Stormweaver
-
Posts
44 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Stormweaver
-
-
The materials study I find more plausible, but the goo is just ridiculous. This is a good point, why don't we have better stock science experiments?
I think the goo is supposed to be a stand-in for biological samples. Like animals, just with less guilt.
-
In 0.9 there was a module in the code for a motorised bearing, there just wasn't any parts that took advantage of it. It might still be in there somewhere.
If I recall correctly moving parts had a few issues with not saving properly, clipping and spontanious explosions.
-
Must... resist... must... resist... failing... to... resist.
This was a valid argument (that I myself made) before 1.0 hit, but now that it's out and the perception is that the game is complete, it should have a better manual. It should also actually be complete (or mostly) so that such a manual is possible. I don't think either of these things is true, but I'm not the one who thought 1.0 was a good idea.
Don't be silly, everyone knows that modern PC games don't need manuals anymore - why bother when your userbase can be forced to alt-tab constrantly to a wiki that may-or-may-not be up to date and accurate?
...I miss manuals.
-
Aye, building something yourself is probably going to be a better bet - even here in the UK. Pre-builts have to cut a fair few corners to get decent looking prices, and you don't want to have re-buy everything further down the line because your PSU failed and fried everything, or the supplied cooling let everything fry itself.
As a general rule, if you see a pre-build with 'ultra fast' or 'gaming' anywhere in the title, I'd stay away.
-
Someone is working on it as a mod: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/68502-WIP-Principia-N-Body-Gravitation-and-Better-Integrators-for-Kerbal-Space-Program
But as above, lagrange points just don't make sense in stock KSP physics.
-
1.0+ is by and far better than anything 0.9 or beforehand, but I didn't really get enough time with the different version to tell the difference tbh. 1.02 feels nice I guess.
That isn't to say there isn't some funky things going on with it.
I don't think they thought through the newer inline air intakes very well - sure, stick one in a cargo bay and it won't work. Stick a solid object on the giant fan on the front? A-Ok! Planes do fly like a dream though.
-
Stormweaver: a bug in the occlusion code (where tiny parts would fully occlude stuff under them) was fixed for 1.0.1. That's why the variation is so high in those "tiny part" cases.
Aye, that's what I was testing - hence the antenna being there in the first place :3 The general reduction in altitude across the more sencible nosecone parts was the bit I felt might be relevant here.
-
Just posted this in another thread, it might beinteresting for the people here. I was having some trouble with the patcher, but before I gave up and downloaded it from the site I ran some tests. Then I ran some more.
Before and After the patches
http://i.imgur.com/1Bl31Zt.png
- Flat top
- 4364m, 495m/s
- 1.25m cone pointy
- 6538m, 656m/s
- 1.25m cone flat
- 5358m, 595m/s
- 1.25m chute
- 5246m, 504m/s
- 0.625m cone
- 7343m, 729m/s
- 0.625m chute
- 6887m, 665m/s
- antenna
- 7747m, 748m/s
- antenna with physics
- 7720m, 748m/s
- Strut
- 7636m, 747m/s
Flea test after:
- Flat top
- 3108m, 358m/s
- 1.25m cone pointy
- 3908m, 449m/s
- 1.25m cone flat
- 3441m, 393m/s
- 1.25m chute
- 3512m, 369m/s
- 0.625m cone
- 3224m, 368m/s
- 0.625m chute
- 3252m, 361m/s
- antenna
- 3118m, 358m/s
- antenna with physics
- 3118m, 358m/s
- Strut
- 3112m, 358m/sFlea test before:
The above is the altitudes reached by a flea with a 1.25m flat probe, with 4 static winglets for stability, with various stuff on top. As you can see...some things were a lot more effective than others, and really shouldn't have been.
Of course it's a flea, so the sound barrier was breached in all the flights (there was significant extra acceleration after breaching it iirc) but the above might give you a rough idea of the scale of the changes.
-
This is hearsay from another player's experience, but I thought it was worth repeating here: Apparently some engines drop all the way to zero ISP (i.e. no thrust but still burning fuel) in high pressure atmospheres like Eve's. I haven't been to Eve yet to verify, however.
If true, this is probably not the physics that the devs intended. The real world interpretation would be that the combustion chamber pressure is literally lower than ambient atmospheric pressure... which simply would never be true for any actual rocket motor. Even a child's plastic water rocket would still have an ISP of 5-10 on Eve.
I seem to remember there was a bunch of discussion about this when the ISP changes were confirmed in a devnotes way back.
It's just a case of gameplay vs realism. In reality a vessel on the surface of venus (75atm?) would have a lot of trouble with it's engines, so the engines are scaled to reflect a similar design challenge without the player having to actually wade through 75atm of pressure. In any case I expect the aerospike and the larger engines should still have thrust on the surface, it'll be mainly the dinky ones that struggle.
-
Yes, it rotated with the vessel - resulting in the offset being (in this case) a little the the right of center on the navball regardless of rotation. Which meant that the offset could be used to steer.
