p1t1o
-
Posts
2,870 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by p1t1o
-
-
Cant say Ive ever seen this behavior.
I have seen the interstage fairing problem as described above, and sometimes I get a glitch where the ship seems to forget where its axis is, as in, when told to hold to prograde it will hold to a point someways off prograde, and the error will be reflected in any autopilot manouvres.
Quicksave-Quickload solves all these problems.
-
tl;dr - periodically empty your save folder!
SO Im 10 game-yars into a career. Its the big one, the one I've been waiting for since V0.22. KSP is finally complete and stable enough, and my computer sufficient to support the modload I need to create a KSP build that I perceive as 100% feature-complete.
I switch vessels, game locks up, computer crashed. No biggie, happens every now and then, its frustrating, but you put up with it if you want to run 200+mods, plus my computer crashes randomly every week or so.
Re-Load. Savegame corrupted, unable to load career.
Ah well, switch to an earlier save, lost 3 hours, not too bad.
Rename earlier save to "persistant".
Save loads but any scene containing a part runs terribly slow, 1-2FPS. Eg: go into VAB, everything fine, click initial part, slows down to 1-2FPS.
Is my whole career borked?
Start new test career, no problems.
Try removing some of the more troublesome mods - dont expect much success as game ran fine for several hours before crashing.
Tinker with a few more things but long story short - I clean out the save folder, leaving just the persistant file in place (the earlier save that I renamed above).
Boom, fixed. Why, I have no idea, but there you go.
Lesson - apparently, if you leave your save folder to get too bloated, you are at risk of a save-corrupting crash.
So de-bloat it occasionally but more importantly SAVE OFTEN and BACK UP!!
-
How about this, hyperdrives have AI control cores, the AI is considered sentient and has all the same rights and status as a living being. Hyperdrive attack analogous to a kamikaze - rare, last ditch, suicidal, and only occasionally very destructive. We can presume the death star had a big enough power source to have a "hyperdrive shield" hence its reputation for invulnerability.
-
48 minutes ago, Bill Phil said:
Trying to understand what others are thinking or how they would react is important. It's not an easy thing to do, though.
Empathy is certainly important, essential even, but it cant be used as evidence - "That accusation is false because I feel he would never..."
-
4 minutes ago, 4x4cheesecake said:
I can't remember, sry. Haven't used the mod for a while since I'm no longer running 80+ mods.
You might want to read through the original thread, i.e. on page 13 is an discussion about different settings for the padhead.cfg (the last number in this file is basically the increment of your heap everytime you press 'alt + end', you can ignore the other values) Don't forget to enable 'applyPadding' in your settings.cfg.
Ah, the last number you say, where it says "total" I think? I did not actually touch that number....maybe that explains the crashes perhaps? I havent touched "settings.cfg" but assume it is setup ok as the default heap settings work.
Thanks, I'll try some stuff later tonight
-
So this works, such great work! Much Props. For a long time this was an insoluble, hard-wired problem. This is a small miracle.
The default heap settings extend the gap between GC from about 20s to about 50s, so far so good.
Im not certain on how to increase the amount of "heap", I changed the values in the heap textfile from 1 to 10, is that how you do it? Thats megabytes right?
Is 10 reasonable? I am not RAM limited as yet, 24gb installed. Could I do more?
I have anecdotal evidence howver, that the 10-10-10-10...etc setting in the heap textfile reduced stability? Is that to be expected? I had a few extra crashes happen soon after adding extra heap with those settings.
On the other hand, Im running something like 200mods and my system crashes randomly every couple of days anyway (I think its a hardware mismatch as it can happen at any time, but its rare enough that fixing it isnt really worth the bother) so it could easily be coincidence.
10 hours ago, 4x4cheesecake said:
Don't use too much of your RAM to increase the mono heap. If more memory is used, the GC will need more time so your game will 'freeze' for a second or two (tested with roughly 20gb added to the heap) At least, this will happen just every 10min^^ But feel free to test it on your own
I can easily live with a 2s pause if the gap is 10min! What settings did you use for this?
***
One more question - does it matter when you add the heap? Does it work the same from space centre or VAB that it does in-play? I get a lot of pauses in the VAB when building larger vessels.
-
Reports are mixed. It is definitely possible. There are also mixed opinion about how tactically usefully they would be in reality, shooting a ship in the middle of the ocean, from land, is not a trivial ask. On the other hand, sinking an aircraft carrier would go a very long way towards ending the war in your favour in very short order.
Its risk/reward. Do you sail your high-value assets into their range if you only *think* they cant shoot you? Those missile might fulfil their objective without ever leaving the ground.
What is certainly true, is that China has a very large arsenal of conventionally tipped ballistic weapons, which nobody on Earth is particularly happy about. Some of them, so-called "Guam-Killers", are specifically designed to reach US bases. And they are *all* capable of being retrofitted with a nuclear weapon (Or a chemical/biological weapon but that is sooo 1980)
-
50 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:
I defintely wouldn't spend twice more energy than required.
Why not? Are you paying by the m/s?
I think it'd be fun to shoot a full-bore ICBM horizontally, burst it as it goes hypersonic over the target. Very possible on Mars/Moon.
"Dodge This" I'd say
I've also wondered, many ICBMs have orbital capability if you reduce the payload enough, so it got me thinking:
Saturn V is orbit capable....what size warhead do we need to put on it in order to bring it down to merely ICBM-capable?
-
4 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:
Targeting military installations, once a warhead begins re-entry their is no course correction. This means it's all in the RCS system and better trajectories.
1. MIRV =/= MRV
2. ICBMs are more accurate than you think.
3. Getting an ICBM to be that accurate is more difficult than you think.
4. There is a type of reentry vehicle called aMARV, which entered public knowledge several decades ago. You will find next to nothing about it on the internet, care to guess why? It is *extremely* manouverable in the descent. There is sufficient science in the public domain to be fairly sure that this technology exists, works, and is highly classified. Whether or not it is actually deployed is anyones guess, but its a real thing - manouverable RVs are very possible.
Here is a picture of aMARV executing a pull-up manouvre during reentry:
-
Just now, Cheif Operations Director said:
MIRVs allow for this not targeting systems
MIRVs allow for what?
-
32 minutes ago, Cheif Operations Director said:
MX Peacemaker is a very recent ICBM. All I'm saying is that I'm sure precision strike ICBMs do have more complicated targets system but they we intentionally not developed because of concerns about the Balance of power.. We could have make them hit a pin on the ground we did not for a reason (the reasons to dumb I know) If you look at a Titan II (not the Gemini version) I do not think it would be that complicated.
Hmm. This doesnt quite tally with history. Although it IS correct that many pieces of weapons technology were discarded, supressed or ifnored precisely to avoid escalation in the arms race, or increased political tension between East and West (the most obvious being project Pluto). But I have not heard - though that does not mean it didnt happen - of accuracy systems being treated this way.
Precise weapons were a *stabilising* factor, as it enabled militaries to target actual installations rather than dropping a 15megaton city killer in the exact region.
Though it was also de-stabilising in that if you can precisley targhet only military targets, you might be less discouraged from starting a war. This is balanced by the enemy also increasing accuracy, disinclining you from the same thing. All in all, I think the drift away from targeting regions with apocalyptically-sized weapons had the more calming effect.
They were also strategically very important as accurate systems do not require such large warheads, meaning that your strategic reserves of fissile materials can make more weapons, and are much cheaper.
The drive from the beginning of the cold war to its end was always more accurate weapons with a longer range.
It certainly would not help stability to de-accuratise your Titan only to put a monstrous city-killer warhead on top.
A large factor in the accuracy of ICBMs is the mapping of the gravitational potential of the Earth (that is, precisely mapping the strength of the gravity field and how it changes, it is not smooth), which could not happen until satellites were A) possible and B) much cheaper. This allows inertial systems to be much more accurate (as an inertial table cannot detect changes in acceleration due to changes in gravity).
There are no political action required to explain the innaccuracy of older-generation missiles.
The system used in the MX missile was a step change in the accuracy of inertial navigation, and for ICBMs was/is regarded as the pinnacle of inertial navigation, as a more accurate system would not increase the acuracy of the missile as other error sources were now dominant.
I would be very interested to know if you happen to have any information backing up the idea that more accurate systems were available but not used.
Pictured: a gravitational potential map of the Earth
4 hours ago, Cheif Operations Director said:Most likely their targeting system is less sophisticated that thought. I mean if you launch a rocket in KSP in KSP and keep it on a track just to space and then cut the engine you can easily target an area. I've gotten bored before and KSP and launched ICBMs and hit very close to KSC.
Do not underestimate how much more complex the real world is than a simulation. For one thing, Kerbin is 10x smaller than Earth, that does not mean the error would be 10x larger, it will be significantly more than that because the missile flies MUCH further than 10x the distance. And related to the above map, the gravity field of kerbin is perfectly spherical. And many more factors beside such as wind, hypersonic aerodynamics (which are not simulated at all in KSP), etc. We also have perfect access to perfect sensor data in KSP, in reality you actually have to make measurements - which will have their own error bands - and extrapolate from that. In KSP you know your position, attitude and speed to what? 8 or 9 significant figures? This is not so in reality. Although now we have GPS, which helps a lot, military systems are always designed assuming this would not be available in time of war.
It is MUCH easier to do in KSP than real life.
-
Hey, does anyone have any good ideas about where to acquire a high-resolution version of this image?
I'll have a look around, but I know all youse guys are good at this stuff
I want it on my wall
edit:
Oh, if you click it, it links to a quite-high res image.
Anyone know if it is the highest res available?
-
I hate it when people say things like "He realises that..." or "He thinks that..." or "He probably..." or "He would just..."
Like, no, probably you cant read minds.
-
52 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:
In any case. But this doesn't mean a missile should be flying in weird trajectories to burn out excessive fuel.
C-4 have been replaced with D-5 long ago, haven't they? So, you would use D-5 on Mars, and it's much more overpowered for its gravity.It doesn't matter how, it matters - why?
-
If you simply put the aircraft in a higher pressure environment, then extra air is balanced by increased drag, though there may be some small scale imbalances you can take advantage of.
However if you are asking how forward motion "feeds" air into the prop, then there is a more interesting answer.
The answer is yes and no.
A stationary prop creates zone of low pressure in front of it, air mass flow is restricted by air's ability to flow into the space fast enough.
At this point, moving the prop forwards, and increasing its speed, increases the amount of air that can pass through the prop disc, which does increase power output.
At some speed, this will reach a limit, where further forwards speed cannot force more air through the blade and at this point the prop itself is producing drag.
The effect is more pronounced in jets I think (which have blades just like prop engines). A Jet produces FAR more power at speed than stationary, simply because the forward motion is ramming more air into the intake and stationary, pressure differential will force only so much air into the engine.
But yes, peak power output will not be at zero speed but at some positive forwards velocity due to the very effect you mention.
-
Frankly Imma just stay up in space in whatever I arrived in, dropping rocks.
-
3 hours ago, Thomas, a Kerbonaut said:
Usually ICBMs are stored for a long time, and should be launched as quickly as possible after the comand. It might be some kind if cold gas powered RCS.
Looking at the "Chevaline" bus, it appears to have a hydrazine-fuelled RCS:
"The red tank is labled "Hydrazine Tank" and the things under it are labled "Thermal Batteries."
-
14 hours ago, kerbiloid said:
It's an anti-aircraft missile, it came from another tale.
Specifically an ABM, which has a wide engagement envelope, not for close-in engagement but for high-altitude anywhere from directly above to one or two hundred mile cross-range, so there's a lot of dV in it that may or may not be used.
ICBM/SLBM doesn't need to hit something fast and close in seconds after the launch, its T/W is much lower.
Sigh, well, they are capable of it, exactly for the reason discussed.
https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/slbm/c-4.htm
"Missile range is controlled by trajectory shaping with Generalized Energy Management Steering [GEMS)"
It just must cowardly get away before her colleague gets here.
(Also not sure if such manouvre is relevant in near-vacuum when fins don't work.)
Thrust Vectoring.
-
On 7/18/2018 at 11:31 PM, MDZhB said:
What do you guys think space-warfare would really be like? It seems like every mainstream sci-fi does the whole space fleet thing:
Honestly I think its anyone's guess at this point, we have enough trouble predicting what the next Earth-War will look like, no joke.
-
1 hour ago, kerbiloid said:
Their booster's 1st and 2nd stage in any case have the same, short, burn duration (about a minute for both) and is not presumed stop burning (though you can do this with some efforts).
So, when on Mars you get the first two stages exhausted, you find your PBV in orbit. While on Earth it would just achieve some minimal distance speed.3rd time lucky maybe
: ENERGY MANAGEMENT MANOUVRE
Basically it drives around the block a few times before leaving
Thus a high-dV booster can be made to act like a lower dV one.
-
4 hours ago, Dark Lion said:
!Mind blown!
What are those finer strands perpendicular to the galactic plane?! Are we seeing evidence of eddies in a galaxy-scale magnetosphere? Nova remnants from once-stars orbiting too near Sag A* shredded and ejected? Something else?
Stunning. I will definitely have my ears out for MeerKat and the coming Square Kilometer Array henceforth! Thanks for sharing @daniel l.1 hour ago, YNM said:Some gas clouds are elongated thanks though encounters, but yeah it'd be interesting if we can figure out with some certainty what's going on !
Those structures stood out for me too. Its worth noting that we arent looking at "stuff" we are looking at a pattern of radio waves, I wonder if it could be an optical effect, like the pattern light makes at the bottom of a pool? So radio emmissions from behind, refracted by some non-homogenous intervening medium?
-
2 hours ago, kerbiloid said:
You don't really need a depressed trajectory on Mars.
An SLBM booster is designed to release its delta-V as fast as possible, you can't manage it.
So, even if you don't ignite the third stage/PBV (like in Trident II or R-29RM) immediately after the booster (i.e. the two lower stages) have burnt out, your PBV already exceeds the Martian orbital speed (just ~3.5 km/s), and probably is getting to the Martian escape speed (~5 km/s).
As you don't have much air on Mars, but have to fly high to avoid terrain collisions, so air drag won't take out a lot of speed excess.So, the Earth ICBM/SLBM are significantly overpowered on Mars. You should remove one stage or make them shorter.
But that in turn means that all lower half of your submarsine rocket compartment will be not used.(On another hand, you can place your nukes on Martian orbit, as 3.5 km/s means spending much less fuel to rotate your plane of trajectory than on Earth,)
P.S.
Btw, BMD-1 is equipped with space seats Kazbek-D.
A Martian rover.
Chutes are included, but a heatshield should be added.
Yes they are certainly overpowered, but you are slightly off about SLBMs. SLBMs are slightly dV-weak compared to your average ICBM, and are much better suited to depressed trajectory, they are not required to "release dV as fast as possible" - this would only result in making them less efficient. They fly through the same gravity well and atmosphere as larger rockets and thus their acceleration profile is similar.
In either case, a spiralling energy-management manouvre can turn a high-dV impulse into almost any trajectory you want.
Unsuprisingly though, exact dV figures are very hard to come by for ICBMs/SLBMs.
Are we allowed to rebuild them in a differnt shape in this game? Because again it'd be better to build a bespoke Lunar/Martian weapon.
***
Question: how far could a nuke be thrown, on Mars or the Moon, with a Trebuchet?
EDIT: WAIT! Is that an ejection seat for a tank??
EDIT#2: Question #2: Using an Earth-Normal ICBM, a large one, could you hit the Moon from Mars? Or vice-versa? SPACEWAAAAAAAAAAR
-
42 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:
You have a perchlorate pack on the tank back.
10 kg of oxygen per kilometer, while a crew of 3-4 requires just 3-4 kg/day.Indeed, and I tried to show that Maus is not the best choice.
I may have lost track of what kind of fantasy we are building...
Yes and no.
1. Earth subs carry Earth missiles, with delta-V twice greater than Martian orbital speed. Unless you are going to be bombing another celestial body, it's a mass overspeed.
2. Submarines can withstand, say, 600 m depth, i.e. 60 atm, 6 MPa ~900 psi. SILO limit is up to 25000 psi.
So, there is no reason to bury submarines, better build a normal armored concrete SILO.#1. No problem, can do depressed trajectory, energy management manouvre or booster blowout to manage delta-V.
2. The missiles were an added bonus really, I was thinking more of self-contained/self-sufficient living space. Mostly want to bury it as it would look silly just sitting on the surface....it might tip over.
-
You can go one step further, if you bury a nuclear submarine on the Moon/Mars, it would make a perfect long term base. Make it a boomer and you have a ready made nuclear arsenal as well (and potentially a space-launch capability).
***
It should be noted that modern tanks are pressurised but do not contain large air supplies, rather they filter outside air.
It should also be noted that the Maus and other pre-50's/60's tanks are not pressurised and whilst may be capable of wading through water, may not be airtight in a near-vacuum.
For Questions That Don't Merit Their Own Thread
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted · Edited by p1t1o
There is a "source" on the wiki page that corroborates your claim, but the link is dead so no further info on it