LordKael
-
Posts
174 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by LordKael
-
-
I have a Logitech Extreme 3D Pro that I used on KSP v1.1 and 1.2. Now that I am trying to use in on 1.3, however, I cannot map the axes to work. I've attempted to restart the game, with the joystick plugged, unplugged, and in both 32 and 64bit versions of KSP. The game will recognize the joystick approximately 3/5 times, and when it does recognize it, it will remap every control to Joy.03, regardless of what I bind it to.
I have confirmed that the Joystick functions, as it works in a variety of other games, including X-Plane 11
-
On 7/21/2017 at 10:41 AM, Booots said:
Interesting... I just checked and the SpaceDock download does have all the beacons and techboxes in it.
If you're looking for ways of mining Karborundum, you'll either need to modify the stock drills to mine it or download and use parts of K+. This mod only adds the jump beacons and doesn't actually support mining Karborundum.
I have everything in my file directory, and checked both download locations... in game, however, I only have the ability to make the impetus drive. I'm playing in sandbox, so i should have all parts accessible.
-
I just installed the mod, and only seem to have the 3 Karborundum tanks and the IB-1 in my parts menu ingame. I downloaded from Space Dock
-
Also, check your drag. You may have more drag on the nose than the tail, which would cause the nose to reenter more slowly than the tail, resulting in the whole vehicle flipping around to reenter backwards.
-
If you're looking to truly DOMINATE the Mun (or any celestial body), I would recommend getting some sort of Colonization mod so that you can start all your missions from there. I'm in the middle of getting a Mun/Minmus/LKO system set up so that I don't have any launches from KSC. Stations, ground bases, space docks, tugs, mining equipment, comm nets... the list goes on and on. And thats all just support infrastructure for my motherships to get to other planets.
-
37 minutes ago, DunaRocketeer said:
Not a rocket scientist here, but I think the Oberth effect is about burning your engines at periapsis (fastest point) rather than the fuel advantages of different types of orbit. Someone feel free to correct
Oberth effect is the idea that making a burn closer to the gravity source (planet/star) will net more dV than making an identical burn further away from the gravity source. The simplified version is that burning at periapsis is the most efficient.
-
17 hours ago, StahnAileron said:
At least we know body-lift can actually be practical. (I usually have to be going at absurd speeds or horrendous AoA to see the light-blue body lift forces when I'm testing craft.
Keep in mind that this is actually exactly what happened... His AoA was 45 degrees, and the TWR was phenomenal. A 100+m/s take off speed for a craft that probably weighs 5-9 tons, max, is absurdly fast.
-
The other way this could be achieved by implementing a standardized (or series of) set of milestone "deadlines" as a modified version of World's First. If you do it by X date, you're actually the first, and get a larger bonus than if you do it after the deadline.
On 12/17/2016 at 6:07 PM, Veeltch said:A premade station would spawn in Kerbin's orbit (or any other as long as it's something sane; not retrograde solar or sth like that) and you would have a mission to help expanding it, or build your own.
I can't imagine this would be terribly difficult to make a mod for. Just requires a prebuilt, modular station with sufficient options that a randomly generated combo of the parts won't ever have a problem.
-
3 minutes ago, Jarin said:
Good lord, how would you move it? You'd something bigger than a Whackjob Arkingthad booster to get any kind of orbital shift there.
Keep in mind that with modded parts, nothing is impossible. For example, there are plenty of engines that are crazy powerful, but have a double digit ISP. Those seem ideal for this situation.
-
46 minutes ago, cannibalmerk said:
I'm attaching the rover with a docking port inside the cargo bay, could that be causing it? I'm at a loss here. Please help soon..
Are you attaching it with symmetry on?
Please provide additional details, such as root parts of both assemblies, at what point in the flight the rover begins duplicating itself, and if either copy of the rover is clipping into the shuttle or each other?
-
11 hours ago, TheEpicSquared said:
I love how the first few replies turned this weeks devnotes into a poem analyzing session.
9 hours ago, Red Iron Crown said:KSP has moved from teaching people about physics and rocket science to teaching people about literary analysis.
You both are welcome
-
Just now, HoloYolo said:
None at all. I do think that we might get a new body further out.
To be honest, we really needed a new Gas Giant. Like OPM's Sarnus.
Well, as of last week, I've landed and returned from every body in the stock game, and I try to avoid too intense of a mod load out. I, personally, am in a great place for GP2 and a new suite of moons. That may have contributed rather heavily to my interpretation, but I really don't see any major objective flaws in my argument, particularly since they're being so secretive.... High level of secrecy means it's a big thing, at least to me.
-
Just now, HoloYolo said:
Yes pls GP2. They flirted with it a long time ago, I think 1.2.3/1.3 may be the time for it.
Do you see any flaw in my theory?
-
"New things and old" seems to imply that a feature that once was in the game and was removed, or a feature spoken of and never implemented. New things is probably something along the lines of a terrain overhaul, I'm thinking we may get GP2.
51 minutes ago, SQUAD said:Something that might
For most of us be
An interesting sightThese lines seem to speak directly to the nature of the surprise, and imply that either not everybody will be able to see it, or that not everybody who sees it will find it interesting. In my opinion, this supports the idea of a new planet that is difficult to get to, such as a large-ish exoplanet (think Planet X from our real life Solar System).
My theory is also based on last week's dev-notes, in which was said that "new horizons" were in store. While this could have been in reference to the huge overturn of SQUAD staff, I think it was a not-too-subtle hint that we're getting a new planet.
