|
Orv posted:People playing a video game who aren't actual rocket scientists? I think that's his point - shouldn't maneuver nodes come earlier (even right away) since the Kerbals can presumably do at least that much math? Palicgofueniczekt posted:I was disgruntled about that, too, but when I looked in the Tracking Station, I found that all survey contracts on offer are displayed. Yeah, this is important to note if you're wanting info about contracts (satellite contract orbits are also shown). It is an awkward way of getting that info, though. Splode posted:The tech tree part order is also really starting to show it's weirdness. I'd kill for plane parts and probes early game. I'm getting the impression Squad is following the progression of KSP's development when they should probably be following the progression of actual space programs. There were a LOT of probes on the moon before there was a crewed mission, and new players are probably going to expect that. I'm with you on plane parts. For one thing, not having them makes doing some surveys weirdly hard. For another, I just like being able to build a plane and cruise around as a change of pace from rockets. After installing FAR and really digging into planes I've found them to be at least as much fun if not moreso than going to space, so it's a pain that it takes so long to unlock so many of their parts. I'm pretty neutral on probes, though. It might more realistically mirror the development of human spaceflight to have probes first, but who's to say Kerbals would do it that way? I can totally see them just hopping on top of the first rockets they build to see what happens. Why let a computer have all the fun?! Then probes come later as an afterthought to do certain boring tasks a Kerbal wouldn't be interested in (controlling satellites and tugs and stuff).
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 08:20 |
|
|
Unless you're down to your last drops of fuel, at 3km you really should be able to just point at the target and burn a bit to close the gap. You only need to cover the last few hundred meters until you can take control of the rescue dude anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
Can't argue with that! To the point, I'd suggest that people not be too intimidated by FAR. I think it gets over-hyped as a super-difficult mode full of impenetrable numbers. In my experience it doesn't really make things much harder - some things are actually easier - and while there are impenetrable numbers available if you're interested in trying to, uh, penetrate them, you can actually get by while almost completely ignoring them. There are two graphs (which are really the same graph) that it's handy to be able to use, and that's usually enough. Oh, and put your CoL behind and above your CoM.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
Splode posted:Yeah agreed, though I don't even use the graphs: I just press "test", make sure the numbers are green, set it to a higher speed, press "test" again, and make sure only one or two numbers are red. If it fails this test, I make it look more like a plane. That's about all I do with the stability derivatives too. Sometimes I try to puzzle out what specific characteristic of my plane the red ones are measuring (angular y acceleration with respect to sideslip angle probably means yawing my nose out of prograde makes my plane pitch up?), but 99% of the time it does indeed boil down to "make it look more like a plane," which is something most people can handle. I don't know that FAR rocket launches are much harder once you understand the basics, mainly it's just different. There can be a learning curve coming over from stock though, it's true. (The lower fuel requirements don't really bother me; just means more of my time is spent making cool payloads instead of giant launch vehicles.)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2014 07:54
|
|
|
Yeah, rep->funds and science->funds are pointless. I mean rep is pretty much pointless already, but the conversion rate is so bad that it feels like a ripoff anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2014 09:34
|
|
|
OAquinas posted:As its a Liquid booster (and thus able to be restarted) I'd use it to get speed to that altitude, then right-click shutoff, create a new stage above the current one, drag it into there, then quickly stage to it. Boom, done. You don't have to shut engines off to re-stage them. Just create an empty stage at the bottom of your list and mash space. Nothing more is required.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2014 08:56
|
|
|
