Daniel Prates

Buiding a fuel plant on top of ore can be enough reason to build an outpost anywhere! Having crew permanently there eventually becomes a necessity, because someone (and kerbal attachment system) is always necessary to plug those fuel pipes!

Thats my finding too. Deploying "flaps" (as they are in ksp) change a plane's geometry and, depending on where you place them, emulate some of the effects of a flap. But do not increase a wing's total lift, which should be its primary function. Agreed on the first part. That is what I've been using them for too. My typical heavy duty airplane has three control surfaces in a wing: ailerons in the tip (duh!), a upward deploying spoiler in the middle, and a downward deploying spoiler in the base. This way both spoilers counteract eachother and do not affect geometry, whilst breaking the hell out of the plane. As to part two quoted above, yeah, and KSP has an aditional problem: everything generates lift. In real life planes, elevators in a conventional design (like your example plane) do not generate lift. But in KSP they will. All control surfaces do, unlike RL. Thats a problem! For starters, CoL will fall behind, creating some unwanted design necessities!

I'll check it out, thanks!

The book THE FOUNTAINS OF PARADISE, by Arthur C Ckarke, mentions a problem like this. The character wants to build an space elevator (you know, an elevator in the equator that rises up to a station positioned in a stationary orbit). He is having problems to do it on earth and a Martian (human!) banker proposes do give it a try on mars. He then imagines it to be impossible because the altitude of stationary orbit in mars is near Phobos' SoI.... and the station would be swept by the sattelite. Same happens in KSP! Ike is in stationary orbit. If your sattelite is anything but in an exactelly identical orbit, it will be caught by ike sooner or later. Why that swinging shown in the GIF above, though? An inclination in orbit?

There is a "jettison and burn fuel contents" mod available! But it is a very crude mod. I don't use it. I too would like to have the option of jettisoning contents. For landing overwheight spaceplanes, for instance. Think of space shuttles. They differ from normal planes as their landing gears only have to whitstand empty weight, not a full takeoff weight, allowing some weight-saving design choices. But what happens if you return home with too much unburnt fuel or monopropelant? Dumping it would be an excelent option!

I must say, @Tex_NL, if you got reactive responses like the one you gave him, at the time you were a new member yourself, you probably would not only got angry by the community's agressiveness, but your own development as a member would have probably been curtailed. Maybe you would have left altogether - preventing you from becoming the game and forum undisputed savant you did become. But have you? Having posted something before makes your own input or info the last word on any given subject? Can't there be more to be said on a topic? Do you know all there is to know about a subject, to an extent that a post you already posted in some other obscure thread is the absolute ammount of collected knowledge there is to be known? Reading your answer to the proposed drift discussion, I see that you are oblivious to at least a few things. I can think of at least a few: a) it is not only the CoL that needs balancing, the Center of Thrust creates the same results, because of the same factors. It is advisable to make your CoT to pass thorugh your CoM; b) wheel input from wheels that generate steering/power can interfere too, it is advisable to disable them during take-off at least; c) since we're at it, all vectors caused by all parts able to create input (not only the landing gears) can create drift, as the stability enhancer uses all parts at the same time, unless you deactivate some; d) it usually pays off to set dedicated control surfaces for yaw, roll and pitch. If you forget to do that, different pair of surfaces may be attempting to control the same axis and that is also a cause for unbalance. And there are other factors, none of which were encompassed in your quoted post, which apparently you presume to put an end to all discussions on the matter. So maybe @Numerlor was entitled to pose a honest question and get an honest response - even if it simply redirects him to another clearifying thread. I have something close to 900 hours of KSP, registered on steam alone, which makes me something past an ignorant on KSP. Still, in one of my very first posts in this forum, just a few weeks ago, I got a rash response by a member on what I considered a valid question, as if old members have reached some game "illumination" status. Thats not cool! so I am giving @Numerlor a like on his thread, in the hope that this does not disencourage him from being an active member, as I am sure has happened to other people before.

Yep. Mystery solved! Did a reinstall with CKAN, patched again with "tac profile" and I'm ready to go again. Thanks. BTW I'm coming to terms with this nitrogen atmosphere thing. But shall reduce the leak rate drasticly! .... taking a bottle of if to my outposts every other year is not so bad....

And since were at it ... so I have a greenhouse that I put in space, with no habitat or crew on the vessel. It was for fulfilling that "grow food in space" mission. I had aboard only water, EC etc. So all the sudden productuon stops. The context menu says that there was no ....atmosphere. Makes sense, you need it to grow food. But on an automated vessel there is no atmosphere producing equipment. Perhaps the greenhouse should include one!