At least I think that was the answer you were looking for. It was similar behavior to what we noticed with just the parachute/pod/heatshield at any rate, just slightly more exagerrated.
-
Well, tried using the 'offset' to steer as it were - perfectly equatorial orbit, stayed equatorial all the way down. Same thing happened having turned it 90 degrees and I landed in more or less the same place.
Decided to make an offset of my own with a goo canister clipped into the side of the pod, and that steered slightly. I don't think the existing offset is large enough to be intentional.
-
I'm in Sandbox at 100% heating, the pod explodes quite spectacularly if I try to de-orbit it without a heat shield (no, it doesn't come with one by default). My question was, why isn't it stable?
Someone decided that the heatshields should be physicsless parts for whatever reason.
It's easy enough to fix - go to your KSP folder, then gamedata/squad/parts/aero/heatshield, go into each of the three config files, find the line that reads PhysicsSignificance = 1 and change the 1 to a 0.
-
Right, did a bit of testing with the physics turned on, see about adressing the mat bay/utility bay re-entry.
With just a Utility bay, you can re-enter just fine - you'll be offset a few degrees, but the heatshield takes the vast majority of the punishment. With just a Matirials bay, if you manage to avoid overheating the bloody thing (which can be hard enough to do on the way up, let alone on the way down) you'll need to kick SAS on once heat starts building up, but the reaction wheel is strong enough to handle it. With both...you'll be balancing it by hand, probably with spin stabilisation, and probably want spare batteries.
All in all, it sounds about right.
Quick edit: Had the aero debug arrows on the whole time - Saw nothing but the red 'drag' ones pointing retrograde. Not sure if there should be other ones visable.
-
BTW: Did you happen to notice a *slight* horizontal offset to your trajectory on the way down? I'm wondering if this actually has to do with the center of lift, rather than it being physicsless, with the COM offset due to turning physics on just overwhelming that and causing you not to veer off so severely.
A couple of pixels to the left of the middle of the retrograde marker? Yeah. It's like that regardless of rotation, something might be a shade off-center.
-
As a follow up, having changed the above value I was able to dead-stick reenter no problem with a 1.25m heatshield attached directly to the bottom of a Mk1 command pod.
Yup, just came here to say the same thing.
Also, discovered that the rate of ablation seems to have nothing to do with airspeed ala DRE - my command pod got hot on the way up, heatshield was ablating in orbit (while still behind it's fairing) as heat got transferred to it.
-
I can confirm - with just a Mk-1 capsule, a parachute and heatshield, the craft is stable around 30 degrees off the retrograde marker. Doesn't really matter what direction it's offset, but it won't stay retrograde without reaction wheels.
Oh, and it's enough to overheat the capsule at that angle. Might just be me playing at 120% for that one though.
-
Question: If we have interstage fairings available, can we just do away with the automatic engine fairings? They're a hindrance as often as not (looking at you, LV-N*) and it sounds like the interstage system is more flexible (can hide clusters or look good with mismatched tank/engine sizes).
*I can't stay mad at you, LV-N, even if your fairing is terrible. Curse your seductively high Isp!
Lots of this.
-
I flinched at "Too many constraints" - in a game with practically none - but provided the Claw's various world-destroying bugs don't make it into the final release, it wouldn't break immersion too much to pretend it's got a fuel line in there somewhere.
-
"A new Dimension...of Social media updates! We'll now be posting exclusive tidbits about the 1.0 release on our myspace page!" :3
Tired jokes aside, parts inspired by other space agencies would be nice.
-
Thanks as always for this, I keep meaning to catch the cast and...always forget.
-
Moving parts would be great, but there are a couple of issues that would need to be sorted before they get implemented imo.
- Craft need to be able to collide with themselves, as opposed to parts just phasing through
- radially attached parts that are spinning quickly need to actually stay attached instead of expanding outwards
I think there's good reason why the rotor module that's in the game hasn't actually be used yet.
-
I'm in favour of nerfing the torque values significantly. While giving RCS a use in stock would be great on it's own, we're also getting the ISP fix and overhauled aerodynamics in 1.0. With planes actually making a degree of sense and the RCS thrusters having significantly less thrust in atmosphere, reaction wheels in aircraft are going to stick out like a sore thumb as they currently are.
-
Well is that realistic? Would Jool's atmosphere REALLY bring the efficiency to zero?
In BTSM many lighter engines have 0 ISP at 5atm, mid range ones at 7atm, and the spike at 15atm. Now given that eve (5atm) is an analogue to venus (~75atm?)...
It's a matter of scaling to make gameplay happen I guess. Otherwise it'd only have a limited bearing on gameplay.
-
It'd be more interesting to have parachutes deploy based on height above sea-level, and unlock a not-inexpencive radar altimeter some way into the tech tree.
....but where you have one, yes, it should be on the HUD somewhere.
The Supermoon Total Eclipse - Who Watched It?
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
Had wonderful clear skies for it - unfortunately, Britain. By 3am mist had rolled in and I couldn't see anything.
No clouds, just light pollution godamnit.