diomedea

Excellent, so happy to find your mod released!

Hi, welcome aboard. Sure you will enjoy KSP, like all of us do... or you'll be the first I know on this forum that doesn't

Hi and welcome aboard. As you can see, your posting ability is true, after posts get approved. Let me or others in the mod team have a look about the spaceport thing. But at least one thing you did good for sure: posting here (and that's sure an impressive step for someone who never does) .

Poor Jeb, he's always the first to go and often pays the bill for our mishaps. But that's the kerbal way. Welcome aboard .

Regex, best of luck and thanks for your efforts up to now to provide an outstanding mod. Hope you won't be so busy to disappear from this forum, keep in touch.

If I understand you correctly, you want to establish a close orbit (eccentricity < 1) around Mun after a transfer orbit from Kerbin. The blue line (continuous) is your current orbit. If you burned correctly for a transfer to Mun, that orbit will bring your spaceship within the sphere of influence (SoI) of Mun; but the orbit within the SoI of Mun is another conic (a hyperbolic orbit), colored orange. If you burn before entering Mun's SoI you can change that hyperbolic orbit, but you won't be able to reduce eccentricity below 1 (or, that orbit will remain hyperbolic). You have to wait after the transition within Mun's SoI (than, the blue orbit becomes the hyperbolic one), and that apply burn retrograde to reduce eccentricity enough. The best point to burn retrograde for reducing eccentricity is also the point that best effects the apoapsis altitude: where the periapsis is. But, if what you mean is that you apply throttle to your engines but the orbit doesn't change, that means no thrust is actually applied. Either your engines are off, your fuel is depleted, your engines thrust is extremely small compared to the mass of your ship, or the ship mounts engines that burn in opposite directions (for a null net result). Or else that I can't figure.

Yes, we can.

Hi, nice Tracking Center internals and functionalities. Don't know if and when Squad may create something similar in game, but have you checked ProbeControlRoom mod (WIP)? That mod seems to have much in common with what you would like to see (and, you may actually help with that mod to include other functionalities you like). P.S.: Italy you from? Don't forget to come visit the italian thread on KSPF!

Per gli fps, consiglio di provare FRAPS. E concordo che gli effetti particellari, come quelli di Kethane, possono rallentare moltissimo la grafica.

Mah, forse sbaglio, ma abbassare la grafica è importante (anche molto) se il collo di bottiglia è dovuto alla GPU (inclusi processore/scheda grafica, VRAM ed eventualmente anche il canale dati che la collega al resto del PC). Se invece il problema è dovuto al calcolo strutturale (tipo physics) allora è la CPU ad andare al limite (anche se solo con i core interessati dai thread aperti da KSP.exe), ed è importante anche la velocitàe precisione degli algoritmi di calcolo (ovvero, come Unity.dll svolge i calcoli). Magari altri ne sanno qualcosa in più, ma potrebbe anche essere che le giunzioni siano sotto sforzo, e questo potrebbe causare un continuo ricalcolo delle forze agenti su di esse, anche se non si vedono movimenti nè vibrazioni. E' solo un'ipotesi, comunque.

Could be Squad will also make for mission tracks, if they see it fitting with career mode. Each version we are seeing improvements on that mode, after science we will have contracts, and probably money. But I don't see missions to become a mandatory part in the game: many players like to decide what to do, and Squad certainly knows.

Given how fast you want to spin your flask (13000 rpm), I would use a technology similar to how jet turbines are spun, that is, using compressed gas on a turbine rotor. There may still be vibrations, if any of the blades on the rotor is not symmetric, but it requires a very high speed for such vibrations to be relevant; instead you will certainly eliminate any from the electric motor and gear you are currently using.

Lignite, I see you are already used with MCE, and to my best knowledge that is how far you can get with mission tracks. There are a number of mission packs with MCE, both included with that mod or as separate downloads, that should really provide what you are looking for. But in case you still are not happy with those, you will find more in the way of customizing your own missions. If you had a look at the planned features list, you won't find Squad doing any mission tracks (yet), so my suggestion is to stick with MCE and ask on the thread for that mod in case you have suggestions on how to improve it.

Let me ask again about documentation. But, I can't provide details on how to improve that, as it is now almost non-existing (one single example). I tried many times to use KSPTOT MA, and am sure I am making stupid mistakes. Why I can't enter the SoI of a minor body after a transfer with the objective set for it? What if I want to set a transfer for the minimum possible approach speed to a body? How, really, constraints should be set across different stages? The only way for me to learn is to find a step-by-step guide for such cases. Or, at the very least, some good examples. I believe it won't cost you too much time to include some more examples with version 0.12, covering the more common use cases (and, why not, even some complex case to show the power of your tool).

Thanks for keeping us updated on progress. My expectations keep growing about your mod, but do as you feel better . And certainly, thanks for squashing bugs before uploading.

I am really happy of the features offered by this tool, and especially like the "copy ModInfo" capability from version 1.4.0 PR4. But, I feel it would be an improvement to also be able to copy what is within the "Note:" field, as I use that quite a lot. But, while the above is probably easy to implement, I have a further desire that may require some more effort (please bear with me). I would like a way to make hyperlinks active within the "Note:" field, as I often use that to keep track of the thread dealing with a mod (especially useful when a mod is not uploaded to spaceport) and it would be a boon to be able to open that thread just clicking in that field.

In my case, I run on 1280x960. Many thanks for showing what you're doing, very good progress. Take your time, though I can't wait for your mod to be available .

Believe you have, by now, seen the last vid from Mdrive. I found that interesting. If I got it correctly, his device moves (by whatever force) when the little gyroscopes on its arms are spinning; doesn't move when they are not. Of course attrition with the rail is the same in both cases, so the force seems to lie elsewhere. About your points: 1. What difference is with the device just sitting on the rail? I already wrote it must remain there because of gravity, so its axis will always keep oriented with the rail. Unlike a free gyroscope (free to orient itself) the arms of that devices are constrained to rotate around an axis moving with the rail. 2. The total force of a gyroscope is 0 if the gyro is perfectly balanced. And Mdrive's device is certainly not. Actually, any rotating mass (like a gyro) has not one, but two pivots (the bearings). And what I believe is happening is, due to the combined spin of the gyroscopes and the arms, the force exerted on one of the bearings is different than the force on the other. To see what happens is rather easy, if you have a spinning gyro and use a force on one of its bearings, it will strongly react (and actually move, if not constrained). So, I have what I need (it is just pretty difficult to show). The speed with which a gyrocompass aligns is mainly due to the quality of the device. No doubt that a toy hasn't that quality. The torque exerted is there, but attrition may limit the speed (and introduce other phenomena, like precession, that make for alignment errors; but this is really getting too far). Yes certainly, nowadays gyrocompasses use active controls to detect the torque and accelerate alignment. And, the more time is allowed for alignment, the better the result. But gyrocompasses exist from a time when electronics wasn't yet, and they were commonly used.

There is something that seems to be missing in your interpretation, and I am making efforts at trying to make for that. Now, you wrote those forces don't work without mechanical contact. So, let me try to show where the mechanical contact is (it is often elusive to see that). That device by Mdrive is actually similar to a gyroscope fixed on a rail. Its axis can't move in relation to the rail. Now, if the rail orientation was to remain fixed in space, we would have no force exerted by the gyroscope (the force is proportional to the mass, the frequency of the gyroscope squared, and the axial angular tilt in time: so when the axis of the gyroscope is aligned with Earth's, or is let free to keep its orientation in space, force is 0). The fact is that the rail changes its orientation with the Earth rotation (think orientation in relation to space = fixed stars, not Earth). And because that device is mounted on that rail, and due to gravity must keep standing on it, its axis has to change orientation. Therefore the gyroscope exerts a force. It may not seem that large, and generally we don't need large forces with such devices (I would like, but it requires a lot of effort, to show how a gyrocompasss aligns itself - and requires only a matter of minutes to do so - only thanks to that minuscule force). But with a very limited attrition, even a minuscule force will make that device accelerate until attrition equals that force (in the hypothetical case of no attrition, that device will actually move until the force nullifies because of alignment of its gyroscope axis with Earth's). There are actually devices (think e.g. centrifuges to enrich uranium) so massive and fast that would exert a serious force just because of Earth's rotation coupling (so, need to be aligned to minimize force on the bearings). Hope the above is of help. I know this subject is often very unintuitive, and I am no teacher . EDIT: actually, a gyroscope would not move around, but only rotate its axis. What makes a difference with Mdrive machine is how unbalanced it is. The reaction force from one arm is different than the reaction force from the other, though they probably average over time. So, it is the net difference in reaction forces to actually make for that 'propulsion' effect.

It would take a course on such mechanical systems to explain in full detail. But it seems you have singled out the speed with which the devices change their orientation. That is not the correct parameter to see (that speed is always the same as the Earth's rotational speed). The correct parameter is the force that is exerted on the device. That force may (if conditions were perfect, no attrition) propel that device Mdrive built along a parallel on Earth until the axis of its arms is aligned to the Earth's axis. Please don't think about timescale, it has no relevance here.

Please note that I mentioned Coriolis only as a (pretty well known) example of a coupling due to Earth's rotation. I am not meaning that device moves due to Coriolis effect (it doesn't, Coriolis effect works due to different speed of particles in different places on Earth), but that its rotation is coupled to that of Earth. There are notable examples of other devices that do so, my preferred is gyrocompass but the best known is possibly the Foucault pendulum. Yes, size does not matter. What matters is the angular momentum of both systems (device and Earth), therefore mass and speed, and how they are aligned.

I am unable to calculate just because of lack of data. If I knew mass of the arms, speed, orientation of the machine and latitude, it would be enough. That 'laughable' amount of force if the same that develops hurricanes, and the coupling I mentioned is well demonstrated in mechanics. You are just showing to not know about these facts.

M drive, I am unable to calculate it, but believe the "propulsion" effect on your machine comes from a coupling between the rotation of its arms and the Earth's own rotation. It could be something similar to what brings to the Coriolis effect, and the same kind of force that keeps gyroscopes oriented in relation to Earth's axis. If that was right, you should see very different behaviour if the arms rotation is inverted, and possibly no propulsion at all if the machine is oriented 90° from where the coupling is greatest.

Assolutamente d'accordo. Seguendo questo argomento mi sono trovato a concludere che, talvolta, sia meglio che KSP non includa tutte le caratteristiche addizionali che vengono ora rese disponibili grazie ad alcune mod. Finchè qualche caratteristica è dovuta ad una mod, abbiamo la libertàdi decidere se includerla o meno nel nostro gioco. Io gradirei molto, come giàdetto in precedenza, una mod che consenta il Welding di veicoli e basi in "flight mode" (noto l'assoluta diversitàrispetto alla mod di Ubiozur, che funziona solo in "editor mode"). Ma purchè rimanga una mod, in modo che chi gradisce altrimenti, come brusura, possa sempre giocare a KSP come meglio vuole.

Benvenuto tra noi . E buon divertimento con KSP.