KerikBalm
-
Posts
6,186 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by KerikBalm
-
-
On 4/19/2024 at 12:58 PM, Hotel26 said:
Would 10km likely be sufficient or will this project need to Aim Higher??
I would particularly like to hear estimates/advice from those who are reasonably experienced in Eve ascent, but all insights welcomed.
[2] Vertical Liftoff Horizontal Return
[3] Opinion of my Space Kommand is that only personnel and science need be transmitted out of Eve's atmosphere (and science can be relayed electronically).
I have no experience with stock Eve SSTOs, that's something that has eluded me - even after stock rotors came out.
IIRC, some have been able to do HLHR SSTOs from the tallest mountain on eve (7 or 8km), I don't know if 10km makes a VLHR viable.
Myself, I have done *reusable* Eve ascent craft, with rotors, from sea level, carrying 18 tons of payload in a medium mk3 cargo bay with a cargo ramp
SpoilerMy re-usable system has a first stage that climbs on electric power to >10.5 km, lights rockets to climb at 45-60 degrees (mainly to get a high apoapsis), then the second stage gets to orbit before the first stage has fallen back into the atmosphere (or at least not too far), so I switch back to it and fly it back to the fueling station, it docks with the upper stage on the ground (after the upper stage does it's stuff in orbit and comes back), fuels up, and is ready to go again
It's HL HR, but the horizontal speed is negligible. It's got plenty of TWR, and climbs quite steep. vertical launch and tip forward vs horizontal flight and pull up- not much difference
These would start the rocket powered climb at 10.5-11 I'm, and as I said, the horizontal velocity at the start doesn't contribute much to the final outcome.
If I could start at 11km, I could drop the rotors, the blades, the batteries, a lot of the wings and have something that performs better*
So at 11km, you definitely have some options. I don't know if vertical launch SSTOs become practical at that altitude, but I am sure that some kind of reusable system with significant payload can be made to work at that altitude
-
I didn't say you have to go supersonic like the concord: just that you go too slow. Airlinerd cruise at 250-270 m/s at those altitudes, you're going about 100 m/s - that is way too slow.
My comments about hypersonics only meant to imply that I can't give you any rules of thumb off the top of my head for wingloading or TWR for those sort of planes.
As for the altitude: kerbin's atmosphere is about 80% to scale. 8500m on kerbin has the same pressure as about 35'000 feet on Earth.
Regarding rotors, I said subsonic, not transonic, but yes, you can almost go supersonic with rotors:
And that was a tilt-rotor VTOL carrying a 36 ton rockonax 64 fuel tank as payload
-
You are going way too slow to be flying in air that thin.
I don't really play much with the high bypass turbofans. I do a lot of air launch to orbit, but those are with hypersonic spaceplanes.
When I do play around with subsonic aircraft, it's mostly using electric rotors, for operation on Duna, Eve etc.
-
On 4/22/2024 at 12:37 AM, Great Liao said:
This is so cool! Is it a planet or a moon?
On 4/21/2024 at 10:41 PM, Iapetus7342 said:Where would Brumo orbit?
I added a gas giant, "Soong", for it to orbit.
Here's my modified system at Stock scale:
Take the whole thing*, or just take Soong and Brumo
* The whole thing changes the stock system up significantly:
SpoilerMoho: surface gravity increased
Eve: Size and surface gravity decreased, atmospheric pressure multiplied 4x, now a more proper Venus analogue
Kerbin: No change:
Mun: Size decreased, moved to where Minmus is in stock
Minmus: Size decreased, moved to Soong (as an enceladus analogue)
+Eki: a small rocky body at Kerbin's pseudo L4 lagrange point
Dres: Size and surface gravity decreased, as a more proper Ceres analogue
+Rald: A habitable planet 3/4th the radius of Kerbin, where Duna dormally is
Duna: Surface gravity increased ~25%, atmospheric pressure decreased by a factor of 3, procedural craters added. Orbits Rald
Ike: procedural craters added, orbits Soong
+Pact: a Pallas analogue
+Vot: A vesta analogue
Jool: Surface gravity increased
Laythe: SMA increased, size, gravity, and atmospheric pressure decreased
Tylo: SMA increased, size, and gravity decreased
Val: SMA increased, gravity decreased, I forget what I did with it's size (changed it to be more like something proportionately 1.5x the radius of europa)
Bop: SMA increased, I forget what exactly I did with it's size (changed it to be more like a callisto analgoue, but something proportionately 1.5x the radius)
Pol: SMA increased
+Soong: A saturn analogue
+Bruma: A titan analogue
Eeloo: SMA increased so it is in orbital resonance with Soong instead of Jool
-
Today, I ditched sigma dimensions, and just moded my custom system to 4x manually, after playing at 6.25x with KR&D.
