|
Fun with gravity assists: Yeah, 35 m/s to capture an asteroid. I can probably brute force this Class B I'm attached to, but this would be really handy when budgets become important or if you want to capture a Class E without 100 tons of NERVAs. Probably the biggest trick to setting up a Munar gravity capture is that your encounter date matters just as much as periapsis/inclination. If you rendezvous with the asteroid early enough, you can use both pro/retro-grade and +/- radial to change when you encounter the Mun. Then it's just a case of fiddling with how close you get to the Mun and at what phase in the Mun's orbit your encounter is, trying to find some combination that will give you a reasonable capture. Probably the biggest advantage of using gravity assists is that they're very good for amplifying inclination changes. You can come in on a very inclined orbit and use a gravity slingshot to zero out your inclination relative to the main body.
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 16:11 |
|
|
haveblue posted:I seem to have lost the ability to plot maneuvers on my pre-encounter orbit. The selection dot only shows up on the later purple one. Yeah, I was running into that too. It's really annoying. I was at the point of using Mechjeb's maneuver planner just to put nodes where I want them.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
Even more fun with gravity assists: This is a class E. The maneuver nodes, as planned, will capture it in a zero-inclination orbit with less than 80 m/s dV. Half of that is that final capture burn, and I could probably just use aerobraking for it. If I was super-super-super precise, I could probably do the entire thing with only one 11 m/s burn. That'd be easy to do even with one of the old ion engines. Of course, I'll have to do several correction burns. I don't know what the final delta-V cost is going to be. Probably 50-80 m/s just to get it to that elliptical orbit there. If I want to circularize it that'll be a lot more fuel, but it'll be easy to rendezvous a fuel tanker considering it's in a zero-inclination orbit. Man, encountering asteroids while they're still outside of Kerbin's SOI is OP.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Ion engines should be able to generate thrust in atmosphere without using any Xenon http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft.  I occasionally used the old ion engines on tiny Remotetech comms satellites or Scansat mapping sats, but without the ability to timewarp through burns they weren't much use aside from that. Once money is a thing, though, I wouldn't mind seeing them toned back down a little in performance in trade for ultra-lightness and ultra-cheapness. Actually, it's a little unconventional, but I'd also really like to be able to use ion engines as RCS thrusters. Yeah, they'd be much slower at the job, but there are times I'd gladly trade for the higher efficiency. I hope all the engines eventually get a good balancing pass. Everyone talks about having never used ion thrusters, but who has honestly ever used those white-colored radial engines? Or why is the little orange engine better in every way than the radial orange engine?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
I don't know if it's been changed, but a few versions back solar panels actually did not follow the 1/r^2 law in regard to power. Since Jool is 5 times farther from the sun than Kerbin, missions to Jool should need 25 times more solar panel area, but I don't think this follows through in-game. Even then, electrical power isn't that big of a thing in game. Either you have zero generation capability and must ration SAS and antenna use (typically only seen in the first stages of Career mode), or you have electrical generation capability and don't ever have to worry about electricity at all except in cases of transmitting data in antennas, processing data in the lab, or using ion engines.
