Geschosskopf

RE: Bouncing on Armstrong I just watched your video above and don't know if we were having the same issue due to the vastly larger size of your ship compared to mine. I'm sure it has something to do with the never-to-be-sufficiently-damned Unity lander legs, the number and setting of the legs used, and the mass of the ship. My issue was that as soon as 1 leg touched the ground, my ship would be catapulted sky-high at a MUCH greater velocity than it landed with. Decreasing the spring in the legs made this worse, so in the end I just landed on the heatshield, which did not bounce enough to notice. For a look at the ship and a full description of the various landing attempts, see this post, starting with the 4th pic. https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/186474-beyond-hope-travelling-circus-episode-02-bark-at-the-moon/&tab=comments#comment-3639297 RE: Getting Nothing from Deployed Seismograph Thingy Actually, I have science rewards set at 200% because my space program is a government entity, not a private corporation The Goo and Weather Station thingies in this same collection of deployed science stuff are working just fine, spamming me with reports of transmitting miniscule amounts of Science! And even the seismograph thingy triggered when I crashed the ship, it just showed zero impact energy and 100% distance attenuation so zero points scored. I note in the stock file GameData\SquadExpansion\Serenity\Resources\DeployedScience.cfg that the seismograph has lines for each stock planet listing numbers for "energy". These numbers appear to be somehow proportional to the planet's gravity. Then I looked through the Beyond Home files and didn't see any similar code. So I'm guessing that if you don't make a "BH_DeployedScience.cfg" file and provide "energy" values for all your new planets, then the seismograph's algorithm multiplies by zero and you get zero points. Just a theory. OK, I'll let you know. Damn, that looks excellent! Sure, I'd like to try that

I dunno. I've used this same rover design on Mun and Minmus all through 1.7.0 - 1.7.3 with great success. The only difference in the design here is that the scanning arm on the nose is stowed parallel to the ground with its elbow joint to the right. Always before, I'd mounted it vertically with the elbow up, or hung it on the side of the main pod. This rovers on Mun and Minmus could easily make 25m/s and never did faceplants when the terrain sloped up. This rover, however, has trouble reaching even 6m/s. So, I'm thinking the problem is the arm's collider. My theory is that the collider is dragging, causing friction and keeping the front wheels from getting much traction, thus the low speed. And I think the collider also sticks out in front so trips on the upslopes. As a result, I'm going to see if I can scrap the arm as there doesn't seem to be any ROCs in this system yet anyway. I do. It's getting hard to remember which names I've used already ;).

My 1st thing when BG came out was an autogyro so I started with the stacked rotors, only both of them unpowered and both sets of blades on the top rotor. This worked marvelously when properly adjusted so I also used the same method on powered contra-props. Then 1.7.3 happened and my autogyro doesn't work so well anymore..... It still works OK, it's just not quite as good. Of course, the autogyro was built using control surfaces as blades, which looks clunky. So as I had to tweak it some anyway due to 1.7.3, I tried putting the actual helicopter blades on it. This doesn't work as well as the control surfaces. So, I've kinda had to accept that autogyros are not particularly fun right now.

Oh, that's genius! Squeezing a twin-engined plane to masquerade as a single contra-prop thing . I wish I'd thought of this. The way the offset tool has "steps" of movement is so useful, so you can get both rotors co-axial . I used that property with a 2-rotor helicopter with the 2 rotors angled slightly outboard so the blades would intermesh, but never thought to do it on contra-props. The lack of blade interaction with 2 powered rotors agrees with not seeing any in a push-pull, either.

Well, YMMV. All I know is, with the original BG rotors, you could make contra-rotating props without any difficulty. The powered rotor's 2 halves spun at the same speed in opposite directions if mounted on an unpowered rotor used as a bearing, so both sets of blades used the same pitch and torque effects were non-existent. This is how we made our original batches of helicopters and autogyros. But then 1.7.3 came out and this changed. If you make a system like this now, the rear/lower set of blades on the powered bearing will initially produce less thrust/lift than the front/top set. And as airflow through the blades increases, this becomes more pronounced until the rear/lower set is producing negative lift. However, you can combat this by increasing the pitch of the rear/lower set of blades compared to the front/upper set. BUT, if you do this, then the 2 sets of blades no longer spin at the same speed (due to having different drag) so you start getting the torque effects which you were trying to avoid by using contra-rotating blades. So, the overall outcome is rather like in real life, which is HIGHLY annoying because we can't use the same methods they have in real life to avoid this problem. But it's ONLY for this stacked powered/unpowered rotor (and thus electric rotor) configuration. I find that push-pull planes with cockpit and fuel tanks between the rotors doesn't have this issue.

@Gameslinx, I'm really enjoying this system. I have noticed a few issues, however. 1. Armstrong is made of "Trampolinium". Landers using legs bounce enough to achieve escape velocity even with legs set for zero spring. I've only been able to land there without using legs. 2. Deployed science seismographs don't seem to work at all on Lua. I crashed a pretty hefty transfer stage about 3km away and got zero energy and 100% distance attenuation, for a total of 0.000 science points. 3. I had to delete Scatterer as it was really choking my system (as it always does, so not a BH problem). However, without Scatterer, the system looks rather stark and not nearly as pretty Are there any EVE configs that address not having Scatterer? 4. On Lua, a rover with the Mk 2 Lander Can set to be the brick-like version with the folding rover wheels on the corners does a faceplant every time the terrain slope goes up slightly. This might be due to having a scanning arm mounted on the can's front node but I haven't had this problem with the same rover design on other (stock) planets so I'm wondering.... Further testing required on this one but I thought I'd better mention it.

I have tested contra-props in various configurations. If you have an unpowered rotor as a bearing and a powered rotor on top of it, with sets of blades on both halves of the powered rotor, then the upper/forward blades do indeed affect the lower/rear set of blades, which need more pitch. If you don't give it more pitch, the lower/rear prop will actually provided negative lift/thrust beyond a certain RPM. But, if you use 2 rotors at opposite ends of the plane in a push-pull arrangement, then the rear prop is not affected by the front and the same pitch works for both.

See, you need to position ships downrange to record the crashes of failed launches I expect you'll need more than a simple dipole in geosynchronous orbit.

EPISODE 2: Bark at the Moon Tune in next time for more of the slow spiral into damnation.

And the docking occurred in the dark, as is only right and proper

LOL, I love the acronym of Australian Research & Space Exploration Very nicely done tribute missions, especially the extra credit work on both ends of it with the launch tower and recovery operation. And the slight deviations from the script in no way make it less authenticTM

I wish Ludlong and Co. a pleasant and successful trip. Laythe can be quite a challenge. Conventional landers have to hit small islands reliably through the atmosphere and there are only a couple of places that are acceptably long and flat enough, and close enough to the equator, to be acceptable spaceplane airfields. And then there's the question of fuel to get back into space. Laythe doesn't have much Ore to begin with and like as not you won't have a decent amount at the few acceptable landing zones. So you often face the choice of landing heavy with fuel for the return aboard, dropping fuel tanks from space, or setting up a complicated refueling infrastructure on Laythe. I find it a good idea to recon the Ore situation first, then designing the actual land-and-return mission around that. I like to send some small jet drones equipped with both the surface scanner and NBS and fly them to the various islands I'm interested in. That way, I can spot the good LZ terrain and also know what sort of Ore is available in the vicinity. Then I can park the drones on the best places to mark them for later missions. You might find it useful to peruse this classic thread by @Brotoro, which I found highly inspirational in my early days:. This was long before Ore and he played stock except for things like MJ and KER. His main strategy was conventional landers and atmospheric-only jet/rovers to explore all the islands. Fuel to extend exploration range and for crew return came from tanks dropped from orbit.

The Original Post / Original Poster. In this case, the 1st post in this thread and you, its author. But specifically, in terms of making a table of content in the 1st post, only the former.

I think form-AT should follow function. Use whatever format (# of pics per panel, relative sizes and arrangement of pics in a panel, # of panels per post, etc.) best conveys the chunk of information, plot segment, character development, and/or visual vistas you want to say in any given post. Then possibly/probably use a different format in the next post, whatever works for that bit of the tale. As you said in your "inside the sausage factory" post-mission reveal above, "story trumps rules", and that includes rules for formatting how you tell the story. The story is the important thing. Everything else is simply there to bring the story to the audience in the manner you think best for telling said story. So don't stress over the delivery mechanism. That's like spending all your time on developing a lifter that's going to be gone 3 minutes into the flight, and ignoring the payload that's actually going to perform the mission. Also, think about posterity. At some point, you'll want to archive your stories and/or put a table of contents in the OP. The fewer actual story posts you have, the easier that will be ;).

This whole thing continues to amaze. Glad you're still at it.

Bummer that the camera died just before the gratuitous explosion

I love it! Escape by demolition and EVA But why stop there? Make Corgas get out and push the ship to circularize the orbit

I envy your ability to do such surgery Not to mention all the words of code to keep patching this old save limping along. And building a whole Principia-friendly solar system. Anyway, quite an accomplishment, especially given the high entertainment value. Bravo!

I figured it was something like this (IOW, just a labeling issue). However, Kopernicus seems to involve a lot of black magic and using the wrong Word of Power might have disastrous effects, so I wasn't going to poke it.

@Angel-125, I've noticed a slight issue with MOLE.. When you use it in a mod solar system (such as Beyond Home) that does not contain a planet named Kerbin, you still get contracts saying "perform MOLE experiment X at Kerbin". I've been afraid to accept any of these contracts to see if they still worked on the system's homeworld (Rhode) so don't know if this is just a labeling issue or has a deeper, more sinister cause.

It warms my heart to see Kerbals involuntarily marooned on other planets

Those of us with gimpier computers would greatly appreciate this Love your work, BTW.

Curiouser and curiouser. Trying to figure this out, it seems to me that something or somebody knows what Albro's up to and doesn't like it, so is trying to help the Forgotten thwart him. But amongst the known players on the field, which of them can manipulate the Shard? So maybe this is all a coincidence? Like the Shard's random manifestations are just a lucky side effect of its own internal vibrations reaching transient harmonics, or that it somehow resonates when the Queen of Space Madness plays a certain song on the radio? In any case, I blame the vibrations of the Shard for the drift of the ship

Glad you like Beyond Home really is a beautiful place. @Gameslinx has made a family of systems showing different stages of the far-future evolution of Kerbal space due to major events like other stars passing nearby and Kerbol itself dying. All are quite lovely and tell an interesting story in themselves. Sadly, a lot of the beauty comes from Scatterer, which my computer has great difficulty with. I'm talking load and exit times both reaching 30 minutes with the computer more or less locked up for much of that, plus some other annoyances. Without Scatterer, load time goes down to about 5 minutes with no long lock-ups. But I wanted to see (and show) this system looking as its creator intended, so I put up with this for a while. However, things rapidly got worse as I started getting more flights going until eventually I had to uninstall Scatterer. This took away the hazy substance of the atmospheres, so now Rhode no longer looks blue from space. Instead, you can clearly see the harsh, arid, brown terrain it mostly has in reality, so it's no longer nearly as beautiful. In fact, it looks like a completely different planet. Please keep this in mind as this goes along, and try to see it as it looked originally. But hey, at least I have a way to explain the change. It's the result of Boffins experimenting with ancient Kerbaforming technology they really don't understand I hope to live up to your expectations.

Yeah, I know, although I figure that "shedding the outer layers", which end up moving away at decent speed, has to be a reasonably energetic event.. Of course, the planets would already have been cooked by the preceding red giant phase, too, but the wave of starstuff coming out afterwards can't help whatever's left But that's in the real universe. In the Kerbalverse, all the fundamental forces and, therefore, matter itself and all the laws of physics, are different. Thus, I figure stars have rather different lifecycles there than here, and I have to explain why there's so much nebulousity strewn about already.