-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
Kerbal Space Program
- Thread starter DarkUnderlord
- Start date
Prime Junta
Guest
The Renaissance mod has clouds. Or some sub-mod in it anyway.
Prime Junta
Guest
I enjoy the challenge of making them passively stable. Stayed up until 3 am last night adjusting Archangel 1CL (Cargo, Long). I eventually got it tuned quite nicely. It uses the biggest Mk3 cargo bay, and will lift up to 20 tons or so of payload to LKO, staying stable all through the process.
I do have to pump fuel between tanks as I go though; in fact the rocket will cut out mid-burn if I don't, as there's no way to get oxidant from the forward tanks aft where it's needed (the cargo bay is too long to run fuel lines). Same thing when preparing for re-entry -- if all the fuel is in the aft tanks, it'll become unstable with catastrophic results, so I have to pump most of it forward.
Despite the awful flight controls, it's now tolerable to fly. It'll even survive a ditching in a pinch (empty).
I'm working on three variants in parallel: cargo, passengers, and tanker. Currently the passenger version will carry 48 kerbals to LKO and back, and the tanker will deliver ~2800 units of fuel + ox to the same place. I think I'll be able to push the former to 64 passengers and the latter some way past 3000 units. I want them to be relatively easy/fun to fly as well, i.e. those numbers need to be well inside the operating envelope as finessing the edges with those clunky controls is no fun at all.
In practice, the passenger version is way overkill, I don't even have 64 kerbals in my space program, nor will I ever have that many tourists. So once I've seen how far the design can go, I'll probably replace two of the passenger compartments with cargo or fuel (for more range). I also like the long form factor so I'm planning on giving the tanker an extra cargo bay (medium) or two (short), since it gets too heavy with all fuel.
I do have to pump fuel between tanks as I go though; in fact the rocket will cut out mid-burn if I don't, as there's no way to get oxidant from the forward tanks aft where it's needed (the cargo bay is too long to run fuel lines). Same thing when preparing for re-entry -- if all the fuel is in the aft tanks, it'll become unstable with catastrophic results, so I have to pump most of it forward.
Despite the awful flight controls, it's now tolerable to fly. It'll even survive a ditching in a pinch (empty).
I'm working on three variants in parallel: cargo, passengers, and tanker. Currently the passenger version will carry 48 kerbals to LKO and back, and the tanker will deliver ~2800 units of fuel + ox to the same place. I think I'll be able to push the former to 64 passengers and the latter some way past 3000 units. I want them to be relatively easy/fun to fly as well, i.e. those numbers need to be well inside the operating envelope as finessing the edges with those clunky controls is no fun at all.
In practice, the passenger version is way overkill, I don't even have 64 kerbals in my space program, nor will I ever have that many tourists. So once I've seen how far the design can go, I'll probably replace two of the passenger compartments with cargo or fuel (for more range). I also like the long form factor so I'm planning on giving the tanker an extra cargo bay (medium) or two (short), since it gets too heavy with all fuel.
Data4
Arcane
I love mods
Prime Junta
Guest
The Archangel series of SSTO spaceplanes, finally operational. Maximum tested take-off mass is now about 141 tons, which would make maximum payload mass somewhere north of 20 tons. They're all aerodynamically stable at all fuel levels although you do have to pump fuel between tanks during the mission, and as tested all are capable of a simple launch profile consisting of a 10-degree climb to 10-12k, at which point speed is over 1000 m/s. At this point pitch is increased to 30 degrees and the Vector rocket engine is fired, and it's off. The series is powered by six Whiplash turbo-ramjets and one Vector rocket engine. The system is entirely automated and requires no kerbonauts on-board, although command pods can be fitted if necessary.
From background to foreground: the Archangel 1PL, carrying 16 passengers to the Mun and beyond, or the same plus up to 3000 units of fuel and oxidiser to LKO; the 1CL, carrying a payload of up to 20 tons to LKO, and the 1FC, carrying up to 10 tons to Munar orbit or beyond, or roughly 3000 units of fuel to LKO. Other variants are easy to manufacture since the fore and aft sections are modular and the payload section can easily be swapped out; if necessary, Mk 2 modules can also be added to the engine pods.
From background to foreground: the Archangel 1PL, carrying 16 passengers to the Mun and beyond, or the same plus up to 3000 units of fuel and oxidiser to LKO; the 1CL, carrying a payload of up to 20 tons to LKO, and the 1FC, carrying up to 10 tons to Munar orbit or beyond, or roughly 3000 units of fuel to LKO. Other variants are easy to manufacture since the fore and aft sections are modular and the payload section can easily be swapped out; if necessary, Mk 2 modules can also be added to the engine pods.
Drax
Arcane
You're gonna love the new fuel flow system in 1.2 as it allows to customize priorities and such.