Psawhn fucked around with this message at 01:31 on Apr 12, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2014 01:01
|
|
|
Yeah, I forgot about probes. For them, you either have generators and never worry about power, or you forget to put any generators on and your probe goes dead, with very little in-between. (One of the few in-between cases being where an eclipse or poor positioning means your solar panels don't work.) Even with multiple antennas, they usually aren't a problem unless you're sending back lots of data - so usually only the atmosphere analysis or seismograph. On a different topic, I'm noticing today that multiple Advanced Grabbing Units will really slow my game down a lot. Is this something anyone else has noticed?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
illectro posted:However I'd like to see more focus on making sure the crew have enough room to live on extended missions, I don't think it's fair to leave a pilot in a single capsule with no other place to sit for years. I've joked about having the crew go space crazy if they're cooped up for too long. They won't die. but instead you'll start losing 'prestige' as news of their plight leaks to the world (obviously this is a career mode concept in some distant future).  . I've actually been dreaming of making a mod that plays with this as a disincentive for lonely and cramped living arrangements for extended periods of time. The way I'm imagining it, The boredom rate would be an exponential function to the number of Kerbals and Kerbal-equivalents on board, such as Boredom_Rate = 2^(-x+1)-2^(-7). So, if one Kerbal in a lander can can last 1 day before getting bored, two Kerbals can last 2 days, three Kerbals can last 4 days, etc, until a certain limit (say, 8 Kerbals) can last an indefinite amount of days. But on top of that, equipment or situations can give Kerbal-equivalents to stave off boredom. So the presence of an antenna can count as a single crewman because they can talk to home, a science lab gives them something to do and counts as a half-kerbal, having lots of free room to stretch doubles the multiplier of these bonuses to reduce boredom further, and landing on another planet halts boredom because zomg it's another planet!  The penalty should just be annoyance, so bored Kerbals would still be smart enough to keep their mitts away from mission-critical components like decouplers. But anything else that's reversible should be fine. Like toggling all the lights or landing gear on and off randomly, or activating/deactivating engines, or toggling RCS/SAS then introducing random control inputs, running a science experiment, zoning out and refusing to respond to inputs for a minute, or even just suddenly going on EVA. What I like about the exponential boredom rate is that it separates mission types based on duration. One Kerbal without extra equipment can only last 24 hours, so can't even get to the Mun and back without getting bored. But a crew of 3, with ground support via an antenna, has 4 Kerbal-equivalents and can do an 8-day mission to the Mun or Minmus easily. And 7 Kerbal equivalents (4 Kerbals, an antenna, science lab, and lots of room) can last 128 days, which is enough for most of a Duna mission (boredom is halted when they're on the surface of Duna), and so ground control only has to tolerate them getting antsy at the end of their voyage home. Personally, I'd rather see this than yet another life-support mod. TAC Life Support works well enough, and I think it's both easy enough to use and is 'realistic' enough that I have fun with it. Especially when it's combined with KSP Interstellar and a bit of modding to let you mine water and crack oxygen, leaving food as the only non-renewable resource. Edit: Plus, I like the  idea of seeing a Kerbal get a little bored and start playing with all the lights while singing a song.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2014 00:35
|
|
|
dublish posted:I do kind of enjoy the thought of a Kerbal firing the engines just because s/he gets bored, but that would really tank a lot of missions. Well, not firing the engines, but just toggling them on and off. You know how you get that satisfying "Kshhhh" sound when you activate an engine, even with zero throttle? Yeah. I'd never want bored Kerbals to randomly kill a mission, so many things would be out-of-bounds. I mentioned decouplers as one of them, because that's another way to tank a mission. I'd also insist that boredom effects should be disabled while throttled up, in the atmosphere, or while trying to land or take off, again because a random dice roll saying "haha ur missn died lawl" isn't very fun. But as soon as orbit insertion completes, then you get "Kshhhh Kshhhh Kshhhh Kshhhh Kshhhh Kshhhh" .
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
hay guise is this how to asteroid?   Yep, those are two Class Es and one Class D asteroid. In a 240 km orbit around Kerbin. Funnily enough, circularization was the easy part, especially when I use the Mun and aerobraking to do most of the capture. The really hard part is that, for some reason, my system can't handle the Advanced Grabbing Unit very well. By which I mean that having more than 1 really really lags up the scene. Of course, I had about 14 of them in the scene by the end, which means I'm trying to maneuver 500 and 1000 tonne rocks around at about 5 frames per second and with lagsbane of 3:1 to 5:1 ratio sim time:real time.  I had so many Klaws because I needed them to maneuver the asteroids. I did most of my burns in this configuration:  Yes, yes, Mechjeb. What I'd do is stick a single LV-N on it first, then 4 extra probes with RCS and a reaction wheel each. That distributes the reaction wheel force around so my candle doesn't wobble too much. A single LV-N also ensured it didn't wobble or pogo too much, and that any off-axis torque was much less than the reaction wheels can handle. Then I set up my Mechjeb burn and alt-tabbed or watched TV or something. I was going to make eyes out of ion engines, but  .
