Jump to content

Long-term Laythe Mission (pic heavy) - ^_^ With Part 45 ^_^

Brotoro

By Brotoro
in KSP1 Mission Reports

 Share

Recommended Posts

Brotoro

Brotoro

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Brototo, how often do you back up your save file? What would you do if it got corrupted/deleated/etc?

My computer automatically backs up my files every hour, and there are old versions of my game files saved going back months. Also, before and while I am doing complex operations, I manually save the quicksave files by renaming them so I have a trail of saves. I almost never need these, but I'm diligent about backups as a matter of habit. Renamed quicksaves have come in handy if I needed to go back and get a picture of something I missed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
macdjord

macdjord

Posted
Posted
My computer automatically backs up my files every hour, and there are old versions of my game files saved going back months. Also, before and while I am doing complex operations, I manually save the quicksave files by renaming them so I have a trail of saves. I almost never need these, but I'm diligent about backups as a matter of habit. Renamed quicksaves have come in handy if I needed to go back and get a picture of something I missed.

Ironic that someone who is unwilling to quicksave away his mistakes is so exceptionally diligent about keeping them~

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dacsi

Dacsi

Posted
Posted
Ironic that someone who is unwilling to quicksave away his mistakes is so exceptionally diligent about keeping them~

Actually the physics engine is pretty bugged and you never know when the kraken will attack. never.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brotoro

Brotoro

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

VERSION 0.23

I've returned from holiday travels and have updated my save game file to version 0.23. Waiting gave time for certain mods I need to have been updated. Some of these mods I need because I use them a lot (such as Kerbal Alarm Clock). Other mods I need even though I don't use them much (such as Protractor) just because I have parts from those mods on various ships, and the save file won't open with all the ships intact if I don't have that mod installed.

Alas, the much-loved-by-me Maneuver Node Improvement mod is apparently not being developed any more, so I have installed the PreciseNode mod, which has similar functionality.

I experimented with the new version of the tweakable heavy-duty landing legs… It appears that they will work fine in the "suspension locked" setting for keeping my GasStations, etc., at the proper height. There is a problem with their damage resistance, however. The old heavy-duty legs could take landing speeds of 10 m/s, so many of my ships were designed with the appropriate number of parachutes, etc., to land them at 7 to 8 m/s or so, but that will break the newer legs. Simply having girders or I-beams extended downward as landing legs works fine for taking up a high impact shock, but the disadvantage there is that they can't be folded away… so you either have to live with permanently extended landing structures sticking out and being in the way, or permanently extended landing structures that don't stick out so far (so as not to be in the way) but which are less stable because of narrower leg span.

I thought a compromise solution where girders stick straight back far enough to protect engine nozzles from hard landings, and foldable landing legs mounted on those girders at a height such that they will not fully compress before the girders take up the remaining shock (and still be there to give a wider stability base), would work well… but it does not. This configuration still results in the landing legs breaking at high landing speeds. Apparently the program just looks at how hard the parts hit the ground, and not the actual forces involved (so that the legs break even if they only have to compress a little way before the girders take up the impact force).

So… landing more slowly is in order. More parachutes, and some engine breaking, will be required on some of the landing bases, etc., designs that I've used.

I updated the save game file to use the new version of the landing legs, but that means that my various bases and GasStations on Laythe would appear with their landing legs folded (since KSP does not check to see what the previous state of the landing legs was when it replaces the old legs with the new modules), resulting in the ships crashing to the ground and (in many cases) either breaking parts or falling over. This required using HyperEdit to move some of those ships into orbit before the upgrade, and then using it to place them back into their original locations on the ground. Tedious tweaking, but now done.

Next I experimented with the RAPIER engine (because who can resist playing with new toys) to make a RAPIER version of the spaceplane to send to Laythe. The test results look very promising, and they certainly seem to make spaceplanes easier. But I have read some people saying that other changes to the program have made SSTO spaceplanes easier, and it's not really the RAPIERs that are responsible. So I'll be able to test this by doing comparison flights of the two versions on Laythe.

Last night I ran into a problem with MechJeb, which I'm currently stuck trying to figure out. I hadn't noticed any problems at first, since I was doing things like landing leg tests and spaceplane tests that I don't use MechJeb for, but when I got to doing some more tedious things (like sending more stuff into orbit on Reusable Rockets) I ran into a problem where MechJeb no longer seems to be able to keep the rocket pointed correctly. On boost, the Reusable Rocket will start spinning, and then wander off course (even though I can control it manually there just fine…so it has plenty of control authority). And when I'm maneuvering a ship in orbit and tell MechJeb to point to a maneuver node I've set up, it will randomly flail around trying to aim the ship as if it was feeling for the proper direction with a blind man's white cane. So I have to work this out, or die of tedium handling routine things manually.

I'm also running into the problem where right-clicking on a part of ship will not bring up the menu of things you can do with that part (such as changing the landing leg settings or setting control to a certain part). I often have to click multiple times to get the menu to appear. I don't know if this is a KSP problem, or some problem with the combination of mods I have installed. So I guess I'm going to have to run that down as well (starting with a clean install and adding mods one at a time to see where the problem is). It's a problem I could get by with, but it makes playing the game more frustrating, and could result in the loss of a ship if I get into a situation where I have to quickly activate parts with right-clicks and can't).

Below, the GasStation on Aldner Island stands tall on the new version landing legs. This one was easy to fix because it's by itself (with only a flag near it), so a little use of Hack Gravity allowed it to stand up again when deploying its legs in the new version (just trying to deploy the legs would result on one of them spearing into the ground and getting stuck).

