Gibster
-
Posts
41 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Gibster
-
-
I was having difficulty landing at Gilly today because my landing legs would compress and send me flying upward which is especially frustrating at Gilly because it flings you half way out to orbit and it takes several minutes to come back down (even with physics compression). This happened even when I slowed myself down to less than a m/s of velocity. After a second time I just said love it and retracted the legs cause its Gilly and its possible to land there with a Nerv. But this is still a bit of a frustrating issue and has caused my Minmus and Mun landers to bounce, sometimes leading them to tip over. Is there anyway to increase the rigidity of the landing legs so that they aren't just springs?
-
I was browsing One F Jef's channel and clicked on a ksp video out of curiosity.
-
On 10/31/2018 at 2:44 AM, Streetwind said:
When designing a typical rocket, you pay attention to your mass ratio (wet mass to dry mass) and your thrust-weight ratio. With electric engines, there's a third thing you should consider: specific power. In other words, how many Ec/s you can generate for a given investment in dry mass.
This is important because electric engines give you this tradeoff in that they allow exceptional dV at the cost of having very bad TWR. But what if, in order to run them, you have to pack on a huge amount of dry mass just to produce power? Then you lose some of the dV advantage, while your TWR falls even lower. You want to avoid this. Therefore, you should examine your mission profile and decide on what kind of power solution you want to go with. On small expendable probes this is usually not such a big factor, but it definitely becomes one on larger ships that you want to be able to return home.
Here's a very rough rule of thumb guideline; the exact numbers and details may vary ingame (especially if you have other mods installed):
Solution Specific Power Advantages Disadvantages Thermoelectric 10 to 20 Ec/s/ton Simply just works everywhere, no ifs or buts Worst performance
Somewhat pricey and late in tech tree
Might decay over time (with optional patch)Fuel Cell Array up to 75 Ec/s/ton Works everywhere
AffordableFuel is limited and very heavy (reduces specific power)
Array is too large for small probes
Small single fuel cell performs massively worse than large arraySolar 65 to 120 Ec/s/ton No fuel usage
Specific power increases closer to the sunSpacecraft must be able to align panels to sun during burns
Specific power decreases away from the sun
Might require a lot of area for high-end enginesNuclear 100 to 250 Ec/s/ton Compact and powerful
Works everywhere
Extremely low fuel useExtremely expensive and late in tech tree
Needs dedicated radiators
Fuel is limited and very expensive
Might break if mishandledTrickle charged capacitor buffer many hundreds of Ec/s/ton Best performance
Relatively cheap and accessible Manual discharge control required during burns
Burn duration limited by size of buffer
Wait time between burns
Needs a different power source to go with itGenerally, the more you rely on storage - especially if that storage is capacitors - the higher your specific power becomes, but the lower your maximum full power burn time becomes. Since electric engines need long burn times, this needs to be carefully considered during spacecraft design.
However, if your storage solution becomes so large that it equals a large power production solution in mass, you might as well just go straight for that instead.
Thanks for the info! I've noticed balancing power needs is really difficult. I am trying to make a probe with 20,000 m/s of dv as a sort of proof of concept for a reusable multiplanetary ship and I can't really get anything over a TWR of .10 while using nuclear reactors with the goal of sustainable thrust. I've noticed that the lower my TWR is the less efficient I am with my burns. I'm still figuring out how to do interplanetary transfers properly with these engines. Usually I go out to a parking orbit by the Mun (which doesn't have too long of an orbital period) or closer. I would go out further to around Minmus (further reducing the dv requirements needed to escape_, but it makes your craft's orbital period too long, such that I once missed a transfer window because my craft wasn't in the right place and by the time it got to the right place, it had missed its window. I probably need to learn how to split up burns properly, I just haven't found any good tutorials on how.
I am probably expecting too much of the performance of the engines and should probably be aiming for lower DV requirements (20,000 is bit much but I still hope for it). When I've designed my craft, I usually go all in on either power capacity or production and if I had to guess the solution is probably in between (using consistent power production to reduced the stored power needs). We'll see, I clearly still have much learn on the proper use of these engines but I am having fun doing so!
-
1 hour ago, PolecatEZ said:
I found just pairing them with a nuclear reactor and scaling the power output to maximum burn works pretty well for a compact probe. I'm not sure how well this scales up for manned ships though. The issue I run into is that the larger gas tanks for these are pretty far up the tech tree, so I end up spamming the little ones to have enough dV to get anywhere good.
I haven't used the nuclear reactors yet. I am doing all my experiments with probes but I want to scale it up to large reusable interplanetary spaceships. I know some of the other engines are probably more conducive to being used on larger craft but at the moment I am kind of enthralled with the aesthetic of the Ions and Hall Effects. I am playing on Sandbox though (I've researched the entire tech tree far to many times for it to be much fun anymore) so I don't have to worry about tank size or whatnot. We'll see if my goal is even possible and it'll be a fine tuning process to figure out which engines are best and how best to use them.
