Kerbal Space Program v9 - "Escape Rocket" Hat DLC, only £0.99! - Games

[QUOTE=DanRatherman;40273450][img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/Shipplan.jpg[/img] This was my plan, to have cubes formed out of metal frames and fuel tanks so the ship would be both light and have space within for crew, weapon systems, and a hangar. Is this possible to do effectively? or am I seriously fucked?[/QUOTE] put the command pod or probe core in the center and have the four tanks coming off that, it's really the only way to make it stable

[QUOTE=krail9;40273569]put the command pod or probe core in the center and have the four tanks coming off that, it's really the only way to make it stable[/QUOTE] Yeah, what he said. Have something in the middle that the metal frames stick off of, attach the fuel tanks to that, then replace where you wanted the frames to be with struts. [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/UcXpQ18.png[/IMG]

Ah, an excellent and easily applied workaround. Thanks engineers. My plan is for the rear compartment to be crew quarters, the middle compartment to have both sides open to space and a docking port within for a shuttle or naval fighter, and the front compartment to house torpedo tubes which will fire out of a ram-shaped prow. RCS modules will go on the outside of the frame on each of the hub modules, connected to large storage tanks in the rear. With this much fuel available would mainsail engines be good for the power source, or since it's a spacecraft should I keep it poodle or nuclear?

Nuclear, a half dozen or less of them. If you can have some near the front as well as near the back it will reduce compression flexing, and if you don't mind carrying the weight you could certainly keep a mainsail on board for emergency thrust. Also bear in mind that fuel feed can be a bit weird with docking nodes, so keep an eye out

Who was it who used that frame design some time ago? I've seen it before. Regardless its a genius idea, make the frame do both tasks. Quantum struts can also help here. For fuel flow concerns, you could crossfeed all the tanks to one common corner and match the corner on docking. [editline]14th April 2013[/editline] Additionally, quantum struts that connect the base points that each docking node is attached to will greatly reduce compression. [editline]14th April 2013[/editline] wait, ignore my idea about crossfeeding to a corner. Double crossfeed all the tanks to each other in each segment. that will allow equal draining regardless of which corner is pulling the fuel.

[img]http://filesmelt.com/dl/modularjet.png[/img] Saw that omniplane someone posted and tried my own version, I've got it so I can replace the engines with docking ports on the wings instead of underneath, as well as some legs so it can lift up and let the rover put them on.

[QUOTE=S31-Syntax;40274420]Who was it who used that frame design some time ago? I've seen it before.[/quote] [url=http://i.imgur.com/53wUi.jpg]Probably me.[/url] [QUOTE=S31-Syntax;40274420]wait, ignore my idea about crossfeeding to a corner. Double crossfeed all the tanks to each other in each segment. that will allow equal draining regardless of which corner is pulling the fuel.[/QUOTE] Ooh that is a good idea

[QUOTE=DarkMonkey;40274148]Nuclear, a half dozen or less of them. If you can have some near the front as well as near the back it will reduce compression flexing, and if you don't mind carrying the weight you could certainly keep a mainsail on board for emergency thrust. Also bear in mind that fuel feed can be a bit weird with docking nodes, so keep an eye out[/QUOTE] whatever you do don't put all your engines at the front trying to pull a multi-part ship instead of pushing it always ends badly (for me at least)

I wish you could set a space station, once it's in a stable orbit, to be on rails even when you're right next to it, that way then, since physics wouldnt be calculated on it, not only would there probably be a FPS boost, but it'd make stations less prone to wobbling the fuck out and also making docking slightly easier.