Psawhn fucked around with this message at 08:53 on May 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 14, 2014 08:50
|
|
|
Regrettable posted:Has Mapsat been updated recently? The version I downloaded a few weeks ago, which was the most recent at the time, keeps making my game crash when I attach it to a ship & try to launch. ISA_Mapsat has been abandoned for so long that a replacement system has been made, SCANSat: Synnr posted:Turns out there is a new person updating ScanSat , and it fixed my issues with it! There appear to be occasional buggy issues with the big map (Duna looks like kerbin until you scan it, sometimes??), but hey! Unless you really want to do simulated LiDAR scanning of planets for arbitrary resolutions like a super photogrammetry nerd, SCANsat is better than ISA_Mapsat in every way. Maybe one of my more favourite features is getting science points for completing scans of planets.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
Geirskogul posted:...no mods that actively interfere with other mod functionality without approval. I think care should be taken to more narrowly target malicious interference. I'm thinking of cases like how KSP Interstellar will overwrite Deadly Reentry's values for engine heat when it's applying compression effects at high speed. Or how nearly every single mod includes Module Manager configurations that change the behaviour of other mods. Ratzap posted:I went after an asteroid in my RPL save today, built myself a truly huge rocket (having mined the moon of science). I lifted off with over 25k dV, caught up to the asteroid 69,000km out from Earth (rather close but I went for the nearest to save some poor Earthicans). Sadly the rock proved to be horrifically large (I should have checked before heading to it) - class E. As the claw sank into its surface, the available dV plummeted from 7,125 to 103 and the weight rose from 26t to 917t. The cheapest maneuver node to miss Earth cost 625 m2 so Jeb n Bill said 'Oopsie folks, better start evacuating' and plotted a return to Earth. Tragically for them, the realchutes deployed at 22km and FAR decided they got ripped off by aerodynamic forces. All in all, not what you'd call a successful mission as such but the next version should go better. Plus it seems RSS asteroid moving is seriously harsh - the amount of fuel required to move that rock would have needed something like 7 or 8 launches... Just like real life, and for the big asteroids in particular, intercepting the asteroid as soon as possible is very important. For that 7km/s dV craft, you could have used 4000 m/s of that delta-v to intercept the asteroid while it's still weeks away from Kerbin, then you could have easily used the remaining 58 m/s dV post-Klaw to shift it away from a collision course. And by using 4000 m/s to intercept, I mean doing a 2000 m/s burn at Kerbin to intercept the asteroid, then a 2000 m/s braking burn to rendezvous. Or you can go further. Instead of spending the mere few m/s of dV to shift the asteroid while it's so far away, you can even carefully push it into an encounter with the Mun to get a gravity capture that also zeros out any inclination. (This is my favourite gravity assist so far: I needed to use two slingshots and an aerobrake to capture that asteroid. But the total dV spend post-Klaw was only 12.5 m/s.)
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
Jack the Lad posted:What's your conic draw mode set to? This screenshot makes me feel like 3 is not enough. Draw mode is 3, which is the default. But it works really well after Squad changed the behaviour so it automatically switches to drawmode 0 when focusing on another body. CONIC_PATCH_LIMIT, however, I had to bump up to 8. Probably while I was trying to plot that very maneuver.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
I'm just waiting for someone to turn the entire station into a giant dong by docking two big asteroids to it.Lord Yod posted:Has anyone used the Mission Controller mod? Does it play at all well with Interstellar? Or should I just wait for .24 to come out? I've been trying it out, but I haven't managed to unlock any of the really juicy interstellar parts yet. Apparantly they're super-expensive because the MCE's auto price sees interstellar's high Isp values and assigns them a correspondingly high price.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 08:46
|
|
|
Here's a couple fixes that I really want: 1) Fix the target alignment bug when "control from here" with docking ports that are non-coaxial with the root part. 2) Make orbit predictions use the location/velocity of the average center of mass of the entire vessel, not the position/velocity of the root part. Reduces wobble on high-mass ships or Class-E asteroids.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
Palicgofueniczekt posted:I admit, the included docking guides are hard to use at first. They could use improvements and/or a better tutorial(forgive me if one exists in-game, I haven't looked recently). Average player experience is critical. Not only that, but if the axis of the docking port isn't in line with the (0,0,0) coordinate of the root part, then you can't actually use "control from here" to line up to the target docking port because it'll be wrong. This doesn't matter in Apollo-style capsules or lander cans because most people put the docking port on the top node, but for spaceplanes or fancier-style docking hubs it tends to make it nearly impossible.
