[QUOTE=DesolateGrun;36663469]does anyone else not like the jets? I'm just terrible at them.[/QUOTE]
I don't get it. Since jets were introduced, I've been doing terribly with rockets. Meanwhile, my jets are made of a combination of sex and lightning.
This is me in the atmosphere:
[img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15450289/sexwithwings.jpg[/img]
This is me outside of it:
[img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/15450289/KSP%202012-03-01%2016-47-34-24.png[/img]
Does anyone know if the airplane cockpits also get inside models? I'd love flying a plane with that
My phone will not let me edit for some reason. What I meant was that five meters per second is roughly equal to eleven miles per hour. I hope that a lunar lander could survive that impact. Otherwise, it would explode if someone ran into it.
[QUOTE=DireAvenger;36669833]As I recall, lunar legs can stand up to 14m/s, unless the impact tolerance indicator is retarded and doesn't follow speeds for whatever reason.[/QUOTE]
Yeah they just kinda blew up on me when I touched the ground. :v:
Impact tolerance is a little wonky, especially if you're on 2x warp.
The joints can also break before impact tolerance.
And this is why I hate KSP's vanilla parts
They all have the impact tolerance of stale crackers.
More importantly for the crashing, what was your horizontal velocity?
you could have been perfectly safe to touch down in your descent rate but it looks like you hit the ground going sideways and rolled as that twisted the joints of your wheels
[QUOTE=LarparNar;36674022][IMG]http://space.skyrocket.de/img_lau/atlas-5-411__astra-1kr__2.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]
The fuck, is that a single SRB on the side? How does that even work?
[editline]edit[/editline]
It's a configuration 411.
[t]http://www.spacearium.com/special/atlas/av006/AV006_Rollback_03_pat-corkery.jpg[/t]
[img]http://www.destination-orbite.net/lanceurs/images/atlas_5_411.jpg[/img]
[t]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_M_-GcvutiJo/S-LIKFo9eoI/AAAAAAAAAU8/WFLF_aghgTA/s1600/Atlas_V_500+family.jpg[/t]
Strange how that can fly well. Seems rather illogical to me.
[QUOTE=DarkMonkey;36674690]More importantly for the crashing, what was your horizontal velocity?
you could have been perfectly safe to touch down in your descent rate but it looks like you hit the ground going sideways and rolled as that twisted the joints of your wheels[/QUOTE]
Horizontal speed is a killer. Even if you're descending at < 2m/s and hit the ground going 4m/s sideways, your shit is gonna get fucked up.
Has anyone here successfully built an air launched rocket? My carrier aircraft keeps flipping and stuff and I have no idea why.
[QUOTE=Pelf;36674971]The fuck, is that a single SRB on the side? How does that even work?
[editline]edit[/editline]
It's a configuration 411.
[t]http://www.spacearium.com/special/atlas/av006/AV006_Rollback_03_pat-corkery.jpg[/t]
[img]http://www.destination-orbite.net/lanceurs/images/atlas_5_411.jpg[/img]
[t]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_M_-GcvutiJo/S-LIKFo9eoI/AAAAAAAAAU8/WFLF_aghgTA/s1600/Atlas_V_500+family.jpg[/t]
Strange how that can fly well. Seems rather illogical to me.[/QUOTE]
It's countered by gimballing the RD-180.
The constant gimballing reduces efficiency slightly, but it's still cheaper than slapping two SRB's on.
[QUOTE=Pelf;36675256]Has anyone here successfully built an air launched rocket? My carrier aircraft keeps flipping and stuff and I have no idea why.[/QUOTE]
Someone here managed to once. I almost did as well, but I kept underestimating all the parts. Really need to try do that again sometime.
Well after hours of work, much head smashing, and hundreds of dead kerbals, I finally managed to build a working air-launch rocket:
[t]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/13781308/KSP/screenshot901.png[/t]
[t]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/13781308/KSP/screenshot902.png[/t]
[t]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/13781308/KSP/screenshot903.png[/t]
[t]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/13781308/KSP/screenshot904.png[/t]
The carrier aircraft is ugly, a bit unstable in flight, and spins out of control after using ~2/3 to 3/4 of its fuel but I think it turned out pretty well.