[QUOTE=RayvenQ;40275004]I wish you could set a space station, once it's in a stable orbit, to be on rails even when you're right next to it, that way then, since physics wouldnt be calculated on it, not only would there probably be a FPS boost, but it'd make stations less prone to wobbling the fuck out and also making docking slightly easier.[/QUOTE] ksp needs that bullet physics thing

[QUOTE=DrLuckyLuke;40273155]I tried it, had them spot on, but they only connected on a single dock.[/QUOTE] go to the space center and back and they should be docked

[QUOTE=qwerty000;40275097]ksp needs that bullet physics thing[/QUOTE] it does look a hell of a lot more stable for lots of small parts than PhysX, but nfi how it handles time acceleration and larger parts

When my plane hits ~17-20 km and the ramjets are getting their max thurst, my plane suddenly starts spinning and the engines flame out. What causes this? Adding a shitton of rcs doesn't seem to help. [IMG]http://imageshack.us/a/img62/3205/kerbal123123.png[/IMG] I'm trying to make a plane that can reach the orbit using just 4 small assist rockets that I jettison. I may be able to reach the orbit already If I get rid of the problem. I'm planning to make the jet block rear removable so that I can attach rocket blocks to it when it's at orbit. However it's annoying that I cannot make three point docking port-docking port connections at the hangar, so I've probably got to asseble the final thing manually on kerbin before takeoff.

[QUOTE=Maucer;40276235]When my plane hits ~17-20 km and the ramjets are getting their max thurst, my plane suddenly starts spinning and the engines flame out. What causes this? Adding a shitton of rcs doesn't seem to help. [IMG]http://imageshack.us/a/img62/3205/kerbal123123.png[/IMG] I'm trying to make a plane that can reach the orbit using just 4 small assist rockets that I jettison. I may be able to reach the orbit already If I get rid of the problem. I'm planning to make the jet block rear removable so that I can attach rocket blocks to it when it's at orbit. However it's annoying that I cannot make three point docking port-docking port connections at the hangar, so I've probably got to asseble the final thing manually on kerbin before takeoff.[/QUOTE] That thing looks awesome.

[QUOTE=Maucer;40276235]When my plane hits ~17-20 km and the ramjets are getting their max thurst, my plane suddenly starts spinning and the engines flame out. What causes this? Adding a shitton of rcs doesn't seem to help. [IMG]http://imageshack.us/a/img62/3205/kerbal123123.png[/IMG] I'm trying to make a plane that can reach the orbit using just 4 small assist rockets that I jettison. I may be able to reach the orbit already If I get rid of the problem. I'm planning to make the jet block rear removable so that I can attach rocket blocks to it when it's at orbit. However it's annoying that I cannot make three point docking port-docking port connections at the hangar, so I've probably got to asseble the final thing manually on kerbin before takeoff.[/QUOTE] You reached your maximum altitude. Once you get to a certain point, your jet engines won't be able to get enough air and will flame out. Problem is, unless you're flying perfectly level, the engines on one side will flame out before the engines on the other side. I'm sure you can work out what happens next. Solution: Switch to your rockets before you get to that point.

[QUOTE=Pilotguy97;40276395]You reached your maximum altitude. Once you get to a certain point, your jet engines won't be able to get enough air and will flame out. Problem is, unless you're flying perfectly level, the engines on one side will flame out before the engines on the other side. I'm sure you can work out what happens next. Solution: Switch to your rockets before you get to that point.[/QUOTE] that's weird, because my thrust is hitting it's peak when the engines suddenly run out of air? Maybe I should attach a few dozen air tanks on the side of the ship. But I need a way to control the airflow, because now the air tanks are drained from the moment I startup the engines, when I don't need em.

turn the air tanks off? (either with right-click or control actions or w/e its called)

[QUOTE=Eltro102;40276458]turn the air tanks off? (either with right-click or control actions or w/e its called)[/QUOTE] I'd have to turn them all individually which is very hard in flight. You can't put control air tanks in action groups either.

[QUOTE=Em See;40275645]it does look a hell of a lot more stable for lots of small parts than PhysX, but nfi how it handles time acceleration and larger parts[/QUOTE] Time acceleration could only really get a bit better, as Bullet has continous physics detection, so even if you would in theory fly through something in a single frame (as time warp can make happen), you'd still collide with it. With big or heavy parts, I don't see why stuff would get much worse barring the Kraken. Oh also, about the Kraken and floating origin: that was all workarounds needed because of PhysX lack of available source. It was mostly an engine designed for FPS games, so it uses single precision floating point values, which causes extreme precision issues. If using Bullet, in theory Squad could've jumped into the code, changed the precision to double precision, and that would be more than enough. Double precision would give an accuracy of about 1cm from the distance of the sun to pluto, and considering KSPs 1/11 scale, it'd allow them to avoid all that work. In terms of speed, PhysX is actually slightly faster than Bullet depending on the circumstances judging from online tests. If a single cube was falling in a test scenario, then Newton physics was the fastest (by far), Bullet was in the middle, and PhysX lagged behind a whole lot... However, on a test case with 4000 cubes and a plane to collide with, PhysX was fastest, Bullet was only a little behind, and Newtons was very very very slow. I can't find the source for this, so you are just going to need to take my word for it. Of interesting note, Bullet could become a lot lot faster than PhysX, at least in Unity, when the GPU accelerated version is finalized. PhysX already has such acceleration but limited it to Nvidia cards, even taking the time to specifically disable it on mixed cards systems. Due to this, or perhaps other reasons, Unity doesn't support PhysX hardware acceleration. Because Bullet should in theory work on all cards, if it were implemented into Unity we could get GPU acceleration. However, it is not up for any devs or us to decide. Implementing Bullet in Unity's scripting system would be very slow, and anyways, it's in the wrong language. Bullet is written in C++, while Unity supports just Javascript and C#. If it's going to be implemented, it'll need to be done by Unity's devs, right into Unity itself.

[QUOTE=Maucer;40276565]I'd have to turn them all individually which is very hard in flight. You can't put control air tanks in action groups either.[/QUOTE] attach them to one part whose crossfeeding you can control [editline]14th April 2013[/editline] or put them on decouplers with dock points on the back end and another dock point on your ship behind them so when you decouple they'll fly back and re-dock with your ship

How do i automate Mechjeb 2.6 so it goes to other planets? I used to be able to do that in pre 2.0 versions.

[QUOTE=DrugUnit;40276679]How do i automate Mechjeb 2.6 so it goes to other planets? I used to be able to do that in pre 2.0 versions.[/QUOTE] Go into the manoeuvre node planner, tell MJ to set up a node to travel another planet, then get MJ to perform the next node.

Assembled and took this beast to duna [t]http://i.imgur.com/2sGrFXn.jpg[/t] Sadly the game bugged out and I only got to land 2 out of 4 modules on the planet [t]http://i.imgur.com/MikMhKq.jpg[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/VswbiyW.jpg[/t] [t]http://i.imgur.com/NFxLWhC.jpg[/t]

Beside Space plane and rover guidance i think Mechjeb 2.0 is a bit broken/retarded in its node setup.

i don't understand why i cant fast forward faster when orbiting above any atmosphere

[QUOTE=Cuel;40277063]i don't understand why i cant fast forward faster when orbiting above any atmosphere[/QUOTE] i asked this on the ksp forums, the reply i got was that it's possible to "jump" through planets at high enough speed and that being on the stage view (as opposed to the map view) at such high speed would cause tearing on the planet's graphics. Its pretty silly though because you can just switch to another landed ship to time warp however you want.

ah well it's a shame duna base landed [t]http://i.imgur.com/aKWrwms.png[/t]

Anyone have a copy of the kethane mod? Spaceport and the forums are down

[QUOTE=DrugUnit;40277038]Beside Space plane and rover guidance i think Mechjeb 2.0 is a bit broken/retarded in its node setup.[/QUOTE] It's not really broken, just different. Currently, the planetary transfer nodes don't perform accurate transfers, because of the way orbital mechanics works. You've got to set up a mid-course correction burn, which will equalize your orbit and get an intercept. Scott Manley just did a great video that explains it. Go watch it.

[QUOTE=DrLuckyLuke;40273155]I tried it, had them spot on, but they only connected on a single dock.[/QUOTE] I've only done it once, but it clicked right in for me.