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
Bat Ham posted:I'd like some sort of hotkey in the VAB that selected the root part without having to click it. Sometimes if I start with a small probe core it ends up getting surrounded by parts and is a little fiddly to select when I need to move the whole rocket up later. Shift-Left Click on any part should do exactly this. Avenging Dentist posted:Speaking of SRBs, it'd be really nice if you could build your own SRBs by stacking SRB fuel sections. This is actually what we do in real life, and it would resolve a lot of issues with having too much/too little delta-V from an SRB. This would probably break saves, though... You can kinda already do this with tweakable SRBs and decouplers. (Seriously, I think so many people forget you can tweak both thrust and fuel in SRBs including separatrons). But what would help is a half-size SRB for this purpose. Maybe one of the biggest lessons is that some features are hard to find unless you discover them or are told about them. (And I still think that idea of having a split-flap display in the Mission Control building for upcoming transfer windows or other events would be the coolest thing ever.)
|
|
#
¿
May 27, 2014 22:52
|
|
|
Luneshot posted:I think this one is the best concept so far- little physical differences, but nothing to make them any less competent. As far as female Kerbals go, this is perfect. Feminine, still retains the goofy aspect of the males, without being   girl Kerbals .While watching some videos where the texture replacer mod turns Jebediah Kerman into Ms. Jebedia Kerman, I find myself wondering "Why does she have lipstick and big eyelashes?" Even aside from the whole 'why is an astronaut wearing lipstick'-thing, it actually weirds me out a little because Kerbals should not be trying to look like supermodels ewwww. Psawhn fucked around with this message at 23:26 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 28, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
I just remembered another long-standing bug that I really wish would be fixed: Time-warping through SOI transitions should not introduce orbit errors.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
EightBit posted:This is probably not going to be fixable, if my assumptions about how time-warping works are correct (larger chunks of time per interval to keep cpu load in check, which leads to varying chunks getting skipped in the SOI change, or even missing SOI changes if you are going too fast). The way you fix the problem is to calculate the position at which the SOI transition took place, then start calculating the new orbital elements from that position. The current system uses the vessel's current position, which allows it to "penetrate" the SOI at higher time warps before the orbit is updated to use the new body. I currently use Alarm Clock to drop me out of time warp just a couple seconds before the transition to avoid these errors as much as possible, but it'd be nice to not have to do that every single time.
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Zero One posted:I decided to take a family portrait: Pale Distant objects enhancement is pretty rad.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2014 01:58
|
|
|
Hey guys, does the new SpaceX nonfunctional touch-screen iPod MFDs mean that Squad is maligning female gamers by having dummied-down controls for wommin kerb-  (Seriously: New 21st century space craft is cool. Squad is cool. Everybody's cool.  )MattD1zzl3 posted:Just started a new install of kerbal this evening and i was hoping you guys could help me find some new mods. I'm looking for a new skybox that works well with "distant objects" that is a little darker and more bleak. More space-like if you will. I tried up Green Skull's Andromeda one, and I like it. I wanted a skybox that was a bit more subtle than the default Squad skybox. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/77420-Green-Skull-Inc-Texture-Packs-NEW-SKYBOXES!-26-April-14  Skyboxes and Distant Object Enhancement (And Environmental Visual Enhancements) are cool. KSP is cool.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
I think it's kinda funny that Majir had to make Kethane violate the law of conservation of mass just to make orbital refineries a viable option, rather than just surface refineries.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
Running Mission Controller along with RemoteTech2, Deadly Reentry, and FAR, makes for a pretty interesting game. Although now my computer's slowing down even when I only have a tiny 5-part probe on-screen just because the game has the other couple-dozen vessels in the background  .Getting my initial communications network set up with RT2 was kind of interesting, particularly because with MCE it was too expensive to just send up a big bus with a manned capsule so I had to send them up 1 at a time on cheap solid rockets. With a properly flown gravity turn, my final circularization burn was out of radio range of the KSC, so I had to enter in the parameters into RT2's flight computer and cross my fingers and hope that they worked.  I'm really excited to see how the Prestige system works. Once I discovered how to send up unmanned probes on cheap solid rockets I'd start to be making 200%-400% profit on those launches. Having something else to consider rather than just sending up yet another cheap contract satellite to bankroll my Munar program should make the game even more interesting. When budgets and prestige are part of the base game, I wonder how long until someone mods in Jebediah Kerman's Race Into Space.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2014 22:13
|
|
|
