|
Sankis posted:Is there any kind of good mod manager that will handle updates or anything yet? I love this game but updating mods is such a hassle of digging around forums for links that I usually just go play something else. Just play without mods, that's what I do.
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 10:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 15:26 |
|
|
I made it ti Minmus, but it appears my lander doesn't have enough fuel to get back to orbit. Your sacrifice will be avenged, Bill Kerman. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 10:31
|
|
|
Edminster posted:followup question: is there a planetary base building part pack that doesn't come with a spergy resource management minigame or is MKS the only game in town? I really want to know this. I want to build on planets, and I love the work roverdude does, but all of that other poo poo is waaaay too much for my style of play (casual? Even though I've done 500 hours).
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 10:33
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:They should alter sandbox so that it has the career mode missions available as optional tasks. I agree. Campaign was okay the first few times, but now I just want to goof off with missions and all my parts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 10:41
|
|
|
Sankis posted:Is there any kind of good mod manager that will handle updates or anything yet? I love this game but updating mods is such a hassle of digging around forums for links that I usually just go play something else. CKAN works fairly well, but it doesn't have all mods (yet) and doesn't always notice that new versions have been released. It's much better than handling mods manually though, I've only had to install/update a few mods myself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
The Green Calx posted:I'm trying to design a shuttle with the new MK3 parts but I'm having a bit of trouble designing the engines for it. Unless I completely missed it, the game doesn't seem to have any bi-couplers or tri-couplers for the MK3 size, which is making putting engines on nicely a little difficult.  "This is the superior way to do it so that you can vector the top engine and bottom cluster independently for fine tuning," which might still technically be true, but after trying the tri-coupler with the new offset and rotate tools it ends up being a much simpler and more elegant solution. So thanks for that.     OwlFancier posted:Also yeah a sticker would be a fairly kerbal solution to the problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 11:15
|
|
|
Whenever I go to circularize an orbit and my apoapsis and periapsis start to get close, the apo and peri markers on the map view start jumping around like crazy. Is this standard or is something messed up in my game?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 11:25
|
|
|
Vain posted:Whenever I go to circularize an orbit and my apoapsis and periapsis start to get close, the apo and peri markers on the map view start jumping around like crazy. Is this standard or is something messed up in my game? It's pretty normal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 11:29
|
|
|
alright i installed mks/oks and i'm loving around in sandbox to see how it all fits together, but apparently it doesn't? how is that not a valid target for the flexytube thing; are you really expected to use those ugly-rear end legs for literally every part of the base because f that Vain posted:Whenever I go to circularize an orbit and my apoapsis and periapsis start to get close, the apo and peri markers on the map view start jumping around like crazy. Is this standard or is something messed up in my game? that's totally normal, the game isn't real good at handling 'player is actually able to establish symmetrical orbits'. if you don't like it you can just have one end of your orbit be like a couple kilometers off from the other
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 11:32
|
|
|
Vain posted:Whenever I go to circularize an orbit and my apoapsis and periapsis start to get close, the apo and peri markers on the map view start jumping around like crazy. Is this standard or is something messed up in my game? Try having a pretty eccentric orbit with a large apoapsis and needing to orbit in the opposite direction: there's no way to plan a maneuver that completely reverses the direction of your orbit. The maneuver node system can't handle it, you have to just point retrograde and burn until you are going the opposite direction with the right velocity. Be sure to turn SAS to the plain stability assist option first 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 11:41
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I made it ti Minmus, but it appears my lander doesn't have enough fuel to get back to orbit. No hope of a rescue mission? That science might be valuable some day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 11:50
|
|
|
Edminster posted:alright i installed mks/oks and i'm loving around in sandbox to see how it all fits together, but apparently it doesn't? Well, one thing to remember with flexitubes is that you still need to treat them like you would docking ports - one port for either side of the connection. However, you only need one of them to be a flexitube connector, the other can be a pretty bog-standard OKS/MKS docking port. Most of the OKS/MKS parts don't have docking ports built right into them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 11:50
|
|
|
EightBit posted:Try having a pretty eccentric orbit with a large apoapsis and needing to orbit in the opposite direction: there's no way to plan a maneuver that completely reverses the direction of your orbit. The maneuver node system can't handle it, you have to just point retrograde and burn until you are going the opposite direction with the right velocity. Be sure to turn SAS to the plain stability assist option first Wouldn't it be more fuel efficient to burn normal/antinormal at your ascending and descending nodes to spin your orbit around the poles, rather than burning straight retro?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 11:50
|
|
|
