|
Maxmaps posted:I braced myself for the worst considering the current climate and nothing has happened so far, so consider me really happy. Flowerchild posted:Hey! I resemble that remark! Don't suppose you can expect more than this. tater posted:Looks fine. My daughter (11) thinks she's awesome. And this is why the game needed female kerbals.
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 13:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 08:47 |
|
|
Kea posted:Right I need some help, I'm trying to explain why going into orbit with kerbin is more efficient with a 45 degree burn past 10km but my friend insists a straight 90 degree burn is better because "gravity drops off pretty quickly", I'm pretty sure I am right but not how to prove it? There's a long thread on the KSP forums about trajectory optimization. Hope you like calculus. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/46194-I-need-someone-help-me-do-some-math-for-launch-optimization/page1 Back in the 0.21.1 days, there was a challenge to take a simple rocket to a 74km orbit and maximize the amount of fuel left over. Here's the thread on that. Challenge your friend and see who does better. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/39196-Launch-Efficiency-Exercise-Updated-for-0-21-1 edit: * - your friend would be right in the case of a rocket with an arbitrarily large TWR, but you'd have to turn higher than 10km, probably more like 30km GWBBQ fucked around with this message at 17:19 on Feb 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Iridium posted:
Excellent job Squad, she looks exactly, and I mean EXACTLY, like what I imagined female Kerbals would look like.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
I've completely lost track of KSP for a while; from the wiki it looks like the last update was december? Given that squad seems to release updates every 2-3ish months, give or take, are we getting closer to a new release or is it still a way off?
double nine fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Feb 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
0.90 is supposed to be a longer release cycle than previous updates.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
How do i use crash logs to determine which mod has hosed me up and caused crashing during game load?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
Yeah, isn't the next update 1.0? So I can see them wanting to take extra time to make sure everything is ready to go out of beta. ...holy cow, the game I've gotten the most enjoyment from during the past four years is still prerelease. Current lightyear mission status: just passed 400 billion km. 0.042 ly
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 17:19
|
|
|
The old rule of "if it looks right, it flies right" really holds true in this game. This is my go-to design for a simple, practical SSTO for getting crews to my space stations and impractically huge interplanetary spacecraft, and it has yet to explode spectacularly. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 17:27
|
|
|
I'm still not sure about the upsides and downsides of RAPIERS vs aerospike, I havent yet made a successful SSTO.
massive spider fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Feb 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
Kea posted:Right I need some help, I'm trying to explain why going into orbit with kerbin is more efficient with a 45 degree burn past 10km but my friend insists a straight 90 degree burn is better because "gravity drops off pretty quickly", I'm pretty sure I am right but not how to prove it? Keep in mind that making orbit is about going sideways, not upwards. You'll want to go as little upwards as possible, the only reason you even need to go something resembling straight up when launching from Kerbin is because of the atmosphere. The atmospheric makes it hard to get sufficient horizontal velocity early so you need to get out of the lowest part of that. However that will change from the next version when the aerodynamic model is replaced, and you should be able to follow a trajectory much more like that of real rockets. Real rockets begin their turn almost immediately, and they can do that because they're long, thin sticks which have quite little drag, so they can afford to spend more fuel going sideways earlier. tl;dr: Fuel spent going up is wasted to gravity and drag Fuel spent going sideways helps you make orbit
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
alternatively demonstrate it. Let him build a rocket that can get into 80km orbit, once it is into orbit, burn until it runs out of fuel and make a note of the apoapsis. Then you fly that same rocket, once in orbit burn until empty. You will have the farther apoapsis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 19:45
|
|
|
Or consider getting into Munar orbit after you land there. Would you still burn straight up and then make a 90 degree turn?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 20:15
|
|
|
Even if gravity "falls off that quickly" (it doesn't, really), fighting less gravity is still worse than turning early and not having to fight gravity at all.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
massive spider posted:I'm still not sure about the upsides and downsides of RAPIERS vs aerospike, I havent yet made a successful SSTO. Aerospikes are pretty good regardless of atmosphere or vacuum. Most rocket engines get worse the more atmosphere they have to fight against, but aerospikes don't--they're equally efficient at all altitudes (390s of ISP). RAPIERs can have two modes: rocket and jet. As a rocket, it's got reasonable efficiency but nothing to write home about (320s in atmo, 360s in vacuum). As a jet, it requires access to oxygen (which means air intakes operating in Kerbin or Laythe's atmosphere) but gets INSANELY GREAT efficiency (2500s). That's more than six times as efficient as aerospikes. RAPIERs are way way way more efficient than aerospikes while the craft is in atmosphere, and somewhat less efficient while the craft is in space. SSTOs that make use of RAPIERs usually try to gain as much horizontal speed as possible while in atmosphere, then finish off the orbit with the engine in rocket mode. To facilitate this, they often use tons and tons of air intakes to make the jet engine operate at unrealistically high altitudes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
I'm doing a new install for kerbal, with a brand new selection of mods. 1. is there a modmanager yet that will keep tab of updates? 2. is active texture management still necessary? 3. is the x64 stable yet?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
double nine posted:I'm doing a new install for kerbal, with a brand new selection of mods. 1. CKAN is a mod repository that automatically installs mods (including their dependencies) and can automatically check for and apply updates as well. it's not perfect and sometimes leaves out some file or another, but overall it's pretty great 2. Active Texture Management has been largely replaced by using a DDS converter utility and DDSLoader to optimize textures yourself, since it saves time and maybe has slightly better results compared to ACT doing it on-the-fly every time 3. Nope. It's so bad Squad is dropping it, in fact
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
1. Yes, it's called CKAN. 2. Yes. 3. On Linux, yes. On Windows, it's even worse.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Is the astronomer visual pack the best graphical facelift mod currently? I'm a bit concerned that its title still states .25 rather than .9
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
In the past two days I've had my two most challenging experiences with RSS so far: Landing on the Moon and doing a flyby of Mars (ran out of power  )Makes you appreciate how hard real rocket science is.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
double nine posted:Is the astronomer visual pack the best graphical facelift mod currently? I'm a bit concerned that its title still states .25 rather than .9 I installed Astronomers pack and all my mun rocks and Duna rocks disappeared, so ymmv.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2015 23:52
|
|
|
massive spider posted:I'm still not sure about the upsides and downsides of RAPIERS vs aerospike, I havent yet made a successful SSTO. I'm going to assume you're comparing rapiers to jets + aerospikes. I don't rate aerospikes because by the time you have to turn off your jets and use the rocket engines, the benefit of the aerospikes is wasted (good atmo isp). So I prefer other liquid engines. So now we compare rapiers with jets + rocket engines in general. Turbo jets are more efficient jet engines than rapiers are, and the rocket motor will be a more efficient rocket engine than the rapier in rocket mode. However, jets + rocket engines requires twice as many engines which weighs more. So really, when choosing your solution, the total mass of your aircraft in proportion to how many engines it needs to move matters. rapiers are also much easier to work with if you're new to SSTOs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Splode posted:I'm going to assume you're comparing rapiers to jets + aerospikes. Turbojets have a bit more thrust than rapiers but really air breathing fuel usage is so tiny that it doesn't matter what the fuel consumption of an air breathing engine is for an SSTO.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Does anyone have that really long image of aerodynamics and plane design and can it subsequently be put in the OP
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 00:15
|
|
|
oddium posted:Does anyone have that really long image of aerodynamics and plane design and can it subsequently be put in the OP this? http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/52080-Basic-Aircraft-Design-Explained-Simply-With-Pictures
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
tractor fanatic posted:Turbojets have a bit more thrust than rapiers but really air breathing fuel usage is so tiny that it doesn't matter what the fuel consumption of an air breathing engine is for an SSTO. The real drawback of the R.A.P.I.E.R. isn’t that it’s heavier and less powerful, it’s that its thrust falls off at a lower airspeed, requiring you to make up an extra 200 m⁄s with rocket fuel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Platystemon posted:The real drawback of the R.A.P.I.E.R. isn’t that it’s heavier and less powerful, it’s that its thrust falls off at a lower airspeed, requiring you to make up an extra 200 m⁄s with rocket fuel. Huh, I didn't know that. I think in FAR the rapier has more thrust at high speeds.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 00:49
|
|
|
so I'm cruising around kerbal to see if my graphical mods are working correctly, and I came across this. Is the kerbal arctic supposed to look like that?  (completely flat terrain, obvious repeating textures, nothing in terms of visual features).
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Yep. To be fair, that's also what Earth's polar caps look like in real life.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
Yeah its pretty flat. Nice clouds/aurorae you have in there too.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 01:09
|
|
|
to be honest it's the obviously repeating textures that threw me off. Good to know that it's nothing on my end.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
Psawhn posted:Every second you're burning directly away from a planet is wasting fuel. The way I think about it is that thrusting straight up at exactly 1.00 TWR just hovers you in place, which is obviously a 100% waste of fuel. Thus, if you thrust straight up at 2.00 TWR, that's a 50% waste of fuel, and so on. It's most efficient to always and only burn prograde or retrograde at periapsis or apoapsis, and you should only do otherwise for little concessions like "getting clear of the atmosphere" or "clearing those Mun mountains and not crashing" or "making rendezvous with the rescue ship." Thanks, I spent a some time redesigning and messing with flaps/spoilers. Its a bit better but still a frustrating mess imo and I'm hoping that Squad finds a good balance between forgiving and realistic so I can ditch FAR. Its not a big deal for rocket launches but its made flying planes substantially less enjoyable for me. Maybe when I have some more time available I'll be more inclined to tackle the learning curve but I think I'm gonna stick to good old reliable rocketry for the time being. I do appreciate your post though! double nine posted:Is the astronomer visual pack the best graphical facelift mod currently? I'm a bit concerned that its title still states .25 rather than .9 I had a bunch of problems with it and removed it. I use the Renaissance Pack which does use some assets from AVP but runs on my install much better for whatever reason. It has some feature dependencies that use technically outdated mods (Real Solar System is one iirc) but the only problem I have is a warning window that I have to close right at start up. Otherwise, it looks fantastic and adds a shitload of cool textures to everything. Bob has a beard now, its dope.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
double nine posted:this? Yes thank you safe flights godspeed
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 01:57
|
|
|
My Bob has a 'stache.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 01:58
|
|
|
Looks like someone is continuing work on some Orion parts for Nyrath's plugin, and there's been some activity in that thread. Good to see, I love nuclear pulse propulsion. https://kerbalstuff.com/mod/586/TD%20Industry%27s%20Orion%20bits%2010m http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/28428-Orion-aka-Ol-Boom-boom/page113
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 02:08
|
|
|
fart simpson posted:Or consider getting into Munar orbit after you land there. Would you still burn straight up and then make a 90 degree turn? This is what mechjeb does on the Mun if you leave it set to kerbin ascent settings. (Why doesn't it have separate ascent profiles yet)
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
Who needs a torch drive anyway.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
Man, I wish that the subassembly stuff let you save things with root parts: Trying to build a balanced unmanned rover at the moment, and having to rebuild most of it from various subassemblies around a new drone pod is painful.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 04:22
|
|
|
Rohaq posted:Man, I wish that the subassembly stuff let you save things with root parts: Trying to build a balanced unmanned rover at the moment, and having to rebuild most of it from various subassemblies around a new drone pod is painful. Can't you set some useless appendage part as root and then save the whole rover?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
Yeah, the ability to reassign the root part in .90 pretty much solves this problem. The reason you can't have a subassembly with the root part in it is that the editor would have no way to know how to attach the thing to another rocket.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 05:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 08:47 |
|
|
The worst part of all this? Someone's going to have to ping the OP to change the title when 1.0 comes out to 50% Fratricide, 50% Sorocide.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2015 05:57
|
|
