Jump to content

Frederf

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    563

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Frederf

  1. Frederf
    My method is going to be more of a branched network like a road network. There are local roads and highways. Local coverage is omni directional satellite arrays (2-4 per body) and then body-body communication is dedicated directional units that bridge the local zones together. So Kerbin surface to Mun surface might go through the LKO local sats to a Kerbin-Mun sat possibly in a high polar eccentric orbit then to a Mun-Kerbin sat in the same way. From there to a local LMO sat array to anywhere on the surface. Minmus, Duna, Jool, etc. all have their own dedicated pair from Kerbin (or possibly a manned station). What I'm not sure of is if I need more than one highway "bookend" sat per link to maintain 100% coverage or even if I need full coverage.
  2. Frederf
    Ah, so that's what was causing that bug.
  3. Frederf
    Check out the KSP_TOT tool in addon releases> tools. I've never seen a KSP tool more sophisticated.
  4. Frederf
    I tried the control surface on top of Mk1 pod to fly the reentry. L/D increased but not by much. I might try it again with larger deflections. If you want to control longitudinal range some kind of speed brake is probably better than lift.
  5. Frederf
    Can the heat shield be toned down? 600kg for the part and another 1000kg for the shield resource is like carrying two.
  6. Frederf
    I've noticed longitude of Pe not bounded by -180/+180. I got a 439 degree longitude of periapsis recently.
  7. Frederf
    It is harder with stock SAS as it doesn't allow independent stabilization in yaw pitch and roll. Ideally you want roll stabilization only and use asymmetry in CG-CL to fly the craft passively. Lift vector is controlled by roll. One of the early DRE versions had the Mk1 pod set up this way by default but the aero was more of a hack. All in all, yes, you can fly the Mk1 pod in FAR. Watch your L/D readout with regards to pitch. I find it has L/Dmax at around 25 degrees AoA. The trick is getting it to stay there as pod torque is weak and even if it was strong it drains batteries fast. I believe ballast radially attached would have to be far too massive to achieve L/Dmax so that leaves bolting on an aerodynamic appendage to shift the life vector. I figure a Squad small control surface, programmed as a flap in FAR, could cause a Mk1 pod to orient closer to L/Dmax AoA naturally. I should really test this notion myself.
  8. Frederf
    Huh sounds like I've been holding back on TWR needlessly to avoid severe drag (I see the white effects).
  9. Frederf
    My small experience with Duna aerocapture is that you will struggle to produce many Gs of deceleration >10km. Duna's atmo | Kerbin atmo (KM) 0 | 8 3 | 13 6 | 18 9 | 23 12 | 28 15 | 33 18 | 38 21 | 43 Total aerobraking depends on the lead in and lead out which isn't the same but peak G should be well correlated with density.
  10. Frederf
    I realize it's on the 1.17 value. Perhaps a 1.08 value is more fair? You are pointed retrograde during reentry? Are you using FAR or no? Overheating is kind of weird in KSP as what things are connected to matters in how heat flows around the craft. I use FAR and aero fairings for payload but otherwise I'd be in danger of overheating items on top of rockets. I'm getting 900C readings even on the 1.0 setting so I can't imagine how punishing 1.17 is.
  11. Frederf
    As silly as it sounds, perhaps instead of building these complex functions into ALCOR, ALCOR should reference external data. Mechjeb already spaces out its features using the R&D tree. If certain data was conditional on it being available from an external source then ALCOR could piggyback onto an existing backbone of calculation. As the career progressed the pod would increase in capability as the required data became available. MJ I think has an API where its data could be referenced. If not present the display is blanked or a link to a paypal transaction .
  12. Frederf
    It's kind of a split, not A and B, but rather A and A+B. My worry was that DRE was going to go entirely to RSS and vanilla-scale users take a hike. I don't know if it matters but the Mk1 pod already contains a heat shield. Are adding a .625 or 1.25 shield in addition under it? That's going to really increase (decrease?) the ballistic coefficient. In other words make it very heavy for its drag which is bad. For testing try the 20km to 40km range in 5 or 10km intervals (or less). I find the usual desired zone lies in there. As for "burned up" results it's very important to report the amount of ablative shield remaining. It's a very different problem if the craft exploded with shield remaining or with none. The normal behavior of DRE is that too steep = over G, too shallow = too long in the burn zone. The squeeze is to find the compromise between G and shield endurance. I too just had a small craft totally unsuitable for reentry survive the atmospheric fires. It had no shielding at all, reached 930C peak, and made it intact to splashdown. 48-7S, FL-T200, small solar panel, small radial battery, and docking coupler.
  13. Frederf
    My idea on flatness is under the condition of within some angle to vertical and some specified AGL value to raycast three yardsticks in a conical formation and measure their distances. The math once supplied with those three numbers is pretty trivial. Or a if there's an ability to return the angle between terrain normal and gravity vertical directly below the craft. It's beginning to sound like an extra that should be (at least initially) developed separately. I thought one could be very simpleminded with regards to current fuel endurance. It's mostly hovering to land where a timer is useful and practically never does someone intentionally have staging inside that window, or at least such that staging causes a panic.
