They are making the letters themselves out of blocks and slapping them onto their rockets. If you download a rocket that does this, you will notice that if you try and pull the logo off the rocket, it will only separate into smaller blocks that make it up.
the composer of the music hasn't released his music for purchase yet (Assuming he will). Here's a link to his bandcamp.com page where he listed the music he composed for SimpleRocket 2.
I agree though, it would be nice to see a music video for all of the music.
Man, for a problem that hard, it's almost like Nathan has three lightbulbs in his head where one's been left on, another is off, and the last is still warm from being left on for a while.
it's nice to finally see a cockpit variation :)
it would be awesome to see a full campaign mode in SR2. Seeing something like going to different planets under specific requirements for more money to make more rockets.
@lordverminaard. That's great to hear. Once you get the hang of rendezvous, venturing further into space will be no more difficult. If precision is a big factor, Wikipedia has a good article on calculating the proper phase angle from when you are already in space to rendezvous. link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_phasing. the article isn't specific to rendezvous, but everything mentioned in the article has an application in orbital rendezvous. don't be intimidated by the math in the article, it's just plugging in the proper variables in the equations (I did a whole presentation on the topic of orbital rendezvous when I was in high school by going into the math, and a few people understood it, so I know it can be understood by people with at least high school education). happy flying.
aww, but that takes the fun away from it :) If there is no tutorial on how to do this ever put in place, here is a video on how to "match orbits" (aka rendezvous) and dock made by Scott Manley (it's for KSP, but the orbital mechanics part of it is still applies). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHkY3FusJIQ. I sincerely hope this helps and that I didn't misunderstand what you said. I agree though, the developers should add a rendezvous tutorial somehow for those less knowledgeable on the topic of space travel. My first exposure to rendezvous was in the original SimpleRockets, so because there was no tutorial on the topic and before I started to look up how to actually rendezvous, I was intentionally launching my orbits in the opposite direction to the spacecraft I was trying to rendezvous with thinking that I could reverse my direction if I could only get close enough (I was a lot younger then).
Truth be told, when I play space simulators like KSP, and SimpleRockets, I never really worry getting withing 1 km of my target. although it is an ideal, I typically get within 5 to 6 km and make my way to the spacecraft. It's a little more expensive in fuel, but it a space simulator where money is no obstacle and you are literally creating the thing you are sending up to dock with (you can incorporate the minute amount of extra fuel into your craft's fuel budget).
maybe the devs can simulate weather effects similar to how they did in simpleplanes and then prerender a cloud layer that is also randomly modified for the viewport or something.
@donwea, ok. that's totally understandable why you chose a different style. I am glad to see that you decided to make a promotional poster for simplerockets. To be honest, I might try my hand at making a poster for myself using blender because this is kind of inspirational. You might put up a forum post with a challenge to see who make the best promotional art for the simplerockets 2. If you do, be sure to set up some criteria for judging.
@detroitmoose. First off, I want to give my apologies for not answering sucha simple question. I have been caught up in school, and a research essay due at the time of writing this, so I haven't had much time to think about what I would recommend as a decent strategy to go about controlling your craft for docking using rcs. Added to this, I haven't experimented much with actually docking in SimpleRockets 2, so I am not the greatest source in that regard. I can, however, relay some things that I have learned from playing other simulators like orbiter 2016 and KSP. One of the key things to note about docking is to make sure that you aren't translating from side to side, up or down too much while. You want to move from side to side or rotate as little as possible to first off make sure that your fuel lasts while you dock, and second to keep down on overcontrolling your spacecraft which can lead to undesirable results in the long run. Of course, you are going to have to move side to side, and rotate when docking, but the less you have to do, the better. I personally learned how to dock by looking up tutorials like here on how to properly dock in orbiter 2016 by using the docking port alignment MFD, then applying what I learned to simulators like simplerockets 2 and KSP that don't have the docking port alignment MFD. This is how I learned how to dock and control spacecraft for docking, but that could be a bit more involved (not to say of course that it's impossible to learn this way, it's just impractical). Honestly, if you are still uncertain about docking and rendezvous, I am sure that Scott Manley's video here with nearly 500 K view will be insightful.
