swjr-swis

La versión que hay más o menos trabaja, pero por ahora es mejor evitarlo porque causa un problema en que la superficie del suelo o mar se 'suelta' en cuadros flotantes. Texture Replacer has sido reemplazado por Texture Replacer Replaced, que está directamente disponible para 1.3.0:

Woot, 1.3.2 confirmed! I'll be on the lookout, it'll be very welcome.

This has existed since they made some changes to the SAS code for 1.2.x. I've not noticed it any worse in 1.3.0... but it's not any better either. It seems to happen especially frequently in atmospheric flight when you switch from 'stability hold' to 'follow prograde' while pointing slightly outside the prograde marker - workaround: make sure to manually point more accurately at prograde first before switching SAS mode to avoid it from happening, or if you are already in it, switch back to stability hold to kill the oscillation first. There's another more mild version of it that manifests itself like a continuous trembling of the control surfaces (you may need to zoom in to the control surfaces to see it), which basically makes the craft slowly move away from where it should be holding, be it stability or one of the markers. I have yet to figure out how to reproduce that one reliably, so no idea how to avoid or circumvent it.

Actually, the software running this forum requires one more tiny step to embed the image: hit 'Enter' after pasting in the link. Otherwise it just stays as a link.

Bienvenido al foro de KSP. Añadiendo a lo ya dicho: teniendo en cuenta que los paracaídas frenan menos en Duna, puedes mejorar el margen de error llevando algo de combustible de más (*) para quemar en frenado justo antes de tocar suelo. (*: con 'de más' quiero decir aparte de lo que calcules necesitar para despegar otra vez. Un par de segundos de quema a poca potencia.)

(All rights of the original 1960 'Spartacus' movie belong to Universal. Watch it... it's still the best version.)

Pure stock. I enjoy the game as is. Don't get me wrong: I have nothing against mods. Some of my best friends are mods...

More reasons I've noticed for myself: When doing forum challenges, creating and screencapturing the circularization maneuver nodes is part of the/my documentation of challenge attempts. How much is the circularization going to be, in time or dV, if you follow 'my' ascent profile? It's a handy bit of information to be able give when putting a craft up for download. Since I don't use mods I can't rely on KER or MJ to show that, making a maneuver node is the quick stock alternative.

I tried to be as clear as I could on the screenshots, even circled the locations. I guess a video might be clearer: Am I guessing correctly that you imported this craft from a previous version of KSP? It might explain why I wasn't able to reproduce it by simply creating new endpoint-less struts in 1.3.0. Just a FYI: you don't need a single strut for this plane. Remove all the struts, enable autostruts on a few key places (ends of stacks and wing sections) and you get a cleaner, less draggy build with much less mach effect 'polution' in flight. For that matter, the fuel ducts don't appear to have much of a function either; you could remove those too (rocket engines draw fuel the same way as jet engines now). Also, a pair of canards at the nose would improve pitch handling... the FAT control surfaces are almost useless for pitch, being so close to the CoM (you get almost all of your control authority from the Vectors' gimbal alone). And you have roll set the wrong way around (the outer ones are much more effective). In fact, I would.... wait, why is the sun already up?

There is a bug in 1.3.0 causing this: http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/15410 It's possible to manually edit the part cfg if you need it right now (see the bug report text), but it looks like it'll be fixed in the next patch.

You could ask alexustas in the release threads of his mods: I did find ASET Aviation v1.0 and ASET Props v1.3 in my archives, but I have no idea if those are 1.1.3 compatible, because there is zero indication in the mod files. I uploaded them here: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/1pn03ev9dyyfyd4/AAD7KrCh4kL9Xf8JEt9QmHhUa?dl=0 Please let me know here when you grabbed them so I can delete them again.

You have a broken link in there. It should be https://kerbalx.com/Ilovetrump/broke-mach-effects. And I already responded to you on that page, with the analysis/solution (struts without endpoints are the cause, see the imgur album).

