xrayfishx

I'm using this thing for the first time (with Python if it matters) and I'm trying to figure out this: is there a way to measure in-game time rather than real time for my scripts? Basically something similar to time.sleep except based on in-game time? What I'm trying to use so far is a custom sleep function using vessel.met, but would it work if the vessel is still on the launchpad and MET timer hasn't started? Edit: Well I got the time measurement to work as I want it with vessel.met, so it works under time acceleration, but I'm still wondering if it works for something that's on a launchpad and if not, then whether there's a better way.

The sweep alters the CoM, but it has this problem regardless of sweep (although it's worse in the low-sweep mode). Well, this isn't neither high mach speeds nor transsonic. This is a bit before transsonic, it's mostly fine when I'm already going above 300m/s. But just below that is where the problem occurs. My current hypothesis is that it's due to how easily the IR parts bend. When the control surface is supposed to push the wing down, it only pushes the rear part of the wing down while the front part of the wing stays where it is and as a result the wing produces more upwards lift, not less. And the opposite would be happening with the other wing. I figured I could test that, and if I'm right, fix it using quantum struts, but after installing them they don't appear under any category so I'm looking for another way to reinforce these wings.

Hey y'all. Today I created my first successful variable-sweep plane. Now, it flies really well, being able to pull many Gs at any speed, but it has one major issue. At a dynamic pressure of about 37kPa the roll controls get reversed. Basically, I can see the ailerons moving like they're supposed to, but the result of that movement is the plane rolling the wrong way. I press E, the left aileron goes down, right aileron goes up... and the plane rolls left. Well, in the first version of this plane I fixed the issue by disabling said ailerons at that pressure using dynamic deflection and enabling the roll control on flaps, which I set up as reverse ailerons, basically. That fixed the issue. However, I didn't like some other things about that particular plane so I decided to overhaul it a bit. The current version is better in every way, but the roll issue became a lot more severe. After a lot of fiddling around I still haven't managed to get it working as supposed to. I have reached a point where it won't roll left when I press E or vice versa, but at 32kPa to 41kPa it has very little roll control, with the worst point being at around 36kPa. So what could possibly cause the roll control to become reversed like that? The relevant mods I'm using are: FAR, AJE, Infernal Robotics, B9 Proc Wings. Here are some pics. Click for a larger version. Low sweep mode. High sweep mode. I understand that some of my text might be difficult to understand. I'm bad at explaining stuff. If you have problems understanding what my problem is, tell me and I'll see if I can explain it better.

Yeah, the wings in stock do create ridiculous amounts of lift for their size. It'd make sense if the Big-S created less lift while being a bit larger. All other wings should just produce less lift. I still wish the guys at Squad would do the right thing and talk to Ferram about the aero system. Anyways, I'll stop de-railing this thread now.

Well, I'd try adding air brakes to the rudder. The real Shuttle had its barn doors open during re-entry. You can't do the split control surface thing that the real Shuttle did, but you can add the normal air brakes. And yes, Big-S is not big-s enough. If you look at pictures, you'll see that the real Shuttle had proportionately larger wings. However I recall Scott Manley saying in one of his videos that such big wings weren't actually necessary and there was some other reason for adding them so that might be somewhat irrelevant. Whü knuws...

I started to muck around with the Salomé some more and it ended up breaking up mid-air as often as yours does, with no real improvements. So I decided to start work on a new design. So far everything seems to be awesome, except the AI can't keep its speed high enough, because it only has one engine. Also the AI can't take off without breaking the engine. Also, in the video you posted it clearly didn't fly well at a turn rate of 14, it maneuvered like an oil tanker. I'm really thinking that maybe it's a problem in my install that makes things break so easily. What are the Dynamic Deflection settings on your MiK?

Well, this is odd, it flew very nicely on my machine. Also, it was never meant to go to 10000m, I've never seen a fight go up so high, therefore I did not give it enough intakes to deal with that. I'll see what I can do to fix those issues and then try again. Just to be sure, you do have the latest versions of the mods, right? I can't think of anything else that could explain what I saw in the video. This plane flew very differently on my computer. It mostly stayed at the speeds at which it was extremely maneuverable and it never climbed so high.

Yeah, I do. But it seems to still snap after a few minutes of flying (if I'm lucky). Some other news, I've forgotten how to FAR. The current prototype seems to oscillate and pull some 7G at best. If Proc Parts, BD wheels and B9 Proc Wings were allowed, I could try to convert some of my RO designs to work here. However those are a massive advantage against a plane that wasn't designed with these. As it is I'm probably not going to take the throne today. EDIT: Scratch that, a modified stock design worked. Introducing LAF-1A Salomé. Armed with two AIM-9 missiles, a Vulcan and capability to pull some serious G, this thing is perfectly capable of ruining your MiK-3.

A little update on my progress - it's hard to test my plane because yours falls apart by itself before mine can start fighting it.

Hehe, I've been building these things for a while now. I think I'll drop that MiK soon, I'll see to that tomorrow. Also, I wonder when we'll see another one of these challenges with FAR and AJE. That would be an interesting sight.

Since the allowed mods list includes AJE, could TweakScale also be made available? It's useful for keeping the intakes only as big as necessary, which is kinda useful on high-performance jet aircraft. If TweakScale is allowed, I'll definitely join. If not, I'll see what I can do without it.

I'd come and join, but for some reason I can't connect. Firewall should let KSP.exe through so I don't know what's going on. This should be in OP, and should also say what those numbers mean in GMT. Something like "The server is offline approx. from 00:00 to 10:00 CST (05:00 to 15:00 GMT)."

