Matt516
-
Posts
20 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by Matt516
-
-
It's 1:1 mass-wise, the assumption is that some rudimentary sorting takes place during excavation. Yes, for realism there should be a loss factor. However had to compromise for gameplay reasons on this one (so in that regard, it's closer to Kethane (which is nearly lossless) than Karbonite (which is very lossy).
Doesn't this present a problem in which it's actually better to store fuel as ore than in fuel tanks? Since the ore tanks have a better mass ratio than the fuel tanks?
-
That's a nice find, and it sucks part occlusion works in that dumb way. Keep building your huge, flat bases. Attach nosecones on top of it for every horizontal part, and you're done!
Well hopefully they'll be updating the occlusion model in future patches - the whole aero model is still new and I imagine they've still got some stuff on their wishlist, feature-wise.
-
It's not items clipped into tanks or fuselages or whatever that I'm concerned about. For example, at one point I dumped a set of 8 probes onto Laythe (supposedly to monitor ocean conditions around the moon). I gave them little token heat shields made from structural plates, but if I was to do the same thing again, I'd like to stick a heat shield (large enough to shield all the parts from the oncoming airflow) on the bottoms instead. But from what panzer1b says, all of the parts of my little probes (except for the ones axially connected to the heat shield) would NOT be protected from the oncoming air, despite being behind the heat shield. This is what concerns me. (I wouldn't mind if the little retro rocket motor on the bottom exploded during entry, since it already did its job.)
Fair enough. As far as I know though, the jury is still out as to how the heat shields protect - I could've sworn I'd seen example vehicles similar to your probes that did just fine. Haven't tested it personally though, so I'm not sure.
-
Yeah, "flux" generally refers to flow normalized by area. So their usage is technically wrong. But not really a huge deal.
-
Yeah...I would not set fuel lines and strut connectors in particular to have physics on them. I know I've tried that in the past and the best way to describe the results would probably be "amusing, but not at all practical"
Some parts shouldn't have physics assigned. Heat shields apparently need it, but that really doesn't mean you should turn it on for all parts, especially not without individually and extensively testing each one.
Of the non-physics parts that I'm aware of, the only ones I can think of that would make sense to re-enable physics are landing gears maybe? Since they're usually either symmetric (on a rocket) or all on the bottom and symmetric (on a plane). Seems odd to me that those don't affect the CoM. Other than those and the heat shields, I'm pretty cool with the non-physics parts. Makes placing small sensors and batteries and such a lot less tedious than it would otherwise be. And struts, ofc.
-
So here's the thing: what was often called a "gravity turn" in old KSP isn't actually a gravity turn at all. In real life (and now KSP 1.0), rockets don't point off of prograde more than a few degrees while in atmo. Or they explode.
A true gravity turn is simply pointing your rocket prograde the whole time (with a slight nudge off of vertical in the beginning to get things started) - as you follow your ballistic trajectory, the rocket will naturally turn as gravity brings it around. Hence "gravity turn". Scott Manley has a nice tutorial video here:
So to summarize - you don't turn a rocket more than 10 degrees off of prograde in real life, and now the Kerbals can't either. Gotta keep the rocket pointing prograde if you don't want to tumble. Makes sense?
-
Absolutely. Parachutes should be susceptible to heating and snap off if deployed at too high a speed.
-
I'm fine with this, to be honest. Clipping isn't something that's physically possible, so it makes perfect sense that the games physics doesn't bother figuring out what happens when you do it. Less realistic physics is the price to be paid for mucking about with that sort of thing IMO.
Not that there's anything wrong with doing that, of course. I'm just neither surprised nor bothered that they made a simplification in the occlusion code that only works when you don't clip stuff inside other stuff.
As for the heat shield - I wouldn't be surprised if that works slightly differently. Haven't people reported seeing radially attached goo cans be protected by the shield during reentry?
-
Is there any way to see the centre of drag as well? Seems kind of odd that there would be a realistic aerodynamic model but no way to tell how the craft will behave. Maybe that's part of the upcoming skill overhauls (in which we'll get stock dV readouts as well
)? -
Which is completely unfair, and buggy. A part should be set up so that it either DOES, or DOES NOT get used in physics calculations. To have it get used in half of them but not others, especially in cases where there is a delicate balance between those calculations, is precisely what is causing the problem here. To make the heatshield so it DOES drag but does NOT move the center of mass, is exactly what is causing the flipover. When an object has one section that is dense and another that is very sparse, but both have equal drag, then when under a wind it will flip so the dense part faces into the wind and the sparse mass part flips to the lee side. You can't get much more sparse in mass than having zero mass but still having drag. That makes it behave like a sail, or a parachute, or like paper - high drag with low mass has a very profound effect - it behaves like an aerodynamics anchor.