On whether you should place RCS nozzles on the front and rear of your spacecraft, I would advise you to do so. without forwards and backward translation controls, you will be stuck with only using your main booster for docking. If you are docking, and you notice that you are moving to fast, then the only way to slow down would be to rotate your craft to either allow the rcs on the sides slow you down or use your main booster by rotating some more (the more practical of the two).
On the uncontrollability of your spacecraft when rendezvousing, that could be the game itself, or possibly the ship that you are using. Right now, SimpleRockets 2 isn't that RCS friendly at the moment (although I don't know h
here's a brief rundown of the markers:
the green arrow is your apoapsis (the highest point in your orbit)
the orange arrow is your periapsis (the lowest in your orbit)
when getting planning an encounter, there are two markers that show up:
the first one (the white one that looks like a rocket) is the visual representation of where your spacecraft will be closest to your target for a closest approach. the second one (the other white one that looks like a satellite) is the closest your target will be to you visually at your closest approach.
additionally, when in the map view, there is a box on the right that has all of your orbit details. to save "space" (pun intended) in this post, I won't detail each here, but at this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_elements. everything in the orbit details is described in great detail and then some on this page.
note that if you are just starting out, I wouldn't worry a whole lot about everything in the orbit details box except inclination. your Inclination is critical for things like rendezvous, and so are the rest but the rest are for calculations like delta-v required for something, transfers, etc. Hope this helped, and happy flying.
From my current limited knowledge in space logistics, the most "efficient" way of planning a rendezvous is to a satellite is by waiting until your target is in a good position, and there are ways of determining this optimal position for a given target, but I don't know how at the moment. But, because it's the most efficient means does not mean it's the only way. I typically wait until my target is around 15 to 20 from vertical until I launch when the target is in roughly a100 km orbit, and design my spacecraft with extra fuel on board to compensate for any extra delta-v I have to expend to rendezvous my orbit. For a more complete guide on how to rendezvous, I recommend Scott Manley's "Orbital Rendezvous And Docking Tutorial" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHkY3FusJIQ. In this video, he details how to "catch up," or "slow down" relative to your target for getting a close rendezvous.
On your other question (about the burn gizmo, delta-v, etc), the burn gizmo is a tool that allows you to plan and execute burns. The green pull things ( I have no idea what they would actually be called) are to used to change your velocity prograde and retrograde (in your planned burn, they add, or subtract velocity to your orbit). The red ones are for changing your inclination (the angle your orbit rises/ falls relative to the equator). The blue ones change your velocity in the normal (outward) or anti-normal (inward) direction (these are very useful to use, but I don't have enough room to detail what this means. for more information these, you will have to consult YouTube or Wikipedia for that). Delta-v is the more scientific of saying the maximum speed that your spacecraft can propel you to or the required change in velocity needed to perform a maneuver. It depends on the situation which one you use, but it's pretty obvious most of the time which one it's referring to.
Other terms you might want to know: (I listed these just in case you don't know them, and not to insult your intelligence, I simply listed these here because I have no idea if you know these critical terms for orbital mechanics): apoapsis: highest point in your orbit periapsis: lowest point in your orbit right ascension *(aka, longitude of the ascending node): the angle from a reference direction (typically the vernal point. )
*argument of periapsis: the angle that you orbit's periapsis is measured when measured from the ascending node (note that this is not relative to the equato
To say the least, I hope there are intentions of adding interesting locations and things to do at each planet. What is the point of building a spaceship other than to say that it went to a place? I understand that ksp suffers from a similar problem and people still enjoy it, but it also 7 different and unique locations each with interesting things spread around the place (though sparsely).
how about an artificial planet the size of a small moon orbiting close to the sun that would have served as some power station or sorts to an ancient civilization.
Or how about a geosynchronous moon to an inner planet at an obscure inclination. I haven't seen that done in a space simulator before.
