|
Sounds like I need to make more seaplanes. I could easily get to Minimus or even Duna with the tech I have right now but I'm limiting myself to plane-like ascents for a challenge. I did come up with this nice survey plane that had enough range to survey the coast from the runway, south around the horn, up north of KSC a bit, and back across the continent, and still had half my fuel left.   Pictured: For some reason the brakes didn't work, so I taxied around KSC a bit until I ran out of speed. Found a new runway! This as also been one of the most stable planes I've ever flown, once I managed to get the wheel wobble issues worked out (turns out there's absolutely no way to get wheels aligned perfectly straight when attached to the side of a tail connector oriented left-right when viewed from behind). If I gave the wings a little bit of upwards pitch I'm pretty sure this thing could cruise at 10km with no SAS or input whatsoever.
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 22:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 20:07 |
|
|
Keiya posted:Doesn't look like it, sadly. But then, most of the biomes don't even have unique EVA report text on land. They all seem to have unique ground sample text at least.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Good news! The new tutorial system is almost done and kicks rear end! Bad news, it's gonna get totally overshadowed by the new contracts system. Which is kinda similar to the bounty system in Reaper of Souls but I dare say better due to details we will disclose later. Also good news (for me, at least) taking my first week off since May, haha. Too bad it starts with a three and a half hour layover in Toronto tomorrow.  Edit: Would totally be up for a beer with any goon in whatever area Pearson airport is. Edit2: VVV We might need to look at them a little but as far as I know the fact that they make presence of sunlight and electricity storage not actual issues for craft has them locked as pretty top tier parts. Edit3: Reasoning however may be faulty due to heavy blood donation this morning. Maxmaps fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Apr 11, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 23:24
|
|
|
Why are RTGs so far in the tech tree? Especially since they've been so heavily nerfed - they outclass solar panels in the real world pretty much by the time you get out to Mars orbit, where in KSP you see people sending solar panel-powered craft all the way out to Eeloo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 23:25
|
|
|
Keiya posted:Holy crap guys, Kerbin has more science in it than I thought. Apparently, most of the inland lakes and rivers count as the biome they're surrounded by, so you can get SrfSplashed reports for most of Kerbin's biomes, plus some of the small islands let you get SrfLanded in the water biome. And it's good practice for precise Eve/Laythe landings to splash down in the middle the smaller inland lakes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
When money is a thing maybe it'd make sense to balance RTGs by giving them a relatively high price? Reasoning being they take some pretty esoteric nuclear materials that take special facilities to manufacture.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2014 23:45
|
|
|
Elukka posted:When money is a thing maybe it'd make sense to balance RTGs by giving them a relatively high price? Reasoning being they take some pretty esoteric nuclear materials that take special facilities to manufacture. Only if you can put pressure on the facilities to lower the price.  That's a nice refining facility you've got here. Sure would be a shame if an asteroid were to fall on it... Don't worry, though. You scratch my back, I scratch yours.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
Geemer posted:Only if you can put pressure on the facilities to lower the price. Given the amount of SRBs I drop on the hapless population of Kerbin this would be a much easier blackmail attempt if I just threatened to change my launch inclination.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
Also remember that with the new gradual unlocking of parts it's OK to have some that are simply better than others and make them no longer worth using. That was one reason given that the new NASA parts are such monsters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
Yes, but in that case why is the *worse* part further in? About the only thing it's really better at in KSP is that if you have one attached, you can deploy solar panels whenever you want in case you forget. They're heavy and don't produce as much power, even at extreme distances from the sun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 00:25
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:Given the amount of SRBs I drop on the hapless population of Kerbin this would be a much easier blackmail attempt if I just threatened to change my launch inclination. Yeah, but then you can't have protection plans. "Sorry Bub, you're only covered up to C class."
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
Keiya posted:Yes, but in that case why is the *worse* part further in? About the only thing it's really better at in KSP is that if you have one attached, you can deploy solar panels whenever you want in case you forget. They're heavy and don't produce as much power, even at extreme distances from the sun. Because it works in the shadow of a planet. Space probes especially want to have consistent power to maneuver and make burns on night sides of planets. Solar panels + batteries work, but RTGs are more convenient.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
I don't know if it's been changed, but a few versions back solar panels actually did not follow the 1/r^2 law in regard to power. Since Jool is 5 times farther from the sun than Kerbin, missions to Jool should need 25 times more solar panel area, but I don't think this follows through in-game. Even then, electrical power isn't that big of a thing in game. Either you have zero generation capability and must ration SAS and antenna use (typically only seen in the first stages of Career mode), or you have electrical generation capability and don't ever have to worry about electricity at all except in cases of transmitting data in antennas, processing data in the lab, or using ion engines.
Psawhn fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Apr 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
I neglected to install solar panels on my first probe, which I constructed after unlocking everything in the tech tree. Puny little guidance modules burn electricity very quickly compared to how often you fire the main engines on even a short journey. I get why probes require electricity, but why don’t manned pods? That’s kind of bizarre. I can only assume that the Kerbals are running on hamster wheels to power their own life support. It’s also odd that alternator size doesn’t scale with engine size. I can’t say I’ve ever had electricity problems on my lifter stages, but it can be a downside to using the Kerbodyne KR‒2L in space. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Apr 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 02:10
|
|
|
pun pundit posted:Because it works in the shadow of a planet. Space probes especially want to have consistent power to maneuver and make burns on night sides of planets. Solar panels + batteries work, but RTGs are more convenient. Also, down the line if Squad want to integrate a moon, say one around Jool, that never leaves the shadow of the planet (Or an atmosphere so dense with emissions that light cant penetrate) RTGs would be your only power alternative. In fact, that would be incredible, a moon covered in glowing volcanic activity but no light from the sun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:Also, down the line if Squad want to integrate a moon, say one around Jool, that never leaves the shadow of the planet (Or an atmosphere so dense with emissions that light cant penetrate) RTGs would be your only power alternative. So... Venus, basically? Eve could use a redesign anyway, I like this plan.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
Yeah, I forgot about probes. For them, you either have generators and never worry about power, or you forget to put any generators on and your probe goes dead, with very little in-between. (One of the few in-between cases being where an eclipse or poor positioning means your solar panels don't work.) Even with multiple antennas, they usually aren't a problem unless you're sending back lots of data - so usually only the atmosphere analysis or seismograph. On a different topic, I'm noticing today that multiple Advanced Grabbing Units will really slow my game down a lot. Is this something anyone else has noticed?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
edit: wrong thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
Falken posted:If you mouseover where the fairing base is and hold R you could easily make that skinnier. I tried, but it started ripping the landing gear off the SM on the way out half the time. Maxmaps posted:Also good news (for me, at least) taking my first week off since May, haha. Too bad it starts with a three and a half hour layover in Toronto tomorrow. Oh, why'd you go and say a thing like that. I live in Toronto, but Pearson is nigh-inaccessible without access to a vehicle (which I do not possess), and I can't get in as a non-passenger. If you tried to leave and go back in, I know from navigating Pearson's security lines / customs myself that it would eat up almost all of your layover just with security and customs BS. Kerbal travel arrangements are infinitely simpler.  Enjoy your vacation, though! You totally deserve it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
Does anyone have any tips for FAR? I'm still not so into doing spaceplanes, but I wanted to make the game slightly more challenging since I've played it out the rear end and back. Still just doing rockets, just trying to figure out the most efficient way to launch now
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
Is it possible to move kerbals to different seats in IVA? I tried to load a single kerbal into a 3 man pod for an IVA only rescue mission (of my IVA only rescue mission... It gets pretty meta after this); My kerbal ended up stuck without a window seat in one pod, and unable to reach any controls at all in the ALCOR pod.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Maxmaps posted:Also good news (for me, at least) taking my first week off since May, haha. Too bad it starts with a three and a half hour layover in Toronto tomorrow. What time of day? Some of us Toronto area goons are going out for karaoke tomorrow evening. (9-10 EDT I think)
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
SocketSeven posted:Is it possible to move kerbals to different seats in IVA? I tried to load a single kerbal into a 3 man pod for an IVA only rescue mission (of my IVA only rescue mission... It gets pretty meta after this); My kerbal ended up stuck without a window seat in one pod, and unable to reach any controls at all in the ALCOR pod. Not really. The only way to make them move is to do an EVA, and the only way to control what seat they end up in is to have the other seats be occupied.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
Stubear St. Pierre posted:Does anyone have any tips for FAR? I'm still not so into doing spaceplanes, but I wanted to make the game slightly more challenging since I've played it out the rear end and back. Still just doing rockets, just trying to figure out the most efficient way to launch now I'm in the same boat. I just installed FAR now, and the only difference in the way I play is I just burn up to 30k and turn instead of 10k. Also, when re-entering, you slow down less before you hit the ground. I guess it's mostly a plane thing? I still use asparagus staged rockets (smaller parts) and haven't noticed any real difference besides having to start my gravity turn later.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 04:30
|
|
|
Have you noticed the re-entry being any different? I was at least hoping stuff would break apart on re-entry but I've gotten sidetracked by messing with the stock FAR planes. The FAR utility in the SPH/VAB just sort of goes over my head so where I'm at now is that Kerbin's pea soup atmosphere feels even more ridiculous and nothing else is really different.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 05:06
|
|
|
Hummer posted:I'm in the same boat. I just installed FAR now, and the only difference in the way I play is I just burn up to 30k and turn instead of 10k. Also, when re-entering, you slow down less before you hit the ground. You actually want to do things the other way around in FAR: heel over about ten, fifteen degrees immediately after launch, and SLOWLY (basically following the prograde marker, don't try to force it) continue to horizontal. How far exactly you heel and how much you turn is kind of a play-by-ear sort of thing. Reasons are two fold: the atmosphere is less pea-soupy at low altitude, so you waste less energy on drag moving through it; and anything non-aerodynamic (like turning while flying through at anything less than 30k or so, or skipping nosecones) will punish you in a very way. So the only options are to do what you do, which means you're wasting time fighting gravity, or do what I just said, which means you're wasting (less, overall) energy fighting air resistance.End up using quite a lot less dV getting into orbit in FAR than you do in stock, so hey, bonus! (edit) Also as for throttle there's probably an efficient speed for a given altitude in FAR but I just say gently caress it because getting reentry effects while ascending is  as hell. (Don't do this if you're running Deadly Reentry, though.)
Ciaphas fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Apr 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
Did my first Mun landing without over-engineering my rocket with giant tanks. Mostly because I don't have large rockets unlocked yet. Made a perfect three-point landing. Two legs and the engine bell!
