Are wobbly rockets back?

[Motokid600]

Don't engines gain thrust as atmosphereic pressure drops now? And isp remains constant?

You also shouldn't be able to tweak thrust. Its much better that way because it encourages the more diverse use of engines.

Now I keep hearing big numbers for when to start pitching the rocket. Whys that? With this new aero it's best to do it like in FAR and pitch over asap, no? I start pitching at a few hundred meters. So does the new aero encourage that?

Or is it wait until 5km then pitch over now? Something tells me FAR will still be very popular.

[klgraham1013]

A bit of a side-issue, but you don't need KER to know that stuff. I've never needed it and therefore never used it.

I design my rockets to have the desired TWR and DV and optimal efficiency before I ever enter the VAB.

...and you'll still be able to. I would just rather have a computer do it for me.

[GoSlash27]

It really isn't that hard to calculate what KER does; but it is somewhat more time consuming. Of course, without KER, you really should do the calcs by hand.

I don't wish to derail this thread any more, so this will be my last post in this thread on this particular subject.

The way I do it is through a spreadsheet that I've designed for the purpose. It's not actually any more time consuming because 1) I'm using a spreadsheet and 2) I never have to mix and match parts as I build; I already know exactly which parts I need.

And for the way I design my ships, it's actually much more time consuming to use KER. I simultaneously check every engine type for each stage of the mission so I can select stages that have the least mass or are cheapest while ensuring optimal t/w. Doing that by trial- and-error in the VAB would waste a lot of time.

Again, not knocking KER. Just saying that it's not necessary.

Best,

-Slashy

[nholzric]

you should keep your acceleration under 2g up to 25km

Just curious, where does "under 2g" come from? Is that to limit the structural stress or is it to keep speed and drag down? Did you calculate it or is it just a rule of thumb?

Thanks!

In my games I generally trial and error from a known rocket design or a minimal rocket design until the payload makes it to orbit. So I don't precalculate with spreadsheets (but I do "Revert" - come'on it's just a simulation until it works ) Anyway, has anyone seen a more sensible preview or are we all waiting for Manley?

[Tex_NL]

People with the proper aerodynamics skills can probably do the maths for you. 2g is pretty much a rule-of-thumb but it has always worked for me with NEAR.

[Motokid600]

I don't wish to derail this thread any more, so this will be my last post in this thread on this particular subject.

The way I do it is through a spreadsheet that I've designed for the purpose. It's not actually any more time consuming because 1) I'm using a spreadsheet and 2) I never have to mix and match parts as I build; I already know exactly which parts I need.

And for the way I design my ships, it's actually much more time consuming to use KER. I simultaneously check every engine type for each stage of the mission so I can select stages that have the least mass or are cheapest while ensuring optimal t/w. Doing that by trial- and-error in the VAB would waste a lot of time.

Again, not knocking KER. Just saying that it's not necessary.

Best,

-Slashy

That's a really nice way to limit your time fiddling in the VAB that's for sure. I like that, but the issue is... You simply can't expect new players to do that.

[Tex_NL]

That's a really nice way to limit your time fiddling in the VAB that's for sure. I like that, but the issue is... You simply can't expect new players to do that.

The only thing you CAN expect is them to fail and blame without looking in the mirror.

[GusTurbo]

The only thing you CAN expect is them to fail and blame without looking in the mirror.

A big part of the blame lies with Squad, because they do not provide the players with the tools they need to play the game. It would be different if they provided you with the equations to calculate things like delta V, TWR, etc, for those with the inclination to do so. But they don't. Instead, they just throw all the mechanics at you and expect you to figure it out yourself.

[Tex_NL]

True! ÃŽâ€V and TWR should be displayed stock. Always visible in VAB/SPH and through the skills of one of your Kerbal engineers during flight. But what good is a tool without the skills to wield it? All of this is useless without proper tutorials.

[Alshain]

I thought Delta V was going to be in stock, but it's not in the streams as far as I can see.

[Motokid600]

What would be REALLY cool is in the engineering report it gave you Delta V and showed the math at the same time. I'd love that. That'd really be something else.

[GoSlash27]

but the issue is... You simply can't expect new players to do that.

All due respect, but that's not the issue at all.

