-
Posts
179 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Everything posted by Broco
-
I have a few questions regarding the exact time scale for KSP. I read some threads on the forum but there were contradicting times thrown around and the official wiki page only says "about 6 hours" per Kerbin day, while stating 2556.50 hours per Kerbin year. I'm currently creating a satellite network and I want to space the satellites pretty exactly without using any mods so what I'm doing is I have a rocket carrying 6 satellites and I want to position them in Kerbol orbit. I fly them to a circular orbit at 45 million kilometers around Kerbol and then take the time it takes from my position at apoapsis to periapsis and multiply it by 5/6 and set my course so that the new periapsis is reached at exact that time. And everytime I reach the apoapsis I release a satellite and circularise its orbit. However, when calculating I want to be pretty exact, since KSP tells me the time in circular orbit is 3y, 15d, 2h for half the trip I want to basically have that time in hours, better minutes. Basically my questions are: Is the table in the Wiki correct? https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Time Is a Kerbin hour exact 60 minutes long? Is a Kerbin day exactly 6 hours long? How long exactly is a Kerbin year in the game in Kerbin days or Kerbin hours? Is it 426.08 days or 2556.5 hours? Greetings Broco
- 1 reply
-
- time
- time scale
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
That actually makes a lot of sense to me, besides the structural problem with "pushing" a rocket from beneath. I withdraw my proposal On the other hand, now I get why the mass driver would make a lot of sense of the surface of the moon. So thanks to everybody, I learned a bit more again today And ye, you're right, basically everything in Russia is gonna be a hot place to live then. But seriously, I would just watch the show, that's fireworks you're not gonna see again (pun intended).
-
Why's that? Because of nuclear retaliation? The same launcher can also launch non-nuclear payload. Also it's pretty pointless to launch nuclear missiles at a mobile missile platform that already used it's payload when you can just blow up Moscow. Did I really just write that? Cold war logic really got to me, I shouldn't watch War Games again.
-
Yes, but isn't the de facto usage of fuel higher on the launchpad? Because a rocket at the launchpad has a way lower acceleration than a rocket that used up 50% of its fuel (because it has to move a higher mass). So achieving these initial 0-50m/s use up more fuel than 1000-1050m/s.
-
I don't know if anyone ever came up with the idea but I just had the weirdest idea: Why aren't rockets launch assisted by a hydrolic catapult? We all know that most of the fuel is consumed for just leaving the atmosphere, I mean the Saturn V burned through ~13 tons of fuel per second and clearing the tower alone takes a good amount of time. So why aren't rockets assisted in getting some initial velocity? I mean sure, it would be a huge construction but nothing too crazy. So If you manage to boost up the rocket to maybe 50m/s with a 100m high reusable catapult, wouldn't that decrease rocket size or increase the payload? I mean something like this (behold my epic Paint skills):
-
Do You BELIEVE there is life outside Earth?
Broco replied to juvilado's topic in Science & Spaceflight
Yes, of course there is life outside Earth. But it doesn't matter that much to be honest. The more interesting question is "Will we as a species ever communicate with an intelligent alien species?" and the answer for that is, for me at least: unlikely, for multiple reasons. -
Now that we have Relays in KSP, many of us want to establish a proper network. One way of doing so is placing 3 relay satellites with 120° distance to each other on the exactly same orbit. While this can be done quite well with the given 0.5 thrust for RCS on smaller orbits, it's pretty hard to achieve when you want to have let's say a 400.000.000 m orbit around Jool. I just couldn't get a perfect 400M apoapis and periapsis with the 0.5 because it's still way too much thrust. I ended up editing the save file and set the limiter to 0.001, which allowed meter precision even in this huge orbit and I achieved my goal of a perfect 400M orbit. But since this value already accepts floating point numbers, why not add a function that if you double click the slider it turns into a text input where you can manually set your thrust limiter? Not as important as getting rid of the stutter but still would be a nice way of fine tuning orbits.
-
It somehow worsens it for me. Any settings suggestions? I have a lot of ram to spare. I think it has to do with the sheer amount of flights I have (~50, refineries on different moons, relays, space stations and missions) since it doesn't occur in an empty sandbox save. I try to reduce it but that's not really the point of a space program. Why are inactive missions creating so much garbage?
-
Hello devs. I know you spent a lot of time reducing the amount of garbage created, but as of now (1.2.2) I have the weird issue that the garbage collection still is a problem. It starts out like before but gets worse the longer the game runs. I've tried it modded and unmodded, only a slight difference. That being said, I have a lot of completed and running missions going on but the interesting part is the increasing part. After 2-3 hours its so bad that I have a stutter for ~2s every ~5s. If I restart the game it returns to "normal" (0.5s every 10 s). Is there anything I can do? Can I increase the heap maybe? I have 16 gigs of ram I would have no problem if KSP took like 8 so i can play more fluently.
-
Ye, I kinda have problems finding good spots for my RCS tanks and kinda thought it looks cool. Greetings from R2.
