duckunlimited2
-
Posts
161 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by duckunlimited2
-
-
Instant orbit is nice. just search for it in the search thingy cause it was released a while back. Or you can try the orbital construction plugin. Its more realistic in which you bring the ship parts up to a 'dock' part for storage. Then you build the ship with the parts in the dock and it appears next to it.
-
I believe Damned Aerospace has just released a 5 kerbal capacity module part. Its not a command module but acts like a regular part that you can add to rockets in any sort of number your little heart desires. Plus it has fuel in it too to insulate the kerbals and give your rocket some extra fuel for usage. I didn\'t like my kerbals soaked in fuel so I configured the part file and set the fuel to 0. Look in the plugin section for it.
-
I did my first Munar EVA with BILL, BOB, and JEB last night but didn\'t pack enough fuel for the return and only realized that after I left the munar surface and entered Kerbin\'s gravity well. I had enough fuel to circularize their orbit at 6 million meters above the surface. I was going to rescue them by bringing another craft up, but I had a few problems. The game kept spawning the rescue craft with another BILL, BOB, and JEB and every time I try to empty the capsule on the launch pad, they plummet to their death with a sickening poof! Killing Bill, BOB, and JEB their would also kill the BILL, BOB, and JEB that\'s stuck in orbit. I then tried to edit my save file to right the situation as I needed. I added a new crew and placed them in the rescue capsule in place of BILL, BOB, and JEB. But when I went back in game, all my ships were gone, so I could not save BILL, BOB, and JEB. Yeah, challenge fail
-
I think I\'m fifth to post a picture. The first ones, in order, are Candre, deadshot462, Knyght, and JebThrillMaster. But I will Boast in having the first group shot of BILL, BOB, and JEB. Enjoy:
-
I actually believe the game will use the RCS fuel tank that is the most 'away' from the command pod. When I mean 'away' I mean how far is it connected wise, not actual distance. Example: Lets say you have a command pod with a structural piece connected below you then a fuel tank connected below that. Both the structural piece and fuel tank have some radial RCS tanks attached to them. Because, the fuel tank is attached to the structural part which in turn is connected to the command pod, the RCS tank on the fuel tank will be used first instead of the structural part\'s RCS tank because its directly attached to the command pod which is closer connection wise. You get what I\'m saying? The order at which RCS tanks are used are based on how far the RCS tank is away from the command pod connection wise, and it starts at the farthest RCS tank. Its a simple concept but it can get pretty complicated.
Source: my own observations
-
You can blow up the debris with a laser. I\'m too lazy to give you the url that will lead you to the laser so just search for it using the keywords: Sunbeam Laser. It can auto target any debris OR ship as long as its in view, however, it can only hit the target when its 2km away so rendezvous skills is a must. It also overheats quickly so I suggest putting some radiator panels to help dissipate the heat or else KABLOOWEY!!
-
Well, how do we explain how the OASIS was able to navigate through the lair of the space kraken relatively unscathed where similar sized space vehicles failed.
I actually have a more indepth theory on how the space kraken operates. Granted, I\'m no Unity expert but It makes a bit more sense. We all know that when we go faster then 9000m/s, our controls start to become unresponsive and phantom forces start acting on our ships. Its more pronounce on complicated ships with multiple parts then it is on simple ships with a few parts. Parts.....parts....... why is the number of parts on a ship related to the likely hood of phantom forces actingon your ship when going over 9000m/s. I then recalled an incident on a previous sun diving mission I conducted earlier. It was a very simple and light craft, designed with consideration that the space kraken still lurks in deep space. However, before I exited Kerbin\'s sphere of influence, and traveling way below 9000m/s, I turned off my ASAS, which was on the entire time from take off, and my ship started to spin and tumble uncontrollably. Any input on my part would just add to the problem. Apparently the spinning was the result of colliding parts on my ship. I fixed the problem by repositioning the colliding parts and problem solved. Funny how that incident acted as if the space kraken was clawing at my little ship. Could colliding parts be the root of the mysterious phantom forces and unresponsive controls? Well, lets say that when Unity is calculating something going faster than 9000m/s, it starts to lose some precision. For example, lets say two parts are both supposed to be calculated at going a speed of 10000m/s. However, Unity goofs because it has trouble calculating things going that fast and calculates one part going 10000m/s and the other part at 10001m/s. The parts are now going in different speeds. If they were connected, but going at different speeds, wouldn\'t some collisions start occurring between them and cause the same tumbling and spinning as seen as my sundiving vehicle? I bet money that it will. It also explains why a simple ship with a few parts are spared more frequently from the clutches of the Kraken then a bigger ships with more parts. It comes down to the fact, that more parts, means more errors and different velocities between the parts which results in more collision which equals more force. Little ships don\'t have that accumulative effect because there so simple and SAS is way overpowered on something that small then for a bigger ship. Also controls act funny because when you try to change the orientation of a ship, it only adds to more of the forces acting on the ship which means more collisions, etc, etc, you get my point.
