Jarin
-
Posts
1,393 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Jarin
-
-
Yeah, that's almost certainly an autopiloting or pilot aid mod of some sort.
-
2 hours ago, shawn Pan said:
No ,I built the pure mining ship without ISRU. i will delete this contract and try anthor for minmus.
I just alt-f12 and mark the mission complete. I mean, you DID it, so it's not cheating in the slightest.
-
10 hours ago, KerikBalm said:
but if he really is almost in the corona, it sounds like an impossible mission without heat limits turned off... reentry heating would be minor compared to that...
I feel the need to re-emphasize KerikBalm's comment here. I can think of few things more frustrating than putting the whole mission together, successfully rendezvousing, only to have your lost kerbal poof from heat the instant they bail out to transfer vessels. Claw retrieval and inflatable heat shields make for a much larger craft, but may be required.
-
On 2/6/2018 at 3:10 PM, Vanamonde said:
Sounds like a bug. And so, moved to tech support.
Wish I could provide more details on this. All I can say is that if it's the same bug, it's been around since before last patch (thus why no save details). I had used KAS to strut some things directly to the asteroid for stability, so I sorta assumed I'd had a mod glitch and just moved on. The asteroid was more a vanity project than anything critical to my career plans, so I never tried again.
-
I've had that happen before, but never managed to fix it, so I'm very curious if you can 'un-curse' the craft. It was also an asteroid in my case; one I'd managed to shove into an equatorial orbit in preparation for making it the centerpiece of a major LKO depot. But then with no real cause I could see, I couldn't switch to it anymore. Though you seem to be having more luck than I did - the next time I docked with it, physics went nuts, and the rock headed for Kerbin's surface like it'd been fired from a linear accelerator. Like, straight down at orbital velocity; 90 degree change in velocity vector.
-
Tripped over his own damn feet on a munwalk and poofed.
-
Holy five year necro, Batman!
I couldn't find a mod for this, searching for "Mobile Launcher Platform", and the abbreviation "MLP" gets... other things, these days. Best I've seen is someone building their own platform, using the welding mod to turn it into a single unit, and then just putting their rockets on it manually. Raises initial launch cost, but since it recovers for 100% from the platform, it's not a big issue.
No mods to actually "crawl" the rocket from VAB to launch pad. Not really feasible with the engine, I think.
-
25 minutes ago, Atkara said:
I've seen this happening and the only explanation I could come up with, is that when you start the burn, you're burning between prograde and radial in. This means you're lowering and moving your periapsis as you go, effectively throwing off any previous calculation.
This also happens to relatively fast burns, but the effect becomes much more 'dramatic' during long ones.
Or I could just be wrong.
This is my thought. 4 minutes early notably lowered your PE at Kerbin, which increased the Oberth effect on your maneuver. Remember, a maneuver node is only 100% accurate if you have infinite TWR, and can deliver the dV instantaneously.
I think mods can help here. I'm not sure if better burn time has calculations like this, but I bet someone does.
-
23 minutes ago, Archgeek said:
Another thing that can help is to be careful with the number of active docking ports you have. Unless it's been improved, to facilitate docking magnets, every active port in a scene runs through every part tree every physics frame to find other docking ports and check their positions and orientations to itself. This can make for massive loss in framerate.
Good to know, thanks. I'll definitely make sure some mod-based "Welding" docking ports are a feature of my next big station and see if that helps performance.
-
It means you're going the same speed and direction when you come out of warp that you were when you went into it. But since planets are moving different directions at different speeds, going from (example) LKO out to Duna could have you end up going very fast relative to your destination, because of the difference in absolute velocity. This is minimized if the planets you're traveling between are in conjunction, but the speed difference is always there.
-
I've always had issues delivering rovers, so the units I do have tend to be built on-site with EPL.
-
On 1/13/2018 at 6:24 AM, Confused Scientist said:
Actually, there is a mod for this. Let me see if I can find it.
EDIT: Here we are!
That's what I was thinking of! The trailer was making me hopeful that they might have done something like that fix in stock.
-
18 seconds into the trailer for KSP Enhanced Edition for consoles, it shows a rocket under construction:
SpoilerBut it uses a tri-coupler for a mid-stage, then back to a tri-adapter for the lower stage! Is this something we may be able to do in the future? Or is their poor example craft likely to be less structurally stable than they'd like?