- 21 replies
-
- 1
-
- pain and suffering
- eve
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Yes he/she knows and hello neighbour I played around with a reusable Eve booster stage but even the small ore tank and a small drill (which, by the way is ridiculously inefficient) + all the solar panels and batteries you need were too much weight. On Minmus I have a landing pad on a refinery for refuelling purposes that works just fine but Eve is so much harder. First of all, landing on point in Eve is really hard because of the insane atmospheric density. It's nearly impossible to always land in the same spot without some correction maneuvers later which requrire more fuel which then makes the rocket heavier etc. But I think the only possible solution is that you have a refinery on the ground and a reusable booster stage with a lot of punch, basically a bunch of FL-T800 tanks, some with an FL-T400 on top, with aerospikes and 2 docking ports in the middle, one facing upward, one downward to dock with the refinery. No landing legs, only parachutes, engines and tanks with 2 docking ports basically, also some fins for steering. Could work but I never managed to achieve it. But a refinery could be easily done, I only do simple designs now since the bigger once tended to randomly explode in old patches
- 21 replies
-
- pain and suffering
- eve
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
I can't really imagine what you mean with "catch" but I'm interested in pictures, sounds cool.
- 21 replies
-
- pain and suffering
- eve
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
It still has the red tower or was that even before?
-
0.8.x (don't know exactly) was my first version I believe... Oh the memories. Oh the kraken(s). I stumbled upon it shortly after the initial release. I believe there wasn't even a Mun. And every new version was a complete wipe. Wasn't so bad at the beginning but after they introduced docking in 0.18 it got a bit annoying because then you could actually build things to last
-
I would love to see some pictures of that.
- 21 replies
-
- pain and suffering
- eve
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
It worked by the way, in my main savegame I refueled my spaceplane with my tanker stationed on Gilly. Now heading back to Minmus, refuel again at my station in Minmus orbit, off to Ike, land and refuel again and then Laythe rinse and repeat.
- 21 replies
-
- pain and suffering
- eve
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
Since I do 90% of my missions with Spaceplanes I pretty much end most missions on the runway. I always plan so that I have enough fuel left to make it to the runway if I undershoot. Basically what I do is achieve a low orbit (71-75km) sometimes including aerobreaking and set a maneuver node over the desert continent (ca. 130-140° W) and aim for my trajectory to end on a level between the KSC and the Island Airfield. During descent I can adjust a little bit by tilting my craft (increasing or decreasing angle of attack). That mostly does the job. For other craft I pretty much choose a steep angle from low orbit, retrograde burn over the ocean between the continents (~100° W) because I'm just too bad at predicting the drag on craft with different weight/part count/aerodynamics. I make sure I always have enough fuel since I have a space station around Minmus that is being supplied by a tanker from Minmus surface and for the very rare case a craft has run out of fuel in Kerbin orbit I have a Tanker-Spaceplane that can bring up big amounts of fuel into low Kerbin orbit. Might seem like cheating for some but since fuel harvesting is in the game I take full advantage of it for maximum efficiency. Hey, being German must be good for something.
-
Docking across the atmosphere edge
Broco replied to Sharpy's topic in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
Because the whole purpose of a skyhook is to pull a payload from the upper atmosphere into orbit and having a working skyhook built in KSP would be absolutely awesome since the system is being tested in real life already. Of course you could fly 2km higher but where would be the challenge in that? -
Hovering Objects Drift West on Kerbal?
Broco replied to sonaxaton's topic in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
I'm with this game since the early stages in 2011 and still amazed by the level of detail on the physics part and that I learn new things all the time -
Hovering Objects Drift West on Kerbal?
Broco replied to sonaxaton's topic in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
I don't think it is so bad to revive this thread because this effect is still present in current versions and will be present in the future (I mean, why would you change it?). But so just so I get this right: There are basically 3 effects for floating craft moving at the KSC (the first 2 apply for any place on Kerbin and all rotating planets/moons), right? The planet rotates under a floating craft, so even if your craft floats perfectly still the planet moves under you If you have SAS on your craft will tilt because your orientation changes as the planet rotates the KSC is a flat model on a sphere so gravity pulls you to the lowest point of the model Am I getting this right? -
I heard all those tips with the fins at the far end of the craft and tried it with my lander but it still wasn't enough. In the end I used RCS-Thrusters + fins which I put on the top of my Craft with steel beams which I got rid off once I reached a height at which I could use chutes. Moving down your command pod closer to the heat shield also helps.
-
Trading framerate for dia show. I mean it looks really great but you can't use it effectively in any way. And I don't think there is any way to land that thing on Duna without cheating
-
Yes, the point of this whole mission was that I have to land on Eve and 3 other moons in ONE vessel so my plan was to land with a big multipart vessel on Eve first but this vessel needs to transport my spaceplane which is able to make it to all the other moons on its own. Problem is you need a NERV engine and that thing weights a lot which means you need a huge vessel to lift it up from Eve surface. Though I'm planning to build an Eve SSTO, in fact I tried it a lot already but it's basically the hardest thing you can do in KSP, none of my previous attempts made it, the closest I got was a 100km apoapsis but had no way to circularize the orbit afterwards and the periapsis was around 50km.
- 21 replies
-
- pain and suffering
- eve
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with: