[QUOTE=Aphtonites;37324153]I've been trying to start making my own parts for the game, It was easy making parts through the old system, but being the newbie to unity that I am, I find the new part SDK is really confusing :suicide:[/QUOTE]
[video=youtube;GdWDy1HnRhY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdWDy1HnRhY#ws[/video]
[QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;37324367]I've decided that, because kerbals are totally resistant to G-forces, they must be made of jelly (or jell-o).[/QUOTE]
The most badass jelly in the universe.
[t]http://cloud.steampowered.com/ugc/921238222638200621/CC3A80731C6CED94C1EAD7F76F63BD1C0E3D2BF5/[/t]
Best launch vehicle ever.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/zFC1B.jpg[/IMG]
I just made all the kerban car companies bankrupt.
[QUOTE=Aphtonites;37326087][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/zFC1B.jpg[/IMG]
I just made all the kerban car companies bankrupt.[/QUOTE]
For twelve hours a day.
[QUOTE=Nutt007;37323840]Cardboard, how large do you plan on making your Dragon capsule?[/QUOTE]
no idea. i have to scale the kerbal DYJ gave me to the right size. it messed up on import lol. the i will arrange them inside and see how big it needs to be.
Oh man. Ok so jeb respawned and I had him fly a new space craft. He had to go outside to plug back in the sas unit and he did this while the craft was spinning. Getting back in was difficult because if you did not time it right you would not grab a hold of the ladder.
20% fuel in evapack, cut it close.
What do you even do in EVA? I'm only using stock stuff (pls suggest partpacks and mods for a beginner) and all I can do is get out of the ship.
Why in the world would the radial versions of the kosmos rendezvous engines have half the thrust of the normal rendezvous engines, yet the exact same mass? Also a mass of 2 tons for those tiny engines is pretty ridiculous. They are about the size of a kerbals head
Gonna edit this so that the radial engines at least have the same thrust as the normal ones.
I have done a ton of stuff outside of kerbin, rovers, bases, landers, return missions, probes ect. but never really done anything back here at home. I decided it would be cool to send a rover to the polar regions and explore and set up a research base.
I don't use any mods so using the stock parts can make a lot of stuff more of a challenge than it should, because it isn't really set up in that way. Though finding ways to use all the stuff given in weird ways is what makes this game fun to me.
The mission was pretty simple, land a simple test rover with basic navigation capabilities on the polar ice caps. I decided that the north polar caps would be best as it connects with land, so if I fall short I should be fairly okay and possibly drive the rest of the way.
I didn't take any pictures of the construction of the total rocket. The lifting was does in two stages which are pretty rickety and need to be improved. The first stage simply lifts the rocket to a high where it can accelerate the very heavy rover with a single engine. The second stage sets course to a suborbital route to the north polar caps. This hasn't enough fuel in itself so a small part of the rovers fuel is required at these higher altitudes to extend the orbit so it intercepts with the caps. The line in the map doesn't account for atmosphere or parachutes, so you need to extend past the your landing point by quite a bit as well.
The rover was a pretty cool design that can't really be used off planet. It's designed so that when it lands it turns on to its belly with landing legs extended. Four parachutes on top then are activated to slow the descent to 10.7m/s and then land on the legs. The legs are retracted at the same time the wheels are extended to switch it to rover mode. The rover is controlled by a vector engine (more on this later) and can only land in atmosphere.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/Fcc8z.png[/img]
This image was taken as the rover hit the top of the atmosphere and started to slow down. I've roughly orientated into landing orientation and you can also see the edge of the polar caps (first time I've seen them while developing the rover).
[img]http://i.imgur.com/mglnF.png[/img]
I deployed the parachutes at a lot lower altitude then I normally would to make my landing closer to the actual pole. This turned out not to be a problem, and the mission continued normally. Was a little terrified because I had only tested the parachute deploying at low speeds at 10,000m, not 5000m at 2000m/s.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/VPFKc.png[/img]
Here the parachutes have deployed and the legs have been extended ready for landing. My speed at this point was about 9.4m/s which was a lot lower than testing, I'm not sure what caused that. I had to use so many parachutes for stability and it was the only way to slow down.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/PCsZq.png[/img]
Touch down, tilted a little bit backwards. Got lots of fuel for exploration and stuff. Nothing got damaged which is awesome. It looked like it might tilt backwards too much and the engine might break but it didn't which was lucky.
[img]http://i.imgur.com/0qtOF.png[/img]
And here is it in the final deployed form. It's not as controllable as I would like and can't slow down. The vector engine turned out not to be enough to move it left and right.
There were a few problems that need to be rectified before I can send more rovers. The lift stages are inefficient and tilt in all sorts of directions, wasting fuel. The orbit ended up too high so more fuel was needed to get across. The rover needs RCS or something to control better. I might end up switching to the bigger parachutes as that landing was very scary.
Don't judge me all my friends are out and I take this game soppperr srs.
[QUOTE=iPope;37333214]And here is it in the final deployed form. It's not as controllable as I would like and can't slow down. The vector engine turned out not to be enough to move it left and right.[/QUOTE]
Are you holding B to use the brakes? Also, you can rotate those two landing gears at the front with A/D to improve it's general stability.
I can't into mun orbit even with infinite fuel
I suck at orbits (except for earth, earth is ezpz)
[QUOTE=latin_geek;37332660]What do you even do in EVA? I'm only using stock stuff (pls suggest partpacks and mods for a beginner) and all I can do is get out of the ship.[/QUOTE]
That's it. You can get out and explore heavenly bodies, go for an extreme skydiving landing on Minmus, switch vehicles to save a stranded crew, whatever you want, just nothing really that special.
So I think most of the complex Geometry is coming to an End. Slow going because of other obligations but i work on it here and there. :)
So Dragon landing Gear.
[video=youtube;42qVSvqy52M]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42qVSvqy52M[/video]
I've been spending a lot of time over the past two days renaming the parts in the Angara pack for the rebalanced .16 release. Things have been simplified in most of the files, and the word "Kosmos" is being dropped from the part titles since the manufacturer is listed RIGHT UNDER where the part name is shown. Also, things are being rescaled to the match the new size of everything, so URM-1 is now URM-2, and URM-1.25 is now URM-2.5.
All this stuff needed to be done to help simplify development. I've deleted the shrouded tanks from my personal parts folder (sorry Cardboard, I wanted a clean slate to work with and I didn't want to screw up the dropbox,) as well as a number of other parts in order to streamline the pack. It's actually easier to find the right parts now, especially decoupler shrouds, which were confusing as hell before.
Here's a pick of a test I did earlier, note the enlarged radial decouplers (and the Kosmos-sized PLFs from Kyle and Winstonn's pack.)
[img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/43321825/screenshot2.png[/img]
The next move is to adjust weight, fuel, power, and fuel consumption in order to bring our parts closer to the stock parts. Cardboard simply doubled the weight of the VA for his release, which made me cringe because it ignored the square-cube rule.
I have a couple of questions-
1. Are there any config commands to adjust how the parts appear in the parts menu in game?
2. Is there a debug command to reload all the parts without restarting the program?
make sure you keep 'kosmos' in the folder names though so the parts folder is more organised
[QUOTE=krail9;37336804]make sure you keep 'kosmos' in the folder names though so the parts folder is more organised[/QUOTE]
Of course, I didn't touch that, and I left Kosmos in the part ID. I just took it out of the parts menu.
After 14 failed rockets, I started looking back at older models and found that my Athena VII was the most successful, with minor modifications it's made three successful orbits, two around Kerbin and one stellar orbit. Poor Bob, once every 106 days does he pass by his home.
Just did my first Mun landing. I'm actually so flippin' proud.
I had always tried going from a collision-course to landing, which had failed. This time I managed to get into orbit around the Mun and shaved it down until I could get in close and slow.
Needless to say I obviously went on an EVA excursion and went a bit too fast and faceplanted into the ground and died
I tried to get into Mun orbit then I overshot it and I now have a little guy in an orbit pretty much the same as Kerbin's.
[QUOTE=C7]Its nice to finally have the blogs online. I've been waiting for them to be implemented before really starting my dev-log for this update.
So, sorry for the delay!
I've been working quite hard with Mu on the internal spaces, and we've gotten to a pretty good point with it. I'm still hard at work on assets to try and make the deadlines for this update.
As a preview of some of the new IVA assets, here is the 3 crew pod from the inside.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/2PSEV.jpg[/t][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE][img]http://p.twimg.com/A0xCwz2CAAEEA9s.png:large[/img][/QUOTE]
Bloglist: [url]http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/forum/blog.php?do=bloglist[/url]
So I'm trying build a orbital outpost, which I have creatively dubbed the Orbital Kerblin Station, but I'm not 100% sure what's the best way to attach modules to it.
The first problem is actually getting modules close to eachother which is a bitch. I've basically just been relying on guesswork, making one module's orbit a bit larger than the other and then adjusting it until they are fairly close. I then just eye that shit and try to manually get close, but something always ends up happening and I mess up and by then I barely have enough fuel to readjust, so I just deorbit and land.
The other problem is how I'll actually get them to DOCK. I just have a landing gear system that I can open and close, but I've tried something like this before and it didn't work out that well. Are there any other methods that should work?
[QUOTE=HarvesteR]Hi everyone!
Finally, we get to use VB to its full potential! Instead of using locked forum threads to post our development updates, we can now use proper blags!
I know a lot of people were wondering why we have been silent all this time. Well, we've been waiting for this.
Stay tuned for new dev updates soon now. There's been a whole lot of progress done these last few weeks, and it's time to start posting about it again.
Cheers[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=HarvesteR]After all this time with very little news, some catching up is in order... So, let's get started. First up, the Kraken Issue.
As many already know, the Kraken issue was a bug caused by floating point inaccuracies at very high velocities. In the same way objects would visually jitter when they got too far from the scene origin, their velocities would also jitter if it was too high. That happens because in Unity, velocities are represented using Vector3s, which internally use 32-bit floating points to store their X, Y and Z values.
So, the reason this became a problem was this. In KSP, ships aren't simulated as a single physical point, with forces and torques acting on it. They're simulated as multiple linked rigidbodies, each with its own velocity.
What happened then was that if those velocities were very high, they would start jittering in an almost random manner. Some velocities would jitter up, while others jittered down... In the end, all that jittering meant some parts on the ship would get different velocities than the others. At not-so-high speeds, that would cause the ship to tumble and change attitudes erratically, without being given any input. At higher speeds, control became impossible, because the velocity jittering became too strong for the ships' finite control authority. At even higher speeds, the velocity difference between parts got high enough that joints started breaking, and the ships essentially went through a "spaghettization" situation, like when approaching the event horizon of a black hole in real life, only at much lower speeds.
So, that was the issue that became known (erroneously) as the "Deep Space Kraken". The solution to it now, is called "Krakensbane".
[t]http://i.imgur.com/B6M0p.png[/t]
Krakensbane is a solution to the Kraken in much the same way the Floating Origin system is a solution to the distance jitters. Floating Origin works by moving the ship back to the scene origin whenever its position exceeds a maximum threshold, and along with the ship, the entire universe is also moved back the same amount. That means the ship is always somewhere near the center of the scene (where position precision is highest), and the universe effectively moves around it.