Well, I did exactly what you did, only on Laythe. It took me about 20 in-game hours to get to the shore. I had fallen asleep a short way through and when I woke up, the kerbal was swimming parallel to the closest shore, not where I pointed him. I doubt there was any unintended mouse movement so I believe it may have been somehow caused by the planet's rotation or something similar. It was in 0.19 I think. This is, to this day, one of my most memorable moments in KSP. Edit: Also, sorry for the necro. Noticed too late.

I just realized that my Moon lander and command module engines all need some ullage thrusters. I didn't even know the latest version of RO included that. Luckily I discovered it in a test flight in LEO. I really hope it won't mean a complete redesign. It shouldn't need more than four 2kN thrusters in total. I hope.

Will you make an AJE category, too? I cba to play non-RO, but I made a plane that was at least inspired by this challenge, even if it might not meet all of its requirements yet. While trying to find out its range I accidentally flew it from Cape Canaveral to Cape Verde. And I'm sure it could do the rest of the way to Africa with a better flight path.

Today, inspired by The 5th Generation Fighter challenge, I made a fighter that, when taking off from Cape Canaveral, was capable of reaching Cape Verde. Here are some pics. Note how on some of these pictures the engine is 1K from exploding. With an autopilot this was completely sustainable, however I chose to stay at 3K below threshold most of the way just to be sure. And I'm sure this thing is actually capable of more.

No MM needed, you don't need to edit any stock files. Here's how to do it: Go to \GameData\Squad\Parts\Utility\decouplerSeparatorTR-XL. Inside you'll find "decouplerSeparatorTR-XL.cfg". Copy-paste it in the same folder. Change the copy's name to whatever you want, then open it. First, look for a line "name = stackSeparatorBig". It should be the third line. Edit the name to whatever you want (although it must be unique - no other part may have the same name. Also I think it can't contain spaces). Now, find the "moduleDecouple" module. Remove the "isOmniDecoupler = true" line and in its place add "explosiveNodeID = top" If you want, edit the part title, manufacturers, description and whatever else you want to edit, then save it and you're done. If you ever want to revert to completely stock, all you need to do is to delete that cfg. There probably is a way to do it with nothing but MM, but I think it's much easier to do it this way.

Why do you have a problem with someone feeling like building replicas is copying and MJ feels like cheating? If I say that I feel that KSP without RO is pretty boring, I'm only expressing my own opinion and I'm not saying it's like that for everyone, just as he didn't say anyone who builds replicas is uncreative or whatever. Personally I rarely build replicas and when I do, I try to match the spacecraft's performance rather than looks. For example, if I'm making a Delta IV Heavy, then I won't even attempt to make all the tank colors match the real version. I just make all the tanks as big as they are in real life, put the same engines under that thing and then try to more or less match the weight and things like that. Looks are secondary. Though if I need to increase weight, I might add it in such ways that it would improve looks if I feel particularly motivated. Usually I don't.

Try the full set of RO I have: forgotten to deploy antennas during launch which results in a loss of connection halfway through final stage burn (to eliminate this problem I often use solid rocket upper stages now when I don't have a communication network up yet); forgotten to set up RealChutes correctly; forgotten to add probe cores/antennas to that last stage that's supposed to deorbit itself; forgotten to add rotation controls (RCS/reaction wheels) to upper stages that don't have thrust vectoring; etc etc etc I have never filled a tank with wrong fuel, though. I use the auto fill option and I always check if I got the correct ration. Oh yeah, different engines use the same fuels in different ratios in RO. Keeping track of fuels is easy, eventually you'll remember which engine uses which fuel anyway. Keeping track of ratios takes a bit more effort.

For now, if you want, you could look up real engines and put their numbers into any engine CFGs. It will make things better, though for the best experience you will just have to wait for RO to be released for 1.0.2. Or you could play with stock parts and learn to reach orbit with them, after that you'll be in for a major relief when RO comes. Also remove that "/" from the first quote tag. EDIT: ETA for RO is practically now. So I recommend you wait a few hours. I wouldn't be too surprised if it is a mess of crashes initially, be prepared for that, but let's hope it will work well.

Aw yus, now I only have to scavenge RO for whatever's there that works in 1.0.2. Thanks, Nathan! I'm starting work on a PlanetShine config for this. If it's compatible. I see no reason it wouldn't be.

Electronics don't spend energy while on rails. So basically you just need enough batteries to survive the launch and the communications satellite will remain operational indefinitely.

I can understand them. They will still have to spend their time just to find out that the bug report sent to them was from a 64bit user. For creators of some really popular mods like Realchutes and FAR this can sum up to a large amount of time. Time they could have used investigating problems they actually have to fix. So I can understand stupid_chris's undying hate for every mention of 64bit KSP he sees, especially if it's something that makes unblocking it as easy as this. The rage is real, the stupid people who just don't understand no matter what you do and how many times you tell them are real.

For the antisocial among us there should be a black sweater with "Probes before bros" written on the back, with a KSP logo or a space probe with obvious KSP parts. I'd wear it. Also a "Val is my squad's AT missile pilot" shoulder patch for my army uniform.

I have encountered this same bug in LKO so the location is probably irrelevant. I'm not sure my ship had a lander can. It had the size2 capsule and besides that either the lander can, the hitchhiker or nothing at all. I don't remember. What I do know is that all EVAs happened through the capsule. So it's likely a more generic bug.