Jump to content

fourfa

Members
  • Posts

    1,705
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by fourfa

  1. Those particular main wings have a fatal flaw - their max temperature rating. They're intended to be airplane wings, not spaceplane. I suspect they're blowing up from over-temping, not being ripped off by aero forces - so struts won't help. edit: ninja'ed. And looking at the previous answer - it seems in 1.9 (and 1.8?) struts no longer have aerodynamic drag. Nothing reported when aero info is activated per part. Did squad decline to fix the old excessive strut drag problem, by simply deleting drag?
  2. How about any port only becomes active and scanning when it's been "set as target" by another craft? For me, this would make the entire disable/enable process completely invisible and require no behavior change, nor yet another PAW line
  3. I'd agree with the above - there's a very simple method, which is set all main wings parts to +5 deg AOI. If that's not enough lift, add wing segments at the same +5. If it's too much, remove some. Keep elevator surfaces level (if we're keeping it simple). It's nice for handling if the main wing stalls before the tail. If you need more wing partly because it's significant fuel storage (Big-S segments) it's OK to tweak around with 3-4 degree AOI, IMHO. But optimizing involves a lot of repeatable test flights and can be boring (for some) or relaxing and interesting (for me)
  4. This is already true in stock (sort of). Planet-crossing asteroids spawn continuously. They frequently impact planets - or rather, they would, if you switched to the asteroid and watched it impact. Otherwise, physics won't be calculated and the asteroid and planet will happily pass thru the same simulated space with no interaction. Furthermore, if you do ride the thing down it won't be as dramatic as one would hope. It won't burn up, it won't break up in the atmosphere, it won't make a massive crater, it won't launch molten ejecta. It won't do very much at all, really. It might just poof at the surface. It might actually bounce off the ground. It's possible that it will float on water. One of the last tutorial missions is an asteroid redirect - is that redirect an impactor, or just bring a passing rock into orbit? Can't recall. Anyway this dates to around 2014. So I think what we should be talking about is the realistic impact part. More interesting atmospheric entry behavior, permanently deformable terrain, ejecta that have mass and can cause damage (think about the physics rate with a thousand new asteroid-like craft flying in atmo at the same time lol), climate change over days months and years scale... Someone will likely be along shortly to explain why none of this is possible in stock KSP 1.x. Perhaps we can hold out hope for KSP 2.x.
  5. Got a standard rescue kerbal-and-craft contract, in low orbit of Minmus. Flew my claw module there, and bounced off the craft (a Mk1 plane cockpit) half a dozen times without getting the claw to engage. Realized in a panic I'd knocked it suborbital - VERY suborbital with only ~100s until crash. I only had time for one more go-around, I line up, RCS translate toward the ship, and for whatever reason this time it hooked up. Quick radial-out burn with Better Burn Time reading "50 seconds to impact" but the wall of a big mountain next to the flats looming VERY big. Skimmed 100m over the mountain ridge and got into stable orbit. Burned so much fuel it'll have to wait there for a rescue-the-rescue craft. This game can still get my heart pumping with unexpected situations, 3300+ hours on!
  6. The easy stock way to do what the OP wants: have one smallish fuel tank with enough fuel for the landing, and lock it off on the ascent phase (the checkbox next to the propellant quantity slider in the right-click menu). Then you can burn to fuel depletion, and unlock the tank when you set up for landing.
  7. Looking for feedback from users - anyone tried running the 1.7.x version in 1.8? Any crashing, nullrefs...?
  8. I'd been wondering if they nerfed something in aero & drag in 1.8 to give a boost to prop planes and helicopters. One of mine that made 254m/s max in 1.7.3 now goes 279m/s, with drastically different prop pitch settings than before. Then, realizing that they'd nerfed some of the challenge out of SSTOs, cranked up aero heating to balance the scales a bit. Just speculating. All I know for sure is that Kerbin's newly-thin atmosphere feels more like Laythe's did. Haven't been to Laythe yet in 1.8, perhaps it's like Duna now.
  9. Rebalance decoupler, MK1-3, MK1 lander can, MK2 lander can, separators costs, crash tolerances, weight. Anyone had time to look into this yet? Could be significant, could be negligible. Would it be so hard to be more specific in the patchnotes?
  10. Add do not show again option to re-runnable science experiments. kaloo kalay oh frabjous day!!!!!!!
  11. Do I need to add characters to this post? Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua This is just a bunch of long-time KSP streamers and modders eating tacos and chatting about KSP2 after meeting with the devs
  12. Good reminder to everyone; there are many corners of the internet we all gravitate to, and it's helpful to share here for others in different corners
  13. I guess no one watches the major KSP streamers on Twitch? On Saturday, DasValdez will be live-streaming Q&A with devs from KSP2 (and KSP1?) from PaxWest. Also a panel Friday about realism in scifi games, and a Thursday virtual field trip (sounds like to Seattle's Museum of Flight?) with streamers EJ_SA and Scott Manley.
  14. You know how if you disable the 'deploy when safe' tweakable on your main chutes, and deploy them at 1000m/s, they rip off and give you a warning 'parachute was destroyed by aero forces' or something like that? I want to reduce that safe deploy limit to something like 50m/s, in order to force use of drogue chutes to slow down to main deploy speed. This would go along with a tech tree rebalance that gives you the small drogues before the big mains, making you crash sounding rockets and transmit data before you can safely recover probes and get full science recovery, etc. Along with revamped rocket engine tech sequence, flight first, etc. I mucked about with some stock chute variables but despite changing quite a few things I never seemed to have an effect. Anyone have some pointers?
