|
Groetgaffel posted:If having a Delta-v total readout push you to some sort of table-flipping rage, just have it hidden by default. Just make people who hate delta-V readouts install a mod to hide it.  (Also yeah, there are lots of other numbers that would be nice to see, but really, I could probably do without 75% of the stats that Kerbal Engineer provides.)
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 23:26 |
|
|
Mukaikubo posted:gently caress planes, and gently caress every single one of these 'take data above this random terrain feature halfway across the planet' missions. Hate hate hate hate hate. I'm a rocket man, not a filthy aerodynamicist! Those contracts are a real pain to do, but you can decline any contract offered and they'll offer you something else instead.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 20:15
|
|
And they clutter up my pretty list of available contracts something fierce.
|
You can eyeball those target orbits pretty easily once you understand how the basic orbital maneuvers work. Maneuver nodes just make it a little easier; without them you might have to just slap on an extra small fuel tank or an additional SRB stage to give yourself some extra breathing room for adjustments. There isn't really much benefit to putting a great deal of effort into five-starring every contract assignment, especially the ones where the cash reward is so high. I think making it possible to do stuff without too much  about the details is the best part of the game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 20:19
|
|
|
I think I need to go back to Kerbal school  I can't even manage to break orbit, much less get to Mun. I'm trying to launch a satellite with the Stayputnik and I think I need to build a bigger rocket. Are there any recommended mods for satellites? I'd like to practice getting into stable orbits with them. Edit: Is anyone else having problems with MechJeb? I'm trying to establish a 125km orbit around Kerbin and it's just not...doing anything. It stays at "coasting to the edge of the atmosphere" until I begin re-entry, and then Deadly Re-Entry skullfucks me because I'm hitting atmosphere a a 25 degree angle at 1.2km/s. HonorableTB fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Jan 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Apoffys posted:Those contracts are a real pain to do, but you can decline any contract offered and they'll offer you something else instead. Yeah, I tried one once with a plane and realized it was the world's most tedious thing. And then I thought "oh here's one that's just on the ground, I'll make a little car and drive around to get them!" Holy crap was that frustrating. Maybe if the points were a little closer? I could see it being fun if you only had to drive around for about a minute or two total (even better if the game does some work to ensure that the terrain is actually drivable).
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
If you've got the Stage Recovery mod you can profitably complete most survey missions very quickly with custom-made icbms. The only cost will be the fuel spent, as you'll recover all the spent stages as long as you use parachutes on them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
withak posted:You can eyeball those target orbits pretty easily once you understand how the basic orbital maneuvers work. Maneuver nodes just make it a little easier; without them you might have to just slap on an extra small fuel tank or an additional SRB stage to give yourself some extra breathing room for adjustments. There isn't really much benefit to putting a great deal of effort into five-starring every contract assignment, especially the ones where the cash reward is so high. Then why tell us the argument of perapsis and the longitude of the ascending node? It's not like either of those two numbers are all that useful when you need a mod in order to tell you what your current aop and lan are. Nor do they matter if you just match your orbit up with the target orbit displayed in map view. Why give numbers that aren't all that useful but not give numbers that are useful?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
ToxicFrog posted:Some of those are already in the game; Ap and Pe and time to both are shown in the map, and radar altimeter is available in most IVAs. They're just a pain in the rear end to get to. True, it's shown. If you're in orbit mode. And the Ap and Pe points are in view. And you hover your mouse over them. Better hope your orbit is not too circular or they bounce all over the place. Give me the Kerbal Engineer HUD every day of the week, at least I can see them all the time in every view mode. Like, how the poo poo are you actually supposed to launch into a specific orbit without any mods? You have to go play chase the Ap indicator in map mode, fun! Hope you don't have to do any staging!
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Fermented Tinal posted:Then why tell us the argument of perapsis and the longitude of the ascending node? It's not like either of those two numbers are all that useful when you need a mod in order to tell you what your current aop and lan are. Nor do they matter if you just match your orbit up with the target orbit displayed in map view. If they didn't give them then people would probably complain that they couldn't budget their dV down the nearest m/s to maximize profit. I just use them to figure out whether to head east or west after liftoff. Anyway the game is in beta so it seems likely that this kind of stuff will eventually get tweaked.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Check it out... super tiny rockets with payloads you have to carefully balance (as you have no guidance on these things)... avionics, batteries, and science. Also adding a 0.35m aerospike engine  
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:If you've got the Stage Recovery mod you can profitably complete most survey missions very quickly with custom-made icbms. The only cost will be the fuel spent, as you'll recover all the spent stages as long as you use parachutes on them. That's not as helpful when the survey isn't on Kerbin. Besides, every other mission in the game is about building rockets; it'd be nice if there were fun things to do with rovers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:That's not as helpful when the survey isn't on Kerbin. Besides, every other mission in the game is about building rockets; it'd be nice if there were fun things to do with rovers. There are fun things to do with rovers. DV tables might tell you whether or not you have the power to get to a given location, but I don't send my mans anywhere without sending a rover first to test flight and landing in strange conditions. If you use a life support mod too it's probably a great idea to send a handful of automated missions to set up life support infrastructure in advance of the arrival of your intrepid explorers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
RoverDude posted:Check it out... super tiny rockets with payloads you have to carefully balance (as you have no guidance on these things)... avionics, batteries, and science. Also adding a 0.35m aerospike engine Most excellent, I like those little rockets. I keep meaning to make a rotating table design so I don't have to launch one, edit the design to point a different way then launch again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 23:37
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:There are fun things to do with rovers. DV tables might tell you whether or not you have the power to get to a given location, but I don't send my mans anywhere without sending a rover first to test flight and landing in strange conditions. If you use a life support mod too it's probably a great idea to send a handful of automated missions to set up life support infrastructure in advance of the arrival of your intrepid explorers. Well, I specifically mean little cars that you can drive around, not just any kind of unmanned lander. Once you've landed somewhere, there's usually not much to do with your little car, and the survey contracts (even the ones that are entirely on the ground) aren't very fun because of how far apart the points of interest are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:Well, I specifically mean little cars that you can drive around, not just any kind of unmanned lander. Once you've landed somewhere, there's usually not much to do with your little car, and the survey contracts (even the ones that are entirely on the ground) aren't very fun because of how far apart the points of interest are. A specific example of a god use for rovers: Get the ScanSat mod, scan target planet for biomes and anomalies. Put a lander at the border between two or (if you're lucky) three biomes, and maybe near an anomaly. You'll need a rover to explore all of them, but it could generate hundreds of science for you in a way that a single lander couldn't, and (with life support mods) it'll have more endurance than a kerbal. If you also install a mod like Dangit (which creates random faults with equipment that gets used most often) you still have a reason to send live explorers so that you're not always at the mercy of fickle technology.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
I have a modding feasibility question, If you made a single part probe/ship (ie probecore, RCS, solar panels etc.. all included) and didn't specify it's tech unlock, could you get contracts to test it without having it otherwise appear in the career mode VAB?RoverDude posted:Check it out... super tiny rockets Replacement of the bulky pods in sounding rockets? or SoRo+? It felt weird that what you made to replace KSC science grinding leads to multi-flight science missions. Love the mod though, got as far as breaking atmo on the super-big super-little boosters. It there any way to take the launch clamps code and make it so you radially attach an eyelet or something and then have the VAB infer the way that launch stick part is connected to the ground? maybe just really scaled down launch clamps? I've been doing it by offsetting at single stick with a heavy part pre attached on the bottom node by the same angle I tilt my rocket.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
Ciaphas posted:I want to use the nuclear rocket now that I've unlocked it, but the thing is too damned long to use any of the landing legs with. Any suggestions for designs to work around this? Serious answer, because the NERVA is legitimately useful as a landing engine on certain low‐gravity bodies: mount it under the capsule/lander can and mount three or four of the long, 1.25‐m fuel tanks radially around the lander. Offset them down and mount the legs on them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
Good ideas all on the NERVAs, thanks.  I've gotten over my Thing for Procedural Fairings but I still feel vaguely cheaty making wide payloads and still making it through a FAR atmosphere just 'cos it has a skin around it. Rockets keep ending up looking like top-pointed hourglasses or something. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:A specific example of a god use for rovers: This is true, but requires you to install 2-3 mods to make it really worthwhile. I know the game is in beta and all, but I hope that as it gets closer to completion, the core game will make things more interesting for rovers (manned or unmanned). Having a wide variety of stuff to do is a large part of what keeps KSP interesting for me, and Arsonide's contracts went a long way towards that. 0.90 is the most I've played of KSP ever, and the first time I even bothered going farther than Minmus. Still, I think there's more room for improvement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:26
|
|
|
I would love to see the survey contracts focus on specific points of interest that are close to each other. Ariel surveys in orbit over cool geological features. Sample/Report surveys in one geological location that has a few interesting bits within a few minutes of travel. I only dislike how many of the points are just arbitrarily scattered. I'm looking for each one to tell a small story as it were. That way you could have a tight landing area to aim for and multiple places to explore around them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
Barn Owl posted:I have a modding feasibility question, If you made a single part probe/ship (ie probecore, RCS, solar panels etc.. all included) and didn't specify it's tech unlock, could you get contracts to test it without having it otherwise appear in the career mode VAB? Pod replacement mostly. RE the sticks I'm not sure what you are getting at? I just place them radially, adjust with my shift keys, and figure out new and creative ways to get them places. Oh - and a gyro module that gives you 0.35m SAS.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 00:44
|
|
|
Cool beans for new parts. Is that a battery in the science folder? What I'm getting on about is shown below. Currently this is the least clumsy way to do it I'd like to start with the root part as a nosecone and adjust its vector and have the launch apparatus sort itself out, a la the launch stability enhancer. Basically I'm trying to play Scorched Earth on Kerbin for science. Maybe with a .35m radial decoupler and infernal robotics I can make an ICBM truck E: Sorry for the horrible quality, I have no idea how to use a mac. EE: NVM Installed EXP pack, AES decoupler works. Barn Owl fucked around with this message at 01:49 on Jan 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
I never knew there was a sprite based KSP from the '90s.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
Is an ion engine enough to return to Kerbin from the Mun with?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 02:48
|
|
|
my only experience with ions was in an old build but I think I had one on a solar orbiter satellite and it would have taken 3 years to the orbit I wanted, so i abandoned it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:Is an ion engine enough to return to Kerbin from the Mun with? A single ion engine has enough thrust to lift about 1.2t of mass on the Mun, including itself and its fuel. So basically, yes, as long as the engine isn't actually carrying anything.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
Thanks. Now, why do probe cores make craft shudder violently while holding prograde/whatever?
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
Too much SAS torque for the mass of the probe.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 03:25
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:Thanks. The SAS is attempting to adjust attitude at a frequency close to that of the craft. The torque from the core is resonating with the rocket and bouncing it from side to side. Sometimes you can fix it by canceling SAS, halting the wobble manually, then re-enabling SAS. Otherwise you can stop it by making the design shorter or stiffer. Ideally the SAS logic would have some kind of adjustment knob that can slow down or speed up the way the torque is applied so that it doesn't resonate.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
What’s the point of rover wheels rated for 60 m/s? They don’t seem to be able to reach 60 m/s on flat ground, no matter the gravity or the load placed on them. Is it just so they don’t break when going downhill?
Platystemon fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Jan 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
I think my top speed on a rover is 40 m/s while going downhill on Minmus. The rover didn't survive once it hit a bump and went airborne, but I like to think the science team got some good data out of it. Pity we can't harden our equipment to withstand violent crashes or extremes of heat/pressure. (The Soviet Venera probes didn't last more than a few hours due to the conditions on the Venus surface.) Speaking of crashing, I was reading a book about the Apollo program and one of the main questions they argued about for a year or so was how they were going to land on the Moon. One mode was an all-in-one craft but the design problems were insane, another was Earth-rendezvous of an orbiter and lander, yet another was Lunar-rendezvous, and then there were plans for something called a "moon smasher" which I guess would involve a disposable crumple zone. Lithobraking has a long tradition!
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
Somebody's never strapped a rocket to the back of their rover.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
How are you supposed to use those girders, nodes, beams, and shaped struts? I'm looking at them and I can't really think of anything that comes to mind. All of my rockets thus far have just been various combinations of pods and engines and separators with some science stuff thrown in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 07:36
|
|
|
Sokani posted:Somebody's never strapped a rocket to the back of their rover. I hear the word "Rover" and all I see is "tiny manned rocket, possibly with wheels, for suborbital use only."