Arsonide posted:The vast majority of players seem to want me to decouple navigation from the NavBall, so I'm considering doing that, which would help in this situation. While you're looking at the thread, I have a complaint/request regarding the new visual survey contracts. In particular, I find the mix of widely-dispersed above alt/below alt/landed EVA requirements in a single contract kind of un-fun, especially in the early game when we have limited tools available. I end up just shooting a cheap ICBM at each site, rather than trying to build a craft that can handle the whole contract in one flight. I liked that the old Fine Print contracts were designed to be a cohesive mission within a single regime (high/low altitude, ground). Making it possible to build a proper jet aircraft early in the tech tree would also help make these contracts more fun early on, but the basic jet engine isn't very compatible with the 19km+ altitude survey points. (Not that rocket assist can't overcome that limitation of course.) Requiring manned craft (due to crew report/EVA triggers) is also a mixed bag. I suppose it makes it more challenging but it also kind of reduces the range of options we have. I haven't gotten any more elaborate surveys yet (i.e. instrument measurements) so maybe that's only a factor in the very beginning, I dunno. I just know I had a blast designing that probe carrier I posted a while back to do aerial surveys with orbital drops, and I hope there's still a place for that kind of thing. Guess I'll find out!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
Jackson Taus posted:So I can't do all these atmospheric reading contracts until I unlock turbo jets and crap? Shoot, that's super-frustrating. You can reach high-altitude locations with rockets. Or rocket-assisted regular jet aircraft. Turbojets just make it easier.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2014 18:55
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Are there any mods that provide small aero parts? I'm talking fins and control surfaces like 1/4 to 1/10 the scale of the normal stuff. I have RLA Stockalike, which provides some smaller engines, tanks, and structural stuff, but no aero bits. Speaking of RLA, the monoprop tanks it adds have really inconsistent mass/volume/fuel capacity ratios. Am I missing something there or is this just a bug/mistake?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2015 18:21
|
|
|
Re: the hard mode grind: I've been playing on hard (with reverts/loads allowed), and I agree that it needs a little tuning. Some of the facility upgrade costs are too high, most egregiously so for R&D. It seems far out of scale with the others. That's doubly annoying to me since I don't think limits on research options do as much to make the game interesting as the craft construction limits from the VAB and launch pad, which are much cheaper to upgrade. I would also modify some of the current restrictions - in particular I'd like to see the max active contracts in mission control increased slightly at both levels one and two, and the level 2 VAB part count limit reduced a goodish bit (it's much easier to hit the L2 launch pad limits than the 255 part limit). Alternately, switch from a part count limit to a craft budget limit, which could allow for more interesting tradeoffs. The contracts could certainly use some work to make them more fun, though I haven't seen many that are unreasonable in terms of feasibility. The early visual surveys are easy enough to do with multiple cheap manned ICBM launches, it's just kind of boring. Same goes for in-flight parts tests - you generally can cobble something together to hit all of the speed and altitude requirements, but they're tedious and fussy compared to satellite launches, orbital/sub-orbital tests, and the exploration contracts. And they rarely pay as well to boot. Details of the progression aside, I'm actually more interested in what the "end game" should be for career mode. Getting all your stuff upgraded may be a mix of fun challenges and boring grinds, and hopefully everything will get worked over to maximize the former and minimize the latter, but there's still the question of what happens when you get all your stuff to L3 and max out the tech tree. Historically, before we had these upgrades, the answer to that was (for a lot of people) "fiddle around with contracts and assorted side projects until you get bored, then wait for a game update and start a new save." The contract system has a lot of potential to provide long-term interest, but it needs some work still. There's also the simple appeal of exploration, but right now it seems like there's just not enough interesting stuff to go find for that to be a great end-game, and besides, gamifying exploration in some way would probably do a lot to keep people engaged. And personally, I think the biggest obstacle to keeping the game fun longer-term is the ability to stockpile unlimited funds - KSP is most fun for me when trying to get the most out of each craft, and when you have millions of space-bucks floating around (which will eventually happen after all the upgrades are done) that challenge kind of evaporates. Ideally the game would never stop testing the player's ability to achieve goals with limited resources.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
