-
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
Hellraiser
Arcane
Old and new ASAS code in action:
Starts with the old RCS-wasting one. Then shows the
Also the KSC is getting a new SPH, this one is actually three or four buildings in one. Including a flight control tower you will be able to buzz.
Starts with the old RCS-wasting one. Then shows the
Also the KSC is getting a new SPH, this one is actually three or four buildings in one. Including a flight control tower you will be able to buzz.
The Vanished One
Prophet
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 1,246
Looks great. Maybe it'll help me with planes too, they're giving me trouble.
I'm trying to build a rocket plane conceptually similar to the X-15, that is capable of a short powered flight and then must glide back to base. I can't come up with a viable design though.
Here's my first attempt:
It has acceptable handling, if barely, but does not seem to generate enough lift; it slows down and falls too fast. I tried to increase the lift a bit:
It was still not enough. I then gave up on trying to emulate the X-15 design and added more wing surface
Unlike my previous design, this has the center of lift far behind the center of mass, and as a result it dives uncontrollably. So I added an additional tank to balance it
It should be balanced now, but when I disable the ASAS after initial ascent, it immediately spins out of control. Any ideas?
I'm trying to build a rocket plane conceptually similar to the X-15, that is capable of a short powered flight and then must glide back to base. I can't come up with a viable design though.
Here's my first attempt:
It has acceptable handling, if barely, but does not seem to generate enough lift; it slows down and falls too fast. I tried to increase the lift a bit:
It was still not enough. I then gave up on trying to emulate the X-15 design and added more wing surface
Unlike my previous design, this has the center of lift far behind the center of mass, and as a result it dives uncontrollably. So I added an additional tank to balance it
It should be balanced now, but when I disable the ASAS after initial ascent, it immediately spins out of control. Any ideas?
Hellraiser
Arcane
Rule number one of maintaining stable atmospheric flight: put control surfaces behind your source of thrust.
The raptor does it, birds do it, even the B-2 does it. Ah but you say the x-15 doesn't do it? Of course it doesn't, but it was dropped at a high altitude from a different plane. And I doubt they made any maneuvers that would be considered significant while the engine was running, it was mostly flying as straight as possible. That's why they could get away with it, they didn't need much steering while thrusting. When there was no thrust gliding back down created no issues. It's usually the same in KSP, an empty rocket plane glides well but it can be very unstable while the engine is running if it doesn't have control surfaces behind it.
Look at the space ship two a modern rocket plane, one which I like shameless ripping off in KSP:
The control surfaces are slightly behind the engines nozzle. Neither of your designs had it close to the center of thrust, even the X-15 which didn't follow the rule had the control surface very close to the engine of thrust.
Should have imitated it more closely bro
The raptor does it, birds do it, even the B-2 does it. Ah but you say the x-15 doesn't do it? Of course it doesn't, but it was dropped at a high altitude from a different plane. And I doubt they made any maneuvers that would be considered significant while the engine was running, it was mostly flying as straight as possible. That's why they could get away with it, they didn't need much steering while thrusting. When there was no thrust gliding back down created no issues. It's usually the same in KSP, an empty rocket plane glides well but it can be very unstable while the engine is running if it doesn't have control surfaces behind it.
Look at the space ship two a modern rocket plane, one which I like shameless ripping off in KSP:
The control surfaces are slightly behind the engines nozzle. Neither of your designs had it close to the center of thrust, even the X-15 which didn't follow the rule had the control surface very close to the engine of thrust.
Should have imitated it more closely bro
The Vanished One
Prophet
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 1,246
I only fly straight when the engine is on and it's still unstable when idle and gliding
But it's clear what I did wrong, thanks
Ah well, back to the drawing board. Cool how this game forces you to learn things about actual aero and space dynamics. I wish I had the time to sit down with a couple of textbooks on the subject.
Hellraiser
Arcane
If it is unstable when gliding it's probably because the engine is the heaviest part of the plane and they're usually in the back. In actual planes the mass of a back-mounted engine is offset by fuel or armament up in the front, either way the engineers have more options to shift the CoM to where most of the lift is. In KSP though the heaviest parts of a rocketplane are always the engine and the fuel in the tank. And usually you place both in the back, that creates problems.
Which is why most of the time my KSP spaceplanes use frontal canards with wings in the back like the Spess Hawk 2 does:
The Spess Hawk 1 didn't have those and lacked the rudders on the ends of the wings:
The result was it pitched up or down, also it easily entered spins during turns. Note that on both the wings are V shaped and go quite a way behind the engines. Adding the frontal canards fixed that. The, uh, winglets in the back above the main axis of the wings are just there to add some lift in the heaviest place. Not use if they're really needed but I got used to them. They did make the thing impossible to launch on top of a rocket though, they don't do anything in horizontal flight but if you're going vertical the lift tilts the rocket. I prefer the aesthetically pleasing design of the Spess Hawk 1 but the Spess Hawk 2 flies really smoothly, apart from needing more runway than the KSC has to take off. But the first one had the same problem anyway, 4 jets are a bare minimum for such a big SSTO spaceplane, 5 would be better if I knew where to put the extra one and how to place 4 rocket engines around it.
Either way the main thing you should remember is that lift needs to be roughly proportional to the weight across the length of the plane. Otherwise it keeps pitching up or down regardless if you have enough or not enough lift to actually fly. So you need more wing surface where most of your mass is and less in the lighter parts.
The issue is of course that wing shape limitations screw you over at times hence you make the wings too big or too small where they need it most. Luckily the procedural wings mod exists, install that and never go back to regular stock wings unless you need to make a rudder or something.
I think I'll try to recreate a white knight+space ship one skylaunch combo since the procedural wings make it easier. They should honestly introduce those into the stock game when they'll be doing the aerodynamics and spaceplane part overhaul. Also that would mean they would have a better interface as the mod's one is a bit clunky and counter-intuitive (the wings themselves work great though, apart from a rendering bug where they disappear at some camera angles).
Which is why most of the time my KSP spaceplanes use frontal canards with wings in the back like the Spess Hawk 2 does:
The Spess Hawk 1 didn't have those and lacked the rudders on the ends of the wings:
The result was it pitched up or down, also it easily entered spins during turns. Note that on both the wings are V shaped and go quite a way behind the engines. Adding the frontal canards fixed that. The, uh, winglets in the back above the main axis of the wings are just there to add some lift in the heaviest place. Not use if they're really needed but I got used to them. They did make the thing impossible to launch on top of a rocket though, they don't do anything in horizontal flight but if you're going vertical the lift tilts the rocket. I prefer the aesthetically pleasing design of the Spess Hawk 1 but the Spess Hawk 2 flies really smoothly, apart from needing more runway than the KSC has to take off. But the first one had the same problem anyway, 4 jets are a bare minimum for such a big SSTO spaceplane, 5 would be better if I knew where to put the extra one and how to place 4 rocket engines around it.
Either way the main thing you should remember is that lift needs to be roughly proportional to the weight across the length of the plane. Otherwise it keeps pitching up or down regardless if you have enough or not enough lift to actually fly. So you need more wing surface where most of your mass is and less in the lighter parts.
The issue is of course that wing shape limitations screw you over at times hence you make the wings too big or too small where they need it most. Luckily the procedural wings mod exists, install that and never go back to regular stock wings unless you need to make a rudder or something.
I think I'll try to recreate a white knight+space ship one skylaunch combo since the procedural wings make it easier. They should honestly introduce those into the stock game when they'll be doing the aerodynamics and spaceplane part overhaul. Also that would mean they would have a better interface as the mod's one is a bit clunky and counter-intuitive (the wings themselves work great though, apart from a rendering bug where they disappear at some camera angles).
The Vanished One
Prophet
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 1,246
I'll remember all of the advice, thanks.