I stopped using Kethane because it doesn't obey the law of conservation of mass.  I approach ISRU from the other end. KSP is fun for me because it's like a puzzle game. When mining and refinery parts are too light and simple to use, they become a "land on planet to refill tanks" mod. That's why I like Interstellar's ISRU system more than Kethane. I have to design my entire mission to specifically use it, and it's too heavy to attach on just because, unlike Kethane. In fact, if the guy made it so you have to choose specific ISRU functions to include while in the VAB, that'd be even better because, while the immense weight helps, it's still one single magic box that does everything. It's similar to my misgivings on the goon-made life support pack proposed a while back ago, and what I don't like about the current electric system. If all you have to worry about is "snacks", then it becomes "Attach this part to not die in X months." Electricity is only a problem before you unlock solar panels, then it's basically Solar panels? Yes: No problem. No: Probe dies. (Unless you try to send a transmission. Then it's LOTS of batteries? Yes: No problem. No: wait forever for science transmission.) I've combined Interstellar with TAC Life Support because then I have multiple options for missions. I can choose different solutions to keeping Kerbals supplied: from bringing food/water/oxygen with me, to bringing that plus recyclers for water/oxygen, to bringing all that plus the ability to extract water/oxygen in-situ (and only if I'm at the right location). Even then, I'm reluctant to include any of the greenhouse mods because at that point it becomes "include this many parts to make colony self-sufficient then never worry about it again." Yeah, yeah, I'm a huge sperg. I guess that comes with finding the orbital mechanics pretty easy. All that's left is creating my own challenges and solving the puzzle of how to do that. Once the budget and reputation system comes into play I'll probably be much more forgiving about "attach part to not die" systems, presumably because they'll be expensive and they'll add mass which makes your rocket even more expensive.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 12, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
shortspecialbus posted:Orbital refineries would be completely pointless if it did follow that law. And orbital refineries are fun. I guess they could put in an option for people who care, but that's a reasonable gameplay decision I think. Yeah, I know that's why he did that. I still figure I don't want to be blatantly breaking fundamental laws of physics that way. (*Goes and plays interstellar with fusion and antimatter reactors and FTL warp drive*) Actually, really upping the size and mass of refining equipment would be another way to encourage orbital refineries rather than combined miner-refinery landers. Kethane's refineries are so light there's little downside to carting them along with your lander. Heavier refinery parts necessitate a much beefier lander in order to remain economical or even spaceworthy. At a heavy enough refinery size, most players would gravitate towards a dedicated refining station, either surface or orbital, unless they're specifically going and making a giant self-sufficient mothership.Ratzap posted:SCANsat should be easy to do since the ORS system basically takes a PNG as input for densities. Take same PNG and feed it to SCANsat as the map to show when scanning - done. The nice part with ORS is you can't suddenly 'run out' because you filled a couple of ships but then again there is no random element due to the resource maps being static. I'm pretty sure that's what the new SCANsat guys are doing.   (And making it compatible with rasterpropmonitor too. Dev thread here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/80661-Jun-11-DEV-SCANsat-v7-0rc2-3-Real-Scanning-Real-Science-at-Warp-Speed! )
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
revdrkevind posted:For solar specifically, sorry that's how the sun works? Solar being so easy is kind of why it's such an attractive fuel source. You can only really mediate that by making solar panels cost more Kredits or with (Interstellar's?) heat buildup, but all you're doing is requiring radiators, which would probably get the same complaint. And you could add damage over time I guess, but that's a whole other mechanic. Flow rates are still in the stock game, one tiny panel does not solve all power issues forever, so it's not "unlock solar, all power problems are gone". It's hard to think of instances in the stock game that can't be solved with just a few tiny solar panels. All I can come up with are: - Transmitting data under time constraints - Ion engines - Constant reaction wheel use due to asymmetry. - Long-endurance rovers And all of those can be solved merely by adding more solar panels. You're right in that it's basically realistic as far as the fidelity of the game goes, though. When I made that comment I was mainly thinking of a SpaceChem-like minigame, but for electric engineering. While in the VAB, manage the power bus and voltages to make sure your spacecraft doesn't spitz und spark and release the magic smoke once it's flying. I mainly want to see gameplay promote the consideration of mission profile when designing a spacecraft, with incentives to optimize the spacecraft to the mission and penalties for overbuilding. For electric charge, that could mean adding more power sinks, adjusting cost/mass/efficiency of solar panels, model panel fragility with degradation or acceleration limits, and even adding a new outer planet where solar power is too mass-inefficient. (This also involves fixing solar irradiance because right now it doesn't follow 1/R^2). Basically, I want to have a reason to consider Gigantor-XL panels besides aesthetics. - On resources, I think you're right to disagree with complicated systems that only serve as time sinks. I wouldn't want to see giant resource chains that require grindy spreadsheet based attention. I like designing systems, not babysitting them. For example, assuming I got to redesign Kethane according to my whims, I'd do the following: 1. Reduce conversion rate of the 1.25 m small converter by 1-2 orders of magnitude. 