a probe core in the lower stages to provide a more accurate piloting solution... The speghetti effect is annoying and to some degree the rocket should disassemble much earlier than it does. Nothing rocket powered bends that way and stays in one piece.

Surely I'm not the only person refreshing this every day hoping to find a release post...

I guess I'm the only one who includes attitude correction devices (DMagic's magnetic science booms) on my roving type vehicles for when I inevitably roll it. Just activate SAS, extend the correct boom, and pitch/roll correctly till you're upright.

Some folks might consider googling Saturn's moon, Titan. Plenty of hydrocarbons to go around, not a lot of life.

Eh, that's not a strawman argument, that's more of a clarification of a subtle difference most miss. Granted, a difference small enough most would consider pointing it out as pedantry, but a difference nonetheless.

Eh, I'll look into firing up scrapyard into my current active save (after backing it up) sometime here soonish. I just failed out of one of my physics classes via essentially a linear combination of extreme burnout (because 3 years of no breaks [ie. summer classes] is *awesome*) and test anxiety ... so I'm not really in the right headspace to do decent QA, much less actually enjoy playing complex games at the moment. Depression and semi-irrational irritation don't mix very well with complexity. On the plus side, at least it was wave motion of arbitrary wave-types in arbitrary mediums (ie. physical disturbance, electrical/magnetic, heat, etc), manual Fourier analysis or arbitrary waves, and the like that beat my face in and not basic kinematics.

Thanks to StageRecovery and RealChutes, about 95% of what goes up gets recovered and reused with varying degrees of efficiency. Even the 7.5m 1st stage that put my space station in orbit... Which, well, a dozen or so radially attached stack chutes might seem like overkill, but if it saves me a million credits, it's not.

Probably my rocketjeep. I don't know why, but I decided one day that I wasn't going to bother with rovers and was instead going to make my final stage both a lander and a rover at the same time. 2.5m core, poodle as the motor with a double-long gray tank (the step down from the orange... I essentially built two different suspensions out of cubics and the larger frames and mounted sets of the big rover wheels to the metal framework. Type A suspension went in the back, 12wheels total, type B went up front with 8 wheels. The not quite symmetric mass did wonderful things to my ability to not veer under power, but moar SAS helped with that. And the landing? Easy, come down like a lander and at the right moment, you cut power and crane it over and land on the wheels. Get out, fix any that popped, and off you go. Had 130 days of life support, a science lab, and both solar panels and batteries for days. Only limit to how much science you could pull was how much patience you had. And returning to Kerbin? Not a problem. No, we didn't just drive off a cliff and ignite. Nope, I'd tuned the dV to where the jeep section wasn't coming back. Instead, you drove somewhere near the equator, lined up west to east, and proceeded to the next page in the flight manual: Step 1: ensure all science is stowed upright in the locked position. We didn't come here to leave it all behind. Step 2: Give the rocketjeep a little reverse power to get it rolling. Step 3: Deploy the mortar legs. Yes, Bob, I said mortar. Why are you screeching? Didn't you read the mission plan? I assure you, this is perfectly safe. We did it in the lab a dozen times. Step 4: Immediately before the legs come in contact with the ground, hit the stage key. This will separate the mortar from the jeep lower assembly. The jeep's momentum will carry it away from the launch site, preventing it from interfering. Your rearward momentum will also ensure the mortar will cant upwards properly, secured by the two totally-not-repurposed lander legs previously perpendicular to the ground. Step 5: Make sure nobody has to use the bathroom before proceeding to step 6. Step 6: Throttle to full. Step 7: Engage final stage. The ejection force should see you clear of the tube just fine. Continue accelerating until low orbit is achieved. Jeb has figured out that part by now, right? Right. Let him do it. Step 8: Plan and execute optimal maneuver node to return to Kerbin. Honestly, I don't remember if I was more excited I stuck the landing the first time... Or the fact that all my precision guess work translated all the way to a successful return. All hail rocketjeep, first of its name.