felixar90
-
Posts
19 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by felixar90
-
-
There is something weird with the airlocks.
I can EVA on the launchpad, no matter if my ship is multi-staged or not.
I can EVA when I'm outside the atmosphere, but still sub-orbital (while waiting for the apoapsis)
But once I'm on a circular orbit, with the last stage of my ship, I can't EVA anymore, and I tried spamming the EVA button, but it didn't work for me...
EDIT:
So, I ended the flight of some debris, (some were weird, splashed down ghost debris, at 0º,0º) and now I can EVA.
-
I've been having problems with MechJeb when I launch MechJeb destroys my rocket upon the first stage separation around 10,000M I've played around and launch after launch it rips it apart or destroys boosters.
When I have manual control my rocket is fine.
Disable automatic staging, or try increasing the wait time.
-
What formula is used for relative inclination? It seems to me that it's only
incA - incB
because I've seen the relative inclination is 0 whenever the two orbits have the same inclination, even if they have a different LAN
the formula should be
<span style="font-family:monospace"><span style="font-style:italic;">rinc</span>° = arccos( -cos( À/2 - <span style="font-style:italic;">incB</span> ) * cos( <span style="font-style:italic;">incA</span> ) + sin( À/2 - <span style="font-style:italic;">incB</span> ) * sin( <span style="font-style:italic;">incA</span> ) * cos( <span style="font-style:italic;">lanB</span> - <span style="font-style:italic;">lanA</span> ) ) * 180/À</span>
(all angles are inputed in radians)
For example, if orbit A has an inclination of 45º, and a longitude of the ascending node (LAN) of 0º,
and orbit B has an inclination of 45º and a LAN of 45º, the relative inclination should be about 31.399º
-
I respectfully disagree, as that kind of hyper-realism would (a) make KSP less viable as a commercial product and (
it would hurt my brain to have to do so much math in real-time. Think about it; the Apollo missions didn't send on person out in a pod who had to do the whole thing themselves. They send three, all highly-skilled and -trained, who could do this kind of stuff in their heads, but they weren't alone. They had a simple (by our standards) guidance computer, and a swarm of intellectuals at mission control supporting them, doing calculations and checking figures so the astronauts could concentrate on what action they needed to do, not the complexities of the math that got them to the point where that particular action was necessary. In short, the work was spread-around to a lot of very bright people, so no one's brains melted from overload. 
A lot of problems with "realism" are solved when you make the simple (logical) abstraction that a command pod likely contains a guidance computer of some sort, life support, and a radio link to a team of Kerbals back on Kerbin ready to help.
I was just saying that if velocity is available to you, you acceleration should be available too... Linear & angular acceleration can be obtained very easily. The craft's computer then calculate the velocity. (not you)
(For Apollo I think every burn time was calculated in advance. They even had the burns time for a free return readily available, this is how they were able to bring back Apollo XIII using the LEM's engine)
There are also pitot tubes that measure wind speed relative to your craft.I know about pitot tubes, that's why I was talking about outside the atmosphere.
IMUs are pretty accurate... They accumulate error in the longer term, but this can be corrected with things like radar, celestial navigation, etc. Data from an IMU can be used to calculate velocity in any reference frame you like.Oh, cool that was interesting, thanks.
-
For the engines, it looks like the more the engine glows, the more heat is dissipated (which is actually what's supposed to happen) so even if you keep burning at full throttle, the heat will stop accumulating at some point. (Tested with the atomic engines)
Also it looks like heavy ships that accelerate slowly tend to heat more at the engines. may be because then engine is sort of bathing in it's own exhaust.
-
Yes. And if your command module produce enough torque on your ship, turn the rcs off on large ships, mechjeb tend to waste a lot of rcs fuel trying to orient the ship perfectly. But yea, once you have a target selected in the rendezvous module, just use the smart A.S.S. (but like I said, you must be in the vicinity of your target to use TGT+ and RVEL-)
For longer distance, if you ship is behind the target, make your pe and ap about 5 km lower that your target's pe and ap.
if you ship is in front of your target, make your orbit 5 km higher that your target's.