Kerbal cabins/cockpits/pods are pressurized with a dense clear and oxigenated liquid instead of air, that has several functions: it keeps their lidless eyes moisturized makes dedicated hygiene equipment and functions unnecessary makes a very effective shock absorption system to protect the kerbals allows taking snacks in deeply dehydrated form to save weight and storage space (and they become quickly hydrated for consumption by simply unpacking them) Due to this, and because that liquid has almost the exact same density as the average kerbal astronaut and suit... there is no difference in weight when the kerbals enter: some of the liquid is simply displaced and spills, that's all. That same liquid fills their suits too, which is the main reason they can bounce and survive collisions and drops. Command seats do not have an interior that can hold this liquid environment, so when Kerbals get into a command seat they do add to the craft mass. Think about it, it explains the lack of Kerbals and buildings on Kerbin's surface: the oceans must be their natural habitat, and the KSC was built and is used just to take advantage of the much lower friction of the atmosphere for launches. Disclaimer: the contents of this article is offered free of charge and devoid of any factual evidence. Any resemblance to Actual Facts ™ is purely coincidental and an unintended consequence of the almost total absence of said facts from anything I write, and I take no responsibility for either global warming or Justin Bieber. This article does not advocate long space missions without hygiene equipment on board, and soggy snacks are just nasty. My Internet lawyer says I have written enough words now to ensure no one will ever read this. Jeb: Val knows about us; nuff said.

It's stock. Look it up in GameData/Squad/Localization/dictionary.cfg, line 7856: #autoLOC_7001131 = Flying Safe...

That is almost a certainty. There are very common situations in which the current SAS code gets into a self-amplifying oscillation - often triggered simply by changing from stability hold to follow prograde in mid-flight. I think the winglets add very little to the control authority of the rocket to begin with, roll being the worst off. The Delta Deluxe winglets have the lowest control authority of all options (only 20% of their wing area is used, 0.13 - compared to 0.18 for the elevon 4), so most of their effect ends up being just stabilizing drag keeping the command pod pointing at space - and even that is poor due to very low initial CoM. A central stack engine gimbal has negligible control authority over the roll-axis. That leaves roll almost entirely up to the reaction wheels/SAS, which is weak in the atmosphere for this rocket. This is easily shown by disabling the winglets for all three axes: you will hardly notice the difference in flight behaviour. Now try disabling the reaction wheel torque and leave it all up to the winglets instead: flipping rocket and horrible roll control.

Did you place those parachutes with mirror symmetry, or manually? Actually... I think I can see that you have also added 2x2 chutes on the lowest stage in the same way... only on the 'back' side. I draw that conclusion from the first picture, where one can tell that the chutes are not on the back/left side of the rocket, but also from seeing 2x2 chutes instead of 1x4 (which would be normal for a 4x radial symmetry) in your staging sequence, in stage 6. So that's 8 chutes in total that are only on one side, and that would certainly have an asymmetric influence on the aerodynamics. All bits add up. Btw, I tried to re-create your rocket, and I get to just over 94t with 95 parts; your info screen in the VAB claims 96t with 97 parts. I play pure stock so obviously I am missing the remote control and MJ parts, which seems to account for two missing parts, but I've looked and looked and I can't really see what could cause 2t of difference in mass. For just the remote action and the MJ part (is it at the back of the Mk1 pod? It's hard to tell but something seems to be there) 2t seems excessive. If either of those parts are really that heavy, since they are placed asymmetrically and KSP calculates drag based on part mass, that could account for a lot of the effect you are seeing. Pics of my stock re-creation:

It's gotta be a Skipper... you can see the dark black bell of it in the first and last pics, darker than the boosters, where the mainsail has a grey bell, lighter than the boosters. A Mainsail would also stick out quite a bit below the boosters and would be much more visible at those angles.

That's a rather uncharacteristically harsh judgement from you, RIC, and I don't even see where it's coming from. I too wish it had been handled a bit better (mostly wish he had been a bit more vocal about the situation leading up to it), but in a burn-out situation I think he handled it about as gracefully as could have been expected. If he had truly intended any real harm, let alone 'maximized', he could've just pulled the plug, scrubbed the disks, and told us all to take a hike and go fish for mods in our own personal archives. He did not. Instead he still took the effort to archive the entire site with source, full tree structure, and the entire history of uploaded mod files, made it publicly available for download, *and* assisted in the background to get a replacement site up and running. The interruption was less than two days. This phrase is still atop the SpaceDock forum thread to document that: Does that sound even remotely like someone intent on 'maximizing harm'? Seriously?

<sigh> And I knew that... proof positive it's never a good idea to try answer questions while the morning headache is still at full blast.

