|
haveblue posted: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. I haven't played forever, and I don't know what that means.
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 15:58 |
|
|
In this context enabling patched conics means "you can now see what will happen after SoI changes a few steps ahead"
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
Does anyone have their saves directory synced with dropbox or something between more than 1 computer? I play on my laptop and desktop and it's a pain in the rear end that I went home over xmas break with my laptop and had to start over my 0.90 game completely. I assume I'd just need to set it up to sync whatever the save folder is with drop box to both computers?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Plinkey posted:Does anyone have their saves directory synced with dropbox or something between more than 1 computer? I play on my laptop and desktop and it's a pain in the rear end that I went home over xmas break with my laptop and had to start over my 0.90 game completely. Might be a good idea to sync the mods folder too if you use them. I can't see why it wouldn't work.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 21:47
|
|
|
The grind gets a lot more fun if you race to space planes instead of solar panels. Had a lot of fun flying around doing surveys and EVAs. Got an engineer to repack chutes so I can fly over an EVA point, deploy chutes, land, repack chutes, take off, rinse repeat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:26
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted: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. If you don't want to use MechJeb but still want to have some idea what you're going to need, there's a chart on this page that will show you how much delta-v it takes to get to or from anywhere in the Kerbin system (plus information on how to calculate delta-v yourself, if you really want to go maximum  instead of just using KER).
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 22:37
|
|
|
I've seen some dV tables before, but my knowledge of mathematics beyond basic multiplication and division is woeful, so I've never tried anything more complex. I should force myself to learn, and I can't think of a better reason to do it than to be better at playing spaceman video games. In other news: My lander tumbled unceremoniously into the munar surface at 500m/s after I fatfingered topping up the tanks for landing, so that three of the engines ran dry before the fourth. Then I sent a very expensive, science-laden probe to Minimus orbit and forgot the smallest and least expensive experiment stipulated in the contract. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:I've seen some dV tables before, but my knowledge of mathematics beyond basic multiplication and division is woeful, so I've never tried anything more complex. I should force myself to learn, and I can't think of a better reason to do it than to be better at playing spaceman video games. dV tables and cheat sheets require only addition and subtraction to use. In the chart below you can just sum the values for the path you take. From Kerbin to low Munar orbit, you have 4550+860+310=5720m/s. To get back takes the same- except it doesn't because Kerbin has an atmosphere that lets you just intercept it, so you can ignore the 4550 value. There's also ways to do things more efficiently, but this chart in particular has been very helpful to me. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:dV tables and cheat sheets require only addition and subtraction to use. Oh, yeah, that's simple enough. I was more thinking about the calculations of dry weight/starting weight, thrust, etc that tell you definitely whether a given engine and fuel load can get you to the appropriate speeds.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:38
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Oh, yeah, that's simple enough. I was more thinking about the calculations of dry weight/starting weight, thrust, etc that tell you definitely whether a given engine and fuel load can get you to the appropriate speeds. Just get Kerbal Engineer Redux for that, gives you a nice simple readout for each stage and the total craft.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:40
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Oh, yeah, that's simple enough. I was more thinking about the calculations of dry weight/starting weight, thrust, etc that tell you definitely whether a given engine and fuel load can get you to the appropriate speeds. I "think" that's the Thrust to Weight Ratio or (TWR) and I have no idea how you calculate that but I use KER and the rule of thumb I play with is that if its between 1.5 to 2.5 I'm good to go.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
immelman posted:Maccollo is a Kerbal God, the video of the Venus mission is the best Kerbal one I've seen:  as someone who just got gifted this game last week, I've been checking out a lot of Youtube guides, and this video was PERFECT. Thank you so much for relinking this!!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
BlueGrot posted:The grind gets a lot more fun if you race to space planes instead of solar panels. Had a lot of fun flying around doing surveys and EVAs. Got an engineer to repack chutes so I can fly over an EVA point, deploy chutes, land, repack chutes, take off, rinse repeat. I haven't really done any grinding and I'm pretty close to getting enough money for the final research lab upgrades. But I did use some mods for it: * First some basic stuff, basic contracts and poo poo. If I'd have to do this again, I'd use the sounding rockets for some extra science. * Putting satellites in orbits is a good method for getting early money. * Deny all testing contracts in flight or whatever, but accept the ones landed at Kerbin and do them from a stationary testing stand. * Get ground samples from all over the Mün and Minmus. You can do Minmus in just a few launches, the Mün requires more. I used the Scansat mod here to figure out where the biomes are. * Somewhere around here I did one mission with a money => science strategy activated which gave me a shitload of science, enough to get all the science nodes below 500. * When the contracts to explore the 'easier' planets come, accept all of them and launch probes everywhere. The thermometer can be used to fulfill every requirement - but you do need to be careful because it only works on the ground or in very, very low orbit. Used the Kerbal Alarm Clock to coordinate everything. * The Station Science mod is great to get money. It's not too easy because you do need to launch some very heavy crap and you have to be able to dock with them too. But the first contracts are in the Kerbin system which means you don't have to wait for the stars to align to get to other planets. All mods used: -Docking Port Alignment Indicator. Oh god how did I ever live without this. -Editor Extensions: place your Sepatrons right in the middle of your fuel tanks and then use the offset tool to move them for that sweet, sweet symmetry. -FAR. -Kerbal Alarm Clock. Don't leave home without it. Makes Protractor obsolete too. -Kerbal Engineer Redux. I want all the info all the time. -MechJeb 2. Why do anything myself when I can just push a few buttons and have MechJeb do it? Seriously, I let MJ do everything it can, I'm just there for when it can't. (*) -Precise Node. For when MJ misses a planet by a few hundred/thousand/million kilometers. Also for the early game when you don't have MJ yet. -Procedural Fairings. Hide all the ugly. -SafeChute. -ScanSat. -Station Science. *: Like my last mission when I had MJ do a powered landing back at KSC: I didn't have enough parachutes and it was burning at 100% keeping the speed under control. Early on it seemed that I had plenty of fuel left to make a safe landing, but about 100m above the grond I saw that I would run out too soon and most likely crash into the ground. So I did what any sensible person would do: disable the landing autopilot, kill the throttle, and restart the autopilot at the last second. Safe landing, on fumes!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
I find in-flight testing to be some of the cheapest and least-effort methods of making cash and a shitload of early science. Even before I used the Stage Recovery mod (seriously get that mod) it was one of the best. I just make a cheap custom craft carry each part, the entire process takes 5 minutes or so, and if I'm lucky I can bundle a bunch of them onto one ship and do them sequentially. gently caress orbital tests for heavy stuff though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
uXs posted:-Docking Port Alignment Indicator. Oh god how did I ever live without this. I like Navball docking alignment indicator a lot better. It's got less UI but still does everything I need.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 00:06
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:I like Navball docking alignment indicator a lot better. It's got less UI but still does everything I need. Not on CKAN. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:I find in-flight testing to be some of the cheapest and least-effort methods of making cash and a shitload of early science. Even before I used the Stage Recovery mod (seriously get that mod) it was one of the best. I just make a cheap custom craft carry each part, the entire process takes 5 minutes or so, and if I'm lucky I can bundle a bunch of them onto one ship and do them sequentially. Actually, "In orbit around Kerbin" engine tests likely have the biggest income to effort ratio in the entire game. "You'll give me ~1 million kesos to get An Engine (1) into orbit and press a button? Sign me up." That's on hard, by the way. It's probably even more ridiculous on lower difficulties.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 00:20
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:I find in-flight testing to be some of the cheapest and least-effort methods of making cash and a shitload of early science. Even before I used the Stage Recovery mod (seriously get that mod) it was one of the best. I just make a cheap custom craft carry each part, the entire process takes 5 minutes or so, and if I'm lucky I can bundle a bunch of them onto one ship and do them sequentially. In-flight testing contracts are also kind of fun when they make you think outside the box to have to get some oddball part to a particular altitude and speed as cheaply as possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
I find orbital and suborbital trajectory parts tests to be much less of a pain in the rear end than in-flight testing, generally speaking. I hate having to hit all the envelopes for flight tests, especially if I'm trying to do more than one per launch. Just shifting altitude in orbit is easy though. Not that I love doing any parts tests, really. I find contracts to be the most fun when they fit into doing stuff I want to do anyway, and that rarely involves firing giant SRBs on a Kerbin escape trajectory or some random engine I never use on the Mun. Satellite contracts are OK, though I wasn't bothering with them before .90. I'm mostly only doing them now because the ROI on them is pretty good; they're still not the most fun for me. What I really want are for satellite/station/base contracts to feel a little more like they have an "ending" of sorts. As it stands, unless you want to keep the craft for whatever reason, all you can really do is delete it or flag it as debris once the contract is done, which feels like a huge anti-climax. I would actually prefer it if the game literally deleted them automatically after I switched away to another craft, although an even better solution would be for them to persist but outside of your control - as if you have actually delivered a craft as ordered by the client, and they've taken it over at that point. That could be a great stepping-stone for followup contracts (add station module/de-orbit satellite/etc.) too, since it would provide a concrete roster of crafts to use as targets. I guess the fundamental theme here is that it would be fun if contracts felt like they had more of an overarching sense of purpose. Maybe even parts tests would be more satisfying if they were fine-tuned a bit. Start by making them less arbitrary (e.g. no more small gear bay tests in orbit), and maybe provide some concrete benefits beyond financial rewards. For example, each test of an SRB part could make that specific SRB slightly more fuel-efficient/cheaper/lighter, to some reasonable cap (after which you wouldn't get more test contracts for that part). I know parts tests tend to reward science points as a means of progression, but that's very abstract. The tangible nature of "test part -> part is better" is appealing to me. Would have to do something to avoid the potential frustration of waiting forever for tests for your favorite parts to randomly pop up, of course. Avenging Dentist posted:I like Navball docking alignment indicator a lot better. It's got less UI but still does everything I need. This is super-nice! Definitely giving it a try. Docking is one part of KSP that I'm actually good at, and don't too much mind doing without mods, but it's a nice quality of life thing to have just a touch of assistance with getting lined up. I tried the other port alignment mod, but yeah, it's rather bloaty with that unnecessary window it opens. I also found the way it rendered information to be really counterintuitive, to the point that I kept messing up maneuvers because I constantly misread the thing. Just putting a dot on the navball looks much easier to work with. Supraluminal fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Bugs notwithstanding and a little cheaty help from hyperedit to fine tune the orbital periods so the satellites don't drift from each other and I think I've got a relatively high-uptime network setup for complete coverage of Mun. Is this overkill for getting ready to land this save's first robotic rover on Mun?  Ignore the one in GKO, it's leftover from a contract and I figured that was a good orbit to park it in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
I'm using the Outsourced R&D strategy and I'm getting science each time I accept a contract from the advance reward. Is this intentional or a bug? edit: also how do I calculate how much delta V I need for a specific orbit? I have a contract for a 28,000km kerbin orbit and have no idea how much fuel I'll need. two_beer_bishes fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
That's a pretty network. Much cleaner than mine. E: can you not maintain coverage around mun with omnis, and just have one of those sats talking to the relay above kerbin? That'd free up dishes for other stuff.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:That's a pretty network. Much cleaner than mine. I'm not so sure about SR ComSat I, its orbit's apo is like 48k km and the link to Mun is over the dish with the 50k km range, I haven't had any trouble yet but I imagine in a few ingame months the orbits will be out from each other enough to cause blackouts at both apoapsis and perapsis. I think I'm gonna have to lower the apo or replace the satellite entirely with one with a longer range dish. E: Oh, I can maintain coverage with the omnis, I think. I just haven't retargetted the dishes because I don't need to yet. I'm probably gonna use two of them to talk to long range comsats for Duna and Eve and save the three around Kerbin for celestials that are further away since the ones around mun only have the 50k km range dishes. Fermented Tinal fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
two_beer_bishes posted:I'm using the Outsourced R&D strategy and I'm getting science each time I accept a contract from the advance reward. Is this intentional or a bug? The point of the strategy is to convert income to science, so it seems intentional.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:29
|
|
|
withak posted:The point of the strategy is to convert income to science, so it seems intentional. I understand that part, but I suppose I assumed that would be only from the actual completion of contracts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
Evidently it's just not career mode unless I strand Jeb on the Mun because I didn't pack enough fuel to return. Time for a rescue mission!
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
Geirskogul posted: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 Thanks for posting this, I didn't know about it. Just installed and tested it out, and wow, what a fun and different way to land! This is really great and I'm glad I grabbed it. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
How to determine an Apollo launch window. Makes me glad the Kerbin-Mun system is so simple. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3BIXQ0xnGQ
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
Zero One posted:How to determine an Apollo launch window. Makes me glad the Kerbin-Mun system is so simple. In KSP you just launch rocket after rocket until one survives long enough to do what you want. Simple and good!
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
Outsourced R&D seems massively overpowered, I set it at 20% and unlocked 2/3rds of the tree below 500 from one mun mission. This update is fantastic, just lots of little tweaks needed, hence the beta name I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
Zero One posted:How to determine an Apollo launch window. Makes me glad the Kerbin-Mun system is so simple. I don't know how similar the related videos section will be for other people, but for me it's full of "MOON HOAX PROVEN" quackery 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
Here's a fun video I found with lots of explosion and chaos: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnfZT3JwzhY
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
SKELETONS posted:Outsourced R&D seems massively overpowered, I set it at 20% and unlocked 2/3rds of the tree below 500 from one mun mission. This update is fantastic, just lots of little tweaks needed, hence the beta name I guess. Welcome to the thread. If you weren't following before, it was in beta since 2008 or so with feature additions every couple of months. There was essentially nothing to balance until recently, with the introduction of the tech tree and funds. Who knows where they will go from here? Future balancing may keep that Outsourced R&D where it is, but limit how much science you can store, while adding equally zany ratios for "Reputation -> Funds for KSP Licenced Products". (I haven't looked much into the present options and rates) Optional difficulty settings so that reputation naturally degrades over time as the public loses interest, which gives incentive to run concurrent missions. Fund bleed due to active mission management, adding the ability to suspend missions to cut losses and reactivate mothballed missions for a fee+running costs. Etc cetera... Cameras would be cool. Broadcasting footage to boost reputation anyone? Corky Romanovsky fucked around with this message at 06:28 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 06:26
|
|
|
After getting the game during the steam sale, I've been having a lot of fun with career mode until I stupidly took a mission to rescue a kerbal stranded in orbit. And then everything went to hell. How close do you want me to get, you sadistic monster? And it doesn't help that I cant seem to get a precise enough match on my orbits; current record is holding at about 100m separation but still having a persistent relative velocity I couldn't overcome and get there with RCS because, well, my orbits were about 100m off, and I couldn't cycle to the stranded kerbal to have *him* come nearer.... after an hour of obsessively loading quicksaves and burning fuel all over the place and desperately squinting at one-pixel-apart-maybe orbits to try to deliver single digit m/s delta vees precisely to shave off another handful of meters separation all to no avail, I talked myself out of rage-uninstalling the game. The actual multiple semesters of orbital mechanics classes I took weren't this aggravating. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
If you're within 100 meters, you should be able to cycle over to the Kerbal in orbit by using [ or ], then once you've got control of him enable his RCS pack (default: r, when on EVA) and motor on over to his ride back home. That's how I've fulfilled those contracts before, at least.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
If you are squinting at pixels in the map view then you are doing it wrong. Get into roughly the same orbit as the target, then either lengthen or shorten your orbital period depending on whether you need to catch up to the target or let the target catch up to you. Do that to get within a few km, then ignore map view and only worry about relative velocity and distance to get within a hundred meters or so with close to zero relative velocity. Then EVA the stranded Kerbal to your ship. edit: Don't forget to make sure the rescue ship has an empty seat somewhere.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 06:54
|
|
|