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
Before I waste a shitload of kesos, does anyone know if the MKS Science Lab counts the same as the Mobile Processing Lab for stock contracts? The contract just says Science Lab and the MKS implies that it's interchangeable but from what I've learned MKS is not the most reliable source.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 07:48
|
|
|
karl fungus posted:How are you supposed to use those girders, nodes, beams, and shaped struts? I'm looking at them and I can't really think of anything that comes to mind. All of my rockets thus far have just been various combinations of pods and engines and separators with some science stuff thrown in. 1. stations 2. rovers 3. weird poo poo they don't have a ton of direct utility (if your missions are utilitarian they're just dead weight really) but they can help things look cool.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 07:50
|
|
|
Most of the stock structural parts are really heavy, compared to huge propellant tanks and whatnot. Somehow radial decouplers manage to be lighter than equivalent girders. I'm a shameless min-maxer, so just abuse lighter (or massless) parts, the offset tool, and struts to achieve the same result.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 08:05
|
|
|
I often play devil's advocate, sorry for making GBS threads up the thread. Maxmaps mentioned internal discussions regarding in-game delta-v and other stats. He didn't tell us what Harvester's vision is for the completed game, so Harv could have his own reasons--valid or not-- for not wanting to have new players deal with all this data by default. Now, it may be hard for veteran players and the devs to come at the game from a new player's perspective. Having said that, I attempted to emulate how a new player might start the game (normal difficulty). There are probably issues with my approach/execution, feel free to point them out or make fun of me. This is without spreadsheets, calculators, or mods (I was exploring kOS in 0.25, it is still installed but not used). Certainly the new player would spend more time getting familiar via missions in the Kerbin system (rendezvous, satellite contracts, additional Mun/Minmus visits). Neither are elegant nor entertaining, but here is my vehicle evolution and video:  First and second launches Third launch design and flight. Fourth launch design, misguided flight. Fifth launch design tweak, flight, injection, capture to landing, and disaster. Making the most of the fifth's failure and re-design for the sixth, launch footage was lost, Minmus capture to mission completion. Seventh launch design, flight, finding a window, found, Duna inject and capture, landing. Bonus launch, bonus mission. From a new save file, with these flights: all KSC upgraded to level 2 (sans plane stuff), launch pad level 3, funds at 468,000. Based on this, I believe it is possible for new and old players to advance beyond the Kerbin system in basic career mode without mod addons. edit: or without too much about details.
Corky Romanovsky fucked around with this message at 09:51 on Jan 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 09:47
|
|
|
I don't think you can really "unlearn" the intuition for building good rockets... One of the things that KER helps me with a lot is in verifying that I've actually *added* delta-V to my rocket; sometimes I change things around because it's getting unmanageable, and I'll actually end up with less delta-V than I started (until I notice KER's readouts and adjust). It's also great for helping me to increase the size of my payload. I have a small amount of intuition for building a rocket whose payload is the Mk I capsule, but I have essentially none for how to size up my payload and maintain my delta-V. This is a pretty big deal for me, and goes back to what I said before: "if you min-max your rocket, you'll be able to pull off more interesting and complex missions". I like adding interesting things to my payloads (my first Duna mission ever* had a payload of two satellites and two landers; one of each for Duna and Ike), but I don't have a great feel for how much I need to adjust my rocket to maintain delta-V when I mess with the payload. Seeing numbers helps me with that and reduces the number of iterations I need to make with my rocket. I can certainly see some good arguments for not giving players delta-V readouts for their rockets right out of the gate. Even I can get into orbit without KER. But by the time I decided to try for a Duna mission, I'd already gotten to the point where just "put a thing near a thing" was boring, and so I wanted to try something a little more involved. I suppose the counterargument is that I should take things slower, but to me that's just adding extra grind to the game. Flying essentially the same mission several times in a row isn't super-fun for me, and it's one of the main reasons I never got very far until I gave up on my initial "no mods" policy and installed KER. Personally, I think delta-V readouts should be unlocked sometime a little after a moderately-experienced player would be expected to have reached both Mun and Minmus. * Yesterday
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 10:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 23:26 |
|
|
The thing about Δv figures is that “seat of pants” and “instant display” aren’t the only options. It isn’t hard to apply the Tsiolkovsky rocket equation manually. It’s tedious for many stages and revisions, but less tedious than flying a re‐fueling mission*. If for some reason Δv display was not available in‐game (through mods or otherwise), I would end up calculating it myself for most rockets. *Or grinding enough contracts that overengineering a large mission is affordable. Platystemon fucked around with this message at 11:18 on Jan 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2015 11:08
|
|