JnK23Vy.jpg

Edited by Brotoro
Link to comment
Share on other sites
AppleDavidJeans

AppleDavidJeans

Posted
Posted (edited)

From Part 22

The spaceplane went through the entry flames as it approached Dansen island (no radio control was possible when it was enveloped in plasma...it was on autopilot for that stretch).

There is a way around that, or so I'd imagine because of irl aerodynamics and stuff. Back in the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo days, the crew went through a radio blackout due to the ionization effects. But when engineers were designing the Space Shuttle, they found during testing that a "hole" appeared in the ionization envelope at the tail end of the spacecraft, allowing uninterrupted contact (of course there were still blackouts, although a few seconds in length due to that the shuttle was actually switching TDRS satellites) throughout reentry. So they took advantage of that and placed the antenna there. Now, I don't know the exact dynamics of the Ladyhawk, but given that the Ladyhawk has a similar profile to the Shuttle, I'd take a guess the hole's gonna be at the tail end, so I'd place the "antenna" on the tail.

EDIT: Oh lol :D It appears you have a little strut on your tail. Guess you can have your kerbals drill out a cavity in your tail and the strut piece and put some wires and an antenna in it.

Edited by AppleDavidJeans
l;asdjf;ladjsflkjsdalfjsdlkajflsadkjfl;kadjf;lsakdfj
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brotoro

Brotoro

Posted
  • Author
Posted

VERSION 0.23 AGAIN…

It turns out that the problem of KSP not responding to right-clicks can be solved by making FASTER clicks. Apparently 0.23 is less tolerant of holding down the mouse button during a click (maybe this is also true of left-clicks, but I just never noticed it…maybe my right-click-finger is just slower that my left-click-finger). It's not that I accidentally move the mouse a little during the click (I've tried holding it firmly in place with the other hand), and it's not that the part of the rocket is moving under the mouse cursor during the click (I've tested it on stationary objects)…it's just how long the button is held down during the click. So anyway…no more languorous right-clicking.

It turns out that the solution to the MechJeb weirdness was to open the Attitude Adjustment window (when did that get added? I use very few of MechJeb's features…I should investigate them more fully) and then uncheck the only item in there ("Use stock SAS" …which then shows all sorts of info) -- and then MechJeb acted the way it did before the upgrade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scotius

Scotius

Posted
Posted

That bit about MJ is interesting. Last night i've launched new science station to LKO. I used very long, thin launcher with only one SAS module, so i was expecting all sorts of shenanigans from newest MechJeb SmartASS function. Yet there was none - the rocket flew like a charm. Apparently this bug(?) doesn't affect everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
macdjord

macdjord

Posted
Posted
It turns out that the solution to the MechJeb weirdness was to open the Attitude Adjustment window (when did that get added? I use very few of MechJeb's features…I should investigate them more fully) and then uncheck the only item in there ("Use stock SAS" …which then shows all sorts of info) -- and then MechJeb acted the way it did before the upgrade.

The same update that made it compatible with 0.22, IIRC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bsalis

bsalis

Posted
Posted
But I have read some people saying that other changes to the program have made SSTO spaceplanes easier, and it's not really the RAPIERs that are responsible. So I'll be able to test this by doing comparison flights of the two versions on Laythe.

IntakeAir is now properly pooled. Such that engines flameout only when that pool is empty, rather than when any intake becomes empty. So basically any SSTO Spaceplane built in older versions should be able to fly a little higher and faster before flameout.

Another upshot of this change, is that the IntakeAir listed in the Resources tab is now actually useful as a flameout indicator.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Jaxal1

Jaxal1

Posted
Posted

Apparently one of the other changes to intake air is that the throttle is automatically reduced when intake air runs out so that you consume it exactly as fast as it is taken in. So the meter reads zero, but the engine is still going at 1/2 or 1/3 throttle (or even 1/10 throttle in the air is thin enough)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Konnor

Konnor

Posted
Posted
The old heavy-duty legs could take landing speeds of 10 m/s, so many of my ships were designed with the appropriate number of parachutes, etc., to land them at 7 to 8 m/s or so, but that will break the newer legs.

Would it help if you unlock the suspension for a landing and then lock it again? I remember medium legs surviving landing on Duna at about 8 m/s without any damage (so maybe this suspension absorbs some shock while locked legs do not) but that could be in 0.22, I don't remember exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brotoro

Brotoro

Posted
  • Author
Posted
Would it help if you unlock the suspension for a landing and then lock it again? I remember medium legs surviving landing on Duna at about 8 m/s without any damage (so maybe this suspension absorbs some shock while locked legs do not) but that could be in 0.22, I don't remember exactly.

I tested them with both locked and unlocked suspensions, and neither way can take as much impact force as landing on solid girders. BUT, I was testing a RAPIER SSTO rocket yesterday and found that I could land it at 7-point-something m/s without breaking the legs, so the breaking speed may not be quite as low as I thought...so the actual number is somewhere between that and 10 m/s.

But I did try unlocked suspension legs in conjunction with girders (in the tests mentioned before) hoping that the unlocked legs would absorb some of the landing shock before the girders it the ground to absorb the rest of the shock (things were positioned to have the girders hit BEFORE the legs compressed all the way, thinking this would keep the legs from breaking because they never were asked to compress fully), but the legs broke anyway. So, I conclude that the program simply looks at how FAST the legs are hitting to determine if they break, and not looking at how much impact force they are actually being asked to absorb.

Anyway...back to launching payloads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tntristan12

tntristan12

Posted
Posted
My tests with the RAPIER had it running in air breathing mode while the intake air in the Resources read zero...for a long time. I was confused.

That's what happened to me when I tried to bring my... Well, your SSTO shuttle into orbit. The funny thing was, the first time this happened I flamed out and crashed in a firey blaze of death and horror... But then when I reverted to launch and ran the *same exact flight plan*... Did fine!

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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...