Managed to get fully stock reusable spaceplanes taking >100 tons to orbit at 4x
I also got to a point that I was pretty happy with my 'Brumo' moon, but then accidentally posted the ksp2 rather than ksp1 mod forum
-
Ooops, meant for ksp1
-
So I will release this soon, and I know there are already some titan analogues out there (Huygens from JNSQ, Tekto from OPM), but whatever, I wanted to make my own.
It uses a high-res heightmap (8192 x 4096) that is a (mostly) composite of real terrain data. Respect to anyone who can pick out the real world locations used to make most of this heightmap:
There is one section there that made heavy use of the spot healing tool from photoshop
Here are some screenshots at 1x rescale (I normally play somewhere between 3 to 6.25x rescale), from a few different iterations:
-
2 minutes ago, king of nowhere said:
I made a barge with a ramp that a plane can climb. i made it because the plane on top of the boat counts as landed instead of splashed down, and that allows collecting more science in the same biome
Clever, I'll have to make use of that sometime.
I don't have the screenshots, but I finally figured out what the problem was with my normal maps (or at least a way to make them work, I don't know why they weren't working before) for a new planet I'm working on.
Its meant as a titan analogue, and thus has many similarities to Tekto. Previously my personal planet mods all focused on the inner solar system, and thuse would be compatible with OPM, but no longer.
I added a Saturn analogue (can't get Kopernicus rings working, the textures don't show up, need to figure that out), that just uses a texture of Saturn. Jool's smaller sister I'm calling Soong.
At the moment, it only has one moon (I think I will move Minmus and Ike there to keep it company): Brumo
Brumo's stats are more like Titan than Tekto's: 0.14 G (vs 0.25 of Tekto), and 1.5 atmospheres at sea level (vs 1.25 of Tekto). The Mk2 lifting body parts + a few control surfaces are perfectly sufficient for touchdown at 10-20 m/s.
The heightmap is still WIP, there are large flat plains (from the sides of the heightmap) that I plan to add some more features to (respect to anyone who can identify what this heightmap is derived from)
The color map is even more WIP:
Titan may have polar lakes, but Brumo has polar seas (bonus: much easier to avoid artifacts at the poles).
Its got mountains, drainage channels, rivers, lakes (well, one, more to come), bays, a cryovolcano (smaller ones to be added).
I also plan on adding: undersea mounts (so you can make offshore mining bases like this):
Spoiler
or mining boats like this:
Undersea trenches and ridges,
some polygonal terrain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterned_ground https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polygonal_patterned_ground https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pluto#Surface https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europa_(moon)#Chaos_and_lenticulae
sand dunes; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_(moon)#Dark_equatorial_terrain
And, why not some mesas too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monument_Valley
It's a really high res heightmap (8192x4096), about 4x most heightmap resolutions (2048x1024), so I want to pack a lot of detail and interesting features into this "medium-sized" moon.
I say medium-sized, because it is proportionately sized - bigger than Mun, but about half the size of the giant moons of Jool (Laythe and Tylo), which are significantly bigger than duna and moho, and are proportionately much bigger than the moons of Jupiter.