Are spaceplanes all that hard for y'all? Aside from the fact that twenty-engined planes are pretty much impossible to pilot, any mid-sized plane can usually fly fine with no hickups if it's rigid enough.
Landing is a bit tricky but then again landing rockets is a tricky endeavor as well
Been building a series of larger and larger planes, a 'successful' plane is one that survives the landing and is able to taxi to the hangar.
As one would suspect, this is getting progressively more difficult, the most lethal factor is the lag spiking as I approach touchdown.
On approach
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/x3j89l.jpg[/IMG]
here we go...
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/h6ZBGl.jpg[/IMG]
Survived!
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/X3vT5l.jpg[/IMG]
I'm not sure what exactly happened, 4 engines lost and part of the wing missing.
A+ KSP standard result.
[editline]9th July 2012[/editline]
Ok I tried again with a variant of the above plane, this version flies a lot better, has more parachutes and I added a small escape plane, just in case.
Godspeed..
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/cjEeTl.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/pirXgl.jpg[/IMG]
[url]http://i.imgur.com/pirXg.jpg[/url]
I don't even know what happened during the lag warp but,
FUCK IT, IT'S A SUCCESS
So the main problem is graphical as I get closer to the ground, once it's up my fps is smooth. Does anyone have a solution to this?
I tried to make a multiple-staged plane that could fly somewhere. Instead, when the first stage detached, it went into a nosedive with the rockets still firing. When the capsule disconnected, there was a brief second of lag and suddenly the capsule was flying across the ocean at roughly 3,000 meters per whatever-it-is until it finally (fatally) splashed down.
Also, do not try to land a capsule with the parachute deployed on 2x time, because it will smash into the ground regardless of what the speed actually is.
[QUOTE=NovaSilisko]Behold, the new Mk1 pod!
[t]http://i.imgur.com/7EHnb.png[/t]
No internal mesh implemented yet, however.[/QUOTE]
[url=http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=13565.msg235752#msg235752]Source[/url]
I wish Nova would reveal these things after working on the textures a bit. They're always too bland.
I hope he changes that :\
I like the color/shape. Though it could be a bit more gritty. I personally didn't like the looks of the original capsule.
[QUOTE=Panthereye;36683167]I wish Nova would reveal these things after working on the textures a bit. They're always too bland.
I hope he changes that :\[/QUOTE]
To be honest, there's not much you can do with a 1m pod that's supposed to basically be a whole punch of plate metal hastily welded together and thrown into a vacuum.
needs more normal map...
[QUOTE=C7Studios]
Well, today was a pretty good day. I made a lot of progress on the textures for the pod, as well as adding entry and exit points for the other cockpits and pods in the game. I'll probably do some more polish on things before the release though. Keep in mind, this stuff is a work in progress
[t]http://i.imgur.com/j2zQa.jpg[/t]
[t]http://i.imgur.com/Df5zr.jpg[/t]
[t]http://i.imgur.com/x5tzu.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
[url=http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/index.php?topic=13542.msg235926#msg235926]Source[/url]
bye parachute top mount
new pods shape is sort of dumb and bland.. i would have prefered something unique or less typical conical. either a stretched or compressed cone looks good. but perfect cone is just... bland. some sort of russian thing might have been nice :/
I like the new cone.
[editline]9th July 2012[/editline]
Speaking of cones, someone should make the Soviet N1. If it already hasn't been made.
What ever happened to that one pod where the Kerbalnauts were strapped to a big sheet of wood?
I hope they update that to work with the new Kerbals.
Today its exactly 1 year ago that the first KSP thread was created!
[url]http://www.facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1105753[/url]
Some old mirror from 0.8.0
[url]http://bit.ly/kspv08win[/url]
Happy birthday FP KSP Thread!
I'd like some folding wings, so I could create a sailing capsule.
Anyone know of a mod which has this?
[QUOTE=ayaki;36679274]
So the main problem is graphical as I get closer to the ground, once it's up my fps is smooth. Does anyone have a solution to this?[/QUOTE]
Do not approach ground closely.
:v:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
