|
Any tips on getting rovers to other planets/moons in an elegant way? I don't like having to hang them on the side of my stuff and poo poo.
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 14:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 14:47 |
|
|
Try a combination of fairings (perhaps Procedural Fairings) to hide ugliness away, and Infernal Robotics to make things that can fold up during transport.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 14:49
|
|
|
Yeah I'm also looking for elegant ways to deploy them onto the surface? Single-engine rockets/landers seem the cleanest, but then where do you store the rover and how do you get it down? Or you could put it on the bottom and have two engines on the side, but that always makes for an ugly rocket imho.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 14:52
|
|
|
uXs posted:Any tips on getting rovers to other planets/moons in an elegant way? I don't like having to hang them on the side of my stuff and poo poo. I'm dealing with this now, and learned a new trick that I'm sure is an old trick for everyone else: start your rover build with a center-piece, like an octagonal strut, and build out, then put the lifting stage under that and the lander stage on top, with lots of extra decouplers to get rid of the extraneous bits. A small radial engine pair can land the rover (still connected to the lander) on the ground, then you shoot off the lander once it's on the ground and park it nearby. My first rover was just tacked onto the side of my lander and I used a backup fuel tank for counterbalance. It was stupid and lovely and impossible to fly without MechJeb.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 14:55
|
|
|
Is it just me or do the changes to career make the game an order of magnitude less enjoyable? The lack of SAS for unmanned missions combined with having to choose between upgrading for more weight/more parts/manoeuvres for the first like 10 missions makes any major mission a pain in the rear end, so the first several hours just feels like a frustrating grind for money.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
Forgive my trash drawing, but: That's the method i've used in the past - mount the rover upside-down atop the rocket, and have a lander attached to its roof which can make final descent, land, and still leave clearance (via legs) to decouple the rover and let it drive off. All the other stages simply get the rover to Munar orbit and kill horizontal velocity, so the payload drops straight down. Then the lander doesn't have to maneuver, it just has to kill vetical velocity. Can't speak much for any bodies with atmospheres, I've never been out of Kerbin's SoI.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 15:15
|
|
|
Joda posted:Is it just me or do the changes to career make the game an order of magnitude less enjoyable? The lack of SAS for unmanned missions combined with having to choose between upgrading for more weight/more parts/manoeuvres for the first like 10 missions makes any major mission a pain in the rear end, so the first several hours just feels like a frustrating grind for money. I think it's a massive improvement. Most I've actually played it (rather than testing it, and my mod) in about a year. Lots of balancing yet to be done, which might be why it feels frustratingly grindy to you. For one, in-atmo part testing contracts are way too stingy for the effort they take to do. And I'd agree that the Stayputnik is excessively frustrating to use. As is the Octo2, now. With no reaction wheels, it means using an overpowered separate wheel that spazzes out the SAS. Also, I still think the "single budget" approach is a mistake, and I think it contributes to that feeling of grind. If the game provided missions that were more self contained, it would be possible to have meaningful Funds limitations, without pushing the player towards grinding easy contracts for Funds. But the weight/parts limitations are great. I'd like to see them start a little lower, and progress more gradually, but at the core, a great addition to the game. eth0.n fucked around with this message at 15:27 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 15:25
|
|
|
Yeah, the jump from 30 parts to 255 parts is probably too much. Within a 30 part limit I was carefully considering every part added, and it would have made science missions really interesting as you'd want to cut down parts everywhere to squeeze on extra experiments. As soon as I unlocked the next level though I just slap on everything I can think of because I'm not going to hit 255 any time soon.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Yeah, the jump from 30 parts to 255 parts is probably too much. Within a 30 part limit I was carefully considering every part added, and it would have made science missions really interesting as you'd want to cut down parts everywhere to squeeze on extra experiments. As soon as I unlocked the next level though I just slap on everything I can think of because I'm not going to hit 255 any time soon. Absolutely. I don't know that I've ever built a single craft with more than 255 parts, even large heavy lifters. Something like 60 or 75 for the first upgrade would be a lot better. I intentionally didn't upgrade the VAB for a very long time with the new update just to force myself to design less stupid rockets and go as far as I could with just 30 parts. It made me a lot better at building things and added a lot of fun to the game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
eth0.n posted:I think it's a massive improvement. Most I've actually played it (rather than testing it, and my mod) in about a year. Lots of balancing yet to be done, which might be why it feels frustratingly grindy to you. For one, in-atmo part testing contracts are way too stingy for the effort they take to do. And I'd agree that the Stayputnik is excessively frustrating to use. As is the Octo2, now. With no reaction wheels, it means using an overpowered separate wheel that spazzes out the SAS. I haven't done a single localized contract, mostly because they seem way too much effort to do with a rocket, and because I don't like planes in this game.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 15:48
|
|
|
Cubey posted:Absolutely. I don't know that I've ever built a single craft with more than 255 parts, even large heavy lifters. Something like 60 or 75 for the first upgrade would be a lot better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
I was about to ask the rover question too, I stuck one on top of my current lander and I can't get it to detach without exploding, and if I land with it still attached it tips my lander over and makes it explode. I've been trying to land for an hour, I'm just going to ditch the loving thing and land without it but I want one in the future so I can hit multiple biomes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I was about to ask the rover question too, I stuck one on top of my current lander and I can't get it to detach without exploding, and if I land with it still attached it tips my lander over and makes it explode. I've been trying to land for an hour, I'm just going to ditch the loving thing and land without it but I want one in the future so I can hit multiple biomes. Sounds like you have one, or both, of two potential problems: 1) centre of mass is too high on your lander. In vehicle assembly, go to the lower left of the screen, and there are three little cricles to the right of the funds display. One shows the centre of mass - you want it good and low so it plants itself on the ground, rather than tip over. 2) you might have too much horizontal velocity when you're coming in. An ideal landing starts in orbit - once you've identified a spot you want to burn retro until your trajectory shows you falling as straight down as possible. No curvature at all. Then, all you need to do is fall straight down and keep your retro marker right at the top of your navball while gradually reducing velocity. Every time you need to adjust position laterally you're going to pick up horizontal velocity surprisingly quickly, and once it's started it's hard to lose it again. Horizontal velocity kills more of my landers than anything else. Best tip for getting all of this right - test and test and test your lander back on kerbin. It should be balanced enough for straight, stable, controllable vertical flight on kerbin before taking it elsewhere. communism bitch fucked around with this message at 16:13 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
Build it in a sort of M shape where the rover is right-side up in the center and the engines are on either side pointing down. Then you can either land on legs and drive the rover out from under it, or detach the engines with the throttle on and have it fly itself off somewhere and explode. Also, are you using a decoupler or docking ports to attach the rover? You might want to switch to the latter if it's the former, they have zero decoupling force.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
I've installed a bunch of mods and now I have a strange bug where if I EVA I get a Jeb, no matter what. I've got 8 Jebs standing on my runway now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 16:21
|
|
|
Joda posted:Is it just me or do the changes to career make the game an order of magnitude less enjoyable? The lack of SAS for unmanned missions combined with having to choose between upgrading for more weight/more parts/manoeuvres for the first like 10 missions makes any major mission a pain in the rear end, so the first several hours just feels like a frustrating grind for money. I don't mind some of the grind, since doing vanity projects for rich private parties seems like how a private space company might have to start. I feel like I'm actually building something in a realistic way. It also definitely drives me to try things I wouldn't have otherwise and the contracts ramping up matches the learning and experimenting curve, so long as you don't accidentally skip things. (Speaking of skipping contracts, it might make sense to have a permanent list of career contracts, which are obscured and revealed in tiers, so the player doesn't feel overwhelmed but has a sense of direction. But if you accidentally complete a future objective you still get rewarded for that and maybe certain things in-between. Then you have the temporary /' random contracts on the side.) Like others have said, it's about balance at this point. Some of the jumps are pretty extreme which is why 210k (or whatever it is) to go from 30 -> 255 parts feels like a grind. Also things like unlocking jet parts before you even have useful landing gear makes certain science unlocks feel wasteful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 16:31