2. Split Kethane up into 2-3 different raw forms. Like Kethane-A and Kethane-9. Drills and the small converter work equally well on all types of Kethane. Randomize distribution so planets tend to have mostly one or the other. 3. Make large-scale refining modular _ a. Rename the large converter to something like "Kethane Processing Core" but zero out its default conversion rate without extra modules _ b. Introduce new parts: "Kethane-A Destillery", "Kethane-9 Centrifuge", and LiquidFuel/Oxidizer/Monoprop converters that work with the presence of either Kethane-A or -9 refineries. Mass is decently heavy for each module, 2-15 tons. _ c. Adjust the processing core's efficiency and conversion rate depending on how many refinery modules are attached to the vessel. Only one processing core is needed to reduce the number of mouse clicks. In simple cases there's no difference than the use-case you described. Drill + Kethane tank + small Converter = Fuel. The slower conversion rate doesn't even matter, because all it means is you hit the > key once more while waiting for the tanks to fill up. The heavy system has enough mass to encourage orbital or surface refineries rather than -style massive refining landers or rovers (even though some players will do that anyway). Because it's modular, players decide if they want a simple system specialized for a specific kethane and fuel type, or a massive refinery complex that can generate any type of resource from any type of resource. If the player chooses to specialize, they'll need to survey the destination in order to know what type of modules to bring. The modular system also gives players choices on how to construct it - one giant mission or several smaller assembly missions.And even then, once the fun part of constructing the station is finished, there is absolutely no difference in operation. Land. Drill. Launch. Rendezvous and dock with refinery/fuel depot. Click "convert." Repeat. It'd probably make everyone happy except the mod author.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2014 23:49
|
|
|
Yeah, for mods, having the gigantors available and stock is pretty handy. I'm not sure if it's required or not yet for ion engines at Jool, considering panels don't follow inverse square laws. (I think KISP fixes that, actually.) Jool is probably right at the edge where it's a tossup between solar panels and RTGs. If there was a Saturn or beyond equivalent, we'd start to see this:  http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/safety/solar.pdf Psawhn fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Jun 14, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
SCANsat generates a 360x180x256 bitmask that's saved in the persistence file. That means that randomized deposits could be made by storing a random seed in the persistence file, and using those to generate a deposits.png using a musgrave algorithm or something upon loading the new save game. I've been thinking about having easy-to-access and hard-to-access deposits of resources. Easy-to-access would be like surface or barely sub-surface, can be easily scanned from orbit, but could be exhausted. They'd be primarily for ISRU type missions with a light lander/refinery. The harder to access resources would be deeper, require bigger drills or something, and would also require a more involved survey process. Maybe copying KISP's (and Scott Manley's) seismic impact idea to require seismic surveys, combined with core samples, or something else. But these resources would have much deeper reserves, allowing for more permanent industrial complexes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
Maybe my biggest hope is that I want gas miners that will dip into gas giants' atmospheres, suck up a gigantic load of hydrogen/helium, then escape to an orbital refinery to process it into fuel advanced enough that I can do that again.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
VodeAndreas posted:Finally got around to picking this up in the Steam Sale to mess around with the newer bits and pieces and I think I need a bit of help... Spaceman Future! posted:oh yeah wow I didn't notice that periapsis, anything under 70km is in the atmosphere and under 50 you're going to aerobreak like a bitch. I'm surprised Jeb hasnt re-entered the atmosphere, but you may be in luck. Switch to Jeb, keep an eye on your thruster fuel and when he gets to his AP try to speed him up a bit using his RCS pack, you should have enough fuel in the tank to raise it up a bit and make him easier to recover. Just remember to leave at least 25% in there, you will need it to make your final spacewalk back to the ship. To further expand on this, just don't switch to Jeb while he's in the atmosphere. It's kinda "cheating", but if you time warp while you're not controlling Jeb or within 2.5 km of him, the atmosphere won't decay his orbit. Go to the tracking station, and time warp until he's out of the atmosphere, and then switch to him and increase his orbital velocity when he's at apoapsis. (This doesn't work for vessels which pass below ~30 km - they'll automatically be deleted if they go too low in the atmosphere) Also, to launch in the same inclination as Jeb, switch to the map and time warp until the launch complex is underneath his orbit. Then make sure to launch in the same direction as the orbit! It's a polar orbit, so one half of the orbit will be traveling south, and the other half will be traveling north. Once you're in a similar orbit, target Jeb and place a maneuver node on an AN or DN marker, then play with the purple arrows until the relative inclination is near 0. That well help your rendezvous immensely.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