  14. Frederf
    Decouple acts as a decoupler which means it disconnects connections other than docked ones. Undock only disconnects docked connections (docking part to docking part). I don't know if you put two docking parts together in editor if it needs undock or decouple. Since a docking part only can connect to one thing in one way, put both commands on the action group so no matter how it's connected, it will come apart on that action group. Since two docking parts are needed to dock, only one of them gets the "undock" command since it is the master of the connection. Try the ActionsOnTheFly mod to assign action groups in space.
  15. Frederf
    Is RSS the earth-rescaled KSP overhaul? I could absolutely see DRE for that have much more heat shield to cope with the much increased demand. So is DRE going to split into a vanilla/FAR Kerbal-scale and an RSS-scale version? I don't think the density of the resource is too high, just the total mass. 500 units of A.S. would be a good amount for the MK1-2 shield or 750 units at 66% density.
  16. Frederf
    It looks amazing. A couple things I wish I had while landing, and this may be beyond ALCOR's scope, are a countdown timer to endurance of fuel in stage and site below craft "flatness."
  17. Frederf
    One figure that I'm frequently desiring but not having is my terminal velocity or rather what the relationship between my current speed and it is. It would be great to know if I'm 80% TV or 120% TV during ascent to tune my ascent speed.
  18. Frederf
    I found the supplied config adds KAS to the Meta Materials node which is waaaaaaaaay deep in the R&D tree. You might not have gotten to it yet.
  19. Frederf
    Great pod, wish all pods were this lovingly made. A little feedback: 1. torque @ 12 is way way way too strong. It passes useful and actually becomes difficult to fly. I changed mine down to 1.0 and it feels controllable but still a little "OP" as in I will never need rotational RCS in this thing. If you want you could make the torque different in different axes to give it some individual character. 2. "Custom" seems weird for the action group buttons. Maybe "A1-A10" as "Action 1 through Action 10" would seem less "fill in name here." 3. Time to AN/DN for target would help much matching planes using internal display unless I'm missing an interpretation it doesn't seem all that possible to match planes on existing info. 4. Default the displays to the standby <<ALCOR>> screens to give the sensation of pre-setup and maybe to save FPS. 5. It's very difficult to double click windows without cancelling the target. 6. Support for other fuels than LF/OX (MFS) would be amazing. 7. Reduce display numerical update frequency might look better/ feel more like a real craft/ save FPS/ add a touch of challenge. Say every 500ms. 8. Selecting target craft (and docking ports sub) via the monitors would be great.
  20. Frederf
    I have a few home-brew tricks: 1. Set some small electric charge part to lock resource to ensure you have a battery backup in case you run out of power unexpectedly, even purposefully. To extract the power use the right-click transfer to an unlocked battery and use the power to reorient your craft so your solar panels work again. 2. If you point your craft orbit-normal, usually N or S for equatorial, the roll of your craft is a sort of clock for longitude. The amount of roll your craft undergoes is the same as the orbital position angle. 3. Disappearing the navball from the map prevents accidental throttle usage. 4. Double clicking IVA windows changes the view.
  21. Frederf
    Since FAR can adjust which axes aero control surfaces are assigned to (realtime?) is it possible to have a "disable aero surfaces" button for FAR so they don't flap around needlessly in space?
  22. Frederf
    I've had long hangs and unexpected freezes/values not updating with KER614 as above, usually with semi complex craft. If KER could handle such breakdowns a little more gracefully it could avoid bringing down the whole Exe. One aspect of engineering I'm often battling with is getting KER to understand what fuels and engines are active in various stages of flight. An Apollo style mission where the payload has actual fuel and engines aboard confuses it to no end. Some ability to ignore certain engines and fuel would help enforce correct thinking on KER's end. As such I have to save things via subassembly and make exact duplicate test masses so I can recreate the craft parts in mock up for KER to simulate the proper results.
  23. Frederf
    In future releases can you include settings.cfg in the package with default values? It's needlessly esoteric to have to look up what the filename is, that it even exists, and what the values are before customizing?
  24. Frederf
    Laugh. Sure if you're going to throw on everything but the kitchen sink. Those aren't CM parts, those are CSM parts which weighed a ton more. A Kerbal "CM" has one parachute and one Mk1-2, maybe a docking port if mission requires which it often doesn't. It's 1MT (more if you're using the Sum Dum shield I was actually talking about) paired with a 4MT pod for a 20% mass ratio. If you're going to be disingenuous in your arguments you should stop now. "You are taking 4.8 tons." NO I AM NOT. I calculated the Apollo shield to be 7% mass. I was taking round figures so it should be more like 10-14% with more exact ones, but 20% is way too much especially since the mission requirement for a shield is fractional for Kerbin compared to Earth. Especially considering how difficult it is to get Earth-scale rocketry in KSP due to the part selection, the way numbers are handled, etc. it's best to err on the side of too light a payload not heavier than 1960s Earth.
  25. Frederf
    Please don't name your resources *_TAC it looks ugly and is purposefully anti-compatibility.
×
×
  • Create New...