-
I'm having an interesting time experimenting with the different electric engines of NF Propulsion.
Ya'll probably all know this but from what I am gathering, Gridded Ions need large amounts of battery storage in order to sustain their long burns (greater Energy/Fuel ratio). That or a large amount of energy production. Hall effects have lower power requirements but need larger amounts of fuel than Ions (lesser Energy/Fuel ratio).
Anyone have any tips on using these electric engines? Like whether energy storage or energy production should be the main concern for Ions? Also, tips for using them for interplanetary travel?
-
I've noticed that there's beautiful 1.25 and 2.5 meter Ion and Hall Effect engine models in the imgur gallery for NF Propulsion but I can't find any Ions or HEs bigger than the .625 size. Am I just crap at searching through my engines tab or am I missing something (like a partswitch model)?
-
Does it atleast function in 1.4?
-
6 hours ago, deram said:
Luckily Steam supported redownloading the 1.3.1.
From KSP title context menu, select Properties -> Betas, and from optin dropdown menu select previous_1.3.1, and it starts downloading automatically. After short download, all progress in career there and all mods working.
Thanks Steam, for making it possible, even if it was just the same Steam that auto-upgraded in first place.
Hope this helps anyone else with same problems.
THANK YOU! YOU ABSOLUTE ROCKSTAR!
I didn't think it was possible to use older versions with Steam so I thought my saves were boned.
-
I'm getting ready to build a big utility station in my career mode and I was wondering where you guys think the best place to park a station in the Kerbin system is. Low Kerbin Orbit, High Kerbin Orbit, Mun, or Minmus? I want a place that will serve as a nice rendezvous and refueling area as I get ready to start launching reusable nuclear ships (that'll hopefully serve on multiple missions).
-
10 minutes ago, akron said:
Shameless self-promotion, SMH
It was not really intended as a return capsule. To be honest it was a very quick build where I did not take the time to find a use for it and just left it up to you guys to see how you could use it. I can make some companion parts to make it an actual return capsule, probably just a cocoon aero shield and parachute. Cobalt's capsule also fits that bill fairly well. Let me know your thoughts
I'll try Cobalt's and report back on how it works. But I also like the idea of integrating something similar in this mod, whether its adapting Aegis or creating a whole new part. It could be a part of other probe replicas that you may decide to integrate later down the line (like the ones I've already mentioned). Up to you, your work is appreciated nonetheless.
-
17 minutes ago, akron said:
It depends on the atmosphere. It has a max temp value of 1700, so not too crazy. I think the bigger problem you'll have is that your science instruments will burn up way before the core. Try it out, but I'd shield it if nothing but for the realism.
I can't recall if I jettisoned it while partial or fully deployed. But it just popped... off...? Might be a bug. I'll test it. Did you aerobrake from orbital velocity? or from a higher velocity fly-by?
The instruments don't need survive because Aegis can store experiments. It would be nice to have a dedicated science drop off pod with integrated parachutes and a heat shield/high heat tolerance. Base it off of Hayabusa, Genesis, OSIRIS or even Luna. I always figured that was the purpose of the Aegis pod. In effect this: (Hayabusa's drop pod)
-
Question: Can the Aegis probe core withstand re-entry temperatures without being destroyed? From what I understand it has a higher temperature tolerance than other cores. I like using it as a science package drop off pod and I was wondering if my inclusion of a heat shield is unnecessary.
-
I'm a veteran at this game (250 hours) and I just started a new mudded career mode after a sandbox which included a lot of heavy lifting and I was just surprised by how unstable my early vessels have been and how much I have to fight with them on the way up. Is this normal, or have I lost some touch with creating small early game vessels? I mean larger vessels also face instability issues but its like a different kind of instability, at least one where its a little more obvious as to the causes (like too sharp a turn or just really top heavy) At the moment I am blaming the instability on my lack of access to fairings but I just don't really know.
-
This mod is awesome and I just started a new career game based around it. Thing is, I just realized how many parts it adds, even though I am only gradually unlocking them its still a little overwhelming. I don't know how this stuff is all supposed to be used or put together so I am just mashing it all up and hoping it works. Also, why is the Surveyor stuff so far up the tech tree, I was a little confused at having a probe with SAS a little earlier than usual (perhaps this mod is better in the Community Tech Tree, I'll have to look).
-
19 minutes ago, tater said:
SSTU reduces clutter, honestly. I end up not using any other tanks. It plays well with near future, but pretty much obviates Space Y (just resize the tanks and you're done). The weird Orion pictured above is 4 parts, for example. The short answer is that culling parts doesn't buy you much, as many things share textures, etc.
This station (using near future construction parts, too) is probably around 20-25 parts (there were a few more at launch, I used welding docking ports for some of the assembly).
The nice thing about the SSTU engines is that they cluster. Place engine. Right click, and select how many you want, and there are mounts that work included (no extra parts to place, mount just appears with engine as needed). BTW, you can recolor everything at will.
Alright, I'll give it a go. I do wonder if I should start worrying more about part count, as its generally not something I've fretted over much previously, especially since my goal in my new game is to focus on space station building. I'm using a semi-decent college craptop so I should probably be giving more thought to it.
Also never really liked parts with multiple functionalities, always though it took away from the whole customization aspect of building.
-
Hey I came here from this post and have to say, this is a nice looking mod you got here, personally really interested in the fuel tanks. That said I do have a bit of a selfish question: Is it possible to isolate the fuel tank parts from the rest of the mod? I already have a few mods that add all the engines and command modules I need (Near Future Tech and Space Y) and I kind of want to keep less clutter in my parts list (and try not to overwhelm my computer). If not (at least if its not easy), its alright, I'll manage. Thanks!
-
2 hours ago, tater said:
SSTU has some:
There are more coming soon:
That's precisely the type of stuff I'm looking for (I really like the spheres). I noticed the pack has a bunch of other stuff that I don't really need, for instance it adds another dozen or so engines whose functions are already covered in the mods I have (Space Y and Near Future Launch Systems) as well as command pods I don't really need. Personally, I'm not too keen on adding more clutter to my parts list, so is there any way to isolate just the fuel tanks?
-
Hey I am looking mods that add fuel tanks that aren't the traditional cylinders we're used to seeing. Basically, I am tired of my spacecraft all turning into the same amalgamation of cylindrical pieces. When I look at real probes and whatnot I see craft that take on a variety of different shapes. I'm fine with my launch rockets all being cylindrical, that's what I expect, I just don't like that my spacecraft look like my launch rockets. I got a taste of it with Near Future Construction and the truss pieces that can carry fuel and other stuff, but its only one type of truss.
-
I AM AN IDIOT, I didn't extract the B9PartSwitch, problem solved! Sorry!
-
12 hours ago, Aelfhe1m said:
@Gibster That sounds like you're having a problem with the copy of B9PartSwitch you have installed - either a mismatch between the mod version and KSP version or a mis-install.
NFC 0.8.4 is working fine for me with KSP 1.3.1 and B9PartSwitch 1.10.0.
Post a link to a copy of your log files and someone here might be able to find the problem ("How to get support" thread)
I don't have B9partswitch installed. Do I need to install it? The only other mods I have installed are Near Future Solar, KW Rocketry, Kerbal Alarm clock, Kerbal Engineer, and DMagic Orbital science. I'll still post a copy of my log files when I have the time.
-
Does anyone else have any issues with the Octo-trusses? The purely structural trusses and ones with pressurized crew parts are fine, but the other types (fuel, electric, monopropellant?) are all meshed into two parts, each trying to draw from multiple textures. Also right clicking does nothing to them (can't adjust what's in them).
-
3 minutes ago, Empiro said:
Yep, that sounds like it could be the issue. Your rocket looks good -- you can try to take out the reaction wheel. It might be weakening the joint of your rocket a bit. If you take that out, and directly connect the tank to a larger fairing base, I bet your rocket will be rock solid. The only other minor issue I could see is that the TWR is a tad high on both your first and second stages. The easiest way to fix that would be to add more fuel to the second stage, but that's completely optional -- I think the rocket should fly great either way.
Ok I'll try that, I just unlocked the 2.5 meter base fairings anyways. Will report back with my launch to Minmus.
-
Hmm, so it sounds like I might be over controlling my rocket, which makes sense because for the first 10,000 meters I'm constantly tapping the A or D keys. That's going to be a hard habit to fight. So what I'm hearing is to make a small 5-10 degree turn around 50 m/s and then let the rocket itself do most of the flying, with only minor course corrections and disabled or prograde SAS.
BTW here's one of my problem rockets: http://imgur.com/a/Oohxz
-
For too long have most of my rockets oscillated or flipped, making them rather a pain to fly into orbit. I want to be able to build larger rockets without dreading the launch (whereas most of my smaller rockets are more stable). Teach me the way of the stable rocket, as I have tried many things, fins (and trying to disable certain control surfaces), tinkering with thrust vectoring, simply adding more reaction control wheals, etc. all with limited success. Some just replace one problem with another, for example I've found that adding fins simply replaces flipping with heavy oscillation. How can I make flying a rocket a joy a again?
[1.12.x] USI Life Support
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted
Are there any good guides/explanations on how habitation/home works? I broadly understand it, I just want to know what the precise mechanics are and what it's affected by.
One of the things that I am thinking about is long term stays at other planets with stations that are constructed ahead of time and I am trying to think of how to engineer my shuttles that'll take them there and back. How are Kerbals affected when they're transferred from a station outfitted with lots of habitation for multiple years to a shuttle with enough habitation to get them back to Kerbin from Duna?