halbert5150

Am I the only one that cant get to the account logon. I get a message that its down and preparing an update. I just haven't seen it down this long before.

Is there a known issue with the mk1-3 command pod. It wont load any kerbals when I launch. Rocket launches as if it were manned but no kerbal portraits show up in the lower right and I cant get an IVA view. Im running a fresh 64 bit install with no mods. Thanks, Halbert

Yes I use Raster Prop. I have also used stock KSP to go from launch to orbit, to the mun and back to kerbin. All in IVA but I did have to use the map view once to set up the ejection burn so that I would encounter the mun correctly. So I like IVA as it is but it would just be amazing as VR.

If the game was VR I would spend all my time in IVA. I also think building in the VAB would be amazing if you could walk around the ship your building.

I think KSP would make a fantastic VR game. Just need to add a few things in the cockpit like a screen to show the map view etc. What do you guys think.

When people ask me what KSP is about I tell them, "Its the only game I have ever played that made me smarter."

GregroxMun I know what your saying as a said it was a big ask. On waiting 20 minutes for the system to generate I think it would only have to be done when you first create the save game. Load time after that would be normal. Which I think answers your question Ayylmao. The new planets would only be generated when you create the new profile. You would play with the same generated system every time you loaded that save. But like I said its a big ask. I think there could possible be as much code dedicated to this one feature as there is in the game so far. As long as I'm dreaming though thats something I wish for. Hal

So im on my lunch break and it suddenly donned on me what my error was. I was looking at Math.sqrt() as a mathematical process and so part of the natural order of operations. It's not its a function call. Any programming language is going to do all math from left to right and then function calls from left to right. Which removes the square root calls from the natural order of op. The parenthesis force the compiler to make all the function calls at the right time and then finish up with the math. I didn't do a trace on the program but I know thats it.

I did the parenthesis around r1+r2 first and that didn't solve it completely; although it did have to be used. I then noticed on your spreadsheet example for the final step to calculate dv1 and dv2 was multiplication. So I really did need all of the above suggestions to get it right. So this, Math.sqrt(u/r1) * (Math.sqrt(2*r2/(r1+r2))-1) also had to have this, (Math.sqrt(u/r1)) * (Math.sqrt(2*r2/(r1+r2))-1) added to work right. I think JS was actually doing this, Math.sqrt(u)/Math.sqrt(r1) * ... which yielded .06889 or possibly this, Math.sqrt((u/r1)) * ... which also yields .06889 So Im not sure why what I did worked or what difference it made in the order of operations, but it does work. I also wrote this same program in python and php just out of curiosity with the same .06889 calculated. Then added the same fix and both language versions started working once that was done.

Mun landing: Minmus landing: BAME done! Lets do something else! (this has to be said with a Jersey accent) So awesome. Have you done a successful docking? That's probably where I would go next. The first time I landed on the mun I could hear my heart pounding in my ears. I also did the mun first simply because I didn't know that minmus was even there. I didn't zoom out far enough in the map view to see it. Cheers, Hal

OK you all had good points. I removed the math.abs first off. I only put that in there to test. Its not necessary once the equation is fixed. Secondly r1+r2 did need to be changed to (r1+r2) and thanks to Danny I figured out that parenthesis were needed elsewhere. This is how the correct eq's look. dv1 = (Math.sqrt(u/r1))*(Math.sqrt(2*r2/(r1+r2))-1) dv2 = (Math.sqrt(u/r2))*(1-Math.sqrt(2*r1/(r1+r2))) Apparently javascript was messing the old high school order of operations up, and just doing things from left to right or something messed up like that. So I didn't change the equation much I just got all the parenthesis put in the right place and it works. Thanks everyone. Now its time to work on the page. Im going to add some of the other calculators and then make it look more kerbalish' Thanks again, Hal

So im trying to recreate this tutorial from the wiki. Specifically im trying to calculate dv for a transfer, but I cant get the right values. I have gone over and over the provided equations and I dont get the delta v that the author does. I am building my calculations into a web page that you can find here The calculations are all done in javascript so you can view the source but here are the two equations. dv1 = Math.sqrt(u/r1)*(Math.sqrt(2*r2/r1+r2)-1); dv2 = Math.abs(Math.sqrt(u/r2)*(1-Math.sqrt(2*r1/r1+r2))); prior to these two lines of code im adding Kerbins R to r1 and r2 but that doesn't change the outcome I get. Other then that I think my equations are the same as in the tutorial. Can anybody figure out what im doing wrong?