OASIS is very simple in design, and where parts collide, so it doesn\'t get the full wrath of the kraken. It does need assistance from RCS, ASAS, and gimballed engines, but thanks to simple design, it survives.
Sorry for long post, here\'s an emoticon ;P
-
Yes, there are planes that have the elevators in front of the wings. They are called canards. The main reason why its possible to put the wings and elevators in different orders is because there functions are completely independent of each other. The wings pretty much generates 90-95 percent of the lift needed for flight. The tail, which contains the vertical and horizontal stabilizers, are for stability. As for control surfaces, elevators control pitch. When a plane changes pitch, it rotates like a see saw, with a pivot point somewhere in the middle. Elevators are positioned either on the front of the plane (conard) or the back (traditional) as a way to capitalize on that pivot point. Rudders aren\'t really used often. They are mainly used to correct from unwanted yawing which only happens in less than stellar flying conditions. Ailerons are used to roll the plane and are position on the tip of the wing as again, to capitalize a see saw effect. (the farther out a force is applied on a lever, the easier it is to lift things type of thing). And it makes sense to apply a role force on the sturdy middle then the far tips of the fuselage in my opinion.
When you do make a true plane in KSP, the elevators and ailerons don\'t seperate their jobs to their respective titles but do both jobs. If the elevators have two control surfaces on both sides (not one, if it is just one control surface, than it acts like a true elevator) it will assist in the role and act as an aileron when called to do so. The same thing goes for the ailerons when your pitching. It will act like an elevator. However, the aileron would deflect in the opposite direction then the elevator. I think its because the plane can recognize a pivot point and would deflect to what\'s appropiate given its position on the plane relative to the pivot point.
-
You can stop your ship from spinning by time warping till your ship is on rails then exit out. That should solve your spinning problem. However, If your trying to burn and accelerate, that option just won\'t do now would it. I\'ve successfully navigated the interstellar space between Kerbin and Kerbol with a space vessel that weighed more than 40 kerbal mass units, however the design was extremely simple (everything stacked end to end like a rocket), which helped fend-off the space kraken. An extremely simple design wasn\'t all that kept the beast away. I had a very powerful gimbal engine and 8 radiating gimball engines boosters that shoot outward, a surprisingly small, but decent amount of SAS power with ASAS of course., and RCS thrusters. I believe the time it was most vulnerable to the space kraken is when I had to burn the engines, once I got it in and out of rails to get it stationary it was fine. I could spin it around too with a little squirt of RCS.
Well I wasn\'t in any extreme places like right next to kerbol or in an escape trajectory of kerbol but I think I have one of the biggest vessels to survive interstellar space.
Pics of the OASIS as I like to call it.
Okay, not a pic of OASIS, but you can see I am faster than the 9000m/s threshold, so I was in Kraken territory.
Here\'s OASIS. You can see how big, yet simple its design is. Believe it or not, but it\'s on a return trajectory to Kerbin after being in the orbit above. Kerbin and Mun is to the left of the engines. Yep, I gots mad rendezvous skillz. 8)
-
I love how the atmosphere looks when Kerbol sets and rises. The way it turns from black, to orange, to blue and how Kerbol just blinds you when it just peeps over the horizon.
-
Well, I think the next planet to be released will be a little murs like-planet with 1 or 2 very small moons around it. My murs mission will be over the top ambitious:
I will construct a mothership that houses a few satellites, landers, spaceplanes, rovers for the extensive mission on the planet. It will also hold supplies, pretty big living spaces, and will hold 7-9 kerbals for the mission. I plan this mission to be extensive with many different missions on many different landing sites. However, I only think the mothership would hold enough fuel to go to the planet and not come back so I will plan to also bring a second craft, holding tons of fuel, to murs to refuel the mothership when its time for it to go back home to kerbin.
-
This is a little off-topic but I think it must be said.
Laptops are incredibly expensive because every laptop is basically comprised of original parts. Since a laptop has to be relatively smaller than a desktop and has to give some degree of comfortable mobility while carrying it, their parts are custom fit to the laptop. That\'s why most graphic cards are integrated to the motherboard, as a way to make the machine smaller. Speakers are integrated, keyboards are integrated, touch pad, screen, etc, all in a bid to make the package smaller. There all original to only that laptop, making them very expensive to build, which in turn is reflected at the price. Also, because its all integrated into that machine, you can\'t take out one piece and replace it with another. This is especially true of the graphics card which is pretty much embedded in the motherboard. Yes you can add extra things to your laptop like a mouse, speakers, extra screen and it works fine but it can only go so far. Again, lets go look a the graphic cards. It is possible to route an external graphics card into your computer via usb, HDMI, or more practically, your express slot. However, those ports can only allow so much data to pass into your laptop. So a graphics card that\'s rated as such would actually perform a good fraction because the port can only allow so much data through at a time. At tops, your laptop would be pretty top of the line for about four years, then it starts to go obsolete. Since you can\'t upgrade it, you will need to buy another laptop which is pretty much expensive.
Compared to desktops which can be constructed out of any hardware (which isn\'t customised, so it isn\'t that expensive and can be upgraded, giving it a good 10 maybe 15 years depending on care), I don\'t see why I would buy a high end laptop if I have to replace it in 3 years and spend all that money again where I can construct a desktop myself and only pay a few hundred dollars every two years for upgrades.
My final say is you shouldn\'t invest so heavily on a laptop. It should be lightweight, easy to carry and not bulky; not like the desktop replacement laptop your eyeing Mr. OP. And it should only be powerful enough to atmost run hd movies. Your going to replace it pretty quickly so don\'t invest so much. If you need more powerful computing, go with a desktop. Yes it\'s not carryable, but its the most economical.
But if you can afford throwing 1200$ every few years, than go ahead and invest on the laptop. But remember your shoulder won\'t be happy when you lug it around with you.
(sorry for long post, heres a nice emoticon!) 8)
-
Thick atmosphere maybe? IDK, I just slap 4 mega engines and a ton of fuel on the side of a payload and just blast my way thru to orbit.
-
Do you have an Advanced SAS on the rocket (A.S.A.S.)? Its a better SAS unit that can control both RCS and regular SAS units to better keep a rocket stable.
-
@ ddavis425: YES!!! I was waiting for someone to do something like that! ;D ;P :-*
-
I didn\'t think it would work out in space and because it was activated already, it wouldn\'t deploy in the atmosphere. Yeah, I learned that wasn\'t the case after this mishap.
-
I once made a pretty big interplanetary rocket - vessel thingy. It was destined to go into a Kerbol orbit about half the altitude of Kerbin then return back home. I succeeded in going into Kerbol orbit and returning back to Kerbin\'s sphere of influence. However I ran out of fuel just after retrograding enough to keep from getting slingshoted out of Kerbin\'s sphere of influence. Its a good thing the rocket had a small lander in its nose with some fuel and an engine that I estimated would get me atleast into Kerbin\'s atmosphere to aerobrake and land.
Now here\'s the facepalm part:
Right after I decoupled the lander from the main rocket - vessel thingy, I noticed my parachute was set to deploy with my engine start. I counted myself lucky I caught that cause I did not want my parachute to deploy in space and kill my kerbals upon landing. I did not have any stages above, so I thought it would work if I bring my engine start down a stage. So I did just so. STUPID MOVE. I thought when I pressed space, my engine would start and I would have one more stage to deploy my parachute upon reentry. Instead, I just heard my parachute deploy then and now. 'Okay, its just a minor set back, I just have to use my engine to slow my decent for a soft landing' I thought. Well, I throttled up, thinking my engine started with my last staging. NOPE, IT DID NOT. Because I moved my engine start down, It never activated. I was also out of staging so I couldn\'t bring my engine start up to start it. Yep, my kerbals were stranded in an elliptical around Kerbin. So close to home, yet so far. :\'(
Pictures
Here you can see my staging right before I decoupled the lander from the rocket - vessel thingy.
Here\'s the lander coming out of the nose of the rocket - vessel thingy.
Here you can see the modification I did to the staging.
*Hits space bar*............... &%#$!!
So close, yet so far. :\'(
-
I like the acid trip on 1:10 in your video Excalibur. And I haven\'t seen a smaller and more easily controllable plane than yours! Kudos to its epicness.
-
AAAGGGHHH!!! I just finished cleaning up the debris cloud that was around Kerbin last night. I should have taken screenies :\'(
-
I have 4 gb ram on high settings with 424 parts. Everything seems good on my end.
-
Well I honestly don\'t have a single problem with .15.2. I haven\'t experience any bugs since I downloaded it. The only downside is for some reason, I can\'t right click and deactivate/reactivate engines. But I\'m goooooood.
-
I believe the frozen methane on minmus isn\'t just composed of frozen methane but a combination of frozen methane and water called methane hydrate. Methane hydrate is methane molecules trapped in a cage of water molecules surrounding it. Now, methane hydrate can exist in a vacuum only if the temperature is -10 to -15 degrees Celsius. After doing a quick look on the forums, I found that the temperature of space outside kerbin\'s atmosphere is around 0 degrees Celsius, so I\'m guessing its the same on minmus. Now, that doesn\'t rule out that minmus can\'t be frozen. It can also be composed of other rock like substances on the surface with a methane hydrate layer underneath. Methane hydrate at 0 degrees Celsius forms if there is a pressure of around 50 earth atmospheres. Heavy rocks would do the trick and I would also imagine that it gets colder the further underground you go. The methane lakes are a bit tricky, since they exist on the surface. My theory is that some of the methane hydrate evaporates and forms a methane and/or water fog on the surface of the methane hydrate lakes. With cliffs as large as around 4000m (give or take a few thousand) surrounding the methane lakes, that fog ain\'t goin nowhere and can build pretty thick. once its thick enough it acts as an insulator blocking the heat that comes from Kerbol and cooling the surface of the methane lake to -10 to -15 degrees Celsius where the methane hydrate lakes can exist.
On a side note, it is said that methane hydrate can form in the outer reaches of the solar system. Being a small, icy body, I think minmus originated from the outer reaches of the Kerbol system that was slingshoted into the inner system where Kerbin picked it up.
There\'s my theory on how Minmus\' origins and how it can exist as it is now. Once we start adding clouds to the game, I would like to see fog on those methane lakes. YA HEAR THAT HARVESTER; WE BETTER PUT SOME FOG ON THOSE LAKES, OR ELSE IT GONE AND EVAPORATE ON US!
-
Seeing as our vanilla parts are getting upscale and upgraded to fit our bigger than expected kerbals, I wonder how our modded parts would be affected by this. Are we going to upscale our current mods to stay in proportion, or are we just going to leave them the same size. Will we be creating bigger mods to match the proportions, or keep building the same size as now? So many questions that need to be answered. I think we need to discuss and plan ahead.
-
http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=9726.0 - a table that will tell you when to do a transfer burn at where you have to be to rendezvous successfully; best for satellite rendezvous
http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=7138.0 - a step by step guide for any rendezvous - best for bigger orbits like planetary or minmus rendezvous
http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=8021.0 - I believe this auto - pilot plugin (mechjeb) can do a rendezvous
Or you can do the MacGyver way - set your satellite in a slighty smaller orbit than the other satellites orbit, time warp till they get close (like you can see it close) then point your satellite at it and RCS towards it
Toggle Movement Mode?
in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
Posted
Okay, when you first take out a kerbal for EVA, he will face the direction your pressing on the WASD and will walk in that direction. EX: press W and he faces away from you and walks away from you. Pressing S makes him turn and face you and walks towards you. Pressing A or E makes him face sideways from your vantage point and... you know what I\'m saying. The other movement mode makes him sidestep when pressing A or D, and backwards when pressing S. He would always try and keep his backside facing you when you start moving him.