StarDestroyer.Net BBS

I found out why the fat man tanks are a bit broken:

Normal Fuel Tank wrote: // --- standard part parameters ---
mass = 2.5
dragModelType = default
maximum_drag = 0.2
minimum_drag = 0.3
angularDrag = 2
crashTolerance = 6
maxTemp = 2900

// --- fuel tank parameters ---

fuel = 500.0
dryMass = 0.3
fullExplosionPotential = 0.9
emptyExplosionPotential = 0.1

and

Fatman Tank wrote:// --- standard part parameters ---
mass = 2.5
dragModelType = default
maximum_drag = 0.2
minimum_drag = 0.3
angularDrag = 2
crashTolerance = 6
maxTemp = 2900

// --- fuel tank parameters ---

fuel = 2500.0
dryMass = 0.3
fullExplosionPotential = 0.9
emptyExplosionPotential = 0.1

So yeah.

I will have to run an experiment, though, to see if the game models fuel mass at all or not. If it does, then the tank would be fine if it was given vastly increased drag.

PeZook wrote:I will have to run an experiment, though, to see if the game models fuel mass at all or not. If it does, then the tank would be fine if it was given vastly increased drag.

IIRC somewhere on their forums it's mentioned that the game doesn't model fuel mass.

PeZook wrote:I will have to run an experiment, though, to see if the game models fuel mass at all or not. If it does, then the tank would be fine if it was given vastly increased drag.

As far as I know, it uses 'dryMass', and then parts the difference to 'mass' by the number of fuel units... So if we go by having extremely flimsy walls, and Identical dry weight, the XL Tank should have a mass of 11.3 in the list.

I'm fine with the drag, as it's round instead of flat-topped. I don't know how the program works with drag and parts above. When I tested 1-3m shrouding, it made no difference but to slow me down due to mass.

PS: The shuttle booster is broken, as well

The shuttle booster is like that because using its actual mass unbalanced the rocket, so the author used a workaround.

Yeah, the mass calculations go something like this: (mass - dryMass)(% fuel remaining) + dryMass

Still working on orbital mechanics; I managed a stable, pretty circular orbit (+/- ~15km) at around 235km, with the last stage not having fired. I was surprised how little fuel it took to actually deorbit after that. Of course then I burned a lot more when I realized I was going to land on the dark side and frantically tried to escape, which I did - burned all my fuel getting back up and back down, but landed within sight of the launch pad.

How long does it take to make one full orbit, anyways? I always get bored about 15 minutes in.

What is the best way and altitude to get into orbit? I am trying to attempt to do it now but all of my ships end up collapsing back into the atmosphere. It doesn't help that it's extremely hard to point them anywhere but straight up with the SAS's.

My first couple of fairly highly elliptical orbits (85k to 220k) took about 40 minutes each before I made the burn to circularize at apokee. So yeah, we could do with some time compression. At this rate, though, Orbiter ought to be a breeze. "Back in my day, we didn't have any of this fancy-schmancy orbital computer nonsense that told you when to burn. We flew by the seat of our pants with nothing more than an inclinometer and a speedometer and we liked it!"

"But Granddad, Orbiter came out first!"

Bluewolf wrote:What is the best way and altitude to get into orbit? I am trying to attempt to do it now but all of my ships end up collapsing back into the atmosphere. It doesn't help that it's extremely hard to point them anywhere but straight up with the SAS's.

It's a bit of an art, but you can turn SAS off for a bit, adjust heading and turn it on and HOPE TO GOD the rocket doesn't come apart on you.

Anyways, I got into orbit easily in the 50-60 kilometre band. It doesn't even take a particularly complicated rocket - the Smarmturn V has a lot of reserve left once it actually gets there.

For the sake of giving you an idea, here is my current rocket. It can do up to about 4.5 Km/s before it's final burnout. Not a fast rocket but it's better than my previous attempts.



Also I am willing to take any suggestion on how to give it more maneuverability/stability and how to make it faster. I'd love to go past 5 Km/s

Dude, it should get you to orbit and back and to orbit again with no trouble

You could try making the third stage a bit stockier if you want more stability, though I can fly the Smarmturn V to orbit while the Fapollo stack on top wobbles in all directions, so that's not a problem the iron Kermang spirit cannot overcome

EDIT: Also, I got good results with separating stages. IE. try dividing your top stage into one with two fuel tanks+engine and one with one tank and engine.

