Jump to content

DonLorenzo's Forum Campaign: To space, the moon and beyond


Recommended Posts

Damn it, all this time I have just amused that the 10g limit was something in the game, I don\'t normally hit more than 3gs in a flight, and I though you would get a warning if you hit it :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You\'re quite right Awaras, I may have underestimated just how good mechjeb is at controlling almost uncontrollable craft. Perhaps it would\'ve been better to switch the two big engines around, or reduce the difference. Higher up in the tech tree the difference does decrease and even dissappears at the last tech level, but maybe it should\'ve been like that from the start.

I don\'t think it\'s big enough a deal to change it now though, the main thing I wanted to do with the high engine prices is center craft design around the number of engines, making the decision to add another engine or perhaps try and squeeze as much out of a lower number of engines using perhaps cheap boosters or some extra fuel a meaningfull one..

@Sjwt, you don\'t get a G warning, there\'s just the little gauge in the navball and the readout on the F3 flight screen. You got perhaps slightly unlucky, your craft only incurred 10,7G but I did state the values in the rules :) I know that compared to RL 10G is a pretty low threshold for injury and/or death, but let\'s say kerbals are fragile.

I\'ve decided to share the risk values I\'ve assigned to G forces, they are as follows:

10 to 15G sustained = 20% chance of death

15-20G = 40%

20-25G = 60%

25-30G = 80%

30+G = 95%

These chances are per crewmember. If the flight exceeds the posted G limits I roll a d100 for each kerbal and see what happens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmm i have a few ideas. An interesting mission/contract would be to design an ICBM for our \'friendly\' neighbours over at KSC 2, which can deliver a \'surprise package\' of mass 1 (or whatever), using the least amount of parts to minimise radar cross-section. Because, you know, it wouldn\'t be a surprise then and that would just ruin the fun. ;P

My other idea was to add a sort of turn-based income, say 500 a turn, to help along stragglers/people who are struggling. You could tech it up with improvements like \'Ad Campaign\' and the more deaths you cause reduces this income. Not sure if this would make things too easy though :P

Also for me, i\'ve been playing around with the zoxy kit so i know how to use it and once deployed i can never retract the one panel, it freezes in \'undeploying\' state. Which is annoying because they like to break :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a turn based income would be a great addition, because at the moment myself, and others I\'m sure, are trapped doing very low income missions because we can\'t afford to make bigger rockets and therefore do better missions. I calculated that if I try to do the biggest mission I can I will be making less than $550 a turn. Which means it\'ll be 6 turns before I could consider getting SRB tech which tbh should be everyone\'s first tech research.

The change to the contract system, where there is a fixed income plus a smaller bonus for the winner I think is a better system than before where it was only the top 4 designs who won any thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You\'re quite right Awaras, I may have underestimated just how good mechjeb is at controlling almost uncontrollable craft. Perhaps it would\'ve been better to switch the two big engines around, or reduce the difference. Higher up in the tech tree the difference does decrease and even dissappears at the last tech level, but maybe it should\'ve been like that from the start.

I don\'t think it\'s big enough a deal to change it now though, the main thing I wanted to do with the high engine prices is center craft design around the number of engines, making the decision to add another engine or perhaps try and squeeze as much out of a lower number of engines using perhaps cheap boosters or some extra fuel a meaningfull one..

I agree with your decision to make engines expensive since it forces us to come up with some interesting designs. However I feel that, as things are set up now the gimballed engine might as well not be in the game, and that is a pity, since it limits our possibilities.

As things stand now, the only reason anyone would even consider using the gimballed engine is if they are dead set against using mechjeb or have an extra 5000$ they can\'t seem to get rid of in any other way. Even if the large and gimballed LFE\'s cost the same, the large is still preferable. Still, as you say, this is just something to be noted for future versions of the campaign, its probably not a good idea to change things in the middle of the campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope you\'re all having fun working on your turn 4 submissions. I\'ve been thinking a lot about enabling more things for the newer players while retaining a sense of fairness and also ways to spend money further into the campaign. I don\'t want to end up in a situation where every dollar has to be spent on the next mission, this isn\'t very dynamic and doesn\'t involve a lot of decision-making.