Look at the contract details (Orbit Specifics, third item): it requires a 180 degree inclination, while your AN seems to have a 0 degree inclination (iow, you need to be turning the opposite way). Ignore please... I knew better than this but it came out of my keyboard anyway. Leaving it up instead of deleting to shame myself into not posting when I have a full-on headache going.

You will still need 80kg worth of 'orange-juice-in-a-container' to balance the scales. Which effectively will take more oranges, even if it ends up being a smaller container; not very efficient, orange-wise. Good, a sign of critical thinking. How about going back to your OP and applying this? Hint: you don't need to read any further than the very first phrase... Anyway, I can see you have your particular flavour of physics all worked out, so I'll stop trying to help and let you get on with providing the proof to your theory.

You are viewing lift as free energy; it isn't. Your wings only generate lift because of the speed by which you push your craft through the air. This is why you need to accelerate before it takes off the runway: a certain percentage of the horizontal push of your engines gets translated into vertical push by the air 'bumping' against the wings. The plane does not get magically pulled up into the air from standing still. To reach and maintain the speed that generates that lift, you have to keep pushing = engine thrust, which expends fuel. Lift does not make it require less fuel, it spends fuel. Make yourself a paper plane. Hold it up in your hand, and just let go without moving your arm. What do you expect to happen? (*) Now try again, but this time throw the plane: do you expect the same result? Unless you put the energy of your throw into it to give it a minimum speed, it won't 'lift' by itself out of your hand, just because it has wings: you have to put energy into it to push it through the air FIRST, and then some of that speed is translated into lift. (*) yes, it might actually pitch up and fly a bit before hitting the ground, but that is gravity doing what you didn't do with your arm - adding speed to the plane. Note that it still needs to speed up before it will generate lift.

Delta V is the difference between initial and target velocity. You cannot 'use less' than what you need... the difference is the difference. How many kg of oranges will you need to balance a scale with 80kg on the other side? Now... how many kg of watermelons? You need 80kg of them in either case, the size of the individual fruits doesn't change that. The same happens with the energy needed to achieve a certain change in velocity: it doesn't matter HOW you do it, it will still require (at least) that same amount of energy.

To put it a little more diplomatically: there is no free ride in physics. To reach orbital speed you need to put in the required energy, regardless of *how* you do it. Orbital speed being 2296m/s at 70km, and your plane starting at 175m/s (assuming you launch eastwards taking full advantage of the planet rotation), you still need an absolute minimum of 2296-175=2121m/s dV (because that is what delta-V basically means: the difference between initial and target velocity). And that doesn't even account for the vertical acceleration needed to get you to orbital altitude, or the losses to drag and steering errors. Lift is not 'free energy', if that is what you are thinking: lift is generated as a factor of the speed you push the wings through the air, and the energy required to push them through the air... is all on you. That out of the way, the problems with making an spaceplane work on Eve: No fuel-efficient airbreathing jet engines at your disposal, which is a huge factor of why spaceplanes work on Kerbin. You have to use rockets all the way, which need oxidizer, which without even considering anything else means more than twice the mass in fuel load is required. Much higher atmosphere pressure than on Kerbin, which affects almost all engines negatively, leaving them with less thrust during a significant part of the ascent (resulting again in more fuel mass required). Much higher atmosphere = longer ascent = exposed longer to drag = more fuel. Much higher orbital speed, about 40% more to make low orbit. Yep... more fuel again. And last but not least (this is actually pretty much the killer): much denser atmosphere, which makes drag and heating on the way up a huge problem compared to Kerbin. On Kerbin, just about when you start getting into problematic heating, you're already at the edge of the atmosphere. On Eve, you pretty much just got off the ground. Usually this is dealt with by going almost straight up for a significant part of the ascent, to minimize how much time you are in the thickest parts... but with a spaceplane, by design you are looking at an almost horizontal ascent, maximizing the time spent in the thicker atmosphere. An Eve spaceplane would need to go almost painfully slow for a loooong part of the initial ascent to not kill itself in a ball of fire. Combined with no airbreathing engines, this means burning a LOT of fuel, just to even get to the part of the atmosphere that will allow you to safely start accelerating to orbital speeds... and then you still have to make it to 3216m/s before dropping back down into the atmosphere. In short: no, it's a big sign saying 'you need to minimize drag to the absolute minimum or you dead'. Wings add drag instead of reducing it, so you would basically be trying the exact opposite of what this type of atmosphere requires.