I get it. Ok thanks for the info! I think I'll add shielding to my modifications as well. And yes, it does not kill them, I know. But an outpost rated to allow for, say, an year, all the sudden has the duration of sanity curtailed by 1/10 (mere weeks). Imagine all hell breaking loose in your long-duration project!

@schrema, I did what you said, a little differently. Just added 000 in front of the 5 at the end. This will reduce leaks to 1/1000 of the default rate, is that right? Also.... why did you add "shielding" in the sintaxe? What does that do?

(Sigh....) ok, today, but not always. Gemini for instance was a project were entirely oxygen enviroments were used. Others too. But that is not what the duscussion was about, was it? I was not aiming at a minucious historical vessel compairson conversation. What we are discussing is wheter too much intricancy in the game becomes too much. My whole point is that self-suficient outposts were made unviable by an exclusivelly nitrogen armosphere approach, which is overkilling the realm of realism. Can't there be a work-around? Specially since there is a historical basis for it?

Agreed!

Thanks for the input! Still .... as it is now this is too much of an overkill. A challenge, yes, but the nitrogen loss just complicates things as it is not replenishable. Can't we just do the same thing with an oxygen armosphere? I'll ask you the same thing I asked the previous forum member: how do you stand on the pure oxygen atmosphere? If the idea was to depict the less-then-perfect isolation of vessels, computing a permanent (but small) progressivve loss, that's fine, but why not have a small oxygen loss on top of the normal oxygen consumption (due to breathing)? My point is, this new nitrogen thing, by itself, killed the whole self-sustaining projects for everyone. It created a complication/nuisance rather than a welcome challenge, mostly because it is not obtainable via self-sustaining methods (as are all KSP relevant resources). And to be frank, most real life vessels have pure oxygen atmospheres anyway. Perhaps there could be two simple profile options: - Atmosoheres require nitrogen = true/false; and - rate of oxygen leak = "x" There! Everybody could have their way. I am still not seeing why the choice of a pure oxygen atmosphere has to be ruled out, specially since the progressive leak can be easily implemented anyway.

My point exactelly!

And from a point on, no leaks at all! How are you on the full-oxy atmosphere though?

There has indeed been countless discussions ... there was even a version of the game (1.1.3 ?) that claimed to adress this problem ...and as far as I know there hasn't been any proper solution. They will sometimes do that. However.... I have found that there are ways to reduce the effect of planes drifting to the side during takeoff. This is what I usually do: 1. Put the main landing gear further apart, or if possible, increase the size/number of gears. Too much weight for small gears cause problems, drift included. 2. Watch for the center of thrust. If the line of thrust goes ABOVE the CoM, that generates a nose-down torque that forces your craft against the runway. That force unbalances your craft. Having your CoT pass through the CoM is a good design carachteristic for several reasons and this is one. 3. Check your control surfaces (with RCS aid if posisble). They too can be generating nose-down torque. 4. Some wheel mods allow you to configure wheel steering and wheel motors. Disable them,the stering at least on the main gears, and the motor in all of them.