|
|
|
The weekly challenge on the KSP subreddit is a lot of fun, and I finally managed last night to get my ship into space. Ship starts off upside-down...  And after only a few explosions during launch... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZm_L1CBhfY Goes up and...  Into orbit! 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 16:34
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:Kerbin’s lower atmosphere is so soupy that it takes very little time for any of my planes to reach landable speeds if I cut the engines and dive to ground level. You aren’t using FAR or NEAR, are you? I'm using NEAR.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
I like how tough the spacesuits are, and that bouncing uncontrollably is way faster than walking. Instead of wasting EVA fuel I bounced and skidded three kilometers down a crater back to my lander.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I like how tough the spacesuits are, and that bouncing uncontrollably is way faster than walking. Instead of wasting EVA fuel I bounced and skidded three kilometers down a crater back to my lander. Just don't try this on Gilly
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Yeah, the jump from 30 parts to 255 parts is probably too much. Within a 30 part limit I was carefully considering every part added, and it would have made science missions really interesting as you'd want to cut down parts everywhere to squeeze on extra experiments. As soon as I unlocked the next level though I just slap on everything I can think of because I'm not going to hit 255 any time soon. Wow. I haven't upgraded my part count yet, but yeah that is way too much. I really like the part limit; I'll keep it for as long as I can for the challenge. Whats wrong with even very small increments, like 10 at at time? You can do an awful lot with 40, 50, 60 parts, especially if you're used to building small. 30 is enough to get anywhere in Kerbins SOI. The most complex thing I've launched was a craft with 8 nuclear rockets on folding arms, attached to a bay with 6 unique probes and a detachable ion life boat. That thing was only like 120.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:I like how tough the spacesuits are, and that bouncing uncontrollably is way faster than walking. Instead of wasting EVA fuel I bounced and skidded three kilometers down a crater back to my lander. Do be careful. I slid down several km on Mun I think. I was just nearing the bottom when I hit a tiny bump and went splat on landing. Poor Bill.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 17:26
|
|
|
Look some of us like using 150 SRBs and dodging our way to orbit through thousands of spent rockets
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 17:27
|
|
|
My survey plane and moon probe are both right at the 30 part cap, but I think the only single launch I've ever done that broke 255 was the Eve lander.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
My refined rocket for lifting 5 ton payloads is only 6 or 8 parts I think (only two stages, the third stage engine is included in the payload weight) and that can put satellites around the Mun and Minimus, and I'm going to try for a sample return mission using it, and this is all within the 30 part limit. even an extra 10 parts would be more than enough for me to do some serious poo poo with a bit of experimentation and refinement, so the 255 parts is a big jump, yeah. I think a lot of the career mode design decisions were made with the goal of having the late game operate like sandbox mode with unlimited part and weight restrictions, unlimited contracts, etc. Ideally (for me, at least) they'd take another look at that and make the end-game of career mode still quite restrictive, and an unlimited sandbox mode completely separate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Is anyone else having trouble with SAS when using remotetech? Every now and then my ships/probes start oscillating wildly when I turn SAS on and I wasn't having this problem before installing RT. I've been kinda able to work around it, but it's getting rather annoying that I have to use time warp to stabilize. If I'm using the flight computer/mechjeb to maintain orientation it also stays stable. It doesn't always happen and only seems to affect whatever is active when it starts (switching between ships doesn't move the problem to the new active) but when it does the only complete fix is restarting KSP. Sometimes turning off all reaction wheels except one set will fix it for about a minute before it starts up again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