What I\'m thinking about now is adding an extra launch slot to the turn, this would be utilized for personal, unimbursed missions. You would gain no reward from these like you do the posted missions, but could utilize it to put powersats in orbit or establish space stations/mun bases. These type of achievements would either provide monetary benefit on a per turn basis or be required to unlock certain missions. In lieu of flying a \'personal mission\' you could also assign the slot to \'fundraising\', which would give a percentage or flat-fee amount of money that turn.

Having these personal launches will also provide a nice way to \'win\' the campaign or have personal achievements. The missions you\'ve been doing up untill this point have all been government or private commissions, what you do in the personal missions will be what actually goes in your achievement trophy chest. So to speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question about parachute as I\'m having a bit of trouble understanding the full rules regarding salvage etc.

If I drop off a stage which weighs say 3 units and is fitted with one parachute, would I receive the salvage for that provided I had the right tech researched? Also would the parts actually have to survive the landing or does it not matter so long as they don\'t weigh too much.

Also if it weighed 7 units would 2 parachutes be acceptable and so on and so forth.

Atm I\'m making a rocket for the 10km mission and it basically consists of 3 boosters, zoxy system, mech jeb (mini version), and the command capsule with one parachute attached. The total dry weight is only 3.24 (I think) and so one parachute by the rules is acceptable. But sometimes two of the boosters or the zoxy systems explodes on touchdown, would I still receive the salvage money. Also sometimes the command pod explodes but as the weight is less than 4 is this ok?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made the \'parachutes carry 4 weigth\' rule to handle discarded stages that aren\'t simulated all the way to the ground. The main ship is ofcourse fully simulated, and the results from that simulation are taken into account. That means the \'chutes carry 4 weigth units\' rule might as well not exist for anything attached to the command pod.

For discarded stages your first paragraph is exactly the way it\'s handled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A question about the 'Deposit a \'Probe\' in Kerbol orbit' mission:

Does it matter what kind of orbit or is it just 'probe leaves Kerbin SOI and does not fall back into it for at least one orbit around Kerbol'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys I am seriously struggling with the Polar challenge, I simply do not use SRB\'s in any of my designs as I personally consider them next to useless.

I\'ll try to get something that works today but if I can\'t crack this I may have to drop out :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you need a lot of SRBs. My advice is have a couple of stages at the top of just single SRBs for when you are out of the atmosphere, then have the stages gradually getting wider and wider.

Using mechjeb is a really life save for this task. Just set it to get you in to an orbit with a heading of 180 degree (or -90 inclination). Then blast off and disengage it during the gravity turn/coast to apoapsis. Then use the last single SRBs to fine tune your path to land on the far side of the south pole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awaras: Yeah, that\'s right. Make it leave kerbin SOI that\'s sufficient. Should it return after a couple or even just one kerbol orbit, that\'s no problem. We\'re still scratching the surface of this whole spaceflight thing anyway :)

About the SRB challenge, what are your problems specifically sal? A tip would be to design the thing stage by stage, ie start with the top bit; see how far that goes, then add more boosters and see how far that goes etc. It\'s very general and probably not that useful, but I\'m the game master here so I\'ll leave it up to the other players to give more detailed pointers and/or share bits of their design.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right on, turn 4 is over. I\'ve just processed everything and will post the overview and announcements for next turn in the morning. For now here are a few screenshots of memorable moments.

#20: Deploying of the first Kubble space telescope. Many more will surely follow

#21: Landing over the pole in the morning

#22: Liftoff of a frighteningly large stack of SRBs

#23: Another landing on the south pole, a previous capsule can be seen in the distance

@sal_vager: If you get your submission in before I wake up and do the report, I\'ll still include it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Turn 4 overview

Turn 4 had a couple of interesting highlights, for instance engineers from Bellaby decided to forgo the regular command pod and instead strap a airplane cockpit to a rocket for reduced drag. The pilot reports a sleeker flight experience with less rumbling noises. However there was an alarming amount of creaking and tearing sounds, as well as a pervasive smell of kerosine throughout the flight. Additional research will have to be performed in order to make this option safe and viable for subsequent launches.Sjwt revised the flightplan for his 200km mission and re-did it to show the world that space exploration is in fact safe. Another memorable event was the first deposition of a Kubble space telescope in LKO by Awaras. More kubbles can be launched, but the sponsoring corporation has requested that they be in increasingly higher orbits so as to keep gathering useful new data at the forefront of space exploration.

Four expeditions were sent out to the south pole by solid rocket booster, Fireblade and Sjwt both got there on 34 boosters, robsr3v3ng3 used a staggering 80-something boosters, the expeditions that were already landed on the pole reported \'that they could hear it coming all the way from the pad\'. Sal_vager sourced a design consisting of just 30 boosters from Awaras, who had used up all of his funds on launching the Kubble. At the least this is a display of and perfect example of \'friendly competition\', at best it could be the beginning of a lasting cooperation between the two aerospace exploration companies, especially as Sal_vager effectively won the contract using Awaras\' design. He will receive $3000, the other contestants (who were all succesfull) get $2000.

Looking to the future, the Kerbal government has been debating on whether to shoot for moon exploration or LKO activities and in a close vote has decided that the focus for the moment will be on researching the possibilities for and establishing a permanent space residence or \'space station\' in low kerbin orbit. Attached to the PSR-bill it has been decided to expand the scope and abilities of all private space explorers (that\'s you guys). All corporations now have an extra launch slot available to use each turn, to utilize as they see fit. Should no launches be planned the second launch-crew can be sent to fundraisers, generating money.

Here follows the finance overview for turn 004:

Player: Awaras Mission Completed: Deposit Kubble in 100x100km orbit Tech purchased: Liquid Tech I Spent:$23100 Income:$40500 New Balance: $41765

Player: Sal_vagerMission Completed: none Tech purchased: Liquid Tech I Spent:$8000 Income:$3000 New Balance: $9650

Player: SjwtMission Completed: 200km Tech purchased: none Spent:$11300 Income:$20250 New Balance: $30760

Player: FirebladeMission Completed: 80km Tech purchased: Salvage Tech I Spent:$11050 Income:$16000 New Balance: $18100

Player: Robsr3v3ng3Mission Completed: none Tech purchased: none Spent:$500 Income:$2000 New Balance: $9700

Player: IssarlkMission Completed: 25km Tech purchased: none Spent:$6750 Income:$12000 New Balance: $12150

Player: BellabyMission Completed: 25km Tech purchased: none Spent:$6500 Income:$10000 New Balance: $10400

Announcements for turn 005

-Liquid Tech I has been researched twice and thus it\'s been reduced by 10%. New price $6750

-The Kubble mission will be slightly revised. It can be repeated, but each time you do it has to be in a higher orbit. Ie. Awaras has done the 100x100km orbit, should he wish to launch another Kubble it will have to go to a 200x200km, the next one to 400x400km, thereafter 800x800 and so on. This \'ladder\' is personal, so everyone else can still launch a Kubble to 100x100km. The first/second bonus will still be universal.

-The \'Probe to Kerbol orbit\' mission will be possible to perform just once per player.

-New technology: Space Cockpits. Allows the use of the lower-drag flight cockpits in spacecrafts. Cost $1500. The cockpits, once researched will cost $2500 and will be salvageable along the same rules as the regular command pod. Use of these cockpits without having the tech researched is no longer allowed.

-Additional launch slot. Use it for personal missions. These can be \'for fun and bragging\' (ie. send the CEO;yourself on an orbital vacation), launching satellites (some different sattelites and reasons to have them will be introduced later) or privately-funded exploration missions (which will then spawn new, paid missions). In case you do no private launch you can utilize the slot for groundbound activity, generating $1500 that are immediately useable in the same turn.