Hellraiser
Arcane
Oh god, the kethane mod will experience major in the future:
Lovely hexes, no more pinpoint pixel scanning and 1 hour long scan times. No more relying on other mods to know where those pesky coordinates really are. Not as good as the shader maps the stock resources will have (god knows when those get implemented) but damn, this work is very nice.
Also I managed to recreate the white knight+space ship one combo. Well the spess ship one is fairly close to the original, the white knight less as it looks more like a white pterodactyl. Pitches up too much at high altitudes, ironically that's good because it send the spess ship one on a nice upwards trajectory when it detaches. Managed to get a 700+ km parabolic trajectory on the single small SRB and glide back down safely, will post pictures later. Not sure if anyone would want to fly a spess ship one that experiences up to 18g, the pilot was lucky g-forces don't kill kerbals yet.
BTW the 0.21 update is in QA testing now, I expect a release next week unless. I wonder what parts we'll get since it was mentioned we should get some but none were shown, probably not a whole lot like during the last update.
in the future:
Lovely hexes, no more pinpoint pixel scanning and 1 hour long scan times. No more relying on other mods to know where those pesky coordinates really are. Not as good as the shader maps the stock resources will have (god knows when those get implemented) but damn, this work is very nice.
Also I managed to recreate the white knight+space ship one combo. Well the spess ship one is fairly close to the original, the white knight less as it looks more like a white pterodactyl. Pitches up too much at high altitudes, ironically that's good because it send the spess ship one on a nice upwards trajectory when it detaches. Managed to get a 700+ km parabolic trajectory on the single small SRB and glide back down safely, will post pictures later. Not sure if anyone would want to fly a spess ship one that experiences up to 18g, the pilot was lucky g-forces don't kill kerbals yet.
BTW the 0.21 update is in QA testing now, I expect a release next week unless. I wonder what parts we'll get since it was mentioned we should get some but none were shown, probably not a whole lot like during the last update.
Hellraiser
Arcane
The 0.21 update will break saves, just when I nearly finished aerobraking everything into laythe orbit (8 or 9 vessels). Meh, I guess I'll quicksave edit all that crap into Laythe orbit since .craft files won't break. I'll also install the new snazzy version of kethane with the hex grid while I'm at it.
The good news is though that since they had to break compatibility due to the new crew management system, it means all the (probably minor) features that got finished for earlier updates, but got pushed back precisely because they would break persistence files, will also make it into 0.21. Not sure what those are but I am eager to see them.
Here's hoping they squash out all the bugs in QA and release the update soon.
: x KURWAAAAAAA!!!
I had 2 rovers on duna, an electric airplane on eve and laythe and space stations arounf kerbin, mun and jool
Hellraiser
Arcane
Well to be honest we didn't have a save breaking update since 0.18 back in december. Not counting the mod-breaking 0.20 which only broke saved vessels using mod parts.
Absalom
Guest
So I stop playing for a couple weeks and everything gets better?
Groovy
I love playing a good game in beta
Groovy
I love playing a good game in beta
Hellraiser
Arcane
Oh man, remember the Mun terrain change from 0.20 that got reverted in 0.20.1 because old bases/landers ended up underground? Well that seems to be the thing that got held back in the pipeline until saves got broken. But guess what, that's not the only way the Mun is going to get changed in 0.21:
Proper procedural craters, the old ones were big, made by hand and generated on a continent-size scale so they didn't look good from up close. But these babies look the way they should.
Currently only the Mun gets these as apparently the size/shapes generated have to be tweaked for each body individually based on how big they are to look good. Still, the way these things are generated using a 3D voronoi noise field could pave the way for more terrain features in the future which are really needed.
Anyway it's likely some other bodies will get minor but not as significant terrain tweaks as well in 0.21, since that's mentioned in the devblog describing how these craters were made.
Proper procedural craters, the old ones were big, made by hand and generated on a continent-size scale so they didn't look good from up close. But these babies look the way they should.