When the distance on the render-vous module is at it's lowest (around 5 km) and you can se on the orbital map that you are directly over or under your target,
place your ship in RVEL-, and burn until the relative velocity in around 0, then burn toward TGT+ until you got a good speed going (25~30ms) and immediately replace your ship in RVEL-
Each time you can tell you're going off-course, burn toward RVEL-, then give a little push toward TGT+.
-
Hmmm I make a note of the target lpa when I launch it then put that number into the autolaunch in mechjeb but its still miles off
"Miles off" is pretty normal. Timing your launch with mechjeb will usually get you 5~20 km away from your target... Depending how close you are, you can either directly close in to you target by alternating between burning toward TGT+ and RVEL- (when 10km>distance)
For longer distances use normal rendezvous manoeuvres, if you are in advance on your target, accelerate on a bigger orbit to let it catch you. if you are late, decelerate on a smaller orbit to close on it.
You can use very small amount of fuel and have the manoeuvre take 3 days, or use more fuel and catch you target faster.
-
Correct me if i'm wrong, but IRL, spaceships can't directly know their actual velocity right?
They have accelerometers so they know they acceleration, and use other means to find they velocity, like radar altimeter + knowledge of the gravitational parameter of the body.
It would make more sense to have a display of the current acceleration rather than the current velocity. But well KSP is not meant to be hyper realistic.
But I guess there would be nothing wrong with creating a new part + plugin that can just tell you your current acceleration...
... If fact, it would be cool if you really needed those parts... Like, once outside of the atmosphere, you can't tell your current altitude or velocity unless your ship embarks a radar altimeter and an accelerometer (if the command pod isn't).
-
The Mac version of the patcher will use Mono to run the .exe file.
-
I don't think it would. With a 90 degree heading, all you have to do is flip olex's ejection angle diagram left-to-right to get the correct ejection parameters. It also has the advantage of a speed boost from Kerbin's rotation.
And the disadvantage on a trajectory curved away from where you're going...
To have the right trajectory, you need a an ejection burn on the dark side of Kerbin. The optimal ejection for inner planets can only be achieved with an heading of 270º. There is probably a point where the required correction overcome anything you gained by launching at 90º
-
152.99 degree retrograde is 27.01 degree FROM prograde. It would be 332.99 degree to prograde.
I never noticed there was a angle to prograde in Mechjeb. I use a on-screen protractor.
-
Higher orbit? Did you miss the part where you are supposed to launch with a 270º heading (180º inc.) when going to inner planets? unlike outer planets, the ejection angle is relative to Kerbin's retrograde.
(You must orbit clockwise around Kerbin. Pack extra power because you'll be going against Kerbin rotational boost.)
-
I got on Ike, Gilly, and Eve with a 3 manned pod. The chute got ripped off on Eve, and I had no lander stage to land on Duna.
The trick is that I give myself a head start by storing a lot of energy in my parking orbit. My launcher can easily put a 3 man pod + big tank + nuclear engine on a 10 000 km parking orbit, I can then slingshot on mun and minmus up to an orbit just on the limit of escaping Kermin. (With such a wide orbit, the period is so long that you have to plan your launch to be at the ejection angle in time before the phase angle is off). The launcher can also put my lander on a 5 000 km parking orbit. (even a retrograde one) Also, even the last stage of the launcher stays on an sub-orbital trajectory, which means all debris are supposed to fall back down on Kerbin. (But it doesn't happen because apparently the debris don't get atmospheric drag unless you're looking at them... and by some bizarre glitch there is now a belt of debris going in retrograde orbit around the sun, between Kerbin and Eve...)
-
Damn
Why this didn't show up in my search results...
I was looking for a Mac version, and I ended up buying Onde Ruler. $24.95 for a on-screen protractor....
it would hurt my brain to have to do so much math in real-time. Think about it; the Apollo missions didn't send on person out in a pod who had to do the whole thing themselves. They send three, all highly-skilled and -trained, who could do this kind of stuff in their heads, but they weren't alone. They had a simple (by our standards) guidance computer, and a swarm of intellectuals at mission control supporting them, doing calculations and checking figures so the astronauts could concentrate on what action they needed to do, not the complexities of the math that got them to the point where that particular action was necessary. In short, the work was spread-around to a lot of very bright people, so no one's brains melted from overload. 
Problem with my lifter.
in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
Posted
Better than a picture, post your craft file.