-
So its been some time since I made a planet, but I am trying to make a titan analogue (Tekto is nice, but not what I'm looking for), and I'm having the same problem.
I don't remember what I did last time.
Can anyone tell me what needs to be done to generate a proper normal map from a heightmap?
-
My main use of the Kal was for differential torque/throttling of engines/motors for quad copters and similar vtols.
Anyway, I consider it better than making history.
Robotics open up so many possibilities (particularly with underwater exploration, which may not be expected), and surface features add a little something to surface exploration (I love the animated geysers and cryo volcanoes)
-
On 9/10/2023 at 5:46 PM, Shpaget said:
.Are you proposing an electrical heater to heat a some inert fluid and achieve thrust that way, without a chemical reaction? Something line NERVA, but electrical? But in that case, there is no combustion.
Ignoring his lack of understanding of what combustion is - you are, and I guess he is, describing a resistojet rocket
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistojet_rocket
They are pretty bad, but better than cold gas thrusters.
I wouldn't use them for more than RCS - or maybe station keeping on a small satellite
-
On 9/13/2023 at 1:27 AM, HephaistosFnord said:
I'm hoping KSP2 eventually gives us a 6.4x scaleup option in the 'difficulty' settings
I prefer 6.25x, ie 2.5^2.
It's easier to multiply orbital periods and dV requirements by 2.5x than... checks sqrt 6.4= 2.529822
I would have there be various difficulties
Difficulty: rescale factor: orbital period and approximate dV multiplier
Easy: 1x: 1x
Medium: 2.25x: 1.5x
Hard: 4x: 2x
Expert: 6.25x: 2.5x
Or maybe, depending on bodies and part stats:
Easy: 1x: 1x
Medium: 4x: 2x
Hard: 9x: 3x
Hard would be close to "real" scale, and would require parts with stats quite a bit better than those found in KSO1.
In all cases, I wouldn't scale the atmosphere up by more than 1.25x
On 9/13/2023 at 8:18 PM, Alexoff said:The small size of planets is compensated by the low efficiency of kerbal's rockets. Empty tanks are too heavy; with such rockets we would not even reach orbit.
Not true, you can make orbit in RSS with stock parts, payload fraction is terrible though.
1x scale is still much easier than real life - compensation is partial at best.
I find 3-4x rescales to be about right for balance purposes. 6.25x gets to the limit.
With a 350 isp LFO engine (poodle), you're getting a proportional dV less than that of a hyrdolox engine, while being saddled with poor mass ratios due to heavy empty tanks, and poor rocket TWR.
For saves where I enable KRnD in KSP1, I play at 6.25x
-
On 8/29/2023 at 3:51 AM, Alpha_star said:
Might be a bit too personal, but from what I have observed, the community has divided in to three groups.
The first one is the normal players/ community members without a very clear opinion. I’d say that they like to post mission reports and wacky creations. From my observation, most members of the KSP2 community belongs to this group.
The second group is what I call the “haters”. Now this might be somewhat impolite but please don’t attack me for this. They are often focused on the game’s slow progress and how buggy/unoptimized it is without acknowledging the fact that some progress has been made. People belonging to this group are often overly pessimistic and love attacking others in-person, especially the developers.
Now the third group is what I call the “ white knights”. People of this group defends the game from anything, even constructive critism. Apart from being completely different, people of this group are similar to the “haters” in many ways.
I don't fit any of those.
I don't have a positive opinion of the product as is, and I don't have confidence that they will sufficiently remedy the situation.
I hope they remedy the situation. I'm not going to be on here much, spreading the pessimism, because that may become a self fulfilling prophecy. I'm not going to blow smoke and say everything is great, because if the devs believe it is, that's not good either.
So, I think it's best to sit back and be generally silent. Give praise where praise is due, and greet disappointment with silence.
