Pds314

Should the computer compute? (1 byte of addressable thruster RAM with read/write inputs takes 40 parts not accounting for input thrusters (though in reality there would definitely be something there and addressing logic so it's actually very likely several dozen more parts for every byte of memory or register), so computing isn't exactly cheap. Just storing the text "Hello World!" would be in the high hundreds of parts, and the CPU itself would be more (and vastly more complex too if you wanted basic common sense instructions like bit shifts, 2s compliment addition and subtraction, loading and storing addresses, bitwise operators (these would actually be extremely fast and cheap to implement though), conditional branch, etc, not to mention necessary CPU registers like a program counter and a result. Point is, a decent minimally useful 8-bit CPU would need thousands of parts)).

Zero input career. You get the KAL immediately but you cannot control the craft other than starting it. The goal is land on everything with a solid surface and return.

"Aspected RCS" Time to make some craft that don't exist on radar from most aspects lol.

Hardest and easiest peaks, side by side

This is an old map I marked approximate locations of each. I probably have a physical piece of paper with altitudes and coordinates somewhere but the center of each X is generally gonna be +/- 1 degree and the nearest large peak is probably the one in question. Note that the locations are for the modern keography rather than that of 0.18.2. The topomap is much much much older than my 6000er search. The easiest peak is probably 31 S 20 W. The hardest is immediately next to it at 33 S 18 W.

What is meant by *A S C E N D *? This seems like it could dramatically change the difficulty involved. If I fly an aircraft up there it's gonna take no effort. If I try to get there without thrust propulsion... that could be much trickier. Especially given that the spire near KSC is actually a harder thing to climb than 13 out of 14 of the planet's 6000 meter peaks (that have at least a 500 meter prominence). Only one of them is actually more of a spike.

What kind of thermal exploits are allowed? I can probably get something into the sun's upper atmosphere with the jankiness of the stock heating model as it relates to root fairings and interstages.

Sadly (the reason I don't have KSP 2 is) there is currently a mismatch between what kind of GPU they expect you to have and what kind normal people actually have. The steam hardware survey suggests that less than half of GPUs meet the minimum requirements and something like 3% on Steam meet the recommended requirements and that a good number of people on Steam still have something that has less than or about 50% the graphics performance of minimum requirements. So yeah, I have a laptop with bidirectional voltage throttling on the CPU and a 1050 Ti. The recommended GPU is RTX 3080. The minimum GPU is RTX 2060. These have performances at graphical tasks on the order of 3-7 times mine if it could run full throttle without dropping CPU performance into the MHz range, which it can't. They either need to greatly improve the graphical and other performance or allow extremely severe cutbacks of settings to boost the performance because currently, from the looks of things, I probably have 10% the sustainable GPU power it recommends and 25% the minimum requirements. While I have to say the recommended settings are at least more honest than KSP 1's recommended settings if the goal is even remotely smooth frame rates, they are sufficiently high that unless they are reduced, it will be years before most people come anywhere close to having that level of hardware performance.

I tried messing with the props, making a version of the DR I prop scaled down for lawnmower engines, and it makes the small engines lovely. The one issue is that they aren't compatible with scaled down stock landing gears because of excessive rolling resistance, but using modded landing gears these little engines are great for making ultralights (well, by weight and fuel capacity anyway. 12.3 m/s as an upper limit for stall speed seems kinda annoying and I am definitely not adding enough drag to prevent the craft from going over 28.3 m/s. As a sidenote, I would be shocked if there aren't combinations of paramotor and wing that end up allowing maximum level flight speeds over this limit IRL). I wanna make an MM patch that creates selectable configs of them with different props, while maintaining the original DR I prop, but I'm not sure how to get MM to give me a config selection thingy.

Is there a way to configure turrets to have less accuracy? Like slow down their turn rate or angular acceleration? I want to be able to have the equivalent of interwar or WWII turrets on aircraft and ground vehicles without them being a death ray.

I was afraid this thing would be a bit busted. Although I'm happy to use its bustedness for other purposes in the future. I really didn't expect it to be THAT busted though. I had assumed that the electricity generation would be scaled with torque output and absolute RPM. This thing is truly bonkers.

A lot of the engines seem to assume improbable prop diameters at least in the CKAN installation. Like for example the Durraqc single cylinder requires ~200 m/s airflow to actually reach its power rating of 10 hp and has a prop diameter of 2.59 meters and peak rpm static of around 300 instead of the 1000-1500 it should have. Am I doing something wrong or is this engine either misconfigured or was made IRL with no hope of ever flying? It managed an impressive(ly terrible) 81 N (=~17 lb) of thrust in my test on an ultralite trike and barely got it to rotation speed over a 2 km runway. The vehicle didn't actually lift off. 2 Brakeshaft horsepower and much much less actual thrust power. I can probably pedal a propeller harder than this can push. So... am I doing something wrong or was this engine just historically built with a prop 8 feet wide on a lawnmower motor?

Yeah. Especially not for diving straight down at near-stationary targets. The terrain threat distance in one instance said like 17 km when the craft was 1.5 km from the ground facing like 80 degrees down and definitely needed to pull-up-right-now-or-die-in-a-crater. Which it recognized, but also seemed to be like No. I must wait for sidewinder tone on this biplane even if I explode. every other second.

I fixed the not showing structural damage issue with reinstall. I'm not trying to use the G limit to prevent excessive instantaneous G, the craft can handle that fine as can the Kerbals, but instead to tell the craft its actual turning capabilities because otherwise it thinks it can make a 700 m radius turn at M1.3 on the deck, even though my craft has FAR AOA control and dynamic deflection preventing that and limiting it to a bit over 10 G turns. If Max G is set higher, it assumes that it has a tighter high speed turn radius at a given speed. I don't know why it does this but the G limit does seem to actually factor in somewhere or this wouldn't change the calculated radius by more than double. The control surface lag and distance multipliers for correct and incorrect orientation are set to maximum. 4, 10, 10. The highest possible on the "unclamped" setting. The craft will happily call terrain 10+ km away unsafe. It is also set to a minimum altitude of 350 m and will still frequently crash in a high speed dive even though it is more than capable of getting out of that dive, and will alternate saying it's engaging a biplane and trying to avoid terrain. My little biplane will happily fly around at 30 meters AGL and usually only crashes if there is a large and unseen building in the way, it has a midair collision, gets damaged by weapons, or it is pulling some crazy evasive action and bleeds its energy. Never just by not pulling up on the stick. But then again it's usually not going after targets that are a mile below it and moving at 15% the speed.

"Fix TweakScale config for Typhoon engine." It broke my TweakScale for some reason. It says it's duplicated. It is fixed if I just delete the caesar_hone_60_ts.cfg Not sure if this is something wrong with my install or what exactly but TweakScale does work on the part if I delete that file. Maybe it's a CKAN configuration bug or something that this file exists? I dunno but it says when that file is there that it is duplicate tweakscale modules. I tend to just use AJE engines however so I don't know if this solution somehow affects anything negatively.