-New contract: Design a craft to put a full, free floating fuel tank in a 200x200km orbit. Bonuses for least amount of engines and least amount of fuel used. Details coming up in OP.

I\'m setting the turn deadline on wednesday night: 06-06-2012 23:59 (GMT+2). We\'ve had some pretty last minute submissions this turn, if you guys need more time just say so.

Enjoy!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did you guys manage to get such efficient flight paths for your SRB rockets? if I used less then it either couldn\'t leave the launch pad fast enough for stable flight, or didn\'t have the range. I probably did make a few silly design errors. Instead of adding a single SRB nearer the command pod I just added a huge layer of about 15 SRBs to the bottom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did you guys manage to get such efficient flight paths for your SRB rockets? if I used less then it either couldn\'t leave the launch pad fast enough for stable flight, or didn\'t have the range. I probably did make a few silly design errors. Instead of adding a single SRB nearer the command pod I just added a huge layer of about 15 SRBs to the bottom.

Happy to share the knowledge...

Not on the winning team, but I didn\'t get any time for it this round, and I had only a short time with the second turn one...

Design challenge 2:

01) Set up MechJeb accent proffile as per the attached picture

02) Stage at 0:23 | 0:46 | 1:09 | 1:34 | 1:59 | 2:22 | 2:45

03) Use SMART ASS to turn retro grade when reaching a low of 5K and then stage for the parachute.

04) Land kinda \'\'safely\'\'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I spent almost a full night on trying to complete a higher up mission, that death has most likely cost me dearly, unless luck is on my side...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did you guys manage to get such efficient flight paths for your SRB rockets? if I used less then it either couldn\'t leave the launch pad fast enough for stable flight, or didn\'t have the range. I probably did make a few silly design errors. Instead of adding a single SRB nearer the command pod I just added a huge layer of about 15 SRBs to the bottom.

Here is my winning design:

polarlande.png

ascentprof.png

(the autopilot settings are for a NORTH pole landing...)

I tried to make it so that the number of boosters of each stage is half of the stage before it. It goes 12, 7, 4, 3, 2, 1, 1 boosters per stage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah ok it looks like may have Just designed mine like a moron. I stuck to a design which has the same number of SRBs at the bottom two levels, and then a few less at the next two levels, and then a few less until it had a stack of three on top. It probably would have worked better if I shaved down on all the extra boosters so my lift off would be easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not complaining but how did Issarlk, who spent more than me and did the same mission (and i assume wasn\'t one of the 4 who did the contract) make 2000 more profit than me? Am I missing on some sort of profiteering technique because an extra 2000 would really help me. I have never done the 25k mission before so it can\'t be that? Did a kerbal die or what?

Like i said this isn\'t an accusation, im just curious :P

edit: Oh and for the turn 5 contract i assume it is the large fuel tank and not the small one?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep the t5 contract is about the large fuel tank, probably should have specified that :)

Issarlk did do the contract, that\'s where the extra money came from. His craft was slightly cheaper than yours, hence he had money left to enter it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

anyone else getting a bug where the powersat solar panel (the animated one) will not retract when you click \'endeploy\'. It stays in a permenant state of \'undeploying\', doesn\'t function but causes massive drag like a deployed panel. Also in this state it is prone to explode under acceleration.

I have no other mods than the required and i was wondering if anyone has the same issue, and if anyone can offer a solution.

edit: Fixed it, turned out I had an unupdated version of the powertech.dll

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for the contract, i have created a 3 engine lifter that gets the job done (i just couldn\'t manage it on two let alone one), but when leaving the fuel can in orbit i know you want \'no attachments\' but just to clarify, the decoupler that is used to disengage is still on the end. I don\'t know of a possible way to stop that within the game mechanics, so i assume that the decoupler doesn\'t count as one of the \'doo-hickeys\' ;P

(I hate to nitpick but i find that clarity is useful for everyone)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...