Thunder_86
-
Posts
67 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Thunder_86
-
-
Sorry I'm not updating this too fast, I'm still testing out the lifters, real life is crazy those days, a lot of forced traveling, a crap ton of errands to run, etc. I'll be back soon.
In the meantime, check out rootnegative's fleet on KerbalX, so far his lifters are the bomb! I'm still testing out yours!
-
Those settings are okay with my mechjeb. its the ascend path I messed up :S
Its a good tip for the max 1.6 TWR tho I'll try no to exceed that!
-
oh I do have it! but the point of this thread is to have designs for noobs to use.
Also, I didn't find a reliable mechjeb setting for launching. I use it for stable rockets, but even by limiting the AoA, sometimes, with mechjeb, my rockets tend to flip. What setting do you usually use for your ascend path? I may have messed it up at some point... I usually start the turn between 10 and 15 km, with helps reducing the odds of flipping but its too high for my liking. I usually end up doing the ascend myself. Mechjeb does the transfers for me. I can make the maneuvers myself, I'm pretty good at it, but mechjeb is faster. I tend to only use mechjeb for things I can easily do myself. for things I still have a hard time I prefer doing it manually to get better
-
yeah, I know about asparagus! I use it all the time! My problem is not getting the delta V, its about design. I usually make things overly complicated, adding to the part count, and usually make the lifter very crappy when it comes to maneuverability
-
Excellent, I'll try that. I was going up for 10km before starting to turn. Told you it was me!
On another note, yesterday night I was looking at rootnegative's fleet of lifters on kerbalX. While I haven't tried them all, I downloaded them all and tried the biggest one, rated for 110t. The only words I have to describe his work: Holy ....! This thing is a beast! It lifted 110t to LKO absolutely effortlessly! Its super simple in its design, extremely efficient, and most importantly: soooo easy to fly!
I downloaded all his fleet, and I think I'm going to adopt it for my needs! he has 3 1.25m lifters for various payloads, he has something like 4 or 5 2.5m lifters for various payloads, and his big-ass 3.75m 110t lifter. The ONLY thing I don't like about his lifter is the lack of reaction wheels, probe core, solar panels and batteries. I wanted to fine tune my orbit but couldn't steer the ship anymore. When I design a lifter, I keep in mind that the thing I launch will maybe not have any control whatsoever, so I always include control in the lifter itself. Apart than that, his designs are absolutely awesome. He is also excellent at making the rockets good looking, the way he clips stuff, it makes for very interesting designs! I'm blown away by his work!
-
Hmm, I'll give it another test.
Like I said its most probably me lol
-
Thanks people! I'll try to compile stuff, I've also received one from Mad Rocket Scientist by PM. I tested it out yesterday but had a hard time getting my payload in orbit. Might either be me or the fact that the lifter was, I think, tested for 1.02 but maybe not for 1.04. Most probably me tho. Had to add struts like crazy because the rocket would snap in half. His design have a smaller link between two large sections, and with the amount of weight I'm trying to put on it, it starts to torque like mad and then snaps. It was rated for 80t, but he said he lifted over 86t with it.
By the way, the way I'm testing those lifter out is I fill large ore tanks, full. Those have enormous weight(17t) in a small part. Its like twice as dense as an orange tank. So for lifting 80t, I use 4 full ones and 1 ~66% full one, that comes out to about 80t, very compact.
I will keep testing his lifter, trying to achieve better results wth it, as I'm sure I am the one making a mistake here. But then again, the goal of this is to find lifters for noobs like me so its a good test. I might end up rating it for a lower weight but including his own rating as well.
Now I feel really stupid, as I didn't even know the existence of KerbalX before he sent me his design. It kinda defeat the purpose of this thread, but I'll still try to update this because I can then classify them by payload weigth and have only the best ones. I may end up taking most of the designs over there, but feel free to send me yours, as if they are better, I'll definately use them in this post!
-
Well, apparently not too many people are willing to share their creations...
I'll upload mine instead, but they aren't great (far from it), and are still work in progress... I have the tendency to build them too big and too inefficient. Over time, if I get your submissions, I'll replace mine with those...
-
Hi guys!
So... I've been looking around in this section, and its really hard to find the information I've been looking for. I'd like to use this thread to document choices of lifters for various weight ratings.
What I would like to do is that you guys can send me the desing of your lifters along with how much weight they can send to orbit around Kerbin. Lets make it a benchmark of a LKO of 100km. So a 40t lifter would have to bring a 40t payload into a 100km orbit around kerbin.
What I am suggesting is for you guys to send me designs via PM. You can either give me some sorts of blueprints or simply clear printscreens of your lifters, or the files to the craft itself. The reason I want them by PM is to limit the amount of replies in this thread so that I can keep it clean, simple, and easy to follow. I will, of course, give all the credit to the author of the design in here. If you send a design that is not from you, please include the name of the original creator so that I can give the credit to the right person. Don't send a design that's not yours unless you are certain that the original creator is ok with the fact that his/her design is made public. I will try to keep this thread updated with the top 2 or 3 lifters I've received for each weight rating. I may, sometimes, modify your rating a little bit. For example, if you send me a design for a 80 tons lifter, and I find it a bit too hard to lift 80 tons with it (like it barely has enough DV to reach a 100km orbit, and any mistake would mean not getting it), I may classify it for a lower DV. Since I still lack experience with the game, I think that if I can use it successfully, anyone can.
The rules are simple:
- Your design must be composed of ONLY stock parts. No parts from any mod whatsoever. None. I do have mech jeb, but I do not want to use it for this at all. the reason for it is to make sure that everybody can use them, without being forced to install mods.
- Your design have to be clear for me to follow. If you don't give me printscreens that I can see exactly how the craft is made, I may decide to overlook it. Include more than one print screen if the craft is too complex! I don't even know how that works but I think you can also just send the files for the craft. You can do that too, I'll take care of making the printscreens.
- If you have specific directions on how to control the craft, like don't turn before 15km or whatever, please include those when you send the designs.
- I would like for your designs to include a bit of extra fuel. Remember, this topic is not necessarily for the more experienced players. It's purpose is to help out new players. I am expecting the people who will use your designs, including myself, to make piloting errors. Please don't assume it will be piloted flawlessly. Doesn't have to include double the DeltaV needed, but lets say it would be nice for it to have at least 2-300 m/s extra once you are in a stable orbit.
- I reserve the right to post my own printscreen instead of yours if I find yours are not clear enough. However, I will still give you full credits for it. Its just about making it easy for the people to replicate the lifter.
- I don't have payload categories set in stone at the moment. Just tell me how much weight you personally rate your lifters for, I'll organize them in categories myself. May vary a bit from yours but I'll try to classify them in a category as close as possible to your rating. (I don't want to have 100 categories lol.) However, even if I put it in a slightly diffrent category, I will include the rating you gave me (if you tell me a lifter is rated for 80 tons, but after my classification it ends up in the 60 tons category, I'll mention that you rated it for 80 tons).
I'm sure that would help so many people to gain experience in the game. Seeing other people's designs, well organized like that helps to see what works and what doesn't.
Similarily, you can also send me designs for thugs and SSTOs. I may be creating seperate threads for those though, or compile them in a diffrent post in this thread. Keep in mind I am absolutely horrible when it comes to piloting SSTOs I've never really used them I am no clue what I'm doing with those.
Please keep the chit-chat to a minimum here, the goal is for this thread to be as clear as possible. I don't want people to have to be looking in 40 pages to find their designs. I'd like this thread to fit in only one or two pages ideally. I want this thread to be as usefull as possible for me and all the other newbies out there!
I hope you guys are willing to help out on this! I think that would be a great tool for all the newbies.
Again, if you want to submit a design or if you have questions or comments, try to PM me instead of replying here, as I'm trying to keep the thread as clear as possible!
-
hahahaha. Thats from "les gags", a show here in quebec!
-
for me the most important is the story. The desing of the ship itself doesn't matter much to me. Plus, I'm sure the new version would look good also, even if it doesn't look like the original. Just go with a new design and pretend it was always like that! It won't affect the story, will change very little to the appreciation of the whole thing, and it will probably fly better than if you just tried to mimic the old one!
-
That's a very bad way to live your life.
Judge the claims by their merits, not by the person making it. Especially when you don't know who the person is.
might be a professionnal deformation (is that how you say it in english?) as every answer I found in my branch on anything else than a serious programming forum was complete garbage...
-
again, you got nothing from my point. This is a video game forum. I'm not saying people here are not knowledgeable. I'm saying any discussion here will be COMPLETELY overlook by anybody who's serious because no matter how knowledgeable people are, this is still a video game forum.
For example: I'm a programmer IRL. When I get questions or when I'm not so sure about something, I go see on development forums, stack overflow, etc. If I find a topic about programming on a VIDEO GAME forum, I WILL overlook it. I want Programmers to help. Not gamers. I would only expect this to be even more true with rocket science. If I was an aerospatial engineer I would absolutely laugh at you guys. say the same thing in an engineering forum, I would actually stop by and read through.
You SHOULD go and discuss that in a more serious place than here, because you guys DO know a lot about this... thats all I'm saying.
I'm not saying its not fine to discuss here. just it won't have any value in the end...
Anyways, I'm giving up. Forget about all I said, I don't care anymore.
-
woah woah woah. Who told you that there are only 4 people??? thats their LEADERSHIP team that is contituted of 4 people. I'm pretty sure they DO have employees under them...
For the rest of your message, I totally agree. Of course gamers are people, and of course some of you have valid ideas! I'm not denying that! But that discussion on a gaming forum totally lack seriousness and this is not our place to treat them like idiots here. I wonder if someone will eventually understand that very simple principle... I'm pretty sure you guys are intelligent enough to understand this. If you actually have real knowledge about this, why don't you discuss this over to some actual engineering forums???
I'm out of here. You can keep discussing this with gamer kids if you want, but the real discussion happens with actual engineers!
-
Well. The building itself is about the structural engineering. I stated in an earlier reply that the building itself can't be build with current technology.
as for the rocket science thing, you are right, its actually called aerospace engineering, not rocket science. But I'm okay with calling it rocket science as 1: I'm no aerospace engineer, so aren't 99.99999% of people posting here, and 2: its still about the science being rockets XD haha.
But it still need to be discussed tho as building the tower serves no purpose if aerospace engineering gets no advantage from it. I simply think we won't solve crap on a videogame forum, thats my point. The same discussion on an actual engineering forum would make so much more sense. Because the fact that this is on a video game forum basically removes all seriousness of this conversation. Imagine a study quoting a message on a video game forum as one of its sources... just... LAWL!
-
Why you label them as actual scientists without know them and you do the same with us "gamers" without know us?
You think they dont play games? And my prediction is that less than 25% of people who post in this science section play the game.
I dont, I like reality, and to get that I need to install many mods which my PC end up crashing, also I dont have much time free.
In science, each new idea or tech is open to criticism, some times we see something as a good idea, sometimes we dont, but we are not making a final judgment either, we are just making our opinion and depend on their inventors (or the people who agree with the idea) to prove that would be cost/efficient.
Mine was "there is another option which is many times more efficient, so why we should build that?"
PD: Maybe this tower idea is not good for rockets, but it may be a good idea to make tall towers for other purposes.
Fair enough about them. I don't know their people. All I know is that their leadership team includes a Space System Specialist. This is taken from their website. I'm simply assuming his team know what they are doing.
As for the people here, this is a VIDEO GAME forum. You may or may not play the game, but an actual scientist or engineer won't come here, to a VIDEO GAME forum, to actually discuss this. Come on... Its like minecrafters that think they are engineers for being able to use a hopper system... Do you think real engineers will go discuss stuff on a minecraft forum? of course they won't!! This isn't serious at all!
-
it's just a patent... nothing more.. I would say that for every 200 patents, only one would be good enough to work and be viable.
For example why this tower would be better than a single airship (with variable buoyancy) who can in fact go to the equator to launch and gain extra deltav?
The airship would be 100 to 1000 times more cost efficient, and I am not sure if the airship real worth it.
And I absolutely agree with you! This may or may not work. This may or may never be actually built. But yet again, I think its weird for gamers to treat actual scientists like idiots for trying to make a technological leap... Thats all I'm saying. I'm not saying anyone here is stupid for doubting the results of such a structure. I doubt it myself! I think there MAY be something to it. I might very well be wrong. I EXPECT to be wrong. I still want to see them trying it. What if it actually works! I don't beleive this is gonna be built withing the next 20 years either...
Simply building a 20km high structure is a HUGE feat on its own. Let alone taking off of it with SSTOs and rockets. BUT, I'm not gonna treat them like idiots for trying. What if it works? What if by trying this they make other technological advancements? A scientist cannot have a closed mind. Everybody blasting them for trying that clearly has a closed mind and are NOT scientists. Its easy to act like you are superior to everybody else, especially on the internet. But we are GAMERS playing a game so realistic that your astronaut can live for years and years on EVA in orbit around the Mun... Lets not get ahead of ourselves here...
-
There are more rocket scientists on this forum than at Thoth Technologies Inc.
I somehow highly doubt that...
I'm not sayin they are right by the way. I'm just a little annoyed by the fact GAMERS treat them like idiots for trying to make scientific progresses...
My take on that inflatable thing: lauching from 20km high will help skip most of the athmosphere, reducing drag. A rocket fly almost straight up for many kilometers before turning so that it doesn't try to move horizontally through athmosphere. at 20km, the athmosphere is at 6kpa compared to 101kpa from sea level. I'm pretty sure they can save a ton of fuel by launching almost horizontally (or turning right after launch.
Contrarily to what kerbart said, I don't think they'd go completely horizontally and fall back in the thick athmosphere, that would be, I THINK, totally idiotic of them, and I agree with him it woul totally defeat the purpose. I think there may be an inbetween tho where they go horizontal enough to gain horizontal speed as fast as possible without dropping down...saving that long 10-20 km straight up ascend.
This is just my GAMER opinion tho. I won't go and try to act like I know better than actual scientists. Discussing is fine. Treating them like idiots for wanting to try new things out is... idiocy...
If you don't try new things you won't help advance science. If you try to block progress you are everything but a scientist...
-
I'm absolutely amazed by this forum! I never thought a bunch of gamers actually knew rocket science better than actual rocket scientists!
-
Or just the opposite. It could be a situation we have foreseen, and we simply don't have a good exit strategy, so we crash the program on purpose. Often because we are relying on exception handling to generate error reports before the whole thing crashes through to OS error message and program termination.
yeah but then again, I'm trying not to get too confusing, he clearly knows very little about how programs work on a computer lol.
The application we make here at my job sometimes ends unexpectedly like that, but we have a big exception handling around everything. We still try to catch everything we can think of, but when we do get an unhandled exception, it actually gets handled by the application which logs as much info as we can before we crash the program. We also automatically receive the exception message along with the stack trace by email in the IT mailbox so we get EVERY error that was return by our application, from all 4 of our locations. Works pretty well for us!
-
basically an unhandled exception in the program. An exception is a problem that comes from the program that can be caused by a TON of different things. an "Unhandled" exception is an exception that the programmers didn't foresee could happen.
very simple example in vb.net:
you do a simple program that asks you for two numbers, X and Y, and will display the result of the following operation: x/y.
If you enter x:10 and y:0, and you don't do something to handle this, you will get an unhandled exception. More precisely a "Divided by 0 error". As the programmer you have 2 options to handle this. option1: do something like this:
If y <> 0 Then
msgBox(x/y)
Else
msgBox("The value of y cannot be Zero(0)")
End Ifoption2: let the division run but catch any exception:
Try
msgBox(x/y)
Catch(ex as Exception)
msgbox(ex.message)
End TryThat's more than you were asking but that gives you an idea of what can cause those problems. Thats just one example, there are thousands of reasons why an exception can happen. Its basically errors that makes your program unable to continue to run.
There are usually not much you can do about it, other than try it again and hope you don't get the error again. in the case of my example, just dont try to use 0 for y lol. in the case of a real program, it gets way more complex, there may be hundreds or thousands of variables in the program, and those exceptions might occur only when a bunch of those variables get in a very precise state. I'm trying not to get into too much useless details here, but yeah. Those are mostly out of your control...
-
We had at least one example where physicists were tricked into giving interviews which were manipulated. Their sentences would be taken out of context to make a profitable franchise for the gullible and ignorant people.
So I've finished watching this documentary from the opening post and sadly, it still makes one huge mistake. Popular science educators, especially if they are physicists, seem to forget how the average Joe thinks and what's more disturbing, aren't aware of the fact this average Joe's mind has been contaminated with quantum mysticism lies which have turned into a meme that has been spread everywhere by the ever growing Internet.
To specify - the observer effect. The key misunderstanding that quacks exploit for explaining their miracle cures, prayers, chants, pendulums, etc., is that the observer means a living person, a consciousness. If it takes that, then there's a "soul". Woo woo, cue the mysterious music... or Enya. That is a huge, fat, greasy lie.
Observing means taking a measurement, and not only machines can do it, but they actually do it. They must do it because we're too big, clumsy, massive, unresposive and with pathetic receptor units.