-
On 3/25/2023 at 5:42 PM, evileye.x said:
Hint: you don't need all the torque those engine provide to spin the blades or propellers. And if you will limit max torque, you'll greatly reduce fuel consumption
^this^
As far as control, I haven't really made any helos that I would describe as "nimble"
Quad copters are technically helicopters, you can make an ok control system with the KAL controller modifying rpms of the 4 rotors. I've made workable quad tiltrotor cargo aircraft that are controllable enough to land on top of the VAB, hangar roofs of the island airfield, etc. They are ponderous and require patient and gentle maneuvering in hover mode
Other than quad copters, I do contrarotating rotors, Kamov helo style. With enough reaction wheels, they can be fairly nimble
Another thing is the speed we expect from the helos. IRL, most helos fly slower than 200mph/320 kph, or less than 90 m/s.
Really slow in ksp when you get used to jetting around at >mach 4
Helos don't do well at high speed, and retreating blade stall should also manifest in ksp
-
On 8/22/2023 at 1:09 PM, Nazalassa said:
Hypothesis: place the ground anchor mid-water (as it is on the second picture), then use a piston to push it against the seafloor. May also works for cliffs, but it has yet to be tested.
No, it cannot be placed. Notice it is red. That is the preview for the placement, it won't get placed at all.
On 8/22/2023 at 11:47 AM, Hotel26 said:There is a certain number (2) of magic components in it to defeat the KSP buoyancy issues -
Yea, I'm trying to go full stock, but text file editing is needed to use a ground anchor. Of course, a ground anchor is only really needed with scatterer modding which goes beyond visual mods and adds wave effects to spalshed down craft.
So I had another idea, and that would be to: 1) send down a diving rig, while the floating part stays above, really light (floating high)
SpoilerI then use ladders, an engineer, EVA construction mode, and the offset tool to start raising parts one at a time. Ladders are used to secure the kerbals. The small radial ore tanks transfer their ore out to be light enough to be moved. For aesthetics, I attach fuel lines to the tanks, but the real thing here is just moving the ladders so that I can keep offsetting the docking port, which I only ever move straight up
Nearly there, just need to join the floating part to the mining part:
It was tedious, I stopped attaching the fuel lines for aesthetics:
The bottom miner wasn't quite straight, after docking, the base was not quite level:
but it worked, and was filling up:
Then after joining the floating part to the miner, the mined ore will weigh down the top part, which will be resting on the miner, preventing it from sinking down as it increases in mass - and hopefully it won't rise up with the waves, and will thus be stationary despite the wave action
But this was very tedious, so I turned to robotics
There were multiple candidate locations
A simple set of linked extendable pistons (one hinge to pivot 90 degrees to point the drill down, another hinge to swing 180 degrees to allow for the drill to fold in half for storage) can give quite some reach, the bottom was accessible here:
But one candidate location was almost too shallow, I had to drill at a slant - the next iteration will have the hinge oriented so that I can just point half the "drill" down, and leave the other half in the cargo bay:
Of course, this looks more like a boat than a fixed base like the others, but it can serve the same purpose.
Due to the robotic drift bug, in use I would just have it maneuver to one undersea mount, extend the drill, lock everything in place, and then stay there.
I may try to change the robotic mounting so that the drills are below the CoM, and have some supports so that the craft can rest on the drill arm as it gets heavier (again, to avoid going up and down with the waves)
So, EVA construction vs robotics:
EVA pros: Lower part count, more flexible?
EVA cons: Tedious to build, requires some precision to look right and be level, cannot get down lower than crush depth (if part pressure limits are turned on: 400 m for Kerbin, 500m for Laythe, about 235 for Eve I think)
Robotics pros: Easier and quicker
Robotics cons: higher part count, robotics associated bugs must be designed/worked around.
-
One should always try to limit part count - so my fuel depot's are large 3.75 or 5m tanks
It's a fuel depot, there's no need to be fancy.
Some docking ports, a big LFO tank, and a big monoprop tank.
Throw on a reaction wheel, probe core, solar panel, and relay antenna for convenience.
-
You don't have to turn them fast, any reaction wheel will work for eventually.
Or you could unclae, and re-claw facing the right direction
-
Let's not forget that size and detail aren't the same thing.
In 1999, Arma:CWC (then called Operation Flashpoint/OFP) had maps 12.8x12.8 km, with almost 60 km^2 of land
17 years later, Arma 3's expansion came with a map.... 15.36x15.36 km, and about 100km^2 of land.
A modest increase in map size?
The maps went from a 256x256 grid with a 50x50m cell size, to a 4096x4096 grid with a 3.75x3.75m cell size.
The difference in the number of objects was astounding too.
You should also look at detail, and resolution.
A 1000x1000km featureless plain is not really "bigger", computationally speaking, than a 4x4km jungle map just packed with objects, and with a 1m terrain resolution
Ksp planets, for the most part(including mods), are rendered from 1024x2048 (or 2048x4096) height map and texture, or simply from procedural generation, and have simple procedurally generated ground scatter.
It actually not that impressive. It's the physics system that is impressive for KSP
-
I don't know about the mods, but the stock one can't be placed by a Kerbal underwater, which was quite a disappointment for me.
I had to place it on solid ground and text edit it underwater.
So much for an underwater sub fueling/ballasting station - transfer too much stuff out of it, and it floats up, no sea anchoring.
Also would be useful for floating bases with a seafloor connection and scatterer oceans that make waves actually move your craft up and down if floating
-
On 5/15/2023 at 9:14 PM, Batrachos said:
Yeah I've made submersibles before, with stock parts using loaded up ore tanks as ballast (the thing was absurdly heavy, i had to roll it off the runway very slowly). It's just so awkward as is, and having to use jet engines producing smoke clouds underwater is hilariously out of place. Not to mention it really is just a vastly empty place down there, nothing but clear water and a featureless sea floor. Would be very cool to explore coral reefs on kerbin, or weave between massive ice crystals forming downwards from the ice shell on Vall
With breaking ground in ksp1, you could have electric rotors propel your sub, powered by RTGs.
Simple text editing could make surface features show up there
-
On 5/25/2023 at 10:14 PM, Madishmike said:
Wings with fuel would be nice
Wings can't carry fuel in ksp 2?!
-
Do they have the equivalent of a Kopernicus mod for KSP2 yet?
This would also be a big factor for whether I purchase the game.
I'm not interested in playing at 1x anymore
-
3 hours ago, regex said:
Are you saying that I'm somehow dishonest or something for claiming I like and enjoy the game, and that I'm fine with the price?
No, I am not saying that at all.
You have your opinion, I have mine. I am saying that our opinions different markedly, not that you opinion is dishonest.
I just want them to do better. What I have seen is not enough, and I wouldn't want them to think their progress so far is satisfactory
-
1 hour ago, regex said:
The science and career modes are uninspired and dull gameplay at best,
I absolutely agree that the science and career modes are lacking. I was quite disappointed by the "First Contract" update. It remains to be seen if KSP2 will do any better
1 hour ago, regex said:and the terrain is extremely polygonal and boring.
Agreed, the increased terrain detail was one of the things that excited me about KSP2 (I said as much on the giveaway thread). I'm sure the terrain is still polygonal, but I am guessing the "grid size" is much smaller (like arma:cwc's islands being about the same size as arma 3's Tania island, but the original had a height map with a 50m grid size, and tanoa's grid size was 3.75m).
I haven't been able to judge that well from videos though. Can't tell how much is due to more detailed geometry vs just textures
1 hour ago, regex said:Then don't buy it! Clearly it's not a game that's going to make you happy.
Not in it's*current state*.
I do still hold out hope that it will get good. However I am not going to contribute to any impression that what they've done so far is satisfactory for the price
How do I get a higher cruising attitude?
in KSP1 Discussion
Posted
Add some wing incidence to decrease how much you need to pitch up, and you'll save a lot of drag from the fuselage
Also, I can't help but feel that the wings are too small for that fuselage: