glen.mack

I don't have an ultra-wide monitor but my immediate thoughts are: Pros: Do you play in cockpit mode a lot? If so, I imagine it would look awesome. Unlike most games KSP's slowdowns come from Physics mostly, so while giving a wider screen will improve graphics, it shouldn't (I think) reduce speed all that much if at all. Cons: Ui Scaling is certainly an issue for most larger resolutions, though not sure how ultra-wide will work. The only time I've ever wished I'd had a wider view is in the SPH.

I'm still kind of in awe of the fact 500 of you guys have subscribed to my channel. I won't spam videos here but there's a link to my channel in my signature if you want to check it out! More cinematics and Testing the Theory to come! Thank you guys (and gals)!

As a matter of fact? The whole thing weighs 7 tonnes. Maybe you have trouble getting 7 tonnes to orbit, or sending it on an interplanetary trajectory. It isn't an issue for me. Don't claim things to be fact that you cannot possibly know.

I sort of pointed it out in the video, but maybe you missed it. You can land on the sea as fast as the crash tolerance of whatever hits the sea first is. The faster you hit the more drag is produced. As long as when the next part hits the water, you are then traveling below that parts crash tolerance, everything is still fine. You have various levels. Structural/cargo/passenger/plane parts between 50 and 80, (The Mk3 engine mount is a fav of mine) then everything else falls between about 6 and 20. (except the rover wheels, which go up to 150. hmmm. Might look into that.) The reason sea is partly better in my opinion, is that you can much more easily control the angle at which you hit. I can bring the splashdown down safely on land at 65m/s. However this ONLY if the area is really flat or I get luck with the bounce. Sea works 99% of the time.

I found some footage of the Gemini Splashdown testing, and tested it against the MK1 Command Pod. I also tested splashdown as a viable means of unpowered landing without a chute. Do you design craft deliberately for splashdown? Is it an underused side of KSP? Is it just " not glamorous"?

So I've been doing some testing and the flight report seems to be inaccurately reporting G-Forces when compared to Kerbal Engineer. Does anyone have any info on why this is/how this happens? Which is considered more accurate?

One word. Hyperedit. Keeping it there? That is a longer story.

It wasn't like I didn't consider it. The problem is that when parts touch parts at high speed, the collision physics goes nuts. As hard as I have tried (and trust me, I've tried) I can't get it to work above something like 14 m/s and even below that results are highly unpredictable.

I find myself doing it when watching KSP vids a lot. On a slightly more serious but related note, I find KSP crashes a lot more with firefox open in the background. It might be confirmation bias, but I'd be interested if anyone else has noticed/experienced this...

I tweeted him about that video and he said mine was probably a slightly harder attempt. Also some of the greatest fun I ever had making a video.

I made this thread as a discussion on the design aspects of hauling cargo as an in-line middle of the ship option for interplanetary transport. I made the parameters of what I wanted to discuss fairly clear. Your advice on the subject: 1. Don't. 2. Use more mods. (I have on average 3-4 crashes every day I play KSP.) 3. Here's something I built that deals with things in an unrelated way. 4. I ignored one or more of your design parameters to make this suggestion. As good as this community is, most people don't actually put any thought into most OP's actual questions. Thank You to Bewing who came closest to some actual advice. Carrying cargo as a center line mass is probably the most sensible way of doing thing in reality, and from a physics point of view in KSP too. The reason it ISN'T done in KSP is because designing an apparatus to do this is difficult, and putting two of things on the side or one of something on the bow or stern is easy. The fact that radial designs can't be brought back to a single part, makes it a chore. Does it make it a bad design choice? No. Just a difficult one. So I turned to the community for help. I think the thread can be closed though.

I'm glad you enjoyed it, and you're absolutely right, the air brakes are under-utilised in the stock version of the game. I don't think I've ever seen something like this suggested (part of the reason I made the video in the first place.) so go for it!

There've been a lot of likes left on the reddit page, and the video itself, so to those interested I just wanted to let you know this is likely to get another installment, with hopefully better audio quality if I can afford a proper mic.

I thought the occlusion model would prevent this but you are in fact correct. And to bring up a point from a question on the reddit thread, the petals are between 2 and 4 times as effective as airbrakes, deployed in the same position.

Essentially, yes, though I think these are probably more effective and slightly more adjustable, unless used for steering air brakes are on/off only.

A proposed alternative to inflatable heat-shields, I tested a theory of a Biconical lander design for bringing humans to Mars, on Duna. Do you think this is a viable way to soft land humans on Mars? Are there any other theories you'd like to see tested?

My interplanetary mother-ship is finished... Pity getting it all to orbit is going to take twice as long...

I don't know what game you're playing, but the physics engine causes my rockets to explode on the runway/launchpad on load. This more than enough random failure for my part.

The reason is fractional payload. The ISRU is 4.25 tonnes. If you want to build a vessel just designed to mine and lift fuel to orbit, you build something like Temstar's rig, which could handle another 4.25t and lose barely 5-10 delta V when full. On my design, it's about 400, not to mention the extra time I'd spend on the surface processing. In a higher orbit, you spend less time blocked from the sun, so more electricity for processing. I wanted to design it as part of a go anywhere mothership, but the smaller the miner is, the less tolerance it has for an ISRU. If I drop it on the surface, it's gone so I only have 1 refueling stop, using the small converter only gives me the fuel that will fit in the tanks, and that becomes more of a fractional payload if I have to bring tanks too. My miner is 37t wet, and should be able to bring 30t of ore up from most moons. It has a pretty bad TWR, but, the bonus is I can leave the ore on the mothership, have it process while I go back down to the moon and get more.

So I've managed to mystify myself. I was curious as to when I'd bought the game, and it turns out, it was February, 2013, However, I'd been playing the demo for quite some time, and the first version I think I remember actively playing was 0.13, though it could have been 0.13.3. Which was definitely the demo. I'm not sure if 0.13 was released as a demo. I had a forum account that was wiped, so that puts me on the forums after October 2012, according to the above, but I feel like I had at least a year on my own before joining the forums. I'm kind of annoyed I can't narrow it down any further.

This area would be great, I think. Lat: 30, Lon: 317

Two issues, I'm actually trying to construct a "realistic" mothership, this thing can't get to orbit on it's own, and what you'd have to build to give it another 2k delta V would have to be awe inspiring. The "module" I designed at the top is about 10t, as opposed to the 836t of this thing. Second, I believe this is more of an aesthetic thing, these kind of designs are to be hyperedited into space for cool screen shots, not used for missions.

Discussion: Planning for the unplanned, mother-ship transport. Assumptions; 1. Mother-ships, once assembled always remain in orbit 2. Most mother-ships are designed around the specific craft they transport 3. In reality (and in the Ares missions in The Martian) you would want a ship that could do several round trips to maximise efficiency 4. The very front and the very back are bad ideas due to wobble, or perhaps bringing asymmetric items 5. You can't make a bigger cargo bay with tweakscale How would you design a "mid-section" cargo area? The main problem I see is this, in KSP you can go out radially, but you can't bring those radial constructions back to a center line. You can add a single item to one radial construction arm, as centered as you can figure, then strut the others to that single item as I have here; I know in KSP you really should design for a specific mission, but the point of the mother-ship is re-usability. I have no idea what I might want to put in there once I get back from the first mission, but I'd like to have the option of something larger than a MK3 cargo bay. Main questions: How to maintain perfect center line to prevent wobble/thrust not being aligned with COM? How would you balance the number/size of radial structures with actually maneuvering things into the cargo space? Is there some other serious design consideration I'm missing?

So I ended up with this non-atmospheric low gravity miner. After some reading I realised I have been confusing units and mass, and 1 unit of ore represents 10kg, (I thought it was 1kg), so yes, of course it's viable.

Could you post an image or craft file? I can't get my head around how you could transport more than 1500 dv worth of ore to orbit...