The act of measurement is just that. It does not require a person. Just an interference with the system done by just about anything used.
Quacks use those greasy fat lies to back up their claims about "souls" and "claivoyance", "levitation" and whatnot. This single thing is the power source of a global confusion which has enormous negative consequences on the modern society which, if wants to go forward, simply must be educated about the basis of the artificial world it has built. It powers "The Secret", it powers the whole New Age movement. So much damage has been done by essentially producing a new global cult that stomps over science.
Sadly, this hasn't been tackled in this documentary, only barely hinted in one sentence. That only makes it more fuzzy and opens more possibilities for unsuspecting laymen to get fooled and their brains cemented with pseudoscience.
Scientists simply must start acknowledging these problems. After all, it's that pile of laymen that brings in the cash and might one day barge into the lab like an angry mob.
Well I don't know, I didn't assume the "observer" had to be a living being. I took it like you said, anytime anything, living or not, can "measure" it (English ain't my primary language I may be expressing myself wrong here). But I got what you said and agree with you lol. Thats what I'm trying to say haha. I didn't make the error of thinking a human is somehow needed here to measure it!
-
Just be careful not to infect your mind with quantum mysticism. Most of the material Youtube spits at you when you type it in the search form is complete, utterly antiscientific crap and lies. I'll take a look at this documentary, thanks for linking it.
Well professor Walter Lewin is in this video... I think its fair to say its a pretty serious documentary. Not the most exhaustive like we said, its made for the average Joe on youtube after all, but still.
-
If is not coded to get the advantage of quamtum logic then not.. of course.
The same that an app coded for 32 bits will not get the memory advantages of 64 bits systems with more than 4gb.
But if the game is designed under quantum logic then it can be much faster. The problem is that everyone is still very inmature with quantum logic.
To understand binary logic and algorithms to exploit that, may take you at least 5 years of study (for a basic level), but to understand the new possibilities and algorithms for quantum computers (in case you just need to read them and not invent them) in may take your life time or more.
Because that is how quantum computers work. But this does not mean that you dont know what it will be the outcome when you make the software.. this only means that you can not intercept/observe that process without change the outcome.
Thats pretty much how I see those things too. In any case, just the principle behind this and the fact we are able, at the moment I'm writing this, to harness even just a little tiny weeny little portion of what quantum mechanics can do is absolutely mind blowing in my opinion! To the point where if I had learnt about those kindof things earlier in my life, I would probably work in that field instead of being a programmer...
Another super interesting video about physics (not quantum physics, but still very interesting) is the video "For the love of science". Its the last lecture from professor Walter Lewin at MIT. It is NOT the most exhaustive class, you probably won't learn much, apart maybe from a few formulas that you'll never use. I didn't learn much in that video(I was not so familiar with the light scattering effect, I knew about how it works a bit, but I did learn a few things about that in the video), BUT, it is still interesting as hell!
For the speedRunning/stream Enthusiasts
in The Lounge
Posted
I don't know if you guys saw that, but Cosmo isn't Cosmo anymore... Its now Narcissa! That caught me by surprise yesterday! I got nothing agaisnt that, it's his (her) descision, but I really didn't see it coming... I haven't tuned in into her channel (or any other channel for that matter) in a while, I don't know if she talked about it before... But I didn't expect that! I mean as a he, she was always extravagant, with the haircut and nail polish and everything. But I thought she was just extravagant. I didn't think she'd go for such a change!
But hey, I'm happy for her, as long as she is now happy with who she is, it's fine by me! I'll just miss the name... Cosmo was a legend. I hope Narcissa will keep being a Legend!
Also I was bummed out when I noticed she took all of her records from her twitch profile, I hope she's just in the process of revamping the page, I don't care the name by which she's now known, those records are still hers, I don't want them to just... dissapear.
Apparently the fanbase is now super LGBT oriented... Thats a bit sad to me, I feel like its going to take the Cosmo feel out of her channel... I would have liked everything to just stay how it was as far as streaming and speedrunning and overall feel of the channel...
Hopefully now with her new name, she'll want to pursue another OoT Any% record! haha
. I could watch her work on that for hours and hours and hours, I was watching live when she got a few of her records! Cosmo was by FAR the most impressive player I have ever seen! I hope Narcissa keeps being so ridiculously MLG!
Best of luck to you!