-
So how's that career going these days? You mentioned it going strong at 1.3.1. Did it survive, or are you on to new things now?
-
1 hour ago, The_Rocketeer said:
I'm totally willing to accept the 'well nobody tried that yet' answer, but I read a lot of 'can't be done' without any of the outside-the-box thinking that made planets and orbits possible in Unity in the first place.
The problem is less "not possible" and more "not going to be made by the devs, and is blocked from modding by engine hardcoding". Much like how we can't add axial tilt to custom planets because planetary rotations are hardcoded to the solar north/south axis (or... something like that? It's been a while since I dug into it).
-
I mean, they could meet that goal by just... not fixing any bugs at all, I guess.
-
I'm joining the vote for "upload the save to dropbox and make a challenge". Judge by distance/time with categories for single vehicle, no-parts-destroyed, and anything-goes.
-
On 10/5/2017 at 8:40 AM, UomoCapra said:
Remove ability to create maneuver nodes with EVA Kerbals
Why...
-
Spoiler10 hours ago, phoenixr said:
I've built a couple variants on the outrigger design, but that's a pretty slick example of it. The Mk2 cockpit adds some style, too. What's your orbital Delta-V look like with the pictured cargo?
-
1 hour ago, Yakuzi said:
As far as I can tell, the aero adjustments introduced in 1.2.x are still the most recent ones. @Gaarst wrote a comprehensive analysis on drag that seems up to date.
Yeah, that's the info I'd been working from. I haven't flown much in the way of precision-engineered craft since 1.3 though, and Aerogav has been flying spaceplanes long enough for me to suspect that something must be up.
-
On 9/30/2017 at 11:38 AM, AeroGav said:
- shock cone is now once again the lowest drag thing you can put on a mk1 stack, better than any other intake or nose cone
- drag from rapiers and nervs is now much less. It is no longer worth putting cones on the back of their open rear attachment nodes , because the nose cone itself makes more drag than you save by closing the node. This can only be good news - no more part clipping, one less counter-intuitive drag trap for the unwary.
- deployable solar panels have huge drag when stowed - more than a mk1 crew cabin. For this reason service bays are in fashion once more - even if you're only putting a single solar panel in there.
Gosh dangit, I have to relearn drag mechanics again?
Thanks for the info there at least. I'd probably be wondering why half my fleet had stopped working when I went back to my SSTO game.
-
On 9/29/2017 at 8:29 PM, Snark said:
That "manual + stage" idea is remarkably clever, IMO. It means that in most cases, things just naturally do what you want: for example, if you attach a tank radially with a radial decoupler, and enable crossfeed on the decoupler, then the radial tank will drain first and then you can jettison it-- which is almost certainly what you want. It also means that you can tinker with settings, and they get preserved if you change the staging on your ship. Let's say you have a stack of two tanks and you want the bottom one to drain first, so you give it a +1. Then you change your mind and you move the whole stack to a different stage of the ship: they all change wholesale by 10, 20, 30 etc. so they have the right overall sequence number relative to the other stages on the ship, but it still preserves "bottom one drains first" because it still has that +1 on it that you gave it. And if a rare oddball case comes up where you actually want a higher-numbered stage to drain *after* a lower-numbered stage, you can just click the +/- button a lot to give it any priority you want.
Huh... is that new with 1.3? I don't remember the priority system doing that when it was introduced...
-
18 hours ago, Just Jim said:
Ahhh, yes... In my universe, the nerdy guy always gets the... the nerdy girl!!!
I was rooting for the nerdy girl to get the other nerdy girl.
(All aboard the good ship Chibiko!)
-
17 hours ago, herbal space program said:
if you try to go from a single stack to a quad coupler attached to a 4-fold symmetrical stack of tanks, and then back to an upside-down quad coupler, it makes some routine in there start to chase its own tail
Actually that's just not possible at all. If you try it, only one of the four nodes on the bottom actually attaches. (I recall a mod that could make this work, but it may have been a fever dream). The reason is, the craft file is a tree. Like a tree, once branches split, they can't merge back together (well, like most trees anyway). There has to be a single path from every single part through its parents to a root part. Couldn't see any couplers in the image or I'd have brought that up earlier (as would a bunch of other people, I suspect). So... probably looking at a number of issues then.
Ore to Kerbin Missions
in KSP1 Discussion
Posted
Time for a bug report, I think.