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 05:18
|
|
|
Ablative posted:So... Venus, basically? Venus is actually fairly bright. Its surface gets about as much light as Earth does during a thunderstorm. An entirely dark planet would be pretty sweet, so I'll third the plan! vv I meant a typical afternoon thunderstorm where it gets kind of dark but not really. My avatar is from one of the Soviet Venera landers, it's about what Venus looks like during the day to the human eye. vv Venusian Weasel fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Apr 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
Venusian Weasel posted:Venus is actually fairly bright. Its surface gets about as much light as Earth does during a thunderstorm. An entirely dark planet would be pretty sweet, so I'll third the plan! How dense a thunderstorm are we talking about? Because I've seen thunderstorms where it's just grey out, and I've seen thunderstorms where it's nigh-pitch black.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
Is it actually possible for a moon to be constantly in the shadow of its planet? It's orbital period would have to be equal to the orbital period of its planet, and I'm not sure how that would work.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
KSP: Trapper keeper edition An oddly viable way to almost stick the landing too  illrepute posted:Is it actually possible for a moon to be constantly in the shadow of its planet? If it was small, in a crazy elliptical orbit and the planet was huge it could be like.. 70-90% of the time. Well I think at least. If not that it could just have a crazy thick atmosphere that blocked out the sun at surface level, that would be pretty cool. edit: Venusian Weasel posted:It is if you can park it at L2! Oooo neat. It would be pretty crazy improbable for a natural celestial object end up there though right? Spaceman Future! fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Apr 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
illrepute posted:Is it actually possible for a moon to be constantly in the shadow of its planet? It is if you can park it at L2! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 05:36
|
|
|
Spaceman Future! posted:KSP: Trapper keeper edition I'm fairly certain all lagrange points actually require active stationkeeping and are inherently unstable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 06:18
|
|
|
PerrineClostermann posted:I'm fairly certain all lagrange points actually require active stationkeeping and are inherently unstable. In the simplified KSP simulation, L4 and L5 are attainable even without stationkeeping- just get out of Kerbin's SOI, get into the same orbital path as it, and you'll keep the same relative position forever. L1, L2, and L3 are not even close to attainable as the game doesn't model the forces that distinguish those points from any other part of space and holding position there is an unsustainable solar orbit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
PerrineClostermann posted:I'm fairly certain all lagrange points actually require active stationkeeping and are inherently unstable. Haveblue covered how they work in game, but real-life L4 and L5 are inherently stable (given a certain m1/m2 mass ratio) and in fact have cool gravitational properties that actually draw in objects for stationkeeping; there's a reason those two are generally suggested as good places to build orbital habitats.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 06:39
|
|
|
PerrineClostermann posted:I'm fairly certain all lagrange points actually require active stationkeeping and are inherently unstable. Yeah, it only applies to "negligible masses". L1 and L2 are actually really unstable, and there's no way a moon would actually hang around there for very long. It'd probably hang around longest for a giant planet like Jool, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Not really. The only way to make them move is to do an EVA, and the only way to control what seat they end up in is to have the other seats be occupied. Kicking 2 kerbals out on of the pod on the launch pad is a valid way of attaining my goal. Perhaps it would be good for the game to let you assign seats in the VAB though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
Stubear St. Pierre posted:Have you noticed the re-entry being any different? I was at least hoping stuff would break apart on re-entry but I've gotten sidetracked by messing with the stock FAR planes. The FAR utility in the SPH/VAB just sort of goes over my head so where I'm at now is that Kerbin's pea soup atmosphere feels even more ridiculous and nothing else is really different. I don't think FAR will change re-entry damage, but Deadly Re-Entry will, which I also threw on. I'm loving having to deal with heat shielding, each re-entry to Kerbin after a long mission is a nail biter now. Thanks for the FAR info btw, I'll try pitching sooner and see how that goes. I wish there was better info about that kind of thing, the KSP forum threads on these topics are 400 pages long and usually deal with bugs from 2012 and so on. edit: As a side note, RasterPropMonitor and a few other associated mods have made this game way more immersive. Launching from first person, trying to stay IVA as much as possible, plus the first person Kerbal mod have made this a whole new game for me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
 The crew of the old station have been up there for 2 or 3 decades now; Jool missions take a long time. Let's relieve them.  'Bout time.  As usual, I botch the reentry and end up landing in a desolate, hilly desert on the other side of the planet.  Everyone's back home. Or they will be when the recovery plane gets here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 20:07 |
|
|
Finally made it to Duna. Finally learned how dV works. Still learning about TWR. Though. Somewhere trapped out in deep space and half my fuel already gone I realized it was time to learn efficiency. Granted the answer to leaving Kerbin was to stop making 50 ton landers and 100 ton transfer monsters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2014 07:29
|
|
