rogerawong

Did you have to make your Kerbals walk on Eve to get the mission accomplished? Because I just returned from Eve with 10 Kerbals and did not get mission accomplished. Wondering if it's because I did not put ladders on the vessel and have them walk on Eve a bit.

If you want to get all the Tylo science with one crew, the lander has be SSTO so you can't drop anything you'd need next time around. A swerv SSTO science lander has about 6k dV with a 3.00+ Tylo TWR: enough to comfortably land, futz with the exact landing site a bit, and return to polar orbit to rendezvous with a refueler. It can do it!

So, this has happened to me on occasion, where a ladder or hatch deploys just fine during testing, but then after a long travel to my destination, it suddenly is obstructed. The game is in beta and I guess sometimes the parts get put back together just slightly off when loading maybe. Enough to cause stuff like this to happen. This is why there is a "cheat" menu. It's not for cheating, it's for recovering from bugs like this. Hypnotize your Kerbals. Open the cheat menu Teleport the craft and Kerbals back to KSC to recover them Teleport a fixed version of the craft (w/ reduced fuel) and Kerbals back to Laythe. De-hypnotize your Kerbals. They'll never know the difference.

Hilarious. Great idea!!

It would be easier if we had the Wind Tunnel mod in KSP2 to evaluate flight performance before launching a plane. Without it, it is just frustrating trial and error. For example, I hit upon a great design for an SSTO that has a Kerbin takeoff speed of 60 m/s and that theoretically can go to Laythe and back on a single SWERV engine. But changing the design a bit to make a plane with two SWERV engines results in "You will not go to space today." A contributing factor to "wallowy"ness is the frame rate. I basically have to fly my space plane in 1:7th real-time. Which means controls are sluggish and slow to respond. If it weren't for the time compression, it would be easier to fly and would feel more responsive.

It was really hard to build a lander that used chemical rockets to get the 4,500 dV - 5,000 dV needed to execute a landing and take off on Tylo. It ended up being a very heavy, single use vessel. Going back to Tylo, I'm doing this instead:

Half true. Generally speaking, apps made with Unity depend heavily on a single thread called MonoBehavior. Being a single thread, it can only run on one CPU core, regardless of how many cores the CPU has. It's up to the developer to re-architect their code to move functions out of MonoBehavior in a way that they can have different parts of the game loop running in separate concurrent threads distributed amongst the available CPU cores. At some point they're going to have to optimize to run on multiple cores. It appears they just aren't fully there yet as far as KSP2 is concerned. But it makes sense though. You want to be sure you've nailed the main game loop before investing heavily into optimizing or recoding because you don't want to have to discard that effort if it turns out you need to make more changes to your core game loop to satisfy some newly-discovered need.

So, I have one or two missions in flight right now, which I'm able to keep track of thanks to AlarmClock mod... I have a couple refuelers and three SSTO planes I'm sending on their way to Laythe I have a Mun/Minmus hydro lander returning with 2 Kerbals in their 1 Pod. I have 4 beefier hydro landers atop refuelers otw to Jool to visit the other moons to collect all possible science My original Eelo lander and its refueler is still in flight. As you can tell, it's a much earlier design I have 10 Kerbals returning to Kerbal after visiting Eve! Look how happy they are! Probably because I renamed their vessel from 'Widowmaker" to "Eve GT" after successfully landing and then launching from Eve.

It doesn't show minimum distance. It only shows current distance. Flight Plan shows minimum distance. It's available from ckan.

This was true in the earliest releases of Micro Engineer. But it has since added decimal items as well. So now Micro Engineer has four items for coordinates that you can choose from and configure. Latitude Latitude (dec) Longitude Longitude (dec)

Thanks, Falki! And if you're taking feature requests, I'd like to propose adding vessel Weight (N). We have Mass (kg) , but I find myself having to pause the game periodically to derive weight by dividing Thrust by TWR. My use case is that I want to compare total drag to weight so that I know when I am reaching or passing terminal velocity in atmosphere during vertical ascent. EDIT: Falki, it turns out calculating weight using the displayed Thrust and TWR results in just a fraction of the weight compared to multiplying the mass by the gravity of Kerbin. What might be causing this discrepancy? This is question for anyone, not just Falki.

@Falki bug report: Atm. Density units seems incorrect at high altitudes. At Kerbin sea level, the units are g/L, and then transitions to mg/L. That part is fine. But then it seems to revert back to g/L again for densities below 1 mg/L. It should go to microgram/L, shouldn't it? Or stay at mg/L and rely on the decimal point for desired accuracy?

I absolutely love this idea. Thanks for making this!

