Jump to content

mcirish3

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    795

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by mcirish3

  1. mcirish3
    Yes there should have been two separate polls which as I pointed out above the OP could have had as it is an option to have more than one question. Though at this point I am not sure how well a reboot would work out. I am going to go out on a limb and say inigma's purpose was to gather info for CCF. which is not exactly a mod.
  2. mcirish3
    Kerbin Year is 426 d 0 h 32 m 24.6 s in Kerbin Days which has a sidereal rotation of 5 h 59 m 9.4 s and a solar day of exactly six hours (I verified the last number experimentally :)) the rest is from the wiki. So no(or yes?) the Kerbin year is not very long only about 107 earth days.
  3. mcirish3
    Yes, but I answered the first question rather than the second with my vote. 1960-70 Edit: you should have put two questions to your poll. (you can do that now you know) Then i could have said both in one shot.
  4. mcirish3
    OK soooo.... I don't really expect anyone to agree with me but... to me at least could it not really begin with the pre 1900. Just need to add a shipyard and ship parts to accommodate the new water physics and a wind mod and woot there you have the making of a perfectly good pre 1900 shipbuilding simulator that can slowly progress to trains and cars and planes and then to to rockets. so I would say 1784
  5. mcirish3
    Relative to what? Are you saying that if you launch your usual way you will end up with more fuel after finishing circularization for a 80 km orbit than if you use this mod with the best guess? Just Curious. Could you quantify please?
  6. mcirish3
    hehe... remember those puritans we were talking about >:) (Please don't jump all over him, just using the post to show we are not a completely in agreement community.) http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/130226-modding-monday-gravity-turn-version-120/&do=findComment&comment=2368706
  7. mcirish3
    I was aware of the Mountain thing. I was unaware of the water non occlusion thing. Nathankell enlightened me about it via PM, working as designed in short. In any case you can close the thread if you like.
  8. mcirish3
    That is because tolling is one of the best ways to get the moderators to come down hard on ya.
  9. mcirish3
    FYI I am surprised no one congratulated @Overengineer1 for making Modding Mondays. Congratulations!!!!!!! Sorry about the belated congrats I just noticed a couple hours ago.
  10. mcirish3
    Base on everything I have been reading the current best way to get to orbit with maximum efficiency is with [1.0.5] GravityTurn version 1.2.2 - Automated Efficient Launches which has MJ integration for the final circularization. I will let you know when I solve the Full Godard problem for KSP. Also you are very much correct for large ships and Asparagus staging.
  11. mcirish3
    What about when you are trying to understand how the KSp univers work in a timely manner, would it be cheating then? Not that I care.. per Regex: I have see one or two of them KSP puritans around they are a small but vocal minority.
  12. mcirish3
    Wait, but doesn't the game kinda sort of do that already. I mean for example the Atmos of the planets with Atmo are tidally locked with Sol. So doesn't that mean the Game is cheating. As afar as I am concerned the only cheating in the game is if you say you did something cool without explaining you used a game modification to do it. As long as you are upfront about how you did something how can it really be cheating.
  13. mcirish3
    In my shuttle I solved this problem in stock by running my fuel line from top most tank to power my vector engin. This keeps the COM higher and allows the vector to keep putting thrust through the COM I also tilt my Vectors to about 15o that seems to be the sweet spot for me. you can get my shuttle craft file see pics and video of it here (shameless plug.. I know (^^^)
  14. mcirish3
    @Jimbodiah so your little trollscapade has had one good result in that I actually went to the KSP page for the first time in many months. Wow I had not noticed how much has changed there over the last year. it is actually a very nice looking site. I know the 1.0 slide is the first one to come up but they have several others that follow it. Perhaps they could at this point take down the 1.0 sign or redo the scene without the 1.0 in it but otherwise it all looks great to me and nothing about it says this is a one booster show.
  15. mcirish3
    Hmm... I know there is an ongoing issue with the KSP installer but I have heard nothing about the zip files having an issue. Make sure you are installing to a clean non-windows indext folder. Use the latest winRar to unpack is my recommendation that way you will have an error log to post if it fails again. WINRAR
  16. mcirish3
    By the way Squad Staff does indicate Squad employees, Volunteer moderators have moderator under their name like this.
  17. mcirish3
    Hyper edit?
  18. mcirish3
    I am currently running so test to figure out sun rise and day length for KSP planets with Atmosphere so technically I have a Modded install (mechjeb for info and hyperedit for easy placement of ships on various planets. However I think this bug is germain to stock and not due to mods. If you feel otherwise please feel free to say so. In any case it is a small bug that may infact be related to general fluid (water on kerbin and laythe and rocket fuel on eve) transparency. It would seem that sunlight shines directly through these fluids as if they are 100% transparent. This means that sunrise is detected, by solar panels, in deep oceans, many minutes before actual sunrise. if you need screenshots (I forgot to take them) I will get them for you, if you need logs I will try and get that too. I just was not sure if this was a known issue and if it is not a know issue it seems so easy to replicate by a dev that screenshots and logs would seem unnecessary. well that is all I have, mcirish3 P.S. I called it the Eve flud bug because that is where it first became apparent to me what was going on.
  19. mcirish3
    Thank You sir ...keep up the good work.
  20. mcirish3
    Just curious what happens if you have a slightly underpowered rocket? I know... I know... that almost never happens.
  21. mcirish3

    Hi OhioBob. 

    Nathankell suggested I contact you about the nature of the atmosphere in KSP...so here I am.  I am at this time working on the static pressures (will tackle static temp after and am collecting data for both) on Kerbin using graphotron 2000.  I really don't know much since I have only run numbers on one csv data output (though I have several more wait for analysis) at this point but I will give you my best guess on how I expect static pressure on kerbin to work.

