Jump to content

swjr-swis

Members
  • Posts

    2,980
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

4,056 Excellent

Profile Information

  • About me
    Self-proclaimed Groomer of the Orbits
  • Interests
    KSP

Recent Profile Visitors

14,628 profile views
  1. Adding to @Hotel26's instruction: make a copy of the <savename>\backup folder and save it someplace else. KSP1 keeps a backup there of the last 5 (default, could be more if you changed it) persistent files. That way you can test them, starting with the most recent, and see if you can get back to a working situation without losing too much progress.
  2. My kerbals' favourite way of celebrating ... well, anything really: challenging each other to River Runs with their latest flyable contraptions.
  3. It's a good consideration and I know KSP's penchant for flipping control surface action in-flight as CoM shifts 'past' their hinge-line. This is however not what is at play here, and the example craft I linked shows this. The bug manifests itself in the second elevon2 from the front. If it had flipped because of CoM shift, the first one would/should have flipped as well. Were CoM shift the cause, filling the tanks to default status would flip them back again, which does not happen. (*) Repositioning the entire wing assembly -with all elevons- back and forth was attempted and had no effect on their deployment status. Even if all the above were not the case, it would still not explain, nor could it be correct behaviour, that mirror-symmetric parts suddenly deploy in a radial-symmetric manner (one up, one down), instead of mirror-symmetric (both up or down). *: I'm not even addressing here the other bug where KSP is completely inconsistent about what deployment direction a control surface defaults to, even in a series of otherwise identical, often even copied, parts.
  4. I didn't say control surfaces, I said the craft. Although I can see how I could've worded that less ambiguously. I do however mention deployment, not control authority. I use control surfaces as wings quite regularly, because they allow setting a very specific small AoI by deploying them, something the stock rotate gizmo doesn't offer. Bonus, it also allows control of deployment, now AoI, on the fly by say, binding to up/down or fwd/bck keys in the action keys. Giving one control over lift/drag ratios in-flight. So yes, this bug shows up with deployed control surfaces, and it causes unexpected and uncontrollable roll on the plane when it happens. So maybe that's the thing I do more than others that makes me experience this bug more. Control surfaces as wings, deployed, with a small deployment angle (usually because I want something in the range of 1-3 degrees). And at some point, the game decides to make mirror-symmetric 'wings' to be deployed in opposition, as if they were placed in radial symmetry. The only fix at that point is throwing the part out, because even taking it off the plane and placing it back again will continue to give the mirror part the wrong deployment. Craft file exhibiting this bug, This one started showing the bug after I emptied the tanks to check on full/empty CoM. The bug is in the second-from-front Big-S Elevon 2. Move the deployment sliders back and forth to see it. That whole wing was 4x copy of the same set of parts, and the other three don't have the problem. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/p3nvosdunmqsnzig4i3qt/SWiS-WHA-3NS.craft?rlkey=b1xe3ee8quf3y4ax5g6cvmkof&dl=0
  5. The 'random' part in the description kinda already gives away that a straight steps list isn't going to make it happen. Heck it happens simply loading an already existing non-edited craft sometimes. And unfortunately the first clue you get it has happened is when you take out a craft for another test and it crashes on take off because it keeps rolling instead of pitching. Best I can do is provide craft files in which it has already occurred. This happens so often though; I keep wondering how anyone else is able to fly a craft. I guess there's not many flying stock anymore.
  6. Control surfaces randomly and spontaneously deciding (in the editor or once spawned in flight scene) to pick a different deployment direction than before, including mirror-symmetric control surfaces deploying in opposite directions - as if they had been placed in radial symmetry. Any chance that this could be looked at/fixed in KSPCF, or is that not in scope? It's a rather significant bug that once it happens, and it inevitably happens almost guaranteed while working on (space)planes, renders the craft unfliable. To say it's frustrating having this happen after a couple of hours editing a craft is an understatement.
  7. Just above the brake setting. You can change 'invert direction' on one without affecting the other. Side effect: you can't use symmetry on the prop blades. Because why would they make it easy on us. Did I mention before how intensely I dislike KSP's implementation of props...?
  8. I had a bit of time before bed, and I could let most of the test flight run unattended (very stable plane in cruise), so I went and tested the range. It ran out of fuel and touched down at lat 24.127 heading due west the whole time. Departure was from KSC lat -74.724, so a total of 98.851 degrees, at a median cruise altitude of say 7.5 km, which gives 1048 km in all (sea level distance 1035 km, if you prefer to count that way).. Album for the record: https://imgur.com/a/2JXTZAS I expected your plane to do better than mine, given the slightly higher cruise speed, and the generally less draggy 2.5m fuselage compared to my mk3 body, while using the same wings. You keep your throttle higher though (50% vs my 21-22%), which is a significant difference. But then you downsized your engines compared to mine. Would be interesting to see how it would do with the full-size engines and similar throttle.
  9. Los 90 que mencionas son desde el punto justo antes de escapar Kerbin. Empezando desde órbita baja (80 km, circular), tienes que añadir los 950 que cuesta llegar al punto de escape. Y no olvides que puede costar hasta 430 más el corregir la diferencia de inclinación entre las órbitas de Kerbin y Eve. O sea que 1300-1400 no está nada mal.
  10. I was born between Apollo 14 and 15, which makes me a Copernican (for those that practice seleneology). So, in case you ever wondered what happened with CSM-111 and LM-9... well, now you know. No badge for me, clearly. But respect to the old farts.
  11. I don't know what 'the full run' means, but I did have this recorded a long while back. With a little later, Val trumping Jeb by going through the even tinier lvl2 tunnel... The craft flown was a reengineered iteration of Pixie's Arrowhead, if I recall correctly.
  12. I don't see the problem; seems like it's working exactly to requirements.
  13. The SWiS KSC crew was dismayed (and crestfallen!) at discovering post-publication that the prototype exhibited some ... operational inconveniences. The complete lack of usage instructions was also a source of some strongly-worded reprimands. The Deep-R prototype has been corrected, a brief instruction pamphlet was hastily taped to the outer hatch, and the responsible were exposed to targeted projectile pandemonium as a disciplinary measure.
  14. To quote Denethor, son of Echthelion: I do not think we should so lightly abandon the other premises. Premises that our (SWiS) brothers long held intact. So... this is Deep-R. Why break-a-part if we can have it return to base after delivery? Plus deliver at mach 4.1 @ 20km. Drop payload from 20km at mach 4.1. Or land softly in water and let it slide out. And then return to base. As John F. Kerman so eloquently said: We choose to go to the Deep in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because sleep in this heat is hard, and well, since we were awake anyway... oh never mind. We just did.
×
×
  • Create New...