Vetitum posted:Also going to agree with this. Weight & dimension should really be the only limiting factors really. A budget restraint for each particular craft again seems like somewhat of an arbitrary restrictions as your already limited by your overall budget. If it's your intention to run a cost-effective space program you'll be setting those limits on yourself. Yeah, it's arbitrary, but a budget limit feels slightly less arbitrary to me than the part count limit. Or at least arbitrary in a more interesting way. Like Nevets, I think it's kind of weird that I can build a craft with 30 fuel tanks and engines... or one with a pod, two tanks, an engine, and 26 lights/struts/solar panels/landing legs/themometers? I think a per-launch budget has the possibility to be an interesting and fun constraint despite the existence of the overall program budget. After all, it becomes trivially easy to make a big profit on each launch pretty early on, especially once you can reliably fill multiple contracts with one craft. A launch budget could force you to reevaluate that approach, in some cases making it more practical to design small single-purpose craft instead. At least it would demand careful optimization to manage multiple goals within budget. I think that's essentially the goal of the part limit, and to me this seems like a more fun and interesting way of doing that. That being said, I wouldn't shed any tears if the part limit were just dropped. The dimension limits could be moved to the VAB, with the pad keeping only weight. It's hard to think of any other limits on construction that aren't just as arbitrary as funds or part count.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 6, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Splode posted:Has anyone else noticed that you almost never get satellite contracts for LKO? Or is that just my bad luck? Most of the ones I get are reasonably far out, but I haven't found it to be much of an obstacle. It's pretty easy to build a smallish, cheap satellite with a few km of dV, plenty to make any orbit around Kerbin/Mun/Minmus.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
Vetitum posted:I'm certainly no expert but from my experience playing with FAR recently: You want the CoL behind the CoM for increased stability. The further back, the more stable. Keeping the CoL near the CoM makes your rocket more maneuverable. Possibly too maneuverable, especially if the CoL ends up in front of the CoM.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 12, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Synnr posted:e; Uhhhh my rockets will not launch. I thought maybe the upgraded pad was clipping into the nozzles and holding onto them but I bought the gantry and my rockets just kind of stay in position. Has anyone encountered this before?? Its just mods available on CKAN at the moment and I reaaallly don't want to go through all of them to see whats up with it. Just the first stage engines won't move, after that they will move but get all wonky and won't fly straight. Super-basic check, are you triggering the launch clamps in the first stage so they actually release? All of the times I've had sticky launchpad issues post-0.90 the clamps have fixed it.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
hatesfreedom posted:I can't for the life of me figure out how to get into orbit with enough fuel to make it anywhere past that second moon (Munin?). I build my rockets larger but they don't seem to ever make it to orbit with enough fuel/stages to make it Duna and land. It is most distressing. What's the advice for making it to another planet? Other people have spoken to this a bit, but basically bigger isn't necessarily better. You have to burn fuel to lift everything on your craft, including the fuel you haven't burned yet. Depending on how you stick everything together and set up your staging, you can actually make things worse by adding more boosters and engines and stuff. So it's important to focus on efficiency. Design the last stages of your rockets first, make them as small as possible. Consider learning about/Googling up transfer windows so you know the most fuel-efficient times to head out to other planets. If you aren't already using one, you might look into mods like MechJeb or Kerbal Engineer which give you lots of useful stats about your rocket. It's super-helpful to have immediate feedback for your changes in the VAB. (MechJeb also has automated transfer planning tools, as a bonus.) This makes it possible to know if the boosters you're strapping on will actually make your rocket go any farther or if they're just bloat. In general, when building launch vehicles you're trying to find a sweet spot for each stage: Enough engines to lift everything on top fairly briskly, and enough fuel to run the engines for a reasonable length of time. This tends to lead to each stage being exponentially larger than the one above it. This is part of why people like using docking to build larger craft in orbit - it means you can do a two or three smaller launches that are easier to design and pilot instead of one monster rocket. Not that monster rockets aren't fun in their own way. There's plenty to learn about how to build big rockets so they actually work well, and it's satisfying to push a complete space station into orbit in one go. It's just usually harder than doing it the small-but-efficient way.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Joda posted:I haven't bothered with rendezvous (I know I'll have to look into it to do a return trip to Eve though,) but going to Duna and back is pretty doable. One thing that really helped me was finding out about asparagus staging, so if you haven't looked into this, you should prob watch Scott Manley's video explaining it. Nuclear engines also help a whole lot, since (iirc) a single big tank combined with one engine is enough to do all the transfer burns you need to get there and back. Other than that all you need is enough boosters on your lander to get into Duna orbit if you want to return, and you can reuse the nuclear engine you used to get there in the first place (remember to turn it off for the boost off Duna's surface.) It sounds like you're talking about taking a nuclear engine down on your lander, which you really never want to do if you're concerned about doing things efficiently. They're super-heavy and have low thrust, and they have terrible fuel efficiency in atmosphere to boot which actually matters on Duna. This is where using docking ports and leaving your transfer stage in orbit is extremely useful. Not to say it can't be done or that it's playing the game wrong to put a nuke on a single-stage there-and-back-again craft if that's what you want to do. Just that it generally makes things harder and more fuel-intensive than necessary.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
Ratzap posted:Or just update the stock planes to fit the new aero model with it? It's the same plane and it still flies right? Or are you concerned about people having save file compatibility for in flight planes? I also don't get the concern for backwards compatibility with craft at all. Why would this impact decisions about the new aero system?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:Is there a method with, say Kerbal Attachment System and universal storage, to remove an engine from a fuel tank, and then replace it with a docking port that I lift up separately? I have a nascent station in orbit with the final stage of the lifter still attached via a docking port. I'll eventually want a fuel tank up there anyway, so if I can just remove the engine it'll save me a "wasted" launch spent carrying nothing but a replacement tank. Is the tank currently in orbit full? If you have to boost fuel to refill it anyway you're not losing much by just replacing the whole tank.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
nessin posted:I haven't used BTSM in a while so I'm not sure why I'm bothering defending it, but it isn't meant to be a realism mod. It's more of a challenge and logical progression overhaul (withhin the bounds of the KSP game/engine), forcing batteries is a way to drive away over engineering and keeping solar panels late keeps you from progressing to interstellar travel early on. Flowerchild is definitely on the overly aggressive jerk side, to include trying to sabotage other moddering efforts in the past, but the guy has the right to make a mod and build it however he wants. People have a right to be jerks, but that right doesn't include freedom from criticism.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 17:18
|
|
|
Collateral Damage posted:Try something like this? A ship with a bunch of small grapplers that each have a probe core and an SRB. This is the basic approach I've always been in favor of for deorbiting anything not designed to do it on its own. Bonus points for putting chutes on the Klaw drones to recover stuff for funds! That being said, I usually work around the problem by planning every launch to not leave any debris in orbit in the first place. You can build a launch vehicle where your final launch stage has a probe core and enough fuel to deorbit itself after dropping off the payload, or you can plan for your orbiter to provide the last ~200 m/s of dV to make LKO. Beyond that, design every craft to either be reusable (tugs, transfer stages with docking ports, etc.) with a refueling station or allow enough fuel in the design to deorbit once the mission is complete (satellites, landers returning science to Kerbin, etc.). I suppose it gets more complicated for interplanetary missions where you really don't want to haul empty tanks all over the system, but if you're just trying to avoid Kesslerizing LKO it's pretty easy to do that with good design.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Max, I hope you'll make sure your Squadmates get to see some of the positive response to the female Kerbal announcement. It would be a shame if all the feedback they heard came out of that travesty of a thread on the KSP forums. I think this was an important step for you guys to take and I want everyone to feel good about doing it. For the record I would have been perfectly happy with genderless Kerbals if they'd actually been designed to look and sound that way in the first place, but they totally weren't.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
