Jso Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 1 hour ago, Dodovogel said: Anyway if you have a different interpretation that is fine too. I just expected it to work differently. I agree. A scientist should be able to reset the film cameras. No reason for a limit on digital. I logged it for CobaltWolf to look at when he gets back. Hey @VenomousRequiem the plume on the single chamber LR-87 isn't working. It's trying to use Hydrolox-Red but there's no such thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VenomousRequiem Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 1 hour ago, Jso said: I agree. A scientist should be able to reset the film cameras. No reason for a limit on digital. I logged it for CobaltWolf to look at when he gets back. Hey @VenomousRequiem the plume on the single chamber LR-87 isn't working. It's trying to use Hydrolox-Red but there's no such thing. It used to exist... I noticed they also removed Metholox, as I'm sure @hraban learned recently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidy12 Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 @VenomousRequiem: Just want to point out, I think the Juno is a bit under powered. When I try the Juno IVB 1st stage can't lift the rocket. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VenomousRequiem Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 3 minutes ago, davidy12 said: @VenomousRequiem: Just want to point out, I think the Juno is a bit under powered. When I try the Juno IVB 1st stage can't lift the rocket. @Jso is in charge of balance, not to throw him under the bus. I'm sure he's already looked at it, and it's just right. Have you forgotten the first rule of KSP? More boosters, friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DiscoSlelge Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 (edited) 12 minutes ago, davidy12 said: Just want to point out, I think the Juno is a bit under powered. When I try the Juno IVB 1st stage can't lift the rocket. In the manual Juno IVB page 23 "proved too much for the POLARIS engine to lift once mated to a pay- load, and as a result BDB recommends the addition of strap on DIOSCURI boosters in order to get the rocket off the ground. " Edited May 30, 2016 by DiscoSlelge Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jso Posted May 30, 2016 Share Posted May 30, 2016 1 hour ago, VenomousRequiem said: It used to exist... I noticed they also removed Metholox, as I'm sure @hraban learned recently. Hydrolox-Lower has a nice red in it. 50 minutes ago, davidy12 said: @VenomousRequiem: Just want to point out, I think the Juno is a bit under powered. When I try the Juno IVB 1st stage can't lift the rocket. I think you are expected to use srb's with that. The info we had on it only went into the upper stages. No mention of how it was supposed to get off the ground. 48 minutes ago, VenomousRequiem said: @Jso is in charge of balance, not to throw him under the bus. I'm sure he's already looked at it, and it's just right. Have you forgotten the first rule of KSP? More boosters, friend. Juno might be the only thing I haven't looked at yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jso Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 22 hours ago, davidy12 said: @VenomousRequiem: Just want to point out, I think the Juno is a bit under powered. When I try the Juno IVB 1st stage can't lift the rocket. The 45K and 6K engines are updated in the repository. The 6K was way OP. The Juno IV suffers from a problem many of the early rockets have. The stockalike tanks hold a lot more fuel than it needs. Try this fuel setup with a 1 ton payload. It needs a bit of a lofting trajectory, the 6K stage is a long burn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
123nick Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 hey @Jso or @VenomousRequiem , do u know if you can model parts for KSP using a CAD program? like autodesk or etc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VenomousRequiem Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 1 hour ago, 123nick said: hey @Jso or @VenomousRequiem , do u know if you can model parts for KSP using a CAD program? like autodesk or etc? I'm pretty sure if it exports to .obj or .fbx it'd work? Maybe, I've never exported anything. All my models just get sent to Cobalt and he handles literally everything else. I don't think Jso models. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
123nick Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 39 minutes ago, VenomousRequiem said: I'm pretty sure if it exports to .obj or .fbx it'd work? Maybe, I've never exported anything. All my models just get sent to Cobalt and he handles literally everything else. I don't think Jso models. ahh ok, thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cxg2827 Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 2 hours ago, 123nick said: do u know if you can model parts for KSP using a CAD program? like autodesk or etc? Yes: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
123nick Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Just now, cxg2827 said: Yes: ok thats cool, thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotAgain Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 10 hours ago, Jso said: How did you get the fairing to fit over the engine? I can't seem to find any hidden node or anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jso Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 9 minutes ago, NotAgain said: How did you get the fairing to fit over the engine? I can't seem to find any hidden node or anything. Put the fairing on first, then the engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NotAgain Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 4 hours ago, Jso said: Put the fairing on first, then the engine. Oh. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rasta013 Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 On 5/30/2016 at 1:31 PM, Dodovogel said: The high tech one uses digital sensor and can transmit a perfect copy, no need to recover the experiment ( I did not actually test it but the part stats say this one is limited to 4 exposures as well - I don't understand why that should be a limit). This is still true for the digital camera although I agree, of all the cameras, this one shouldn't be limited. The original, low tech camera I can actually understand it not being cleanable, switchable or anything else. Many of the old cameras used on very early craft were sealed systems to preserve the film itself. Changing it out was pretty much an impossibility because of environmental concerns and the high degree of likelihood that the film canisters would be ruined. The mid-tech I'm not as sure about. Film cameras remained in use for many years and often were actually developed in space and scanned/transmitted electronically. This was being done as early as Luna 3 (see the camera here) and the systems improved dramatically over the years. Radiation proofing of film became better so I would imagine that later cameras wouldn't have any issue in changing canisters but again, I don't know much about these systems. NASA didn't really start using digital cameras until the early 90s even though the first CCD had been invented by Kodak in 1975. The first megapixel camera used by NASA was the H.E.R.C.U.L.E.S. (for those who like acronyms : Handheld Earth-Oriented Real-Time Cooperative User-Friendly Location-Targeting and Environmental System) and quickly moved the the Nikon F4 used on many Shuttle orbiter missions. For obvious reasons, there should be no limitation to how many images can be taken with a digital camera (see Hubble ). One other thing since were on the subject of cameras...shouldn't the weights of the systems go down, not up? The low tech camera has a mass of .01 where the high tech digital camera is .05. Just a thought... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jso Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 1 hour ago, rasta013 said: One other thing since were on the subject of cameras...shouldn't the weights of the systems go down, not up? The low tech camera has a mass of .01 where the high tech digital camera is .05. Just a thought... Go down or stay the same, yeah. I kind of like having science experiments be mostly the same weight. It make balancing satellites easier. It looks like it's just taking "In space near kerbin" pictures rather than biome specific. Seems like you should be able to do a little science biome mining with these. Maybe you can and I just didn't do it right. Much to my surprise I managed to recover one with starting tech. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronCretin Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 What engines am I supposed to use with the Saturn? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Shutesie Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 (edited) 1 minute ago, IronCretin said: What engines am I supposed to use with the Saturn? Use the Atlas booster engines, until Cobalt comes back and finishes the H-1 engine. Edited June 1, 2016 by Sgt.Shutesie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronCretin Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Which ones? The same for both stages? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Shutesie Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 1 minute ago, IronCretin said: Which ones? The same for both stages? Oops, sorry. Atlas booster engines for the first stage and the Centuar engines for the second stage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronCretin Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodovogel Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 14 hours ago, rasta013 said: This is still true for the digital camera although I agree, of all the cameras, this one shouldn't be limited. The original, low tech camera I can actually understand it not being cleanable, switchable or anything else. Many of the old cameras used on very early craft were sealed systems to preserve the film itself. Changing it out was pretty much an impossibility because of environmental concerns and the high degree of likelihood that the film canisters would be ruined. The mid-tech I'm not as sure about. Film cameras remained in use for many years and often were actually developed in space and scanned/transmitted electronically. This was being done as early as Luna 3 (see the camera here) and the systems improved dramatically over the years. Radiation proofing of film became better so I would imagine that later cameras wouldn't have any issue in changing canisters but again, I don't know much about these systems. NASA didn't really start using digital cameras until the early 90s even though the first CCD had been invented by Kodak in 1975. The first megapixel camera used by NASA was the H.E.R.C.U.L.E.S. (for those who like acronyms : Handheld Earth-Oriented Real-Time Cooperative User-Friendly Location-Targeting and Environmental System) and quickly moved the the Nikon F4 used on many Shuttle orbiter missions. For obvious reasons, there should be no limitation to how many images can be taken with a digital camera (see Hubble ). One other thing since were on the subject of cameras...shouldn't the weights of the systems go down, not up? The low tech camera has a mass of .01 where the high tech digital camera is .05. Just a thought... Whatever the exact limitations are; they should be made explicit. Most frustrating is when you construct a mission only to find out that it doesn't work because you expected some other behavior. KSP does not help much in this respect as some of the part stats are not really intuitive. Like in this case I assumed "resettable" means the experiment can be "restored" by a scientist - but it can not. So I am not really sure what that means exactly. You can "reset" the experiment before you recover or transmit a photograph (which again is not really logical in case of a film camera). But there may be hardcoded limitations or gameplay considerations at play as well. I guess all I want to say is that whatever is chosen to be the right behavior, the player should be able to understand it when he constructs the vehicle. IMHO it is best to explicitly state limitations in the part description. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltWolf Posted June 4, 2016 Author Share Posted June 4, 2016 (edited) What'd I miss? @Dodovogel rest assured the intended behavior of the cameras makes more sense than that. I was just a bit sloppy when making those configs and nobody has said anything until now. @rasta013 the medium camera is meant to be the Lunar Orbiter's camera system, if that gives you any more direct inspiration on how to balance them. I'm dead tired, I'm still not 'back' so I don't know when I'll be able to take a look at things. I had some small ideas I'd like to try out but overall the week was successful in keeping me from thinking about KSP. EDIT: @Jso according to SpaceLaunchReport the Juno IV would have varied the fuel loads in its tanks, like you showed, based on the deltaV profile needed for specific missions. It never was intended to fly with a full fuel load apparently, similar to how, say, and Atlas V launch has excess deltaV in each of its stages. Edited June 4, 2016 by CobaltWolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jso Posted June 4, 2016 Share Posted June 4, 2016 13 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said: What'd I miss? Welcome back! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.