frenchie16 Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 And I\'d still love some way to hide lander legs within a shroud, whether that\'s a bigger shroud, deployable legs (when those are available), or smaller legs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted October 31, 2011 Author Share Posted October 31, 2011 Engines are prepared for gimballing already. Legs are prepared for deployment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarolRawley Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 How about fairings that fit the lander legs in? Maybe adaptor fairings too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted October 31, 2011 Author Share Posted October 31, 2011 How about fairings that fit the lander legs in? Maybe adaptor fairings too.I\'ll size down the lander legs a little.Edit: Actually, no. The legs SHOULD be foldable soon-ish.Edit2: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeroignite Posted October 31, 2011 Share Posted October 31, 2011 Oooh, are those strapponable RCS tanks? What about the uneven radial tank drain thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted November 1, 2011 Author Share Posted November 1, 2011 Oooh, are those strapponable RCS tanks? What about the uneven radial tank drain thing?It\'s a problem to say the least.Temporary solution: the weight doesn\'t go down as you use them up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeroignite Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Works for me. If it\'s pressurized gas, they\'re probably more tank than propellant anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted November 1, 2011 Author Share Posted November 1, 2011 Changelog so far:Added experiment racksAdded micro RCS tanksAdded second, completely unfinished service moduleTweaked RCS unit and fuel weightReduced decoupler weightShortened stack decoupler.Pressurised fuel tank now holds 100 units of fuel, and weighs 1.05 units.SRBs now more capable of overheatingASAS made useful Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Causeless Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Hey, Nova, you should only add gimballing to the weaker engines, so that people are encouraged to use winglets in the atmosphere with their powerful launch vehicles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted November 1, 2011 Author Share Posted November 1, 2011 Hey, Nova, you should only add gimballing to the weaker engines, so that people are encouraged to use winglets in the atmosphere with their powerful launch vehicles.The big 2m engine and the lander engine have no gimbaling prepared. Both normal 1m engines are ready for it. I may make a special gimballed SRB sometime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comradephil Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 I prefer adding winglets just for the look of the thing anyway. That and it saves on RCS and weight for lower stages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberion Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Hey, Nova, you should only add gimballing to the weaker engines, so that people are encouraged to use winglets in the atmosphere with their powerful launch vehicles.Yeah except the winglets are useless once you break about 20km, and I don\'t know too many main stages that don\'t go past that altitude.So you either burn RCS fuel then, or your rocker rolls over like a whale.Tangentially; I think you made the default RCS tank have too little volume - its pretty much useless since the game requires so much 'correction' even in space - I estimate that a typical munrocket will require 300 to 400 units of RCS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Senji Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 For reference the Mun Rocket I posted yesterday has a total of three service modules and an RCS Fuel Tank, for 325 RCS fuel (and I have to be moderately careful with it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted November 1, 2011 Author Share Posted November 1, 2011 Huh. I\'m using very very little RCS fuel on ascent. Even on full flight I usually return home with mostly full tanks. If it looks like it will be an issue, I just add a normal tank to a lower stage.Although, I usually fly without much SAS. If I do, it\'s usually when winglets work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberion Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Um, exactly how are you maintaining attitude in space then? Are you still relying on normal SAS? Without them you use TONS of RCS to keep from needless tumbling. And once you leave the lowest part of the atmosphere, you\'re 100% reliant on RCS anyway.Attached pics of my rocket Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted November 1, 2011 Author Share Posted November 1, 2011 I use RCS in space all the time, but I don\'t really use ASAS to keep it steady. I\'ve never needed -that- many RCS tanks in my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luigibro606 Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 RCS is the new struts? Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted November 1, 2011 Author Share Posted November 1, 2011 Then again, I don\'t build rockets THAT enormous. Sweet jesus, that\'s a lot of fuel tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luigibro606 Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Yeah, I agree Nova. Needs more RCS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberion Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 That big 2meter engine is a hungry devil, the 3 tanks in the base stage get me an Apoapsis of about 90km, then the 2nd 2m stage gets it circularized and gets me about half of the deltaV needed for munar burn. That leaves the main mun-ship inside the shroud for everything else, and I\'d like my guys to get back home.Those 2 service modules inside the shroud are empty when I separate, so there\'s no extra fuel in there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NovaSilisko Posted November 1, 2011 Author Share Posted November 1, 2011 That big 2meter engine is a hungry devil, the 3 tanks in the base stage get me an Apoapsis of about 90km, then the 2nd 2m stage gets it circularized and gets me about half of the deltaV needed for munar burn. That leaves the main mun-ship inside the shroud for everything else, and I\'d like my guys to get back home.Those 2 service modules inside the shroud are empty when I separate, so there\'s no extra fuel in there.You see, I can reach the mun using very little. One LFT, upper stage engine, 5 LFTs, normal engine with two strapon liquid boosters of the same dimension is enough to propel a craft to lunar orbit.Still, I can decrease RCS fuel consumption I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberion Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 Seems like that would get your empty tanks and command pod into orbit, but if you wanna bring a lander and return vehicle, I find it pretty odd not to use the 2m launcher stage - why else is it there?Don\'t think you need to reduce the RCS consumption, just bump the small RCS tank up from 25 to 50 or 60, its not THAT much smaller than the service module, and 2 of them stacked should equal if not surpass the service module in volume. Also wouldn\'t mind a small 2M RCS tank that holds 100units as well, just so I could stage them normally instead of like they are now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeroignite Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 I always have tons more RCS than I need...The Golgathrust block have pretty ridiculous fuel consumption, and are only really useful for 20-50km on a large rocket stack. Also, tiberion, RCS blocks are most effective when placed at opposite ends of a stack. Blocks in the middle don\'t create much of a turning moment, and just waste fuel. If it were me I\'d decrease the fuel in the service module to 75... to me, SE seems to be about encouraging efficient design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim_Barrett Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 I can\'t remember if I said this before, but how about 2m decouplers and a reversed 1m to 2m adapter? THis packis comign along great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberion Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 I always have tons more RCS than I need...The Golgathrust block have pretty ridiculous fuel consumption, and are only really useful for 20-50km on a large rocket stack. Also, tiberion, RCS blocks are most effective when placed at opposite ends of a stack. Blocks in the middle don\'t create much of a turning moment, and just waste fuel. If it were me I\'d decrease the fuel in the service module to 75... to me, SE seems to be about encouraging efficient design.Heh, take a closer look at my staging, they\'re set up right. If I could make only certain RCS fire, I would.Edit: whoops, I took a closer look at my screenshot, it wasn\'t current - that was fresh after I had expanded to a 2nd 2m stage.Reducing the SM to 75 would be fine, if he gives us other tanks for the lower stages. Though everything that goes in the upper stages need a serious rework on size, since any functional top stage aiming to do anything beyond just get in orbit and park is just stupid-long. We need parts collapsed into proper Apollo/Soyuz sized ships. But thats not just Nova\'s problem, but the whole game currently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts