|
Flagrant Abuse posted:MechJeb can do that too now, and has been able to do that for a couple months. So there really isn't any actual reason to use Engineer that I can think of. Really? Maybe I'm just blind. Let me checkity check. e: Yep. Despite using Mechjeb's dV all the time, I never saw the arrows to change planetary data.  No reason to install Kerb Engineer then. 
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 22:32 |
|
|
John_A_Tallon posted:There are some mods that make them a source of resources, and one that I recall that makes them into storage space for your own resources. I'd leave it in orbit anyway, no telling what they might be useful for in stock in future updates. RoverDude is making one! http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/80522-WIP-Hollow-Asteroids That guy is shaping up to be the Nega-Majiir at this rate; simultaneously developing three mods that extend the hell out of KSP (USI Kolonization Systems, Karbonite, the aforementioned Hollow Asteroids) under an incredibly permissive license all while lavishing praise and thanks on people who help out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Flagrant Abuse posted:MechJeb can do that too now, and has been able to do that for a couple months. So there really isn't any actual reason to use Engineer that I can think of. I'm used to the Engineer UI and don't want the autopilot features 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 18:11
|
|
|
Watommi posted:The most efficient use of fuel is to change your orbit at apoapsis right? You could have Jeb get out and push his craft with his jetpack. You'd want to line it up with the nose pointing retrograde so that Jeb's pushing into the rocket bell. He's less likely to slip that way. Push until you're down to about a unit of suit fuel, then board your capsule and refill. Repeat until you've got an orbit that dips into the atmosphere. Alternatively, you could execute either of your plans. The game won't get confused if there's an empty capsule, but depending on the configuration you might have to compensate for the missing mass where the kerbal would have been. Not too hard, just expect the rocket to pull to one direction a bit. For a rendezvous, you might need to adjust your inclination to match the plane of orbit of your target, and that's easiest to do at launch. If your target is close to the equator, you can just do your corrections in orbit. Otherwise, you'll want to pick a heading that will make your injection into orbit close to the inclination of the target. Without mods, you'll need to eyeball it. Remember that a heading of 360 degrees is an inclination of 90 degrees (a polar orbit), while a heading of 90 degrees us an inclination of 0 degrees (an equatorial orbit). See the wiki for more elaboration: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Orbit#Inclination Do your launch and stay in as low an orbit as you can (71 km or so). Target the craft in the higher orbit and play with setting up a maneuver node that will get you close. You can adjust the location of the node on your orbit to see how that will influence your attempt at a close encounter. You may need to wait a few orbits for the best time. You can right click on the node, and then go forwards and backwards in orbits by clicking on the little blue buttons. Once you have a close approach that's good, or good enough for your tastes, you can place a second node on the close approach and use it to match speeds (and thus to a large degree, orbits). At that point you'll probably have a couple of pretty close encounters. You can do little burns to get even closer, and then do the spacewalk when you're ready. Jeb will be okay for as long as you want to leave him up there. John_A_Tallon fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Jul 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
Building a rocket with an extra pod and enough fuel to get into Kerbin orbit and back isn't all that hard (just strap on a bunch of boosters and fuel tanks), but you'd have to do an orbital rendezvous which is quite hard. It's doable though. There was a guide posted in this thread a while ago, but the basic idea is to get close to the target (while having a similar orbit), setting the navball to target-mode and then burning retrograde until you've matched their speed. This guide is for docking, but you'd have to do almost exactly the same thing: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3621666&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=160#post432436291
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Cool thanks. I might try the jetpack thing, but then I wouldn't get to launch this baby:
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 18:29
|
|
Spookydonut posted:Forget delta-V, stock doesn't even have TWR. You won't know if your ship (or each stage) can lift its own weight until you test it. I find this really, really at odds with the contract system and resources. There is literally never a consequence for failure because I can revert, and I have to revert a lot because it doesn't give me the tools I need to not fail unless I waste a pile of cash over engineering. I think the game would be a lot more rewarding by taking away the ability to revert a launch but instead actually giving me the tools to not have to screw the launch up several times in the first place, at least in career mode. I just think the mechanics are somewhat contradictory.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 18:34
|
|
|
All this talk of deltaV and TWRs makes me think that I should mention my webpage http://madoxlabs.github.io/stagehelper.htm Plug in the mass of the payload you are trying to get into orbit of Kerbin, and it will try to determine engine configurations. After selecting an engine config, it will update how much fuel it needs. Set asparagus to 0 if you are not using it. Madox fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Jul 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Watommi posted:Cool thanks. I might try the jetpack thing, but then I wouldn't get to launch this baby: You could wedge two of your girders on the top of a single stack, and then snap your pods to the girders. That would give you two pods in a more compact form.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
BitBasher posted:I find this really, really at odds with the contract system and resources. There is literally never a consequence for failure because I can revert, and I have to revert a lot because it doesn't give me the tools I need to not fail unless I waste a pile of cash over engineering. I think the game would be a lot more rewarding by taking away the ability to revert a launch but instead actually giving me the tools to not have to screw the launch up several times in the first place, at least in career mode. I just think the mechanics are somewhat contradictory. You can switch off the option to revert in the debug menu and install a really basic mod to give you that information. It's a game about daredevil little green men going to space. Losing some along the way with untested equipment is half the fun.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 18:48
|
|
|
Watommi posted:The most efficient use of fuel is to change your orbit at apoapsis right? Other advice is good, but for future missions, don't bother circularizing above Kerbin on your way back, just burn from the Mun into an orbit that takes you directly to reentry. Unlike real-life Apollo capsules, Kerbal pods can land anywhere without getting damaged, so it doesn't really matter where you land (it does in new career mode with distance-based modifiers for part reimbursement, but not Science or Sandbox modes.) Rule of thumb for orbit changes is apoapsis for periapse changes and vice versa, inclination changes you wanna do at the higher of the two intersecting nodes (ascending and descending.) Also, you can transfer science between capsules, so if you go the rendezvous-> transfer route, grab all your science out of the stranded pod.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 19:04
|
|
|
wolrah posted:I haven't looked at it myself, but if the clear HTTP autoupdater discussion is remotely accurate I wouldn't say this at all. Show me one person who actually has gotten malware from Majiir's servers being hacked and I'll retract my statement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 19:06
|
|
|
DStecks posted:Show me one person who actually has gotten malware from Majiir's servers being hacked and I'll retract my statement. Ahh, the "security through worrying about it after the breach" model, I like it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
xzzy posted:Ahh, the "security through worrying about it after the breach" model, I like it. It's not a giant steaming turd sitting in the middle of the living room until someone steps in it. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
Jetpack question... My capsule is horizontal while my Kerbonaut is vertical. How do I 'look up' with my guy so he can orient himself to the capsule and grab the ladder? Right now the closest I can get is he can come up under the capsule and bump the ladder with the top of his head, but he won't grab it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
Left click and drag. If you can bang his head on the ladder you should be seeing the press F to grab prompt though. Also if the ship is small you can push on it with a jetpacking astronaut hard enough to make it rotate. vvvvvvvvvv
haveblue fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Jul 29, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
Got the "F to grab" to pop up, hit F, and my Kerbonaut swiped at the ladder, but the force of reorienting his body to match the capsule flung him off into space, Sandra Bullock style, flipping end over end. Riiiiight as I got him back to the capsule he ran out of propellant, and now he and the capsule are slowly drifting apart. poo poo happens!
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
You're looking at a harder sort of mission now since you'll need to do all the terminal guidance with just the rescue craft, including getting it close enough to Jeb for him to try to grab the ladder. It's still possible, but you'll need a light touch on the controls to accomplish it. You may want to wait until you have RCS blocks, since that's the sort of thing they're for.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Unlock the claw. Grapple him and re-enter. Be sure to get an EVA report from him while you're on the way down!
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
John_A_Tallon posted:You're looking at a harder sort of mission now since you'll need to do all the terminal guidance with just the rescue craft, including getting it close enough to Jeb for him to try to grab the ladder. It's still possible, but you'll need a light touch on the controls to accomplish it. You may want to wait until you have RCS blocks, since that's the sort of thing they're for. Try mounting an external seat for him, it has a larger activation radius and unlike the ladders he can't fail to get into it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Arsonide posted:I removed the requirement that docking ports be opened in the new patch, and added some mod support. What mod was the research lab from? To be 100% honest I haven't updated it in ages and have no idea if something better is already out.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 20:12
|
|
|
Does anyone have the skills needed to reskin a kerbal-rescue mission into this?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
I got up to the time when the first asteroid comes into Kerbin system, roll the rock catcher to the pad and away we go. Ugh, the middle of the rocket disappeared after a minute with struts stretching all over the place and the camera stopped moving. I tried rebuilding with different parts, different staging - no change. So I killed KSP, moved all the mods away that weren't necessary for that save, reload and try again. Same problem. Then I remembered something about bicouplers and went back to use a pair of docking ports for the lower half. So in pictures, this before: this after  This bug happens because your ship is built as a tree with a root node and everything else a branch. You cannot have a loop and that double bicoupler makes a loop when you click it around a bit (to make sure everything joins up). The docking ports prevent a loop by telling the loader to join 2 sides together without mucking up the nodes. Long story short: launches no problem except for...  I had sepatrons to make the boosters move away correctly but apparently 16 sepatrons from meters away is enough to melt a huge tank with a temp allowance of 2900.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 20:47
|
|
|
John_A_Tallon posted:You could wedge two of your girders on the top of a single stack, and then snap your pods to the girders. That would give you two pods in a more compact form. Another option that I used for my first recoveres was simply attaching the second command pod upside down to the bottom of the first one. Saves space and reduces drag. I put a girder at the bottom to serve as an ablative "cushion" in case the single parachute on the top one isn't enough make both pods survive the landing, but I'm not sure that's even necessary.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
DStecks posted:Show me one person who actually has gotten malware from Majiir's servers being hacked and I'll retract my statement. Let's say you have a wad of cash of a decent amount. You decide to leave that wad of cash on your back porch, because no one in your town would do such a thing as taking something that belongs to you, and they may not. Who cares? It's your money. Now say you and everyone you know decides to put your money in the bank. The bank claims that they're secure and that no one can mess with them. However, we all know banks can be robbed, that's the whole point of the FDIC. It's kind of an important deal. Majiir's running an uninsured bank. Sure it may be secure now, or may not even have anything worth taking, but that doesn't matter. Chucklefuck has EVERYONE'S money and more often than not put it in his bank without asking to begin with. If I had voluntarily put my money in there knowing the risk, then that would be on me. However his bank has the interesting ability to take my money even when I don't want it to and has become quite upset when I tell them I don't want to. Remember the last time a group of bankers with a large amount of other people's resources started to gently caress around with said people's resources without their knowledge or consent? It's all fine and good until something bad happens and EVERYTHING goes to poo poo. More pertinatly, IT Sec is not about responding to a problem, it's preventing the problem from happening to begin with. The balance of security vs usability is the ongoing fight that anyone in the field is intimately familiar with. If someone wants to play fast and loose with their data, that's perfectly ok. If they want to do the same with MY data, that's no good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Warbird posted:Chucklefuck has EVERYONE'S money and more often than not put it in his bank without asking to begin with. "Hey, what the hell you doin' with my money in your house, Fred?!"
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:33
|
|
|
KSP forum mods initially say it's ok to re-open StillBetterThanSpyware thread, now rapidly backpedalling in case it upsets golden boy Majiir, film at 11. In the meantime Majiir continues to operate unchecked while anyone opposing Modstatistics is shut down.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:38
|
|
|
ragzilla posted:KSP forum mods initially say it's ok to re-open StillBetterThanSpyware thread, now rapidly backpedalling in case it upsets golden boy Majiir, film at 11. In the meantime Majiir continues to operate unchecked while anyone opposing Modstatistics is shut down. Replace the mods with goons, problem solved.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
Spookydonut posted:Replace the mods with goons, problem solved. And in exchange they'd get a whole host of other problems! It's just like playing Thermonuclear War.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
ragzilla posted:KSP forum mods initially say it's ok to re-open StillBetterThanSpyware thread, now rapidly backpedalling in case it upsets golden boy Majiir, film at 11. In the meantime Majiir continues to operate unchecked while anyone opposing Modstatistics is shut down. It's bad precedent to allow mods that actively interfere with the functionality of other mods, however benevolent the purpose for such interference may be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
So, say some big-shots want you to drive a rover around on the Mun. What do you do? You build a rover, of course!  You put it in space.  You send it to the Mun.  And you land it.  Simple! But they also want you to come back, so you can tell them what it was like. Problem? No problem! First, you jettison a couple wheels.  Then you raise that poo poo up.  Gotta make sure to ditch the last wheels you don't need.  And then you launch that sucker!  
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:48
|
|
|
I put the mods back and the problems returned too. This time parts sliding inside other parts but it continues to fly. Some weird poo poo going on alright. Mods out again.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
Flagrant Abuse posted:And then you launch that sucker! Pod cannon! Weeee
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:50
|
|
|
Nothing phallic going on here. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
nimper posted:It's bad precedent to allow mods that actively interfere with the functionality of other mods, however benevolent the purpose for such interference may be. By that reasoning it's bad precedent to allow API compliant competing implementations of mods like Kethane. So when Majiir eventually goes 'gently caress KSP' Kethane withers and dies (which it's already doing thanks to Karbonite) because nobody else can write a new implementation because it'd interfere with Kethane. Ideally the rule here should be that mods should detect other mods that implement their API and both disable themselves until the user makes a choice which one they want to use (but Squad didn't look at that in their new rules, or if that's something they even want happening in the mod scene). On top of that Majiir doesn't really seem to want to update Modstatistics to disable collection (or merge opt-in dialogs that were submitted via pull requests), and seems happier to just ride it out until the last second to bring his mod into compliance while rule lawyering in #kspmodders to try to subvert Squad's rules.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
ragzilla posted:By that reasoning it's bad precedent to allow API compliant competing implementations of mods like Kethane. How? Would one mod actively disable the functionality of the other?
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 22:03
|
|
|
nimper posted:How? Would one mod actively disable the functionality of the other? Same/similar procedures, interrogating the same resources, etc. Basically two kids want to play with a slinky. One kid wants to push it down stairs, the other wants to straighten it. This doesn't coexist well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
Let him rules lawyer. When the deadline comes and its shown he is blatantly circumventing the spirit of the rules hopefully his support will diminish and/or Squad will squeeze him tighter. I'm pretty sure he will hoist himself on his own petard eventually. Though I guess there is nothing wrong with providing him more rope to hang himself with either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
I made a video with Shadowplay (good tip that, this makes the whole capture thing so easy) showing the weird problems I'm getting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY8dIrltMJ4
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 22:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 22:32 |
|
|
nimper posted:It's bad precedent to allow mods that actively interfere with the functionality of other mods, however benevolent the purpose for such interference may be. Only mods that do it without that being the point of the mod are a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 29, 2014 22:19
|
|