Mission Controller Extended will check vessels once they are despawned by the game, and if they have a good enough parachute:mass ratio it will automatically collect and recycle their cost. It will even do that if the vessel has 1000 m/s of dV and TWR > 1, to simulate a soft powered landing.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2014 22:11
|
|
|
Maxmaps posted:Not today. A thing broke and we're fixing it. It's overtime for the code team. I had a nap today and I dreamed I posted something like this just to troll everyone but then I got banned from Something Awful.  Inacio posted:Getting the weirdest bug with KSP x64. I've been getting this bug since shortly after .23.5 was released, and it was affecting me even when the only mod I had installed was Mechjeb. I've noticed it happens more often when I have klaws on my ship, so I'd wondered if it has something odd to do with that. Bugs like that are why I'm not going to do a forced-ironman mode.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 01:26
|
|
|
Maxmaps posted:I have no idea if people are gonna be into it, but I love our mission flavor text generator So.Much. "They must be mad to propose such a thing!" e: What I find funny is that, despite being nearly incomprehensible, those sentences really are grammatically correct. Psawhn fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Jul 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 16, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
I like the concept of part failures, considering how important risk management is in engineering and space engineering, but I think part failure can only be fun in a system where the players can decide the level of risk they want to take, and with tools in the game to help players evaluate their risk. Having a preset failure rate is no fun at all, and I'm much happier with infallible parts than a dice roll you have no control over. Without any input into the system, it's just a random "haha ur unluky d00d u l0se lol fuk u ur guyz ded". If players could, say, adjust a slider and increase reliability at the expense of cost (maybe even construction time), then now the dice roll is in the hands of the player and I think it'll become fun again. I think it'd also need a Kerbal Engineer-style readout for the cumulative failure chance, as well as the Mean Time Between Failure stat, and possibly other things. Statistics are sometimes hard to wrap your mind around, so having a tool would help immensely. For example, it could tell you that your Duna mission has a 75% success chance, but it'll tell you where that 25% failure chance comes from, and could help you decide if adding redundant parts is a good option, or if making a crucial part more reliable but at a heavy price premium is the way to go. (Or, of course, you can roll with the 25% chance and it up if something does go wrong, maybe with a -style escape system)Other mods would be handy, too, like thrust balancing mods so you can go for redundancy rather than reliability in your main stage boosters.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Mister Bates posted:You do have a problem, which is that you need more mods. There is no such thing as 'enough mods', because that would imply the possibility of there being 'too many mods', which is plainly impossible. Well, before now, there was, sadly, such a thing as 'too many mods.' But not any more, thanks to x64! 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 22, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
Obama 2012 posted:Is this a thing? I have some kerbonauts that are trapped in the lab module from my Duna mission, and no amount of right clicking on the hatch will give me the correct context menu. Is this related to any mods or is it just vanilla .24? Left-click on hatches to access guys inside.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2014 02:52
|
|
|
haveblue posted:As of 0.24 that doesn't work either. Shows what I know! (I haven't even downloaded .24 yet because I want to continue my .23.5 save with all my mods)
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2014 03:10
|
|
|
DopeGhoti posted:So I'm working with RemoteTech which naturally means you're going to be launching a metric shitton of probes (thanks, Fine Print for all the kerbucks!). You absolutely can. You just need to build it from the bottom-up. Place a decoupler or something as your first part, then build the probe on top of that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
So I saw this on another forum: Apparantly it's called "Blowtorch Staging."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 16:11 |
|
|
My first RemoteTech2 comms satellite is usually in a high-eccentricity semi-synchronous orbit which reaches apoapsis while KSC is directly underneath. It's not as far as a geostationary orbit, but it works just as well. Even better, possibly, considering that it also lets omnidirectional antennas stay in range. I also found it fun being forced to use the flight computer for early-game maneuvers. It's something else to set up burn times and facing ahead of time, then crossing fingers as the satellite goes out of LOS and you have no way to correct things if you calculated something wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2014 07:09
|
|