Sevant
-
Posts
59 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Sevant
-
-
Would it be possible to add an extra, smallish window which shows the maneuver node close up (so i can easily re-select it and adjust the handles and it's position on the orbit), and have this window overlaid with the current view (which would show the big picture view of the whole maneuver and target)...
I just logged on to suggest this very thing. I would love such an option, even if it was just popped up a generic list of the maneuver icons on the side of the screen so you could click and drag the icons to adjust the node that way (i.e. instead of having to adjust the node only via the neat but cluttered spherical icon madness that we currently use, add the option to adjust it by sliding a set of the icons which could be individually listed along the edge of the screen). A new icon would have to be added for moving the node itself backwards and forwards along the flight path.
Innovine's idea of having a zoomed in view of the actual maneuver node could be more useful (and you wouldn't have to memorize what each symbol does), but it would require a mini-camera window which is fully rotatable, and you'd still have to deal with accidentally grabbing the wrong symbol or moving the node every time you slightly miss-click.
-
(holds up trophy) I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE ACADEMY....AND ALL THE PEOPLE THAT INSPIRED ME!........myself:D
Lol
[Ten Character Limit]
-
NOW I CLAM MY PRIZE!!!
Nice job Tidus!
OP: Is his run officially a new record?
-
Here is my entry. It's not a winner, but it reaches Mach 2 and is (in my opinion) the best looking entry yet.
Nice plane, excellent landing! I couldn't agree more about the stock gear--both for speed and wimpy brakes. I enjoyed your use of a wing to slow down on the runway.
As to embedding video, there is a button labeled "insert video" in the advanced post window. It will bring up a box for you to paste the video link into. Once you have done this and clicked "ok", you should see a line similar to this in your post:
[ VIDEO]
To keep the above text from actually embedding a video, I put a space between the first bracket and the word "VIDEO". In normal embedding, that space is not present.
-
1,609 m/s! or 1,650 M/s depending on where you measure.
Cool looking plane Tidus! Just a few things.
1) I'm not sure about the rules on taking off from the runway by suspending the plane on a mount. OP will have to decide that one.
2) Rules say you have to stay under 1000m at all times, even for the return trip as I understand it.
ill set the rule to be under 1.000m at all times3) I think you need to provide proof of landing. That means a picture of your plane landed, with a screenshot of the mission report (press F3) showing your max speed and proving that your max altitude was less than 1000 m.
4) Some of your pictures seemed to show pretty badly clipped parts. I'm pretty sure parts count as clipped whether or not you enabled the clipping cheat or not. Even without the clipping cheat, I can make the game put whole blocks of fuel-tanks + engines inside each other. (That said, the game clips some parts in minor ways no matter how carefully you try to avoid it. The key in my mind is to do what you can to avoid it, and to not intentionally gain a performance boost by clipping parts.)
Keep it up, I look forward to seeing your next entry
-
yes, lose the "#0" on the URL.use this: [ imgur ] SSWRb [ /imgur ]
SSWRb is the last part of the album link, the #0 (or any number) is just the number of the picture, you dont have to type that
Thanks guys!
-
My main computer is still down and out, and the backup that I'm using can't handle video capture (the game crashes about every other flight even with every other program shut down). As such, I just took a bunch of screenshots for this one. You'll notice that I took a tour of KSC after landing--that wasn't intentional.
While braking, Bill forgot to shut down the engines. Even though they were throttled all the way down, they kept him from stopping. By the time he noticed it, he didn't have enough battery left to stop (yay for landing at sunset), so he just rolled around until the plane hit a building. That slowed him down enough to go EVA and push the plane to a full stop.
Looking forward to seeing the next fastest plane
Javascript is disabled. View full album
Edit: Thanks to ihoit and m1sz for helping me get this slideshow posted!
-
I tryed to make an entry, didnt go over 1.200m/s!, but got a nice footage of a low flight in the runway
Nice looking plane
-
EDIT: Nope. Didn't work. Back to the heavyweight winglets. They do offer a surprising amount of lift and more control than one would expect, though I do admit they look a little odd on something that *should* go hypersonic...
[sNIP]
This is the MD-160 Lun-Class Ekranoplan (Project 903), which with its 8 engines could generate a thousand kN of thrust and zip along a couple metres above a body of water at 122m/s while carrying a thousand ton payload(!). Only one was ever built, she flew I think twice, she's now rotting on a pontoon in Kaspiysk, Dagestan, on the Western shore of the Caspian Sea.
I'm surprised that the takeoff speed is so high on that thing, then again, I haven't been flying planes with stock physics since I entered this challenge.
As to the MD-160, that's pretty sweet! I suspect rough seas may have been something of a limitation for it though.
-
So I worked on a new plane today, finally got up to 1,400 m/s with a stable plane. After refining the model I hit 1,510 m/s, but I wasn't good enough to land it (theoretically possible, but not happening with me as the pilot). Thus, I spent 2 hours reworking the plane to ditch nearly all of it's dead weight after reaching speed. The result: a plane that could reach 1,495 m/s with a Kerbal at the helm and was a breeze to fly and land.
Yay! Right?
Not quite.
I finalize the plane design, I start up my screen capturing program, and I do an official run to break the record. I make 1,495 m/s no problem, slow down no problem, ditch all my extra engines without a hitch, turn around, start flying back to land, and the Blue Screen of Death pops up. My hard drive died. That's all there is to it. I have some work to do before I know for sure if I just need a new hard drive or if my laptop has other problems too. I'll try to recreate the plane on a different computer, but all my video editing software is gone (licensed for that hard drive only) so it might be a bit before I can post anything. In the meantime, best of luck everyone!
-
I can get 319m/s (non-FAR since I don't use it) with 3 F119 engines and two intakes, total fuelled weight shy of 6.5 tons. Runway TWR: 9.37.
Nice looking plane! Will it fly if you put smaller wings on it?
-
im finding it imposable to fly a craft at speeds over 1000M/s but 'Dynamic Warp' is back and alows for some piliting that is not posabal any outer way
Try making sure that your craft is completely symmetrical top to bottom (with exception of landing gear). Small drag differences on the top or bottom of the craft will make it very difficult to fly above 1000 m/s.
Also, SAS modules never hurt to keep it under control.
-
Question, what are the fairings covering? Is there some bug where you can reduce drag by covering an intake with a fairing?
The fairings in my planes don't cover anything (with the exception of the center fairing occasionally covering a small probe core). I use them because they are more aerodynamic than any of the nosecones that I know of.
As to covering air intakes, I don't know. There is some speculation about that on the forum, but I've never tried it myself, and it is (I think) against rules (and the laws of physics) to use it for an entry to this challenge.
-
Would anyone else find it useful to have a landing simulator built into the game? What I mean is this:
Have an option to run a simulation where your plane starts maybe 5 km downrange of the KSP runway at perhaps 1 km in height (total guesses, maybe should be adjustable) going at whatever speed you input (maybe put a reasonable limit on this function).
The benefit of this would be to test the ability of a plane to land without having to take-off, dump all pre-landing stages, and then turn around and line up with the runway, and then crash, and then do it all over again.
What do others think?
-
1,402 m/s - MACH 4.134 - B9 and Procedural fairings with FAR
Congrats!! Thanks for all the hints too. When I said that I thought I knew what your next entry would look like, that was it (with shorter fairings in my head). I even built that plane, but I kept maxing out at 12,010 m/s because I kept using the other engines.
With your tips, it's back to the drawing board
-
Yep, I found this very disappointing too. I suspect they may fix this limitation later on, but it's just how it is for now. Kermunist is right, struts are the only real workaround.
-
This is for high school. My plans include at least three-body simulations for the craft (the planets are on rails), realistic aerodynamics similar to FAR, a full scale solar system, velocity-based reentry effects, terrain damage (scorch marks, craters, dust, etc.), planets with rings that include boulders (the rings rotate with the planet so as to not have to calculate thousands of particles...), and damage effects such as bent metal, fires, and bigger explosions.
I don't mean to discourage you, but that sounds overly ambitious for a high school project. Even if you're a brilliant coder and rocket physicist, and even if you limit the game to one rocket design, this is going to take an a lot of time to put together. You should consider if 1) you can complete the project within the appointed deadline (preferably while still having time to eat and sleep) and 2) creating such an elaborate project is worth it.