-
20 hours ago, quasarrgames said:
It's a great idea, but a bit tedious to achieve. I tried a stock electrical propeller craft on eve before:
The problem is, eve's thick atmosphere and high gravity mean that propellers have a lot of drag and friction, and don't turn as well. This plane here flew at up to 60m/s on kerbin. On eve? 20m/s. And that's at sea level. By about 15km, it could barely keep itself in the air.
And this was with no payload, too. It would take a massive plane to get even the lightest eve semi-landers to orbit. And it would be a slow ascent, too.
So, is it possible? Yes. Is it feasible? with a good propeller, yes. Would it be challenging? yes.
I would think that the thicker atmosphere would sort itself out. You'd get more drag from the prop, but more lift from the wing surfaces, so it would just be a slower flight. A patient player could, in theory, climb until Eve's atmosphere was around the same density as 10km on Kerbin. This should be a huge boon to dV requirements. Yes, you'd need a massive plane, but if you sent a lander made of mostly mk2 parts, with a balanced mass, and then built modular wings and propellor, you could attach via docking ports in orbit before the descent, and dispose of them on the way back up
-
clearly, a disposable propellor is the best way. Build yourself a stock bearing. Can slow you down for the landing portion of the descent. and get you through the thick part of the atmosphere with nothing but electrical.
-
I will occasionally even have 3 part ships. Have a mothership that provides extremely efficient thrust, refining, and power, a reusable lander, and a mining set up. This lets me conduct suites of missions within a single transfer/return window.
-
1 hour ago, MaxxQ said:
Make sure your Center of Thrust is pointing through the CoM, or as close as possible. If the main thrust of the engines is above or below the CoM, you will either pitch down or up, respectively. Forex, if you have your main engines on top of the wing, and your wings are even with the CoM, your thrustline will be too high and the craft will want to constantly pitch down, requiring a lot of pitch up on your controls.
This gets to be especially important in space. In atmo, your wings and control surfaces will handle the correction, often without you needing to even notice, but once you get to space, the craft will either need a crazy overpowered RCS set up, or enough reaction wheels to stop Kerbin from rotating. In both scenarios, you lose a lot of efficiency by having offset thrust, so building your spaceplane on a single plane will make life much easier.
On the subject of building in a single plane: Don't radially attach things other than wings, lights, comms, etc if you can help it. The way the game handles aero occlusion is overly simplified, and node attached parts will create very little drag, especially if you can manage to use only matching node sizes. It doesn't take into account the offset tool (hotkey 2) when calculating the drag, so you can create some really bizarrely shaped planes that would never fly in real life, but fly like a champ in Kerbal -
I send a massive mission there at the first launch window, and then once the whole set up gets there, I release orbital probes, landing probes, land the base unmanned, then land the crew in their shuttle. This has the benefit of not risking lives unduly without having to spend decades waiting for separate launch windows for each stage of the mission series.
-
26 minutes ago, 7499275 said:
Also anyone have tips for rendezvous with another craft?
I watched a Scott Manley video about docking, and then watched EJ_SA on Twitch to learn how to rendezvous. Took me a good couple hours to do the first manual docking, but that was because I put the MJ part on the wrong side of the decoupler, and the craft was crazy unbalanced. After that, I decided to get good at docking, and have discovered a couple really handy tricks:
1) Always switch over to the other craft ( [ / ] ) and select "control from here" on the target docking port, target the docking port of the primary ship, and then switch back and dock. This will keep the target vessel oriented correctly, and makes docking immensely easier. Of course, this only works with smaller vessels, such as a service module for an Apollo style mission.
2) Use RCS only for translation. Add an extra reaction wheel to the craft, and let the computer handle the rotation. Even in stock KSP, the computer can help a ton by keeping the relevant docking ports lined up and facing each other. Then you just have to translate into the correct approach and cruise in.3) When building a station or a modular ship, start with the heaviest piece first, not just the center piece. Having the vessel you're docking to weigh more than what you're controlling makes the process go much smoother.
Hopefully some of those tips will help you continue to master this element of the game! -
1 hour ago, Cupcake... said:
Don't be upset, it's a common misconception.
As @sdj64 pointed out the only reason to angle nozzles is to avoid damaging a payload through the engine wash, other then that straight down is the way to go, case in point:
Many months ago, I saw a video in which a quad thrusted VTOL type lander flared all four engines out to 45 to kill horizontal velocity, and used the same function to hold a hover. I suppose I assumed the flare was to increase stability. Guess this is what I get for getting my physics from movies.
-
21 hours ago, Cupcake... said:
I hate to break this to you but angling the engines anything but straight down is just wasting fuel and does nothing for stability.
Cupcake...
I don't know whether to be flattered that KSP's Lander/Dropship expert quoted me, or upset that I was wrong...
Is it a quirk of the game mechanics that your statement is true, or real physics as well?
-
2 hours ago, OrbitalBuzzsaw said:
Wut?
I tilt the engines on the VTOL system outwards, so that they are pointed approx 30degrees off vertical, and that adds immeasurable stability to the vehicle on landing, particularly on high thrust maneuvers.
-
I use camber for the engines to increase stability.
As 
Why does my jet make these interesting airstream effects? [solved]
in KSP1 Discussion
Posted
If i had to guess, it almost looks like you have something clipped funny, and the game is creating an aero effect that is super flat, instead of following the shape of the vehicle like they normally do