Third_OfFive Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 I'm having issues with the vostok capsule. Whenever I try to re-enter, it never slows down fast enough, and slams into the surface at the speed of sound. I tried fiddling with the configs but it didn't work. Anyone know how I could fix this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjsnh Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 13 hours ago, Third_OfFive said: I'm having issues with the vostok capsule. Whenever I try to re-enter, it never slows down fast enough, and slams into the surface at the speed of sound. I tried fiddling with the configs but it didn't work. Anyone know how I could fix this? The re-entry profile for the vostok is VERY tricky. Make your aps about 30K and make sure your peri is under 200k. You _should_ slow down enough to pop the 'chute around 3000m Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindemherz Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 On 11/22/2016 at 3:48 PM, Beale said: Great feedback, thanks! Very well spotted on the third stage, they were intended to align, but UV unwrapping got in the way. I suppose I could rotate the engine structure 45°... I really appreciate the perspective on the structural side, I see what you mean yes It might be a good idea to add a second level of support onto the bottom of the structure. Maybe remove the side-ways ring? My pleasure, Beale! With you bringing us all this cool stuff, helping you out is the least one could do. Assuming the large cylinders on top of the engines are the turbo pump casings, the side-ways ring, although it is aesthetically pleasing, wouldn't have an internal spar that would make it a rigid ring (since this spar would go through the turbo pump). It'd just be holding on to the casing itself, so the lateral forces are actually transferred to the casings instead of being dampened by the ring itself. In the current design, the casings are the thrust bearing structure (thus sturdy as hell), so no worries about regular forces ripping off cases, but I would be worried about an exploding or otherwise "bad" engine affecting the thrust structure of a "good" engine when the forces of the failure get transferred to another engine, losing two for the price of one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noah_Blade Posted November 24, 2016 Share Posted November 24, 2016 On 11/23/2016 at 6:10 PM, Third_OfFive said: Finished Want the files, @Beale ? Wow that is cramped! (p.s shouldn't the kerbal be on his back because of G-forces?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legcutter Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 11 hours ago, Noah_Blade said: Wow that is cramped! (p.s shouldn't the kerbal be on his back because of G-forces?) Yup... just like this: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoFatalis Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 3 hours ago, Legcutter said: It looks so cozy inside Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Third_OfFive Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 7 hours ago, Legcutter said: Yup... just like this: Ok, fine. Do you guys want me to change it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted November 25, 2016 Author Share Posted November 25, 2016 On 24/11/2016 at 4:32 PM, lindemherz said: My pleasure, Beale! With you bringing us all this cool stuff, helping you out is the least one could do. Assuming the large cylinders on top of the engines are the turbo pump casings, the side-ways ring, although it is aesthetically pleasing, wouldn't have an internal spar that would make it a rigid ring (since this spar would go through the turbo pump). It'd just be holding on to the casing itself, so the lateral forces are actually transferred to the casings instead of being dampened by the ring itself. In the current design, the casings are the thrust bearing structure (thus sturdy as hell), so no worries about regular forces ripping off cases, but I would be worried about an exploding or otherwise "bad" engine affecting the thrust structure of a "good" engine when the forces of the failure get transferred to another engine, losing two for the price of one. A bit like? On 23/11/2016 at 11:10 PM, Third_OfFive said: Finished Want the files, @Beale ? Nice work on that, you should be proud of it I would encourage you to release it separately, as the Vostok will be missing from next release. I have mentioned a few times, but it is easily buried, I am really 'trimming the fat' from the mod. Because what I have is too much to manage to a satisfactory standard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Third_OfFive Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 20 minutes ago, Beale said: Nice work on that, you should be proud of it I would encourage you to release it separately, as the Vostok will be missing from next release. I have mentioned a few times, but it is easily buried, I am really 'trimming the fat' from the mod. Because what I have is too much to manage to a satisfactory standard. No Vostok!? But why? I can think of tons of other parts that I would get rid of before Vostok. Oh well. It is your mod.. I assume then that I am allowed to release the vostok parts separately as an addon to Tantares? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted November 25, 2016 Author Share Posted November 25, 2016 Just now, Third_OfFive said: No Vostok!? But why? I can think of tons of other parts that I would get rid of before Vostok. Oh well. It is your mod.. I assume then that I am allowed to release the vostok parts separately as an addon to Tantares? Of course, you are welcome to do so The Vostok will be re-introduced eventually, but I want to focus on Soyuz, Salyut, TKS and LK (And associated launch vehicles). Tantares can be renamed Korolev and Chelomei, the fun years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Third_OfFive Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 Better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CobaltWolf Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 16 minutes ago, Third_OfFive said: Better? In the second screenshot, what is going on with the right side of the cabin? It looks as if the window is flippered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Third_OfFive Posted November 25, 2016 Share Posted November 25, 2016 1 minute ago, CobaltWolf said: In the second screenshot, what is going on with the right side of the cabin? It looks as if the window is flippered. What do you mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phineas Freak Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 11 hours ago, Third_OfFive said: What do you mean? Seems like that the internal model is flipped on the X axis: the viewport is located in the back of the Kerbal instead of the front (as with the first screenshot). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hraban Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 The VOSTOK capsule from Beale has two windows. You see the window on the hatch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Third_OfFive Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 4 hours ago, Phineas Freak said: Seems like that the internal model is flipped on the X axis: the viewport is located in the back of the Kerbal instead of the front (as with the first screenshot). Oh I see. There are two windows on the capsule, opposite to each other. In the second screenshot, the front window is not visible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Third_OfFive Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 On 11/24/2016 at 9:21 AM, tjsnh said: The re-entry profile for the vostok is VERY tricky. Make your aps about 30K and make sure your peri is under 200k. You _should_ slow down enough to pop the 'chute around 3000m Ok, It's official. I cannot land this thing. How can I mess with the configs to change this? Help? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tjsnh Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 25 minutes ago, Third_OfFive said: Ok, It's official. I cannot land this thing. How can I mess with the configs to change this? Help? It is pretty difficult to land. The best advice is super-shallow re-entry profiles so you have lots of time to slow down. Another thing to try - setup the re entry profile I described earlier, but don't detach the service module. Wait until you get to 68km , face retro and burn all remaining fuel, THEN ditch the service module and continue re-entry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Third_OfFive Posted November 26, 2016 Share Posted November 26, 2016 1 minute ago, tjsnh said: It is pretty difficult to land. The best advice is super-shallow re-entry profiles so you have lots of time to slow down. Another thing to try - setup the re entry profile I described earlier, but don't detach the service module. Wait until you get to 68km , face retro and burn all remaining fuel, THEN ditch the service module and continue re-entry. Ok I guess I'll try that... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted November 26, 2016 Author Share Posted November 26, 2016 Tantares WIP Tantares LV WIP Further balance changes (Especially price). Spoiler "Aw heck". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike88 Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 On 11/25/2016 at 4:53 PM, Beale said: Of course, you are welcome to do so The Vostok will be re-introduced eventually, but I want to focus on Soyuz, Salyut, TKS and LK (And associated launch vehicles). Tantares can be renamed Korolev and Chelomei, the fun years. What about Mir? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindemherz Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 On 11/25/2016 at 4:28 PM, Beale said: A bit like? Not bad! But after seeing it again, I think you get away with just pulling up the existing connectors to where the new one is right now, widen the point where they connect to the tankage so they have the same triangular footprint as the belt struts, and call it a day. They would be even sturdier than a belt strut - and you can always pass them off as heat shields. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Z3R0_0NL1N3 Posted November 27, 2016 Share Posted November 27, 2016 What's still WIP in the release, besides the N-1? Are you finished with the new Soyuz panels and revamps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beale Posted November 27, 2016 Author Share Posted November 27, 2016 (edited) 16 hours ago, Spike88 said: What about Mir? Yes, MIR too 4 hours ago, Z3R0_0NL1N3 said: What's still WIP in the release, besides the N-1? Are you finished with the new Soyuz panels and revamps? Not much, minor config changes. Upcoming is more antennae for the Soyuz, more 1.875m parts to go with the N1 set and a less horrible decoupler for the Soyuz. Edited November 27, 2016 by Beale Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrazyCanuck Posted November 28, 2016 Share Posted November 28, 2016 can someone help me install the extra textures? 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.