fauxbama posted:I think FC's days are numbered. Before, he mostly contained his dickery to the BTSM thread, but now that he's shown himself publicly, I think it'll drive people away from his mod. And without the attention, he'll have no reason to stick around. He'll have to find some other game to imprint his passive-aggressive idea of improvement upon. I wouldn't be so sure. Out of the few pages I skimmed through of that thread it seemed like half or more of the posts were explicitly aligned with his sentiment, so at least in terms of his audience on the KSP forums it probably won't hurt him much if at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Met posted:You two are a little defensive of FAR there. Offering an alternative aerodynamic model doesn't need to be met with, "What are you doing wrong that you can't handle FAR?" They're not defending FAR, they're attacking your piloting.  I haven't used NEAR but I will agree with them that the scariness of FAR is overhyped. Use whatever you want, of course.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2015 00:31
|
|
|
I started using FAR because I wanted nosecones to do something.  Solid Poopsnake posted:I think the only thing to really be concerned about are mach effects, but I can't even remember how much of an issue that is. Pretty much zero. I guess there's a "Mach tuck" going through Mach 1, but I've never even noticed it to be honest. Beyond that I think your lift-to-drag ratio gets worse as you go faster, but it's not like that will cause a sudden catastrophic failure. It just factors in to how high and fast you can fly. Honestly, the stock turbojets are so powerful I think they let you ignore some of these nuances pretty effectively. If you can break Mach 1 in a 45-degree climb, a momentary pitching force of a few degrees isn't going to bother you. It's pretty easy to build a plane that can cruise at 1500+m/s at 22-25km, with trouble-free handling all the way up to that point.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 27, 2015 09:10
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:So what i'm getting from this is for ascent a cluster of areospikes is exceptional and must be weighed against the x2's and x4's. Procedural Fairings comes with a really nice configurable thrust plate part. I don't know for sure how many nodes it goes up to; it might do nine.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2015 03:29
|
|
|
shortspecialbus posted:I'll tell you the way I did it. Open xterm, then "sudo nvidia-settings" and find the settings to force AA and AF on - I did one of the 8x's. Then disable AA in KSP. Seemed to work. Part test contracts usually pay out relatively more science than funds. I think they're intended as bonus goals you can tag on to another mission that's going to earn you actual money. So my problem with them isn't so much the payout as it is the fact that they're just boring to do most of the time.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
shortspecialbus posted:It's also a giant pain in the rear end to have to activate two gigantic SRBs at a certain speed in a sub-orbital trajectory between 71,000 and 74,000 feet, not to mention getting them up there with the early stuff. Yeah, totally. Boring and usually annoying to boot. I tend to take a few parts tests early in career mode when I want the science and if I can fit two or three into a single launch, but after that I stop doing them unless they're super-easy to tag on or pay unusually well or whatever.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 19:18
|
|
|
smashthedean posted:I almost never accept the "flying" missions, but one thing I've found handy with orbital SRB tests that would work for flying too is to just empty all of the fuel out in the VAB. The biggest contract feature that I wish existed is a hotkey to deny contracts offered as I spend a lot of time cycling through junk I don't want until a good contract pops up. I also usually only do tests landed, splashed down, or orbital/suborbital. The in flight ones are almost universally too aggravating to bother with. It'd be nice if they listed contracts by category or something so you could just look for the types you like the most. That would be better than the cancel-contract roulette we currently have.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 11, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
haveblue posted:Are you having trouble getting off the runway or once it's in the air? I don't know about stock, but In FAR you can make it around Kerbin in about 45 minutes elapsed mission time, so less real time if your craft flies stably enough to handle time acceleration. It's fairly easy to build a plane that can cruise at 20+km and 1600-1700 m/s. It's still probably more time-efficient (and maybe cost-effective too) to just ICBM most survey contract points, though. Warmachine posted:I should probably do more science first, though, and at least get turbojets. Yeah, turbojets are pretty much mandatory for doing anything more than puttering around the vicinity of KSC in-atmosphere.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 15, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:Is there a way for Kerbal Engineer to calculate monoprop dv? I use MechJeb, but it can show dV for monoprop engines. I would assume KER can too? Might depend on the specific part though - I think it has to actually show up in the staging list, which regular RCS blocks don't. I'm using the MP engines from RCS Stockalike. They make it easy to build very small satellites with like 5km of dV, delivered to orbit for a total cost of ~10k funds, some of which can get recovered.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 17, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