    I am guessing that all though the planet rotates every 6 hours the Atmosphere behaves as if it only rotates once a year. (which is to say there should be a174 mph wind at the equator but ... there is no wind in ksp) In other words the temp and pressure above the point 0o 0' 0" latitude and 0o 0' 0" longitude at noon each kerbin day has the highest Temp and lowest pressure at the surface of any point on kerbin at that time.  I am further guessing that the pressure with altitude follows the following formula  Atmospheric Pressure= Caltitude*e-(A)*Altitude(m)
    Pressure versus change in longitude with a fixed time and fixed altitude would follow;  pressure=Clogitude*cos(beta)

    and pressure versus change in latitude with a fixed time and fixed altitude would be;   pressure=Clatitude*sin(theta/2)
     

    (this should all be in spherical coordinates)

    Am I even in the right ball park?  Please feel free to correct me or to tell me I am crazy.   I really am looking to derive, from experimental data if necessary a three dimensional formula that will yield the static air pressure (and temperature eventually) for any place and time on kerbin and eventually the other planets with atmospheres as well.  

    I of course don't have a strong need to do all the work myself, no need to reinvent the wheel if the work is already done, so if you have already figured all this out please feel free to share.
    Much of my calculus is very rusty so please go easy on me.

    Looking forward to your thoughts.

     

    and Thank You,

    mcirish3

    1. Show previous comments  50 more
    2. mcirish3

      mcirish3

      Thank You again very very helpful and this would work If i can get my head around all of it.

      I will keep you updated I think this is the last piece of the puzzle.

    3. OhioBob

      OhioBob

      I just thought of something...  For a planet in an elliptical orbit, the length of the solar day is not constant.  This isn't a problem for Kerbin since its orbit is circular, but it will be for the other planets.  A planet's angular velocity is greater near perihelion, therefore it should take slightly longer for the Sun to return to the same meridian each day than it does when the planet is near aphelion.  (The formula given earlier gives the average length of the solar day.)  Therefore, computing the hour angle at a specific location and time requires computing the celestial longitude of the sun, the celestial longitude of the surface site, and taking the difference.

      I think the method described in my last post can be used to compute the longitude of the surface site (first half of post), but the part about computing the hour angle I think is useless (second half of post).  Once you have the longitude of the prime meridian at 0s UT, you should be able to compute the longitude of any site and any time.

      You can use the following method to compute the heliocentric longitude of the planet, getting the orbital elements from the Wiki.

      http://www.braeunig.us/space/plntpos.htm#coordinates

       

       

    4. mcirish3

      mcirish3

      Thanks for the catch on the elliptical orbit.    Also another issue is Moons.  These equations modify a lot for them if I am not mistaken I will have to spend some time thinking about them.

      Now for some good news.  There is a much easier way to find the prime meridian.  If you know all the planet and moons orientation of the 0o 0' 0" longitude mark relative to the fixed KSP X axis at t=0 and you know where the X axis is relative to each planet then you can solve for the rest.  It just so happens that this information is in a file somewhere in the KSP INI for the planets.  The mean anomaly is PI for Kerbin and the initial rotation for Kerbin's initial rotation is 90 degrees relative to this axis (from hyperedit) so that means the x axis points directly from the center of kerbin to cent of the sun.  Problem solved. :) well at least that part is solved now to actually do the math.   At least I don't have to spend hours doing this experimentally.  Threre where a lot of people that helped me figure this out so the only credit i get is asking enough questions.

  22. mcirish3
    Yes, I would guess they would at least question it, since it says to the user, there is a high probability that it has not been updated since 1.0.0 which for most modes would mean high probability of being broken due to the large number of changes since 1.0.0. If you want to show that it will work with older versions you could update the OP with a list of all versions it will work in and that you will support while putting 1.0.5 in the thread subject line.
  23. mcirish3
    I thought I read nearly every post at least cursory for main topic idea. I see lots of really great and detailed info about aerodynamics and thermodynamics. But what I want to understand before I tackle those topics is the nature of the KSP Aerostatics and Thermostatics. In other words the nature of the planetary atmosphere when a rocket or space plane is not punching a hole through it. Of this type of information if did not find any real detailed information. Certainly none that would be of much use computationally. I have yet to try your mod, I fully intend to in the near future.( I rather think it will end up being an essential mod) woot on the new update.
  24. mcirish3
    Cool share the csv? Also Atmo is tricky since as NathanKell says these graphs shift depending upon where and when you take the measurements. So yes I can say that at 20min past noon near the equator on Kerbin the best approximate formula I can come up with describing change in pressure vs altitude is Pressure(?? units)= 104.39e(-2E-04)Altitude(m) R² = 0.9987 BUT what it it at 40min past noon at 10 degrees north latitude?
  25. mcirish3
    I know you linked info from the Claw on the 1.0 change but I did not see (sorry if I missed it) any info on how pressure and temp change for a given height, latitude, and time of day. in other words how fine in the step function that governs this? Or I should say, I know how both of these change with Altitude above sea level (thanks to graphotron 2000),but how do day and night effect these; is it also a nearly smooth gradient, like the altitude one, as Kerbin rotates or is it very dramatic? Also is the change smooth as I head north or south; so say for example at 10 degrees north will I see a sudden change in pressure and temp at a given altitude where up to that point it had been constant. Or will I rather see a gradual change as I head north or south. In other words are the functions governing this close approximations to smooth continuous functions thus mimicking the real world or are they corse step functions?
×
×
  • Create New...