@ShotgunNinja, would you welcome some ideas about that mix of oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere that now is required for kerbals to ... well, not go insane? I see this is a new feature of more recent releases of Kerbalism and I have some thoughs on it. First of all, I understand the point: kerbals are happier if they can get out of their flightsuits and frolic around their habitats. Having to dress a spacesuit for lack of an atmosphere bums everybody out. I like the idea, making a comfortable habitat should be a difficult task. The idea is in itself, excellent! I am not sure though as if this whole nitrogen thing works. This is why. To be able to do away with a spacesuit indoors, all you need is a proper atmosphere - but not necessarily one made of the mundane "air" (oxygen + nitrogen + small proportion of diverse and useless gases), but merely oxygen will do. I know, many space programs found out the hard way that a purely oxygen atmosphere can be dangerous (not only the apollo one situation comes to mind, but there is also an un-confirmed story of russia's first casualty being a test pilot who died in a pressure chamber when a small spark lighted up his cotton shirt, instantly barbecuing him because of the high concentration of oxygen... or something like that!). But apparently it is still the more reasonable and effective way to make an atmosphere in spacecraft. Indeed, currently the ISS uses such an atmosphere (1). It seems that the problem is that during launch, mantaining a high-pressue pure-ox atmosphere is dangerous (apollo one had a 1.15 atm atmosphere), but up there, the pressure can be reduced a lot and it becomes practical and more effective than other options. So that's point one: do we really need nitrongen to have an atmosphere? Point two is that nitrogen is an inert gas, isn't it? When you breathe air, the oxygen comes in, and byproducts go out (Co2). But nitrogen comes in ... and goes out untouched. It is not chemically altered. So why do I have to keep supplies of nitrogen in my ships, that are consumed, and in a fairly high rate too? I understand a machine mixing oxygen and nitrongen to make for an atmosphere. But the extant nitrogen should just remain there, not be consumed and depleted overtime. This is particularly troublesome as in KSP, with ou without TAC or other simliar mods, it is possible to make completelly self-sufficient outposts, but nitrogen removed that possibility. Still, the need of an atmosphere to increase comfort is one of the best features of kerbalism yet. So I will suggest some possibilities: 1 - Do away with the nitrogen alltogether - or keep it for other purposes but eliminate it as necessary resource to build up an aymosphere. We have oxygen, right? Let's assume it is properly pumped into the habitat and that generates an atmosphere. 2 - To keep the idea that no atmosphere reduces comfort, perhaps when oxygen falls to 10% or lower, it is mandatory for kerbals to go inside their spacesuits again, as an oxygen saving measure. That reduces comfort as it does now and little is changed. 3 - If the idea is to keep the mandatory ox +N atmosphere, at least nitrogen shouldn't be consumed (not at all, but at the very least, in a much, much slower rate). 4 - It the idea is to pose more of a challenge, the chemical plant could have a "atmosphere generator" setting, which recycles and uses the nitrogen. That's it! I love this mode, please do not take this as a complaint. Its just a suggestion to improve what already is excellent. PS: insofar there is no discernible way to gauge how much time an atmosphere will last, with the current nitrogen stock for that vessel. The VAB helper should have such a tool, otherwise you only discover how much time of atmosphere you have left when it ends! D (1) http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/5690/why-is-the-breathing-atmosphere-of-the-iss-a-standard-atmosphere-at-1-atm-conta

Oh too bad. Great effort though!

Hehe. What a cool thread. Are only stock vessels pertinent? Or is the thread accepting KAX/airplane plus too?

Question: how exactelly do I deactivate the 'pressurization' feature? The lines on the profile that relate to it are the following: // pressure settings PressureFactor = 10.0 // pressurized modifier value for vessels below the threshold PressureThreshold = 0.9 // level of atmosphere resource that determine pressurized status // Since there is no clearly discernible 'true' or 'false' setting I am left unsure as how to disable it. Do I add a "= false" right after pressure settings? Do I reduce all the values to zero? EDIT: reading the kerbalism manual, in the settings data, I take the impression that if I lower "pressure threshold" to zero, all vessels will count as pressurized, regardless of it being pressurized or not. I could even do away with the nitrogen alltogether. Is this correct? EDIT 2: Figured out myself, by fiddling with the numbers. if 'pressure factor' is set to one, it means that the current "maximum time period without going crazy' is multiplied by one, hence, it stays the same. when set to 10.0 it multiplies how quickly the kerbal goes crazy in a factor of ten - in other words, it with an atmosphere it would take 20 days, with a factor of 10 it becomes just two days when the atmosphere is gone. I'm sorry if I am being boorish, I am sure lots of people in the forum knows that already but perhaps not everybody does. ; )

Ok thanks I'll check it out!

Hum .... no, that's not it. In any airship I create, the CoL appears outside of the vessel (like, in the ground and far behind it), as with any other vehicle created without wings or control surfaces. Then, if I place control surfaces on the airship (for instance, elevators and rudder in it's stern) the CoL appears on them, reflecting that the blue visible CoL is pointing the LIFT parts, and only them.

Gentleman! A little help? I can't for the life of me understand how to spot the Center of Buoyancy. The old 'procedural airhips' mentions something as it appearing along the center of lift but that does not work.... help!

Great info!

A "heads up!" warning for all you Kerbalism + TAC profiles users out there! Maybe some of you don't know this yet so I thing I better post it. I use Kerbalism with 'TAC profile'. All the sudden my consumption rates stopped working properly. Water comsumption rate would be twice that of oxigen, and food quadruple the rate (supplies containers would usually be enough so that everything ended at the same time). Also the TAC monitor stopped giving reasonable information (there would be negative rates.. it was a mess). I was all 'what the what' since it was working fine just a day before. It turns out when you update kerbalism with CKAN, it restores the normal profile, deleting the "TAC profile". I re-installed it manually and things got back to working order. Phew!