Markus Reese
-
Posts
555 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Markus Reese
-
-
F5.... Usually I roleplay it all, but docking to my large ships, too easy to just blip the wrong thing. Full forward RCS instead of reverse!!! And then I ragequit. Quicksave save's keyboards...
-
My favorite thing I discovered for myself.... hrm.....
To pick one, it is definitely the ideal placement for a slingshot escape. I can, if needed slingshot myself pretty far out of system saving tons of fuel when interplanetary. Plus it is pretty nervous skimming my interplanetary landers at 5000sub meters. Learned the hard way to close my large solar panels when at the peri... :x
-
Helps me too. I thought it was just my computer, but kerbin and eve have been slowing me up bad of late while everything else is fine.
On kerbin, no matter where I was, it was lagsbaned to yellow. On mun, same craft fine and smooth. Once I look at the sky in kerbin, significant performance increase. I will need to try this as well.
-
Jasonden: it's "rendezvous" (or "rendez-vous"). French for the rather brusque-sounding "get there, you". But it's polite in French even.
In KSP, the rendezvous around Kerbin isn't going to provide any benefit; you don't need a Saturn V to get to the Mun and back, but you could easily build one if you did.
I'm dubious the rendezvous around Mun will help. What it provides is that you can avoid accelerating the return fuel and the parachutes for 1500 m/s or so. But the return fuel is only 300 m/s worth, the requisite docking ports weigh as much as the parachute, and you now need to do orbital maneuvers to make the lander and return vehicle dock.
By contrast, Apollo was doing twice as big a burn to land and take off the moon, and four times more burn to return from low lunar orbit to Earth. It needed life support equipment in transit, which was a much longer transit. And it needed a heat shield for the landing. In other words, there was more stuff to leave behind on orbit and it was a bigger savings per unit mass left on orbit.
A trip to Duna or Eve is a closer analogue to the Apollo mission.
Good point. I actually don't think I have ever done an apollo style mun mission now that I think about it. I did a single rocket back in 0.17 that went kerbin>mun>minmus>KSC2>home
-
Hiya guys. Not to be sour grapes, but there is this rule here... Says nothing about using the tiny stuff. Is called efficiency
I tested Tavert's design, and worked great at 100% vanilla. I don't see how it is a glitch in physics. Only that those little engines should be .3 instead of .1 maybe for weight? Not my style of rocket, I like rockets with style! (Nosecone all the tanks!) Is there anybody that can explain the exploit part?Stock parts only -- exceptions: informational mods that don't affect performance are okay. MechJeb and other flight-assistance is allowed: this is primarily a design challenge, not a flight challenge. Also: stretchy-tanks/stretch-SRB's are allowed to free you from the bonds of quantized fuel tanks
I mean the stock parts only is a little bit key. I could, in about one minute, make a three part rocket that weights nothing. Just make the ISP 1000000000 weight of 0.05 for capsule, tank, and engine, then I am on the moon.... Note that this can be done to "stock parts"
In fact, when I made my kerbal vid in signature, I doubled the atmo efficiency of the engines, and increased fuel capacity simply because my ol computer could not handle a bone stock eve return craft at the time.
-
Oh, I can toggle my flaps to be spoilers? Oh happy landings!!!
-
With KSP's design to be modded, DLC really wouldn't work too well. Lots of KSP's stuff had been actually be designed by the player base initially. The new kerbal center, lagsbane, and other key mods just to sample.
I don't think it is a bad thing, just not sure what DLC could be offered. Possibly complex universe maps and detail packs though could do it for me.
-
Yeah, I would need to play around with it a bit to figure it out as well. I think it is just an angles thing messing it up. Ladders are funny that way. Sometimes fine, sometimes want to smash! I had one rocket where a ladder had to make a partial spiral to clear some stuff and that part worked fine, then it got hung up one one silly bit!
-
I think it is a matter of angles myself. What happens if you use one long ladder to go between the two?
-
I am actually quite interested in sandboxing this challenge. Adds some nice roleplay, I like that you have the objective side of it. Really creates variable. Go for heavy, but multiple kerbals, or lightweight and speedy, get that multiplier bonus.
-
Aaah but tavert, trick to doing it is still within one of the three mission parameters. If you want to launch 20 kerbals, then it is one go, land a whole assembly that you assemble in kerbin orbit, or assemble in lunar orbit, then re-dock that back to your orbiting fuel payload.
Like all challenges, it really encourages pushing the envelope. Though I do think that launch mass (if I am reading the rules right) is quite exploitable. I can throw on inefficent and TWR of 1 engine assemblies onto the big orange tanks just to peak out the mass? I dunno if what I mean is making sense or not. I do like that more kerbals landed at once, is better score. If want a colony, just drop all 20 down
Edit: Oh, 100/33! Got ya, so extremely heavy is bad. Misread!