Thanks so much for that summary, I appreciate the care and thought you put into it and for the reassurance.

Falki, can you say more about the impact on performance? Because the logical conclusion to this is that we need to equip all our craft with these special antennas, which seems as if we will end up creating the very scenario you're trying to avoid. To that end, I'm not sure what the "Track active vessel" toggle does, because every vessel in orbit with a region/visual antenna is tracked on the map. Would only turning tracking on for vessels with an active "track vessel" flag resolve whatever performance issue you're trying to avoid?

Super annoying. The way I found around this is to cruise near terminal velocity on Eve so that when I drop stages, my craft isn't experiencing too much more drag than the dropped stages. I try to keep the TWR between 1.05 and 1.08 until after 20,000 m altitude. When I drop a stage, they maybe travel upwards 1 meter before my craft overtakes them. Being completely vertical so that they can drop without colliding with anything helps as well. My latest Eve craft uses 12 vector boosters in six asparagus stages in the first ring, they're nearly touching, and they're able to drop without destroying anything.

The Kerbin wiki has a terminal velocity chart that gives you a rough yet practical and useful sense of the relationship between air resistance and altitude. So I went looking for the terminal velocity chart for Eve, but didn't find it in the wiki, despite many old articles referencing it. Old articles got me thinking "I bet it existed at one time". And so it did. About 9-10 years ago, the Eve wiki page had a terminal velocity chart. And then someone unceremoniously and without explanation, deleted it. The following table gives terminal velocities at different Eve altitudes. These are also the velocities at which a ship should travel for a fuel-optimal ascent from Eve, given the game's model of atmospheric drag.[3] Altitude (m) Velocity (m/s) 0 58.4 1000 62.5 5000 82.0 10000 115 15000 162 20000 228 30000 450 40000 888 50000 1 760 60000 3 470 Maybe the drag model changed, maybe something else happened 10 years ago. Who knows. So, what would the equivalent of this be in modern times? I'd like to add this back to the wiki. I found it useful for Kerbin. It would likely be helpful for Eve.

My technique is to have one main heatshield, and then to place other heatshields around it tilted to form a convex spherical profile. That way, the craft has extra resistance against yaw, as the drag vectors of the spherical portions want to straighten out the trajectory if the craft is not on a dead-on straight vector. I tried to use inflatable heat shields for any purpose, and they just overheat rapidly and go poof. So, I settled on the "soccer ball of heatshields" technique which is working for me.

...and, NOPE. Only got to 2604m/s. About 600dV short for getting to proper orbital velocity. Back to the savegame!

Heatshields are your friend. I got my 10 kerbal lander to land on Eve. I think I might baaarely have enough to get into orbit with the correct throttle speeds and launch profile. Circularization is really expensive.

@Falki Are you taking bug reports and feature requests? If so, I have the following to report: BUG: Active vessel tracking does not seem to work for ships that don't have an advanced antenna fitted. My vessel with a Communotron 16 doesn't draw a dot in the region map. Its mothership with the high gain HG-55 can track itself just fine. REQUEST: print Lat/Lon coordinates below the cursor when hovering over the map.

Radial mounting does it easily without needing to clip parts. Engine in the middle, fuel tanks extend around it, legs attached to fuel tanks.

Super great mod @meckryl!! Any chance you could have a look at these two bug items? Bug 1: Manually clicking the 'X' to delete an alarm sometimes deletes other alarms. Maybe the mouse click action is getting applied to all the other 'X' controls on the alarms underneath as soon as they move up to take the place of the deleted alarm? Bug 2: //Universe Time is incorrectly linked to new_alarm.countdown. Should probably be linked to new_alarm.custom.

Don't overlook the utility of SAS to keep a leaning lander upright. On high gravity worlds, the lander will likely slide down a slope if you land on one. But on lower gravity worlds, I've found SAS sufficient to keep the vehicle pointed upright. For landing legs, I typically set springs to 2.0 and dampers to max. But on high gravity worlds, you also need to be sure you have enough of them to handle the weight of your lander at the velocity with which you're touching down. If you're landing faster than 5 m/s, that's a hard landing. To test landing legs, I fit a quick launcher on it and send it up about 1000 ft to then see what happens during the landing phase when I try to bring it back down.

It's not just useful for inter-body travel. I was stuck in the rocket equation paradox trying to build a single-stage Tylo lander with 5.5k dV, decent TWR and sufficient SAS. I want to re-use and re-fuel in orbit and bring it back down to other Science areas. 300 tons. I hadn't thought of using hydrogen, so I decided to build one with one SWERV and a few tanks. Boom. 6k dV, 2.7 TWR, 26 tons.