ShadoxFilms
-
Posts
21 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by ShadoxFilms
-
-
1 hour ago, TomKerbal said:
No. That's the area.
Right, they are saying that the value of circumference as shown in the tracking station is using the wrong formula.
For example, Kerbol has a reported C = 2.1499351693039E+17m
if you use the incorrect formula, as @Excors found, then you get a radius of 2.616E+8m, which is the same radius of Kerbol in KSP1
If you use the correct formula for radius, which is C = 2*pi*r, and plugging in the reported C from the tracking station, you get a radius of 3.4217E+16, which is 5 orders of magnitude larger than the semi-major axis of Eeloo.
In other news regarding tracking stationPlanet list order is neither in the order of the orbits, nor is it alphabetical, added to main post
-
4 hours ago, Excors said:
The circumference is actually being calculated as pi*r^2, instead of pi*2*r. (With r=600km for Kerbin, that gives exactly the value shown in the tracking station.)
LMAO, such a simple mistake, Sounds like a typo I'd have in my code, nice job figuring that one out.
-
Hey Trickplay, I'm going to add this post to the compilation post I have over at
-
(Current for EA Release Build, Last Edit: 3 March 2023)
Hi, Figured I'd compile my own noticed issues along with the others that people have noticed here on the forums, if you notice something new, note it down!
I'll do my best to organize these.Side note: It does look like some parameters, like Eve's Sea Level Pressure being changed from KSP1, until someone tells me otherwise, I won't label this as a bug.
Units of Measurement
Surface Gravity: Units are labeled as m/s, when the value given is in G's (1.00034 vs. 9.81 for Kerbin)
Related Threads:
Author: Sginga
Forum Thread:
https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/214147-tracking-station-data/#comment-4249399
Circumference: Values given for the physical characteristic "circumference" make no sense, I have tried figuring out what these values are, It's not related to the planetary radius, SOI or orbit, I'm honestly at a loss (props if you can figure out what the devs are trying to show here)
Related Threads:
Author: Rook116
Forum Thread: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/213361-kerbin-tracking-station-information-incorrect/#comment-4244728Atmosphere: Units here are given as (atm), when the values given reflect the densities, which have units of (kg/m^3). Atm is a unit of pressure where 1 atm = 101,325 Pa
Related Threads:
Author: ShadoxFilms
Forum Thread: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/212899-different-celestial-body-properties-are-presented-in-the-tracking-station-why/#comment-4243319
Eccentricity: Value should be unitless, current UI shows it having units of degrees
Related Threads:
Author: Trickplay
Forum Thread: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/214331-planetary-data/Localization / Typos
General Typos In descriptions: Grammar is hard, I completely empathize. Other times, describing astrophysics is even harder.
Related Threads:
Author: Zipmafia
Forum Thread: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/213718-typos-in-synopses-of-kerbin-and-dres-in-tracking-station/#comment-4246376
Author: Strawberry
Forum Thread: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/214160-disrepencies-and-bugs-in-the-tracking-station-menu-descriptions/
Display
Planet order does not make sense: If it were by orbit, order would be Moho, Eve, Kerbin, Duna, Dres, Jool, Eeloo. It's obviously not alphabetical either.
Author: Shadoxfilms
Forum Thread: https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/214163-all-noted-tracking-station-bugs-for-celestial-body-information-so-far/&do=findComment&comment=4252139 -
8 minutes ago, Chilkoot said:
I noticed earlier today that Kerbin's gravity is 1.00034 m/s^2, rather than 1.00034 g. I can only assume that's a typo?
Good Catch! You can see the comparison in my pictures, I think you're right. Honestly I didn't even notice.
14 minutes ago, J.Random said:Sidenote: do devs measure time in m/s? No wonder fizzicks is so weird.
Yeah, units seem to be whack in the new tracking station
(sidereal period is a measurement of how much time it takes to complete 360 degrees rotation in a fixed reference frame, in units of seconds, but tracking station reports units of m/s) -
1 minute ago, Stoup said:
Bear in mind that using F12 also opens an aerodynamics debug readout, so it's a clunky one to use
Yeah, I've found myself double tapping f12 to take a clean screenshot.
I really just need to rebind the key. -
If you're using steam, you can use the default screenshot button which is f12, and you can find your screenshots on your hard-drive by opening steam, clicking view in the top left corner, select screenshots, then select select in folder
Otherwise, you can use the built in windows screencapture feature, or snipping tool as other users have mentioned.
-
Now that KSP2 is out for early access, I've been looking through the tracking station for any changes to the properties of celestial bodies to update some of my Python scripts to help plan missions.
One of the things that is new, is that circumference is given, instead of radius. While the value of the body radius can be calculated simply from circumfrence, which is needed for many orbital calculations (at least for perfect spheres), I do wonder why the change.
I guess the main question that stands is, what drove the changes in the displayed data in the tracking station, and for non-spherical bodies (dres has a nasty protrusion at the equator, but for future bodies that may be more oblate than not) how do the devs plan to communicate the details to the player (average radius, equitorial radius, etc). Side note: I am absolutely in love with the added precision for the values that are given!
Pictures are of KSP1 vs. KSP2 Kerbin Parameters
Maybe I'm just being too OCD about this, I'd love to know other players thoughts, especially those who love the mission planning side of things.