When you mean stockier do you mean put on some more fuel tanks (or a couple of those orange ones)? I notice when a rocket gets to a certain height, control becomes an issue.

Also thank god for quad couplers. Not only add another rocket motor but balance too.

Edit: First orbit kinda failed, I kinda span without any real direction and ended up falling, luckily I had plenty of fuel left to muffle the crash and get my Kerbals out alive, if in the middle of an ocean? Is there any direction you are supposed to move in? I heard moving between the blue and brown in that globe thingy. Also having the camera on chase probably didn't help my confusion.

By the by,
For those wanting some of the Wackier exploits of the KSP on other forums.
I invite you to check out some hardcore sillyness at the Dwarf Fortress Bay Forums in their 30page thread.
And the Something Aweful thread as well.

Found the following EPIC liftoff in that one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSNJJuvkpG8&hd=1

Trying to hit 35,000km, the rocket is 4.18 Km/s which is a massive improvement over my older rocket designs. Sadly these Kerbals wont be coming back. It does make me wonder how will we get them back when we have to go space stations or planets.

It would be nice if you could actually go to the moon or planets like Mars and land.. err crash straight into it.

Bluewolf wrote:Trying to hit 35,000km, the rocket is 4.18 Km/s which is a massive improvement over my older rocket designs. Sadly these Kerbals wont be coming back. It does make me wonder how will we get them back when we have to go space stations or planets.

Now THERE'S yar problem...

First, stay clear of 40km. I made a 52-56km orbit. At this height, one orbit takes about 29.5 minutes. You need about 2330 m/s to maintain it. Vesc at this height is about 3300m/s. You are at 4180 m/s, heading straight into SPAAAAAAAAACcccceeeeeeeeee.

Good recipe for a setilite orbit. Have a straight burn up to 10km, try to keep in the low 100's of speed. TURN OFF SAS. It will actively mess with your steering. Then angle to one side, get the rocket pointet like 30° above horizon. Wait until the circular indicator is closing in on the +/- 0 climb border(blue/brown). When you reached that, keep your rocket aimed above the pink cross to bring the heading up, or belos, to get it down. LEAVE SAS OFF. You need to be quick with permanent corrections.

Keep an eye on your speed. Reduce thrust once you are nearing orbit speed. (See my example above) When your indicator is on the line, point at the forward thrust vector (pink Y) to increase speed and climb, or at the other pink indicator (counter thrust point, or whatever you call it) to decrease climb.

Once you managed to bring climb down to a halt, you have inserted yourself into an orbit. Shut engine off and turn SAS on. The closer you are to vOrb, the smoother it is. SAS will also give you a nice indicator of orbital position, as it will spin you in a way that points you at the heading indicator or the anti-heading indicator every time you pass a high or low point in the orbit.

AFAIK Planets will come in later versions of the game. they are still bugfixing the general model. I can't wait for satellite insertions or space stations &docking, which might come earlier... Earing money, having to buy rocket parts, training pilots (which will probably increase SAS or maybe even create an autopilot of sorts.)

Ok is anyone else seriously annoyed at the LAG caused be Liquid Rockets?
I have lost plenty of good rocket designs between the lag generated as the rockets switch from the first fuel tank to the next.
FPS drops to virtually Zero and I've had to take up to 8min of 'real' time for one min to pass in game as the fuel is burning down.
The lag generated makes doing small correction utterly useless and bigger rockets unmanageable.

It switches tanks instantly for me.

Yeah, I'm not getting that lag. My main issue remains the dreaded overheating of solid fuel and the lack of a connector strut (which is eventually going to be implemented) to cut down on the shakes.

loomer wrote:Yeah, I'm not getting that lag. My main issue remains the dreaded overheating of solid fuel and the lack of a connector strut (which is eventually going to be implemented) to cut down on the shakes.

well not sure what is causing the lag, but a connecting strut would help a lot, since many of my rockets designs have long multi stages leading off and I run into them oscialting and falling apart.

But the rockets disintegrating in flight is the best part!

I'm waiting until I can get BARIS-like results like kerbalnauts collapsing and dying due to overexertion on a lunar EVA.

Then the LM explodes on takeoff and spins uncontrollably into the command module, flinging both, heavily damaged and leaking oxygen, into deep space.

...holy crap, KSP is basically one of the ideas I had for a BARIS successor.

I'd like to see an oxygen meter, letting you know how much air left in the command module. Having it empty and we'd get treated to see the little Kerbies suffocate to death.