You do have to work to bleed off speed in FAR if you get going fast enough. A long glide in from the East at low altitude (1-2km) is usually called for to get down to <100m/s for landing. The airbrake thing might help too, as well as general fiddling with flap and spoiler settings on your various control surfaces (and matching action groups). As far as disintegration goes, Mach 1 is ~300m/s. At low altitudes a hard turn can bust you up even below that speed, but at least for me it was something I pretty quickly got a feel for avoiding. If you open the FAR info panel it'll show you when you're experiencing high dynamic pressure, which is usually a sign to go easy on the turns. Craft design is probably a factor here too, but I don't know enough to give any real advice on that point.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 22, 2015 00:21
|
|
|
Has anyone used Kibble as a resource name yet?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
Zurui posted:"air" I think that's largely what the electricity usage RD mentioned is meant to abstract. It's to power air scrubbers and stuff so your dudes can breathe/not freeze or boil. It does mean air supply is easily renewable in situ, but it makes one less resource to micromanage.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 23, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
Palicgofueniczekt posted:They should just get on with it and add delta-LifeSupport readouts. It is something so fundamental and I shouldn't have to make a spreadsheet just to determine if my Kerbals can get there and back. Running out of LifeSupport is just unfun. Please add "dLS". How are you not done with this stupid crusade yet?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 25, 2015 05:32
|
|
|
double nine posted:when it comes to jet engines, what's the rule for when they start losing thrust (FAR)? is it altitude, speed, AoA, how vertical you're flying? Speed. Generally speaking, jet engines have to slow down supersonic intake air before they can combust it with fuel (unlike rockets which carry oxidizer). There's a bunch of complicated physics reasons I don't fully understand (stuff about losing pressure and therefore energy to shockwaves as the air decelerates) that means this limits the maximum speed at which a jet engine can produce net thrust. It varies by engine design; scramjets actually combust air at supersonic velocities and Wikipedia tells me they have theoretical maximum speeds of around Mach 12-24 instead of ~Mach 3 or 4 for turbojets.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
I would just like to note that I kicked off this argument by talking about "a bunch of complicated physics reasons I don't fully understand." At least I'm honest about it!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
Hremsfeld posted:Has anyone seen a glitch where, if you're outside the SOI of the Kerbin-Mun-Minmus system, you can't thrust? As in, you can control your vessel just fine, but can't throw fuel out the back? Before plucking mods out one at a time, I figured I'd ask if someone else ran into that or not. You, uh... you aren't out of fuel, are you?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 1, 2015 23:53
|
|
|
It probably would have to be KAC, yeah. It's not a fun or glamorous mod, but multiple simultaneous missions are just unworkable without it. I guess you can play KSP with just one active mission out of LKO at a time but it feels silly. After that it would be a tossup between FAR and procedural fairings. You basically need fairings for FAR to be playable but fairings without FAR don't do anything, so.... e: Of course, 1.0 is supposed to come with stock procedural fairings and the new aero model. That would probably change the runners up.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 25, 2024 08:20 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Docking and redocking isn't easy. After undocking, the ability of docking ports to dock is disabled until you get far enough from the other ship, probably to prevent the system from accidentally redocking you. A good guide to go by is that if you're getting that magical magnetic pull between docking ports, docking will work; if not, just back off further and try again, because if you're not getting that magic attraction then docking won't work even if you touch the ports together dead-on. It's more fuel-efficient to have your ports lined up directly along the axes of your translation, FWIW. That may or may not matter much depending on the context of your ship/mission/monoprop supplies. Technical issues aside, I frequently see people talking about how much trouble they have with docking and how frustrating it is, and I feel weird because for me it's one of more fun things to do in this game.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2015 17:16
|
|