EightBit posted:Try having a pretty eccentric orbit with a large apoapsis and needing to orbit in the opposite direction: there's no way to plan a maneuver that completely reverses the direction of your orbit. The maneuver node system can't handle it, you have to just point retrograde and burn until you are going the opposite direction with the right velocity. Be sure to turn SAS to the plain stability assist option first you definitely can, you just have to really work the pink triangles in conjunction with the yellow circles. i know you can because i had two satellite contracts running in opposing orbits and used the maneuver system at an ascending/descending node to score a twofer. The_Censorship_Nazi posted:Well, one thing to remember with flexitubes is that you still need to treat them like you would docking ports - one port for either side of the connection. However, you only need one of them to be a flexitube connector, the other can be a pretty bog-standard OKS/MKS docking port. Most of the OKS/MKS parts don't have docking ports built right into them. ah, i see; i thought the thing was an integrated port because it looks exactly like one. roverdude, did you have a plan to use it as such and just gave up on it or what?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 12:01
|
|
|
I briefly installed NEAR and getting to orbit with rockets suddenly became way easier. De orbiting spaceplanes on the other hand seems to tend to cause them to flip out and explode. Is this a common problem?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 12:54
|
|
|
WhoNeedsAName posted:No hope of a rescue mission? That science might be valuable some day. I transmitted as much as I could. Have to go back and try again. Now headed for the Mun and I think I am too light on fuel again. What's usually the first problem to investigate when your landers can't get back? Not enough fuel? Lander's too heavy? Need a bigger engine?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 13:30
|
|
|
are there any mods that improve the contracts on the UI?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 13:34
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I transmitted as much as I could. Have to go back and try again. All engines have an efficiency, measured as its specific impulse (Isp), higher specific impulse is better. The specific impulse of an engine typically varies with atmospheric density, so some engines may be better for atmospheric flight while others are better for flight in vacuum. The other parameter for a rocket engine is its thrust, which is basically how fast it can burn fuel. The thrust is how fast it burns fuel, the specific impulse is the exhaust velocity. The other factor in how much juice you can get out of a craft is the ratio of fuel mass to "dead" mass, or rather the ship's weight full of fuel over the ship's weight emptied of fuel. What's worth noting here is that sometimes using a lighter engine with lower Isp can be more efficient than using a heavier engine with better Isp, simply because the heavier engine would raise the ship's empty mass more than the improvement in efficiency makes up for. You can calculate your ship's dV (delta-V, amount of velocity change it can impair onto itself) with the rocket equation, but it's much easier to let a plugin like Kerbal Engineer Redux do that for you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 13:43
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I transmitted as much as I could. Have to go back and try again. first priority is check dV to ensure it's not a matter of too little fuel you can do that by either laboriously calculating it yourself or just installing kerbal engineer. i recommend the latter, although by default it shows you waaaaaaaaay more information than you need for like 80% of the game. after you've worked out that you have at least the ideal amount needed for a minmus return mission (~7500m/s i think?) then as long as your thrust-to-weight ratio is above 1 on every body you're visiting then the culprit will be bad piloting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 13:44
|
|
|
massive spider posted:I briefly installed NEAR and getting to orbit with rockets suddenly became way easier. De orbiting spaceplanes on the other hand seems to tend to cause them to flip out and explode. Is this a common problem? Yes, in the sense that that is exactly what NEAR is designed to do. The thinner lower atmosphere makes rocket launches much simpler, and your spaceplane is presumably not properly designed for real aerodynamics. You might also want to pay attention to things like your angle of attack.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 13:50
|
|
|
Also when taking off, a higher thrust to weight ratio will improve your efficiency somewhat, you lose a certain number of m/s upwards to gravity every second, so the fewer seconds you spend trying to get off, the better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
Does anyone have any tips for how to do the burbin's knoll temperature test? I flew over in a plane and was taking temperatures over what I thought were the sites to no avail.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 14:51
|
|
|
Metrication posted:Does anyone have any tips for how to do the burbin's knoll temperature test? I flew over in a plane and was taking temperatures over what I thought were the sites to no avail. Keep in mind that most of the contracts are randomly generated, site names, locations and all But for survey contracts, take note of three things: Whether you are within the site (you get a message in the middle of the screen, "now entering <site>" and "now leaving <site>"), what altitude to do the survey at (above X meter, below X meter, or landed), and what kind of survey to do (temperature, crew report, EVA report, etc). If you're moving fast, it might be hard to hit experiment as you zoom past the site.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Also when taking off, a higher thrust to weight ratio will improve your efficiency somewhat, you lose a certain number of m/s upwards to gravity every second, so the fewer seconds you spend trying to get off, the better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 15:31
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Keep in mind that most of the contracts are randomly generated, site names, locations and all Oh I see I wasn't aware that was the case. Basically it asks for you to take the temperature at three sites, all of which are very close. It doesn't say whether you should do it on the ground or in the air, what height etc. Only that you need to take the temperatures. I forgot about the now entering part, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Wouldn't it be more fuel efficient to burn normal/antinormal at your ascending and descending nodes to spin your orbit around the poles, rather than burning straight retro? Not if you want to reverse your orbit. Retro at Apo is definitely the most efficient way to do it. Not only are the DN/AN likely far from Apo, which is where inclination changes are must efficient, but steering during an in-orbit burn will always be less efficient than burning one heading the whole time. Basically, you want all your ejected fuel going in the single direction directly opposite your desired change in velocity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 16:13