Even if your goal is simply to learn as much as you can, you can learn something from a smaller project, and then continue learning by doing larger projects in your free time (ie. without having a deadline to meet). I suspect that the only way you could complete this project within a school year would be to steal a lot of the physics code from other programs.
-
Would a 1 m/s nudge while docking rip a hole in a fuel tank? Would a Kerbal in EVA bumping into a solar panel require repairs?
On the subject of ripping holes in fuel tanks, it would be pretty sweet if you actually leaked fuel from a damaged tank.
-
What about bringing spare parts in a storage container and allowing Kerbal engineers to replace things as well as fix damaged items (ie. detach old parts and attach new ones)? I'm thinking this would be useful for situations like having something blow up on a Mun base when it lands. Instead of sending a whole new base, you could sent a repair craft to fix/replace the broken/missing pieces.
-
So i decided to build really small aircraft for this using the TV PP small engines and fuselage parts.
Are those small engines in a separate mod or have I just never noticed them in B9?
I liked your plane, though I have a few suggestions for making it easier to land.
1) Reduce the amount of fuel you have on take-off. You should only need about 20 fuel units to fly the mission, and your craft will be easier to land when it's empty of fuel weight.
2) Try putting your rear landing gear on your wings. It will let the plane sit lower to the ground and give you a wider wheel base. (As a bonus, it will pitch the plane up on takeoff such that it will take off by itself without pitch input.)
3) Try not to touch down until you're going less than 100 m/s...might not be possible if your plane stalls above that speed.
4) Watch my videos to see how not to land, then seriously question taking any advice from me
-
http://www.google.com/patents/US5718632
Well, that ****.
We won't be seeing jeb trying to hit kranken with a rocket during loading
I'm not a patent lawyer, so I'm probably mistaken, but I used a quick patent term calculator and I think that patent expires this December...
That said, I did have to guess on a few of the boxes in the calculator...wishful thinking?
-
I do not think that real aerospace engineer would hide intakes inside fairings
I don't think that's necessary for reaching mach 4.5...that said, more powerful engines or stronger joints may be necessary. That, or some uncommon genius.
-
Indeed, we'd require ramjets to go anywhere beyond mach 4.2 I think.
I agree, but I don't just want ramjets (they stop helping at about mach 6), I want scramjets too so we can shoot for mach 24
...of course that would mean leaving orbit in a matter of seconds once you got up to speed--or rather before you got up to speed.
-
An hour of tinkering and I can go 5 m/s faster...the law of diminishing returns is rearing its ugly head.
What was the hardest thing you've done in KSP?
in KSP1 Discussion
Posted · Edited by Sevant
The hardest for me is tied between two missions. The first was my very first Duna landing. I didn't have any concept of calculating delta V at that point, so I just made the biggest rocket I could and went for it. After safely landing my 3 kerbals, I discovered that I didn't have enough fuel to get back into Duna orbit; though I was close. Not one to waste time designing a new rocket (after all, surely there would be enough fuel for the round-trip if my rescue craft didn't have to land on Duna), I sent a sister of the stranded ship to rescue my crew. After getting the rescue craft into Duna orbit, I used the first ship's fuel to make near orbit, and then I sent all three kerbals on EVA and switched rapidly between them to finish the orbit using their jet packs before they hit the atmosphere. After collecting my floating, fuel-starved kerbals, I headed back to Kerbin--and promptly ran out of fuel again. A third rescue ship and a deep space rendezvous later, all three kerbals landed at home no worse for the wear, though quite a lot older than when they'd left.
The second hardest mission was building a rocket capable of reaching a stable kerbin orbit using only the parts you start with before doing any research in science mode in 1.1.2. No decouplers, no struts, no aerodynamics, no liquid fuel engines--only the very smallest solid fuel engine for thrust, some girders, a parachute, and a command capsule. A lot of ships (and launch pads) blew up, but good abort sequences and a few autosaves meant no kerbals were harmed in the process. Upon success, however, 1 kerbal was stranded in orbit. I'm sure he'll be fine...