  15. For this situation I always just have a probe core hidden somewhere in the correct orientation, and make it the root part. Problem solved
  16. (Inspired by Azimech's posts above) I've been working on and off for a couple years on a stock tech tree rebalance where the starting techs are these: https://kerbalx.com/fourfa/Kerbal-Flyer-MkII Which Breaking Ground will enable with no mods at all. Surprisingly entertaining to fly!
  17. ^^^^ I wish I could like KerrMü’s post more than once. I agree completely; after years and 3000+ hours playing this game I’ve done everything I can think of many times over. I’ve hung out in the challenges forum just to get ideas that others have thought of. Completed more careers in more modded solar systems than I can easily count. All of it suddenly feels small and highly limited compared to the glorious new complexity in front of me since Breaking Ground. Personally I love having a ton of active controls for flight. It should be hard, even for experienced players. If it’s too complex for new players - guess what, here’s a wonderful opportunity to write simple, easy to follow guides for them. How about go write those guides instead of complaining about the lack of them? Write a mod to auto-manage prop pitch. Share and discuss craft with example control schemes. Heck, create and share a whole line of plug-and-play engine nacelles with detailed instructions. If you see problems, there are lots of ways to make a positive impact.
  18. Here's the setup that seems most logical to me: Motor RPM limit(s) on 'Main Throttle' group (you won't use this often, just for trimming speed for landing basically) Toggle Motor Power, and Toggle Deploy on all props on 'Stage' group Prop Authority Limit on Translate F/B, and manually set Authority Limiter on all props to 0 in SPH. Launch, set throttle to max, space bar to stage. Engines spin to max RPM but props have no bite - they're feathered. Use Translate (H/N by default) to engage props and speed up for takeoff. Optimum blade pitch is variable with speed. Pin out your prop part action window. Taking off from 0m/s, set authority limit to ~100. Once you're flying, try reducing the limit. I've found max speed between ~70-95 depending on the craft (F12 for aero force visualizer, and try to get the longest forward lines). Greater than 100 usually seems slower. One nice aspect of this setup - just hit space again to feather the prop and shut down the motor for minimum drag. Based on how thirsty the new LF motors seem to be, you'll need this feature a lot New props with old electric motors & fuel cells is much less thirsty, and seems just as fast as the Mk1 LF motors (easy 200m/s+ for a Mk1 plane with twin 0.625m electric props). Physics timewarp with new props is just as bad as elevons so far. EDIT: tossed up an example on kerbalx https://kerbalx.com/fourfa/Kessna-Twin-MkII
  19. You can do exactly what you want in stock. Load your craft in VAB, go to the Actions tab, click on 'Stage.' Then click on your hydraulic piston and select 'Extend Piston.' Now, every time you hit the Stage button (usually Space Bar) it will trigger that Extend Piston action. No matter, it works the first time, and every other time you might stage after that it'll already be extended so no matter.
  20. Something interesting for SSTOs... looks like drag calculations only get updated when you open and close cargo bays (and service bays and fairings etc); they don't get updated when you move things around with robotics. This opens up some avenues for cheaty interesting designs that fold out from a cargo bay on the pad/runway, and NEVER experience drag as long as you never open the cargo bay in atmo. I was only looking to have retractable service equipment like RCS, but there could be lots more possibilities. https://kerbalx.com/fourfa/BG-drag-test for some rudimentary examples
  21. On a planetary surface, 10% is good and 14% is outstanding. Asteroids are more like 80-90%, though their resource is finite while planets are infinite. Don’t obsess about ore percentage though - it mainly comes down to whether you stay in timewarp while drilling for a very long time, or a very very long time.
  22. Here's how to find out for sure - press Alt-F12, then select Physics -> Aero -> Show Aero Data in Right-Click Menu. Then you'll see the extra details like @FleshJeb's photo in comment #1 when you launch to the flight scene. Launch and gain some speed, and see if the drag is zero or more than zero. Sometimes it's a bit iterative back and forth between SPH/VAB and flight to get it just right. But so far I've found it pretty consistent, that if the centroid is inside the bay or fairing, it'll be shielded. I haven't started testing Breaking Ground mechanisms that move in and out of closed cargo bays. It's a good question.
  23. In my experience, the 'centroid' or center of mass point needs to be inside the fairing, cargo bay, or service bay. In the VAB/SPH, use the offset gizmo on the part in question. The base of the gizmo arrows is the centroid. At the moment in stock KSP, the old 1.25m structural fuselage and new procedural structural tubes do not shield drag. But there are Module Manager patches out there to make them shield drag
  24. What are the speed and damper settings on your hinges and pivots? What I see on the high speed test on the runway is the sequencer trying to drive them faster than they can respond. I'm guessing that no matter what, there will be a delicate balance between driver power and speed, inertia of the driven parts, and aero drag of the driven parts in the flight scene. None of these will be visible when simulating in the SPH/VAB. Finding the right controller speed to max out these values will be highly iterative! At some point it'll be interesting to look at how a whole bunch of small, lightweight "hummingbird wings" compare to a smaller number of large, slow "condor wings"
×
×
  • Create New...