Edit^2: Hrm, never looked up my masses in KSP. Can you actually get said info in game without any mods? I don't feel like tallying up my weights ^.^
-
Quickie question for rules. Okay, when I launch, there is an intermediate pod for Jeb. Question is, I can show that it would land safely, but problem is that my throws exceed the 2.5km, and as such, it despawns. I have a control pod on ground for measurements though, is that acceptable? It can be seen during my launch that the throwing pod has deployed parachute with nothing else attached.
Edit, Ignore question I guess? If I time my throw right, it stays fine.
Edit^2: Here is the vid link (though still uploading at time of posting).
Should it fit the rules that is. 3 beams, will go an even 2700m? Sorry about the launch pod getting away, but it can be seen that it safely deployed and the entire flight should be vertical. In tests where it didn't launch so perfectly, Jeb usually is quite close to the display pod. I put that out for a launch point of reference. Provided nothing is in error, that should be... The tough part is if I flew up high and did the same thing, there would be no way to verify safe pod landing... Need that parachute out XD. If you want the pod, I could change my throw a bit, and go for the max 2.5km :3
2700+1350 (two 1/4 originals) = 4050 points? Do I get bonus for having them finish standing up? ^.^
-
Myself for heavy craft, two things I do. One I do for all planes. Have wide spaced pivot gears.
Second for heavy lifters is to avoid placing gears on extensions, and if you do, make sure you strut them. I also double up, or quad up my landing gears if really heavy. Usually I have side by side, or if front to back, I rotate the rear one around.
-
Markus, I just noticed that in your entry the vehicle is mostly destroyed as said by the F3 menu, and so I can't accept it because of the Goal section of the challenge. I'm sure you can try it again and not smash into sea? Because when your fuel tanks smashed you lost the LF in them, so either you try again or you get 0 points, which would be weird. sorry! Good luck to all!
EDIT EDIT EDIT! I JUST NOTICED I WAS WRONG! SORRY MARKUS! THE DAMAGE WAS FROM THE SEPARATED BOOSTERS! SO SORRY! Well, then you are in the leaderboard. I like how you drove into sea, actually.
Well, it just wouldn't be worth the Jeb points if stuff wasn't exploding around the large tank of fuel and oxidizer :-3. I did break a fin off the tanks when I early jettisoned the braking srbs.... which weren't actually needed because I had plenty of braking power, but then again, Jeb refused to autograph my fanbook without them.
Funny thing though. I had a perfect test run, then about 20 that went wildly out of control when I wanted to record. I had to add the second row of wheels just to stabilize it!
-
It would have to be airbags. NASA and most scientists have stated that on standard and high atmospheric planet exploration, sealed gasbags are one of the best usages for automated long term exploration.
I want mah helium! Too bad it is so hard to process.....
-
Think it was a misinterperatation. I don't remember reading anything like that myself, Just capacities which can assist in mass and balancing.
-
The imperial system is cool like that. It looks the metric system in the eye and says "guess what? We're going to make our units completely different so that they make no sense!"
Yeah, the formula for F to C is kinda funny. F=C*9/5+32.... Don't know how that came about, but it is what it is...
-40s here... No kerbal problems since is another warm sunny day at the KSC!
-
They have hardhats on. As long as they land on their head in a fall, they will be fine!
-
Are you meaning launching at set intervals would put proper spacing? In theory it does. If each launch is exactly the same. Manually though, you turn one second earlier or later than the previous flight, you will end up in a different place :-(
-
Definitely is cute ^.^ What is it like without parts clipping though?
-
I guess I was lucky in how I used to do it. Launch, then orbit, abouts... then I would sorta estimate and get myself approximately out to mun orbit. Tweaking the distance past, duration past, etc and let the mun catch up to me. Was that 0.13 or 0.14... shrug.
Anywhoo, cannot remember who posted it, but noticing that burn at munrise made things so much easier ^.^
-
Why does it have to be tweaked in some way? I have a lot of stock stuff that can do this, some modded stuff, none that are... tweaked? Maybe the modded stuff?
Also would this be a plane? I can turn on infinite fuel if that counts as tweaking.
Hrm... Guided missiles... Me likey! And the cold war begins!
-
Time to start the supersylph FRX-00! Will commence "testing" tomorrow
-
Is that on load up or just when you try and move it? If moving, what happens if you add some towing force as well? Maybe 4 wide?
I tested Tavert's design, and worked great at 100% vanilla. I don't see how it is a glitch in physics. Only that those little engines should be .3 instead of .1 maybe for weight? Not my style of rocket, I like rockets with style! (Nosecone all the tanks!) Is there anybody that can explain the exploit part?
Optimal Architecture Comparison Challenge I: Mun
in KSP1 Challenges & Mission ideas
Posted
Usually I don't bump old post, but was fiddling to get this to work, and boy does it mess with my brain when I first tried. Gotta go faster to have a slower orbit. Good idea though. You know, that is something useful for new pilots! We hear lots of stories of stranded pilots, the bit of extra failsafe is nice to have, plus is great for some early science via Mun flyby if not confident for a landing with existing tech!