Yeah, I'd have to agree here. It's really unintuitive for parts to be used in physics calculations in some ways but not others. Obviously this needs to be fixed for the heatshield as it has a profound impact on gameplay. But honestly it should probably be fixed with batteries/landing gear/etc as well - or we might see more unintended derpy behavior from the drag and mass models being out-of-sync.
-
Yeah this is such a strange phoneomenon. The new aerodynamics are supposed to be more realistic and shaped based.
Well in this case the aerodynamics model is working just fine. It's the craft that's broken - more specifically the heatshield. The CoM isn't where it should be, so the (realistic) aerodynamics are causing it to flip around. Don't blame the poor aerodynamics for the incredible massless heat shields.
I wasn't even suggesting bugs don't exist, or that this wasn't a bug. Just that, less than 24 hours into an update like, let's cool the, "This update is a huge let down, everything's effed up," jets a bit. Give it a bit, chill.While there are some people engaging in histrionics, I'd say this thread isn't really participating in that. As FlowerChild pointed out, this particular bug wasn't even recognized as a bug until enough people complained about it. KSP is great, and constructive feedback only makes it better.
-
Manually turning 45 degrees at any point =/= gravity turn. More realistic aerodynamics forces you to do an ACTUAL gravity turn, which is to keep your rocket pointed prograde and let your trajectory change naturally due to.. y'know... gravity. Real rockets don't point off of prograde while in atmo, or they are ripped apart and explode.
-
So has the problem been pretty well confirmed to be that the heat shield increases mass and applies drag, but doesn't actually move the CoM? Therefore putting the CoM too far back and causing the capsule to not want to point retrograde? If so, this should be fairly easy for Squad to fix in a hotfix, no?
-
Re: Thrust varies with ISP - you're partially right, but it's more than just having the engine thrust multiplied by the Atm multiplier. In stock, every engine always has the same max thrust, and the fuel consumption varies with ISP (so as you go out into vacuum, fuel consumption generally goes down because ISP is increasing). Having that option turned on causes the fuel consumption to stay constant, and the thrust to vary with ISP instead. This is mainly a realism setting, as it shouldn't affect gameplay a huge deal because ISP is the same and therefore delta-V of any given stage is the same.
And re: extended curve, there's certainly no harm in leaving it on when you're roundabout Kerbin. But if you plan on going anywhere with a denser atmosphere than Kerbin, it's gonna hurt you pretty bad.
-
I'm a little confused, Angel - are you saying that FAR requires the use of the Realism Overhaul (RSS)? Because that really isn't true....
-
Updating to new version - just delete the old folder in GameData and replace it with the new?
-
The Mk1 pod has a terminal velocity of 160 m/s at 5 km, unless you are somehow confusing FAR by clipping unnecessary heat shields into the bottom of the pod. Just like everyone else who seems to think the pod with a built-in heat shield doesn't have one.
Out of curiosity - why does this happen? The aerodynamics model getting confused when the pod has an extra heat shield, I mean. Does it have something to do with how FAR decides which surfaces to apply drag/lift forces to? Is this something to be fixed in a future release, or is it impossible/not worth the trouble? I ask simply because I'd think that if this can happen with heat shields, it can happen with other (less superfluous) parts as well. But I don't know exactly what causes the problem, so can't really judge that.
-
Wow, thanks for the quick reply. Much appreciated. I'll just estimate or calculate things manually for now.
While you're online, I had a quick question about the FAR->Stock, atmo only setting? I'm using FAR and want to counteract the easier orbiting caused by the reduced drag, but I don't want to deal with increased fuel requirements in space. I would use the 0.38/1.0 setting, but that seems like it would penalize atmospheric flight a bit much. Since you did the math/testing behind the settings, I thought I'd ask - that 0.38 multiplier only "exactly" counters the reduced drag when going into orbit, right? Which means that atmo-only flight is heavily penalized compared to stock, right?
Do you happen to know which multiplier would strike somewhat of a balance between correcting the fuel requirements for orbit, but not penalizing in-atmo planes extensively? I've been playing with multipliers of 0.6 and 1 respectively, which seems to me to be a reasonable balance. Thoughts?
-
Have noticed an issue with this mod - the description says that although ISP doesn't properly update in the parts list, Kerbal Engineer should still calculate the proper dV. I have found this not to be the case - at least in the VAB. While designing rockets, Kerbal Engineer doesn't calculate the proper dV. It does, however, calculate properly once in launch. Is this intended/known behavior?
EDIT - My modlist:
ModuleManager 2.5.4
Chatterer
Kerbal Engineer
Deadly Reentry
Farram Aerospace Research
Kerbal ISP Difficulty Scaler
Procedural Fairings
Kerbal Joint Reinforcement
Stock Bug Fix Modules
)?
1.0.1: pod,6x FL-100 fuel tanks, LV-T30 engine strictly vertical launch - 100% flip
in KSP1 Discussion
Posted
Going above Mach speeds with a finless rocket low in the atmosphere might not be the best idea anymore...