Krakensbane is the same thing, only for velocities, instead of positions. If the vessel's velocity exceeds a max limit, Krakensbane zeroes out the vessel velocity, and "absorbs" it. Then, on every physics update, it moves the entire universe back, at the velocity it absorbed from the vessel. The end result is that after a certain speed is exceeded, the vessel becomes stationary, and the universe starts speeding in the opposite direction. This universal velocity is stored in a double-precision vector, which uses 64-bit values, so it's perfectly accurate up to insanely high values (way past c).
Testing so far has been very good. I put vessels on very low Sun orbits, where their velocity exceeded 40km/s. With Krakensbane off, it's almost impossible to keep a vessel under control. With it on, it's as tame as if it were standing still... Which in fact, it is.
Cheers[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Pelf;37342912][/QUOTE]
wow that is a really interesting solution to the problem. Neat
[QUOTE=Zerohe;37342470]So I'm trying build a orbital outpost, which I have creatively dubbed the Orbital Kerblin Station, but I'm not 100% sure what's the best way to attach modules to it.
The first problem is actually getting modules close to eachother which is a bitch. I've basically just been relying on guesswork, making one module's orbit a bit larger than the other and then adjusting it until they are fairly close. I then just eye that shit and try to manually get close, but something always ends up happening and I mess up and by then I barely have enough fuel to readjust, so I just deorbit and land.
The other problem is how I'll actually get them to DOCK. I just have a landing gear system that I can open and close, but I've tried something like this before and it didn't work out that well. Are there any other methods that should work?[/QUOTE]
Docking isn't really that reliable yet. IIRC, warping kills large docking arrangements.
Also, have you tried MechJeb for your rendezvous? If you don't mind the help, it can save you fuel, time your launch (sort of, never really got it working), and there's a few rendezvous specific features that might be useful.
Wow, these guys are really creative with their solutions!
How will that work once you get more than one ship moving at that speed though?
[QUOTE=NanoSquid;37343988]How will that work once you get more than one ship moving at that speed though?[/QUOTE]
They'll either be on rails, or if they're close enough, moving with a relative velocity to the universe. I'm not sure how well it would handle two high-speed ships coming at each other at a very close distance.
not really creative. Games have worked like that for at least a decade now. anyone who has mild programming experience should know that was going to be the solution. But implementing it is a bit of a pain :) AKA takes time to code it. Congratz to them doing it so quickly :D
[editline]21st August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sega Saturn;37336582]I've been spending a lot of time over the past two days renaming the parts in the Angara pack for the rebalanced .16 release. Things have been simplified in most of the files, and the word "Kosmos" is being dropped from the part titles since the manufacturer is listed RIGHT UNDER where the part name is shown. Also, things are being rescaled to the match the new size of everything, so URM-1 is now URM-2, and URM-1.25 is now URM-2.5.
All this stuff needed to be done to help simplify development. I've deleted the shrouded tanks from my personal parts folder (sorry Cardboard, I wanted a clean slate to work with and I didn't want to screw up the dropbox,) as well as a number of other parts in order to streamline the pack. It's actually easier to find the right parts now, especially decoupler shrouds, which were confusing as hell before.
Here's a pick of a test I did earlier, note the enlarged radial decouplers (and the Kosmos-sized PLFs from Kyle and Winstonn's pack.)
[IMG]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/43321825/screenshot2.png[/IMG]
The next move is to adjust weight, fuel, power, and fuel consumption in order to bring our parts closer to the stock parts. Cardboard simply doubled the weight of the VA for his release, which made me cringe [because wasn't built here syndrome] because it ignored the square-cube rule.
I have a couple of questions-
1. Are there any config commands to adjust how the parts appear in the parts menu in game?
2. Is there a debug command to reload all the parts without restarting the program?[/QUOTE]
square cube rule? If you need the surface areas of the parts lemme know :)
as for power. Russian Engines are pretty powerful so they should be a tad better than stock IMO. that way people use them. even if it is only alittle ^^
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/57ko4.png[/IMG]
My 15 ton Kethane miner. Holds 8,000L and was surprisingly easy to get to the Mun
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