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:Generally if your first stage TWR is >2 you're better off just loading up more fuel though. With FAR I typically aim for a TWR between 1.8 and 2 True, it's just a consistent problem I have with lowballing my thrust and I end up wasting fuel even with efficient engines.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
I've got to say, working out dV and TWR became so much easier when the VAB started giving a mass readout. Now all it needs is to also show dry mass, and total thrust. And total Isp. And dV and TWR.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 20:10
|
|
|
Gonna try this to see if it makes my speedboats work again. They used to top out at ~140m/s but when .24 (or was it .23? whichever one changed the HUD font) came out I couldn't get over 50 without losing all my intakes and flipping over/exploding. (lost all my screencaps but the idea was I'd make a light-ish mk1 spaceplane without wings and with forward-mounted engines podracer style, line the bottom with a bunch of massless parts like the grey intake. It exploited the massless part water bounce bug to carry the vessel cleanly over the water with no friction aside from the occasional maneuver snapping a scoop or two off) Turbo Fondant fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Dec 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 20:50
|
|
|
Tommychu posted:Gonna try this to see if it makes my speedboats work again. They used to top out at ~140m/s but when .24 (or was it .23? whichever one changed the HUD font) came out I couldn't get over 50 without losing all my intakes and flipping over/exploding. The one thing KSP does to me is completely gently caress over my idea of speed. I'm so used to using mph that m/s are not an instinctive unit for me, so I see 140m/s and think "oh that's not that fast" before realizing it's like 310 mph.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
So I switched to using DDSloader and it didn't make much of a difference in memory usage, maybe 50 megabytes. Then I added -force-opengl to the command line and it cut it from 3.6 gigs to 2.1. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
Flagrant Abuse posted:So I switched to using DDSloader and it didn't make much of a difference in memory usage, maybe 50 megabytes. DDSLoader only works with mod's whose textures are already DDS, or using the DDS converter to change all the textures to DDS. (Someone correct me if I'm wrong, because this is how I interpreted it.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
Robzilla posted:DDSLoader only works with mod's whose textures are already DDS, or using the DDS converter to change all the textures to DDS. Yes DDSLoader requirs you to manually convert the textures to DDS format. Meanwhile Active Texture Management v4 also works with DDS textures, but does the conversion entirely automatically. (Means it takes forever to load the game first time, because it converts all the textures, but after that it's much faster.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
Robzilla posted:DDSLoader only works with mod's whose textures are already DDS, or using the DDS converter to change all the textures to DDS.  I kept ATM around too for the things that don't get converted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
nielsm posted:Yes DDSLoader requirs you to manually convert the textures to DDS format. Something happened when i added Active Texture Manager, all my mipmapping went to poo poo and i have large smeary textures on the Mun. Also the cloud mods and citylights stopped working.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 00:55
|
|
|
Just put my first trash can station into orbit to fulfill a contract: ....at which point I realised that I didn't really have any use for it; so I just installed the Orbital Science mod (plus half a dozen associated mods) so I can start lifting up telescopes and scan satellites to map biomes, etc. Does anybody have recommendations for pretty graphics mods that are on CKAN? (I'm thinking of docking a big, empty fuel tank to my station, and then gradually topping it up whenever another craft visits the station. Eventually I'm hoping to be able to orbit an empty Mun lander and fuel it at the station, so the initial liftoff is less expensive/more mass can be used to carry experiments.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 02:01
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Just put my first trash can station into orbit to fulfill a contract: Refueling stations are super-handy once you get them operational, particularly if you're working within a part or mass limit for your spacecraft. I'm not sure if it's on CKAN or not, but the Astronomer Pack is pretty much the go-to pretty graphics mod and the one I've always played with. Adds clouds and city lights on Kerbin, dust storms on Duna, etc. Also comes bundled with Distant Object Enhancement; it's kind of cool seeing your space station flying past overhead as you're testing a rover at KSC or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
Environmental Visual Enhancements and the Astronomer Pack are not on CKAN, unfortunately. They're incredibly pretty, but they lag me somethin' fierce.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
0x0hShit posted:You're going to need to make liberal use of the offset and rotation tools to make it work, like so. In this case it's a bi-coupler on the bottom two engines and then the top engine is attached directly to the tank. I was all set to tell you that Nice, thanks for this. What I ended up trying last night before I went to bed was attaching the engines via radial attachment points then using the offset tool to adjust them like so:   Unfortunately I'm having serious issues with the CoL being too far underneath the CoM which makes the whole thing nose dive on all of my test flights, so I think I'm going to just start over again from scratch. I didn't think about offsetting the tri-coupler into the tank to make it look better, and that's a really good idea so I'll probably try that next time. Just gotta figure out this CoM and CoL issue first... 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 15:26 |
|
|
Back in 0.24, I had a problem with one of my early plane designs (which I put together in order to test a solid rocket booster splashed down on Kerbin, without any actual plane-related techs), in that it kept pitching up and flipping over backwards. In a moment of pure  , I decided the obvious solution was to have something pushing the front end of the plane down to counteract whatever force was pushing it up, and the result was this: In fairness, I was somewhat intoxicated at the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 03:21
|
|