Volodyoka had said that not having KER was 'oblivious' and implied that you cannot know your t/w or DV without it. I was just pointing out that that's not actually the case.

Best,

-Slashy

[SkyRender]

Anyone who's worked with FAR (or NEAR) will recognize the "wobbly rocket" aspect of the streams to be that the streamers are generally launching lawn darts with almost no steering capabilities and without anywhere near the correct profile for that to work out well. If they had stabilization off, they'd go even more off-course. Fins are your friend in the new atmosphere! So is not pointing a billion miles away from prograde while in an atmosphere thicker than 0.02atm.

[Fel]

True! ÃŽâ€V and TWR should be displayed stock. Always visible in VAB/SPH and through the skills of one of your Kerbal engineers during flight. But what good is a tool without the skills to wield it? All of this is useless without proper tutorials.

We never needed tutorials.

[Tex_NL]

Anyone who's worked with FAR (or NEAR) will recognize the "wobbly rocket" aspect of the streams to be that the streamers are generally launching lawn darts with almost no steering capabilities and without anywhere near the correct profile for that to work out well. If they had stabilization off, they'd go even more off-course. Fins are your friend in the new atmosphere! So is not pointing a billion miles away from prograde while in an atmosphere thicker than 0.02atm.

Isn't that pretty much what I said a few hours ago on page 1?

---

We never needed tutorials.

Perhaps you didn't. But most n00bs do. I sure as hell did 2.5 years ago.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Tex_NL

[klgraham1013]

We never needed tutorials.

I did. Had to go to YouTube to learn the basics.

[Alshain]

We never needed tutorials.

Are you so sure about that? I never played the in-game tutorials but without YouTubers I still would have abandoned this game a long time ago.

[lajoswinkler]

I just don't think first few folks knew how to fly rockets. Honestly, if they're official testers, then crap.

Are you so sure about that? I never played the in-game tutorials but without YouTubers I still would have abandoned this game a long time ago.

I never needed anything. I knew what an orbit is.

[Superfluous J]

Or is it wait until 5km then pitch over now? Something tells me FAR will still be very popular.

I've launched a grand total of 0 rockets in 1.0 so I can't say for sure, but the one single launch I've seen with a proper gravity turn was one of the few launches where the streamer didn't have terrible troubles.

I think FAR will still be popular, but I also think a lot of people (myself included) will be quite happy with the stock version.

[Tex_NL]

...

I think FAR will still be popular, but I also think a lot of people (myself included) will be quite happy with the stock version.

So am I. From what I've seen so far it looks a lot like NEAR. And I love NEAR. Bye bye NEAR.

[NFUN]

We never needed tutorials.

Without the crappy in-game tutorial for using the navball, I never would have got close to space, and the only way I survived without YouTube was my limitless patience and tolerance to death caused by abject stupidity.

[Alshain]

I never needed anything. I knew what an orbit is.

Then congratulations. You are in a very small minority. Say hi to Scott Manley for me.

[moogoob]

Yeah, I just now finished watching 15 minutes of the streamer arguing that ailerons should point up when in front of the center of mass. I couldn't take anymore of it so I just close the window.

We must have been watching the same stream. Scott Manley's on later today though so he should give a nice runthrough of new features

EDIT: Twitch streams are like that I suppose. You end up with 5-minute stretches of descriptions or settings changing between the good parts. Keep it running in the background and make yourself a pot of coffee or something. That's what I do!

Edited April 26, 2015 by moogoob

[Fel]

Perhaps you didn't. But most n00bs do. I sure as hell did 2.5 years ago.

I did. Had to go to YouTube to learn the basics.

Are you so sure about that? I never played the in-game tutorials but without YouTubers I still would have abandoned this game a long time ago.

Okay fine... I never needed tutorials -__-;

I've never used YouTube for KSP, except to watch some of the "look what I did for this challenge" videos.

I guess I also don't consider research a tutorial. Reading up on old nasa designs, toying with them... figuring out other aspects.

I just figured that many of the old players had to do that at some point and thought there were more people that did than those who didn't.

[lajoswinkler]

Then congratulations. You are in a very small minority. Say hi to Scott Manley for me.

I don't really like his stuff.

It's not like I knew how to dock like a pro or anything, I just knew that going to space means going into orbit and not vertical launch. That's it. All the rest was practice.