Jump to content

Kurld

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    497

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Kurld

  1. Kurld
    Coming at solving the problem with my LES parts from a different way. Currently, for the part to be lined up correctly with the command pod and also have the lift from the canards be generated the correct direction, the user must rotate the part 90 degrees when they place it in the VAB. Is there a way that, when they place the part, it is automatically rotated 90 degrees around the Y axis?
  2. Kurld
    This is the same basic approach I took with the canards on my LES parts. I'm having a long-running issue with the orientation of the part and the direction of lift. Do you know if there is a way so that the direction for the lifting surface can be rotated 90 degrees (to part's x axis instead of z)? As it is now, there's no way I can see where the part can be oriented correctly to the command pod and have the lift generated in the correct direction without requiring the user to rotate it manually 90 degrees when they attach the part.
  3. Kurld
    I'm working on my LES plugin code again. It uses ModuleLiftingSurface to simulate the aerodynamic effects of its deployed canards. ModuleLiftingSurface applies lift in the Z axis. This wasn't a big deal until I wanted to start adding details to the blast cover that align with the underlying CM. But unfortunately, the lift vector is 90 degrees away from where it needs to be with how the command modules are oriented in the VAB. Until now, I have rotated my part 90 degrees to get the lift vector correct for the LES, but that means that the user needs to rotate the LES 90 degrees to get it to line up correctly with their pods. Is there a way via plugin code or config to specify the direction of the lift vector for ModuleLiftingSurface?
  4. Kurld
    Thanks!
  5. Kurld
    I've had the idea for a long time that you can't dock with more than one port on each side of a sub-vessel. Is this no longer the case?
  6. Kurld
    I was unaware of advanced mode on the debug menu, thanks!
  7. Kurld
    Without Sepratrons, one thing I used to do that worked ok was reduce the decoupler force to almost nothing. The idea is to impart as little torque to the booster as possible, while still pushing it away from the main rocket. That way they wont flop around so much when they jettison. Another thing to help is build a mockup of the booster as it's own ship and use the CoM tool in the VAB to give you the ideal location to mount the booster to the radial decoupler (or to mount your Sepratrons if you have those). You want the decoupling force to push out through the CoM of the booster. Remember to remove the fuel from your booster mockup when getting the CoM.
  8. Kurld
    I cant help with the docking ports question. As far as station keeping you need to try and keep the relative orbital velocities of the undocked "child" craft and it's mothership as close together as possible. One way to do this is with a higher orbit. Another way would be to orient the ships so that the docking ports are pointed towards each other at an angle perpendicular to the oribital pro/retrograde. This will also help you line up and grab it easier with your tug. In each case they will still drift apart, just not as quickly. I'm assuming you are already reducing the relative velocity of the parent/child to 0 m/s after undocking. 300m is really not that far apart.
  9. Kurld
    "Nope, not cheese, Bob." Yeah, I guess you're right.
  10. Kurld
    Do you mean without spending science points? You'd need to edit your save file.
  11. Kurld
    The "getting there" is harder with Minmus, but landing is way way easier, due to less gravity and plenty of wide open completely flat places to land. The hard part about Minmus is matching the orbital inclination to get an intercept. It's not that hard, and you need to learn it eventually anyhow. Pick your poison.
  12. Kurld
    Used to be, even if the craft was inside the atmosphere, it would not degrade above a certain altitude. Don't know if this is changed in recent versions. Anything above 70k should not decay at all.
  13. Kurld
    That's cool, you're not the only one. The PEBKAC LES mod I made has a version like that.
  14. Kurld
    Ah, ok, I haven't looked at it that closely. There was no literally detail in the texture I sent y'all beyond some light ambient occlusion, so yeah it needs some more love.
  15. Kurld
    What about it don't you like? I'm interested in any way I can improve it.
  16. Kurld
    I refuse to play with space (or any other kind of plane) for this, and other reasons.
  17. Kurld
    Only if it's optional. It's something absolutely intrinsic to space travel/exploration. It's also a layer of complexity some folks might not want to get into.
  18. Kurld
    LOL, yeah, for some reason Bob Kerman likes to do this in my game, periodically. Maybe I just wind up using him to do stuff a lot. Over the years, he's gone on walkabout, in similar spectacular circumstances, about 4 times already.
  19. Kurld
    @Snark I respect your opinion about KJR, but I disagree. I think the wobbliness is one of the major "flaws" of the game.. it's completely overblown (after all, real rockets do wobble a little) and an accidental result of the way the game engine handles collisions/part attachment. A properly designed rocket should not require MOAR STRUTS (or even a few carefully placed ones) to achieve stable flight. To me, that seems absurd. Can you abuse KJR? Sure I suppose so. I don't care. Knock yourself out if you want to do that. Have fun. Wobbly rockets (even the most basic of designs) are not fun, for me anyways.
  20. Kurld
    If you're not averse to mods, try Kerbal Joint Reinforcement.
  21. Kurld
    I've used the part many times in the past to build bases (have one going now in current version) and haven't seen this. I have had all manner of buggy problems with docking ports over the years, so I'd put my bet on that being the source of the problem somehow. Maybe you can look at the save file and see if you can tell what is different about the ports that work and the ones that don't? Most of the problems I've had with ports have been due to parts clipping, back before it was something the game let you do.
  22. Kurld
    Sure that would be really cool.
  23. Kurld
    This is the single most frustrating thing about this game. And ironic too, that as brilliant a job KSP does at simulating space travel, that there is still some notion of "up" when it comes to EVA.
  24. Kurld
    I replaced the capsule colliders for the jettison and escape parts with mesh colliders. No change. FWIW, the escape motor part just aft of the jettison motor part had a capsule collider and did not separate from the truss piece it is attached to. Would altering the CoM in the part config cause this? I seems to remember reading a passing reference to that possibly throwing things off.
  25. Kurld
    Thanks I'll take a look. I wonder how KJR calcluates it area of the two parts. I used a capsule collider for each. I did swap the collider on the jettison engine to mesh, but left the other one alone. I'll try swapping both and see what happens. FWIW, there's really not THAT much thrust being generated here.
×
×
  • Create New...