t's happened to me once or twice, but only when I've already been in an established orbit so it's not been a huge problem and I haven't investigated it further. Not much use, but can confirm that I've encountered something similar. e: also it's only been a transitory problem for me and seems to fix itself quite quickly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 17:50
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:t's happened to me once or twice, but only when I've already been in an established orbit so it's not been a huge problem and I haven't investigated it further. Not much use, but can confirm that I've encountered something similar. Yeah, only happens after I've gotten to where I'm going. I haven't tried waiting it out to see if it corrects itself because I've been worried about drive-by Kraken. E: Do you have MechJeb installed? It usually occurs after the autopilot completes a node, which leaves SAS off and the ship gently rotating, when I turn SAS back on it make it stop it starts going bonkers, but only happens on maybe one out of five flights. Fermented Tinal fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
withak posted:Sepratron braking it is! This is, by far, my favorite mod: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/61294-0-25-XT-Landertron-Smart-Retrorockets-for-Landers-and-Spaceplanes-v0-08-Oct-10 Retrorockets for ships and spaceplanes that automatically bring you to 0 m/s speed, if you have the dV packed in them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 17:56
|
|
|
That's the kinda poo poo that should be unlocked by research. Not just "more different engine/fuel tank/solar panel" but parts that lets you do something an entirely different way. That is a really cool mod.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
Zero One posted:Single launch RSS to Mars and back: Maccollo is a Kerbal God, the video of the Venus mission is the best Kerbal one I've seen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONP9jS14toE
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 18:30
|
|
|
Fermented Tinal posted:Is anyone else having trouble with SAS when using remotetech? Every now and then my ships/probes start oscillating wildly when I turn SAS on and I wasn't having this problem before installing RT. I've been kinda able to work around it, but it's getting rather annoying that I have to use time warp to stabilize. If I'm using the flight computer/mechjeb to maintain orientation it also stays stable. It doesn't always happen and only seems to affect whatever is active when it starts (switching between ships doesn't move the problem to the new active) but when it does the only complete fix is restarting KSP. Sometimes turning off all reaction wheels except one set will fix it for about a minute before it starts up again. It occasionally happens to me even without RT, so I don't think it's related specifically to that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 19:22
|
|
|
Fermented Tinal posted:Yeah, only happens after I've gotten to where I'm going. I haven't tried waiting it out to see if it corrects itself because I've been worried about drive-by Kraken. No MechJeb, so it's not that on my end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 19:32
|
|
|
uXs posted:Any tips on getting rovers to other planets/moons in an elegant way? I don't like having to hang them on the side of my stuff and poo poo. Reposting this: 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 19:47
|
|
|
How do I enable maneuver nodes?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 19:53
|
|
|
BlueGrot posted:How do I enable maneuver nodes? Upgrade the Tracking Station and Mission Control (contracts building) once each. Right click them to upgrade.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
Found it, Contracts building. Would've thought it would be the tracking station.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
BlueGrot posted:Found it, Contracts building. Would've thought it would be the tracking station. It's both.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
They should probably put a better description than "Enable Patched Conics" in the tracking station upgrade because no one who isn't already a huge KSP nerd knows what that means.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 20:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 14:47 |
|
|
Had a mini eureka moment and resolved my issue here. I made the central return probe as usual, put a decoupler below it, put a 2x2 plate immediately below that, and then mounted the four tanks onto the plate at the corners. Now when the probe lifts off the entire landed unit remains intact. Now I just have to figure out my final payload weight, load it up, and do some flight testing on kerbin to get it controllable before sending it to Mun. Also I have to just kinda hope that the fuel tank on the return probe will be enough to get the thing back - I have literally no idea what the dv would be or needs to be, and I don't like being handheld by some of the mods that seem to almost play the game for you, so I'm just gonna keep loving up till I get it right, I guess. e: visual for those who thought this would be tricky: 
communism bitch fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Dec 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 20:44
|
|