Best,
Also, the term "Atmosphere" In KSP2 is slightly confusing
In aerospace, atm is a unit of pressure (1atm = 101,325 Pa), however given the value of 1.225, I think they are referring to density.Unless kerbin in KSP2 does have a 1.225 atm. at Sea Level, which corresponds to a pressure of 124.12 KPa
-
On 5/6/2019 at 12:07 AM, Klapaucius said:
Taking off was the issue for me. The gear is so unstable that it was near impossible not to lose a wing. I eventually managed it by just going off the side of the runway and letting that little drop get it airborne. I also tweaked the dampening on the gear, which may have helped. Once in the air, it was not hard to fly, though it turns VERY slowly. I lost too much altitude on the approach and could not get the nose back up. Yet another landing fail!
For that issue, what is a good solution? Or I guess, what is the cause of this? Should the base be made wider?
-
2 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:
Gold Standard is a very simple parts mod. It will never break.
Wow, did not realize this. I'm not familiar with what goes on with mod development.
-
2 hours ago, Cadet_BNSF said:
I am reading both static and ram air pressure, so would I just put my static air pressure in for P then?
Also definitely in incompressible regime
If you have the ability to read static pressure then use that for P, and use your stagnation pressure for P0
-
There are a few things that stand out to me.
1. units: you mention kPa, knots, and in-Hg as units you used. Make sure your units are consistent, use ft/s, slugs/ft^3, and lbs/ft^2 for velocity, density, and pressure respectively (or m/s, kg/m^3, and Pa for metric)
2. there is a much easier way to calculate dynamic pressure, where qbar = .5*density*velocity^2, from here you can use Bernoulli's principle (I'm assuming you're in the incompressible regime, below mach 0.3ish) to calculate velocity. where P0 = P + q. P0 will be the total pressure readout from your transducer, P is the static pressure (based on your elevation/altitude). Since we assume incompressible flow, you can get density from your altitude as well from the 1976 Standard Atmosphere
from there, just rearrange the equation to give you V2 = 2(P0-P)/density
-
Thanks for the insight, I'll dig into some of the mods you've mentioned and see if I can't find something that will work!
-
46 minutes ago, Klapaucius said:
If you just want to share on the forums, Dropbox or Google Docs works. However, if you don't mind sharing with the wider world, KerbalX is the easiest. @katateochi has created a brilliant site for sharing all KSP craft. It's a lot of fun; I upload a lot to it and also enjoy test flying other folks' creations. (Apologies if I am telling you what you already know...)
https://kerbalx.com/ShadoxFilms/UX-12-Dracon There ya go!
-
23 minutes ago, Klapaucius said:
Is there a way to download it? Part of the challenge is to fly other people's cantankerous creations. I'm looking forward to this one. I'll also need to take @vyznev's autogiro for plummet, er, flight....
New to the forums, what's the best way to share craft files?
-
Hello! One of the ideas that I've been wanting to play with again is the idea of mining resources off of other planets, moons or asteroids and return them to kerbin for a profit. Now I just reinstalled KSP the other day, and I remember using a mod called The Gold Standard to accomplish this before.
Since that mod is not being supported anymore, and I don't know if it is compatible with v1.7, is there a way to accomplish this with the Community Resource Pack? It came bundled with one of my other mods, and I'm wondering if I can accomplish the same goals with the Rare Metals resource listed.
What do I need to do to be able to mine for profit? There's a few parts that I can think of that I need to solve, or maybe someone in the community has already come up with a solution. I'd appreciate some input on what changes I need to make to get started
- enable storage of the resource in the default ore containers?
- set planets to have this resource?
- set value of the resource?
Thanks for your time, and if anyone knows of a solution already in place, please point me towards it! Being able to mine for profit serves a few purposes, it pushes me to go to less traveled to planets like dres, eeloo, or asteroids, And it makes career mode less of a grind, and more of a business.
-
Thought this was an interesting challenge since I'm taking a Flight Stability and Dynamics course at the moment, so I took all the things that add static and dynamic stability, and did the opposite!
Named the X-12 Drunk Dragonfly, this 18 ton aircraft features a -5 degree dihedral, forward swept design with a static margin of less than 0.05. This aircraft has marginal static longitudinal stability, unstable static roll and yaw stability, and unstable dynamic stability in all modes. The aircraft is fairly heavy (fuel helped get CM extremely close to AC) and so SAS is recommended for take off. Once you are in the air, this beast will tend to fly backwards if you arent constantly providing input to dampen out the oscillations. The drunk dragon is overly manueverable at low speeds, and can maintain level flight in dry mode at about 40 degrees AoA. The slats and use of the ailerons as flaps helps tremendously at low airspeeds, but does increase the forward pitching moment.
Fun to fly, but hard to control, possibly impossible to land.
-
I'd like to see planets given a bit more personality. Atmospheric effects, clouds, pretty much in line with some of the visual enhancement mods that have been available for quite some time now. Offering it stock will allow everyone to enjoy the enhanced experience, and potentially offer a more optimized performance. Additionally, I would love to see an expansion to the mining capability in game. Ever since the drill was released, the only thing it was good for was In-situ refueling. I'd love to explore planets and moons to find resources and bring them home for profit in career.
-
Today I re-installed KSP and fired it up for the first time in a good while. In the process of getting some of the mods I used to use installed, and hopefully complete a career run!
Also joined the forums today
Bug Status [10/23]
in KSP2 Suggestions and Development Discussion
Posted
Glad to hear the news that science is on it's way.
@Dakota The main post mentions that the team would like to use the KERB as a means to look at Patch-to-Patch issues, rather than major bugs. As someone in Academia, its a very annoying issue when incorrect units, or nonsensical measurements are given, as this renders the educational aspect of KSP moot. I know that @Anth is tracking the thread of inconsistent details in the tracking station granted, its a bit old at this point, see:
If the team could give a once over pass regarding all units/measurements presented, I think it would go a long way to showing that the team values the scientific merits of the legacy that is KSP.
Cant' wait for science!
Best regards,