Mukaikubo posted:After getting the game during the steam sale, I've been having a lot of fun with career mode until I stupidly took a mission to rescue a kerbal stranded in orbit. And then everything went to hell. How close do you want me to get, you sadistic monster? And it doesn't help that I cant seem to get a precise enough match on my orbits; current record is holding at about 100m separation but still having a persistent relative velocity I couldn't overcome and get there with RCS because, well, my orbits were about 100m off, and I couldn't cycle to the stranded kerbal to have *him* come nearer.... after an hour of obsessively loading quicksaves and burning fuel all over the place and desperately squinting at one-pixel-apart-maybe orbits to try to deliver single digit m/s delta vees precisely to shave off another handful of meters separation all to no avail, I talked myself out of rage-uninstalling the game. Anywhere inside 2500m you can use the '[' and ']' keys to cycle through close objects. But it's not the orbit you have to match precisely, you have to intersect where he is. Set him as target (assume you already did) and then move to a higher or lower orbit to move your relative positions as you orbit. When the intersection marks (orange and purple) show up you can burn again to get the intercept nice and close. Then you only need to match orbits when your ship and him are closest together, '[' over to him, press 'R' to activate the suit RCS and get to the pod door. Good luck  Warning for FAR updaters: the latest version seems to cause some weird NaN errors, I reverted to 14.5.1 and things work again but 14.6 makes KSP crash when switch map modes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 06:58
|
|
|
Supraluminal posted:This is super-nice! Definitely giving it a try. Docking is one part of KSP that I'm actually good at, and don't too much mind doing without mods, but it's a nice quality of life thing to have just a touch of assistance with getting lined up. I tried the other port alignment mod, but yeah, it's rather bloaty with that unnecessary window it opens. I also found the way it rendered information to be really counterintuitive, to the point that I kept messing up maneuvers because I constantly misread the thing. Just putting a dot on the navball looks much easier to work with. Yeah, I never found docking too hard, but this removes the one minor annoyance I had: having to eyeball the angle I need to be at. It even helps you make sure you're rotated correctly when building a station, so now I don't have to OCD about my station modules being ever-so-slightly out of alignment. It's definitely on my "things that should be stock" list.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 06:59
|
|
|
Ratzap posted:Anywhere inside 2500m you can use the '[' and ']' keys to cycle through close objects. But it's not the orbit you have to match precisely, you have to intersect where he is. Set him as target (assume you already did) and then move to a higher or lower orbit to move your relative positions as you orbit. When the intersection marks (orange and purple) show up you can burn again to get the intercept nice and close. Then you only need to match orbits when your ship and him are closest together, '[' over to him, press 'R' to activate the suit RCS and get to the pod door. Good luck Yeah, no matter how close I got, I couldn't cycle over with those keys; I tried them incessantly at a bunch of different distances and it... just never went anywhere. I stayed stubbornly locked onto my derpy little drone pod with its open seat. Also: I was trying what y'all are telling me, and I couldn't make it work. Inserted into a pretty good matching orbit off launch; a degree or two off on inclination, periapse and apoapse about two kilometers high and ascending node about 5 degrees off... pretty good initial match. Waited for the ascending node to match inclination about as precisely as I can see- but I can't quite figure out how to see numerically how close- and then waited until my point of closest approach of ~15km and did a burn to bring the next half-orbit's approach down to ~1km. Once I got there, I waited until I was 2km off, pointed at the target retrograde and brought my velocity as low as I could- ~1 m/s just from the slight altitude difference I had left- and then painfully slowly pivoted to point at the target prograde, burn up to 30 m/s, spin, come back down to as close to 0 m/s as I could... only to find that I couldn't get back down to that 1 m/s difference! I'd hoped to come closer by stages of a few hundred meters at a shot, but that was a fantasy; the rendezvous target just slipped away no matter what I did. The tutorial I found on youtube, incidentally, was remarkably counterproductive; it showed a guy just casually getting into a near perfect match without having to make any adjustments, which, if you've got enough practice to eyeball it that closely, great but it's not really helpful to a beginner. So that's why I was trying what sounded a bit weird! e: Yeah I'm still a bit frazzled/irate. Can I go back to manually doing orbital rendezvous calculations by hand now like when I was a grad student? It was easier on my heart. 
Mukaikubo fucked around with this message at 07:13 on Dec 31, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 07:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 15:58 |
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2014 07:30
|
|