Gaming The Kerbal Space Program - Version 1.2.x

[N_Molson]

The resistance of Kerbals to shocks has been boosted a lot in the last versions. Before, I remember killing one by falling from the launchpad. I think it was done as a "hotfix" for that sort of bugs.

 

[Fabri91]

The problem of kerbal-flinging dockings happened to me while docking the small lander of post 871. It is basically made of a one-seat lander module with four small liquid fuel tanks arranged around it. In two of these gaps there are two seats, which effectively make the lander a three-seater. The docking port is located atop the lander module. Clearance when docking shouldn't be a problem, if you take a look at the pictures.

 

[N_Molson]

I see. Maybe the key is to let some free room around the seats, I suspect that the Kerbal collision "polygon" is much bigger than the seat one (this is already obvious for the (big) head).

What happen on hard docking is a bit special, as the vessels "fusion" in a bigger one. I guess the force applied at this moment can be a bit random.

 

[Pipcard]

The ultra-low gravity of Eve's moon, Gilly:

 

[N_Molson]

Don't jump too high, you could reach escape velocity

 

[Pipcard]

This is how stations should be built: with orbital tugs, RCS, and docking ports (not berthing ports). No need for robotic arms that have the module oriented the wrong way when you try to "berth" them.

 

[N_Molson]

Yes. The huge advantage using docking ports is that you can replace or relocate modules easily.

 

[Pipcard]

Which is why I don't get why most station module add-ons for Orbiter are Shuttle-centric.

 

[orb]

Which is why I don't get why most station module add-ons for Orbiter are Shuttle-centric.

Orbiter station modules are usually based on existing Human technologies, and not Kerbal.

 

[Pipcard]

Orbiter station modules are usually based on existing Human technologies, and not Kerbal.

Well, there needs to be more station modules which use APAS/probe-and-drogue instead of CBMs. Those are existing human technologies.

 

[DaveS]

Well, there needs to be more station modules which use APAS/probe-and-drogue instead of CBMs. Those are existing human technologies.

CBM allows large payloads such as science racks to be transferred, while APAS/probe&drogue are too small.

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, there needs to be more station modules which use APAS/probe-and-drogue instead of CBMs. Those are existing human technologies.

Yes, but inferior human technologies. You only see them from the "docking" perspective, but in reality berthing ports like the CBM perform way more functions. First of all, they are much more rigid than a docking port can ever get. Because of the higher forces holding the modules together, they can also have a bigger diameter (air tightness!) and thus permit transfering bigger items through them (an ISS standard rack does not fit through a russian docking port).

But then, a berthing port is not made for quick release, like you need in emergency. A soyuz can undock in about a minute under emergency conditions, a CBM would need almost 30 minutes before you can release the modules.

You can see those differences in the Mir-2 design, there had been many limitations to consider, that the ISS does not have for the USOS.

 

[Pipcard]

I know about the diameter/structural advantage; I just wish I had more options.

---------- Post added at 07:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 06:42 AM ----------

Have you seen the credits?

Thank you, too!

 

[Fabri91]

Finally got around to putting this probe around Laythe

 

[MattBaker]

450 tons of reasons why you don't launch an 18 ton spaceplane to Laythe with one launch.

To be honest I don't think this will be a success on the first try but let's see.

I really should focus more on stationbuilding, refueling and orbital assembly.

---------- Post added at 01:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:57 PM ----------

Apparently this design doesn't work at all...back to the drawing board.:facepalm:

 

[goaowonk]

Looks like it's too tall and thin for not to wobble.

P.S.: After lots of failing launch afternoons I decided to use always the same stages as my only success except by the last one before payload, which can be bigger or removed. IIRC my biggest payload was about 15-20 tonnes to a ~300 klicks height circular orbit.
Not the most efficient, but I got rid of waiting several minutes while loading the world just to see how it magically explodes at the launchpad.

 

[N_Molson]

KSP limitations are a real good reason to assemble your interplanetary ships in orbit. Also, there are not yet real equivalent of HLV parts (except with some mods), so you end up stacking an insane amount of parts that cripple the physics engine and make your assembly react like if it was made of jelly. Docking parts of reasonable size together works well, it just takes to be careful when you design the ship (what section is going to do what).

 

[goaowonk]

Docking parts of reasonable size together works well, it just takes to be careful when you design the ship (what section is going to do what).

That's it. My choice is fps quality rather than huge inter-gallactic monsters, but that's also the reason why I sometimes don't realize I forgot to add thrusters until my vessel is 1 km away of my target :rofl:

And multi-modular stations are what made me understand how to dock & rendezvous properly (as I posted before) =)

Oh, I should be studying.

 

[Fabri91]

The trick is to design the modules to use the minimum number of parts possible: for example, use one huge RCS tank instead of a dozen of the smaller ones, and prefer a smaller number of bigger engines.

It's the number of parts that kills the FPS

 

[SolarLiner]

Because physics are calculated by the CPU. Most of the games today uses GPU to do these calcs.
Squad is working on it, and I'm sure they will do it right !

Anyway, speaking of changes, here's the new Mun: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/39557-New-Mun-in-0-21-See-pictures!-pic-heavy