Currently only the Mun gets these as apparently the size/shapes generated have to be tweaked for each body individually based on how big they are to look good. Still, the way these things are generated using a 3D voronoi noise field could pave the way for more terrain features in the future which are really needed.
Anyway it's likely some other bodies will get minor but not as significant terrain tweaks as well in 0.21, since that's mentioned in the devblog describing how these craters were made.
The Vanished One
Prophet
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 1,246
Cool! Now we just need the Kerbal powered version.
Hellraiser
Arcane
Dumbed down how? The only "dumbing down" I can think of is adding the ability to plan maneuvers which, after you set up the planned trajectory in the shape you desire, tell you where to burn and and how much. But yeah I'm sure we should be counting that manually on a piece of paper based on our current prograde heading, velocity, parent object radius and gravity. Not like NASA uses computers for that shit. Either way that feature got added like 6 months ago, hardly recent.
The Vanished One
Prophet
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 1,246
This is news to me. Never saw or heard of "dumbing down", though I'm hardly the most experienced player. If anything, better simulated physics and future content will make the game harder (think less forgiving aerodynamics, re-entry heat, having to worry about life support, etc.). The devs even said that there'll never be an autopilot in the game.
If you want something more realistic, I heard that Orbiter is pretty cool; I'd try it myself if I had time.
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/
Also, if you haven't heard of it, may I recommend Lunar Flight? It's on sale too:
http://store.steampowered.com/app/208600/?snr=1_7_15__13
A bit short on content, but worth that price. It has multiplayer, too, although I only played before it was introduced.
EDIT: ninja'd. Teaches me to leave posts linger before posting.
The Vanished One
Prophet
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Messages
- 1,246
Hellraiser
Arcane
I like the new tracking center, having multiple antenna dishes makes sense. The bug squashing is taking them a while though.
Burning Bridges
Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk
Dumbing down is my least concern. Gameplay is challenging but not too hard. You have to learn to fly and land, make interplanetary burns, design rockets. But everything is scaled down and getting into orbit is a lot quicker and easier than in RL. Gameplay is a strength of this game.
What I worry more about is the engine. They have just recently restored performance to normal levels, but I am worried that with all the planned features they will reach a limit, and start to make compromises. Already the game does not look nearly as good as it could. I am also not impressed with the way this game is developed. It looks like they will continue to work on the alpha for some more years, then decide it's time to port it to a new engine.
Hellraiser
Arcane
They won't port it to a new engine, that much has been ruled out a long time ago. The only recent games that ever did switch engines and see the light of day rather than get canceled in the middle of development are vaporware like Duke Nukem Forever or MMOs (but that was already some time after they launched).
They will however update it to a 64-bit version of unity or one with better physics as soon as such become available. There are talks that unity might ditch physx, which by itself wouldn't be bad if the iteration unity uses know wouldn't be a single-core 32-bit one that is outdated as fuck (which doesn't even work better on nvidia cards with built-in physx support, that's how shitty it is
). The rumors say they'll switch to bullet physics which is a far faster physics engine.
They will however update it to a 64-bit version of unity or one with better physics as soon as such become available. There are talks that unity might ditch physx, which by itself wouldn't be bad if the iteration unity uses know wouldn't be a single-core 32-bit one that is outdated as fuck (which doesn't even work better on nvidia cards with built-in physx support, that's how shitty it is
). The rumors say they'll switch to bullet physics which is a far faster physics engine.
Burning Bridges
Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk
Most of the new features are meh, ASAS is cool but ranks as a bug fix. I think they should implement clouds and athmospheres, especially thick athmosphere on Eve would add much.
New terrain on Mun is also cool.
New terrain on Mun is also cool.
Burning Bridges
Enviado de meu SM-G3502T usando Tapatalk
I think a disadvantage of this public alpha thing is that many of us will be burnt out long before the game ships. KSP looks like it will stay in alpha for at least 1 year and probably more, I guess by then I will have really become sick of it.
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.