Got it to work but it was a bit of a hack. I did have a docking port on the top of my lander can and I thought that might be the problem so I re-saved it without the port. It still would not attach. So then I removed the engine off the bottom to connect fuel tank on CM to lander can on LM and it finally did it. So now that the two were merged I pulled them apart, put all the parts I wanted in the first place back where they were, and connected them the way I wanted it originally. Thanks I didn't know that the LAM should be LEM. I guess I should have looked that up on Wikipedia. However I am sticking with the mislabeling and calling it the LAME now; Lunar Aggravation Module Exercise. I hope the rest of the mission doesn't go like this.

No you cant save sub assemblies with a command module on them. The lam has a lander can as its main structure which everything else is attached to. Thats why I was trying to merge.

So im designing an Apollo style mun rocket. I designed the LAM in the VAB first then saved the file. Next I designed the command module to my liking. I put a decouple at the bottom of the command module then merged the command module with the LAM I designed earlier, but I cant get it to attach. I want it to sit under the decoupler at the bottom of the command module. My Lam has an attachment node at the top and the command module has an attachment node under the decoupler. So whats wrong? I even tried going back to the LAM design and putting a decoupler at the top then save it. Go back to the command module and it still wont attach that way.

I dont know if this is even possible and Im guessing its a huge, huge ask, but it would be cool if each time a new game was created an entire new solar system was generated. I do a little programming myself so I know this would be a monumental undertaking, but WOW that would be cool. Kerbin the ksc and the mun would always be there but the rest of the planets and moons is what Im thinking could be random. Knowing how the meshes and texture works in the game I know this would be tough but you can always dream right! Hal

I know theres alot of people who dont like the new update but Im not one of them. I LOVE it. I love the new challenges that the areo puts on designing and launching rockets, I love the re-entry heat (I have it cranked to 120%), I love the new resource system... I just don't find any of it lacking. I do think theres some balance issues with the rocket engines but I know that kind of stuff will be worked out by squad over time. So thanks squad for the best KSP yet.

Doing this would be a little like building a luxury resort in the mouth of an active volcano, but I think the point here is that it is possible. We have the engineering smarts to do it. Maybe we dont have the will or the money to do it but thats a different matter. We do have the engineering smarts to do it. So I find it to be an interesting idea. Hal

I just read this article, http://www.citylab.com/tech/2014/07/the-surprisingly-strong-case-for-colonizing-venus/373560/, and I thought that the subject of the article would be the exact kind of thing KSP fans would love. Its about how to colonize Venus with floating stations.

So I just read this article. http://www.citylab.com/tech/2014/07/the-surprisingly-strong-case-for-colonizing-venus/373560/ And I thought if KSP simulated gases and the way lighter gasses floated up into the atmosphere. Then if we had some parts added to KSP that could be filled with said gasses. We could then simulate what there talking about in this article and colonize the upper atmosphere of Jool, and Eve. The parts would be useful in other ways as well. Modders would go to town with this. Hal

The underlying math that governs everything in KSP are newtonian physics. Teach them newtons laws and equations and then have them use netwtons equations to explain why things happen in the game the way that they do. IE why do ships in lower orbit travel faster then ships in higher orbit? How do geosynchronous orbits work? Given the mass of kerbin and the mass and altitude of the mun what is the orbital period of the mun? Calculating delta V is also a fantastic one. Yes the flight path and atmo drag increase the DV needed but tell them they have to build a launcher with a minimum of 4500dv and a maximum of 5500dv. Make them calculate the delta V by hand no kerbal engineer and test launch it. The craft file can be the file they turn in for the assignment.

I agree with this statement as well. I think part of the motivation for NASA joining in with Squad was to inspire young, up and coming scientists and engineers to get interested in some of the real issues faced by NASA. Since Mars colonization is on NASA's plate I think it would be a good thing to see more parts and missions in KSP with colonization as its end result. Since Duna is a mars analog it would be real cool to have biomes for Duna. Im assuming that NASA has ideas how to use resources on Mars for life support / refueling. It would be nice if there was some analogs in KSP to those ideas. Since Kethane already does something very similar I don't see that its too much to hope for. I would just like to see something more realistic and less fictional then Kethane. Also something that is officially supported by Squad. Hats off to the developers who worked on this update. A real amazing update!!! Hal

Yes you are right. Each time you repeat an experiment in identical circumstances you get diminished returns. Transmitting reports always give you a penalty as well. Only the crew reports will give you 100% return for transmissions. Otherwise its always best to bring the rocket back to Kerbin. I do think the career system as is favors manned missions above unmanned but I haven't played far enough to test that out.

I agree Duna is a good candidate for your next destination. It also has a moon that has similarity to minmus. Its between minmus and the mun in mass I think. So theres two targets for you there. I land on duna with just parachutes. The atmo is thinner so you just have to add more of them.

The thing I find amazing about this debate in this thread is that the very same debate raged for 30 years in regards to Titan. Obviously were not scientists with PHD's and so forth but the parallels are very interesting.