Prime Junta
Guest
Yeah I read up on it. I am looking forward to it. Also like what I hear about the comms network -- would finally put some sense into those Communotrons which are currently completely cosmetic, as well as giving a whole new set of missions to do when conquering the solar system.
BTW for shits and giggles I just made a rocket-powered Archangel (triple-Vector-powered) and dubbed it the Archdemon 1-X. Those jets really are way more efficient. It did make orbit when I crammed it full of fuel, but there wasn't much left, and any payload it could've carried would've been pretty small, or, conversely, any rocket plane that could carry a payload worth a damn would have to be absurdly huge.
Launch was more straightforward though, just point it up at 30 degrees after take-off and watch it go, stop when apo is where you want it, circularise, done. Much easier than with rockets. I kinda liked it actually, maybe I'll eventually make something like that for Eve or Duna or something, although SSTO from Eve would be bloody difficult if not impossible, what with the soupy atmosphere that has no air and all.
Edit: in re mods, I did give in and install Atmosphere Autopilot, as well as Kerbal Flight Engineer. I also got a joystick. Now flying those things doesn't feel like oil-wrestling a porcupine.
Prime Junta
Guest
Decompressing, made two light ones just for one -- the MiK-21 and MiK-25. The second one has bonkers TTW, just point it in the general direction of the sky and watch that you don't overshoot LKO. It has enough dV to get to Munar orbit... just, but this version has no in-flight refuelling capability so it'd be a one-way trip. These are really fun to fly, and the MiK-25 at least could evolve into something serving a useful purpose instead of just cheap thrills.
Yes I know they're supposed to have tailfins. Maybe I'll add them. They're just not necessary for the design...
Prime Junta
Guest
Finally dared to install FAR.
Was a little anticlimactic actually. The Archangels fly better with it than without it, especially if cargo is loaded. I did have to make a few minor tweaks -- add wing strakes, make the canards smaller -- but overall... yeah, the design works great with a better aerodynamics model.
I did have to fly it more carefully though; pull too hard on the stick at low altitude and fully loaded and it flies into pieces more easily than with stock aerodynamics.
Was a little anticlimactic actually. The Archangels fly better with it than without it, especially if cargo is loaded. I did have to make a few minor tweaks -- add wing strakes, make the canards smaller -- but overall... yeah, the design works great with a better aerodynamics model.
I did have to fly it more carefully though; pull too hard on the stick at low altitude and fully loaded and it flies into pieces more easily than with stock aerodynamics.
Drax
Arcane
Yes, if you designed the thing correctly, it should fly better with FAR. The difference was even more noticeable with the old vanilla atmo model.
Prime Junta
Guest
For shits and giggles I tried starting a new career. Damn does FAR make those early rockets hard to fly though... I was like "okay let's get to orbit then," built a rocket, launched it, and watched it explode in midair due to aerodynamic failure from trying to manoeuvre too hard.
I think I like it.
I think I like it.
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2011
- Messages
- 2,852
https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/1qki23/far_mod_question/cddua7s advice from ferram4 himself on how to achieve effective launches with FAR.
Prime Junta
Guest
That's how I always (attempt to) do them, I start pitching straight away. It was just a lot harder with FAR. I did manage it after two or three tries. Those early rockets just aren't all that controllable, and FAR leaves a lot less room for correction if it starts to slip out. My main mistake though was that I was going too fast too low; it became manageable -- just -- by boosting to 12k or so at about 200...250 m/s, then opening up from there.
vean
Scholar
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2016
- Messages
- 296
Prime Junta
Guest
Fuck, just when I get hooked on something the dev team ups and quits.
Things will be better after the revolution. :russia:
Things will be better after the revolution. :russia:
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2011
- Messages
- 100,095
Burning Bridges
Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk
If you had followed the game in the last years you would know that they pay third world wages. A lot of people went there and worked out of enthusiasm but eventually they all realized it's pointless.
To be fair though Mexico *is* a third world nation.
Prime Junta
Guest
Yeah. I hear they pay devs about $2400.
A year.
A year.
Burning Bridges
Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk
Is that before or after tax?
Drax
Arcane
Fuck...
At least roverdude is still there...
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2011
- Messages
- 2,852
I think there is nothing to be worried about. KSP 1.2 looks to be ok, there's tons of cool stuff you can do with mods. And I wouldn't be surprised if all those devs band up and do something to rival KSP. I would quite likely back such an effort on Kickstarter.
Even if this is end of KSP development, I'm pretty sure it's not the end of space exploration games. And if you crave more space stuff, take a look at Children of a Dead Earth - it has better orbital physics than KSP and you can have combat.
Even if this is end of KSP development, I'm pretty sure it's not the end of space exploration games. And if you crave more space stuff, take a look at Children of a Dead Earth - it has better orbital physics than KSP and you can have combat.
Drax
Arcane
Yeah, mods will keep KSP alive even if squad goes under. Still, it sucks.
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.