@SpaceSharkie201 considering I made this nearly 3 years ago, and I've neglected playing anything simplerockets 2 related since then, yours will likely be bounds better. I'll be learning this stuff in a lot of detail one of my coming semesters, but until then.
@pedro16797, really! I thought that the devs would have used a prop system to make the launch site. I might look into making my own replicas then and putting them in the game when modding support comes out (assuming it hasn't already came out).
This is likely an issue over the center of lift and center of mass. If the center of lift is above the center of mass, then your rocket will flip head over toe until it crashes. the simplest solution to this, like Sumeee said, is to add fins to your second stage. if you are unsure if this is the problem, click the eye icon in the editor and then the red and blue indicators (center of mass, and center of lift respectively). As long as you keep your CoM, and CoL in their respective places, your spacecraft should never barrel out of control unless you bank or yaw to hard to one side or something.
@donwea. This could be very nitpicky, but the color pallet that You chose, with all the orange hues and such, doesn't really match the overwhelming amount of blue that I see in when playing simplerockets 2. I am not a graphic designer by any stretch, but I found it odd to see a lot of orange in the poster when the game it's promoting doesn't have a lot of orange in it. Don't get me wrong though, I love the colors on this. If this poster was advertising for any other space game, I would have absolutely no problems. all of that to say this, I feel that the colors should be changed to match more the colors that the game typically displays like light blues, greens, and grays. great work so far. Again, I love the design. it's very appealing to the eyes. also, I wouldn't mind seeing a vector file. I hope all of that made sense. I can try saying it in another way if there is something that I need to clarify.
here's a rendition of the plane that I made to add to the all-important pool of truth:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1i5VQFEiTZGFd_IdlcY753aJUH3E3uUYj
@sumeee, that would work, but the developers still need to represent the scrap field which I guess could be a big modified torus or something which of course wouldn't be that taxing on a computer. Eventually though, the developers will also need to show that field not only spread but also decay because of atmospheric, and solar pressure which they would also have to add to space stations for the sake of consistency. These effects would have to be calculated in the middle of time warps which could slow down the computer. I don't know what the implications of this might be, so I couldn't say for certain. At least Jundroo wouldn't have to redesign their movement system for the spaceships though because it looks like the developers use cartesian elements for crafts instead of Keplerian elements, so that's a start.
All the rocket simulators are a lie. If you raise your orbit high enough in orbiter you can start to see the plane.
+3 5.9 years agoThey are making the letters themselves out of blocks and slapping them onto their rockets. If you download a rocket that does this, you will notice that if you try and pull the logo off the rocket, it will only separate into smaller blocks that make it up.
+3 5.9 years agothe composer of the music hasn't released his music for purchase yet (Assuming he will). Here's a link to his bandcamp.com page where he listed the music he composed for SimpleRocket 2.
+3 6.0 years agoI agree though, it would be nice to see a music video for all of the music.
Man, for a problem that hard, it's almost like Nathan has three lightbulbs in his head where one's been left on, another is off, and the last is still warm from being left on for a while.
+2 4.3 years agoit's nice to finally see a cockpit variation :)
it would be awesome to see a full campaign mode in SR2. Seeing something like going to different planets under specific requirements for more money to make more rockets.
+2 5.3 years ago@KraZIvan thanks, I didn't see those. i really appreciate it.
+2 5.3 years ago@lordverminaard. That's great to hear. Once you get the hang of rendezvous, venturing further into space will be no more difficult. If precision is a big factor, Wikipedia has a good article on calculating the proper phase angle from when you are already in space to rendezvous. link here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit_phasing. the article isn't specific to rendezvous, but everything mentioned in the article has an application in orbital rendezvous. don't be intimidated by the math in the article, it's just plugging in the proper variables in the equations (I did a whole presentation on the topic of orbital rendezvous when I was in high school by going into the math, and a few people understood it, so I know it can be understood by people with at least high school education). happy flying.
+2 6.0 years agoaww, but that takes the fun away from it :) If there is no tutorial on how to do this ever put in place, here is a video on how to "match orbits" (aka rendezvous) and dock made by Scott Manley (it's for KSP, but the orbital mechanics part of it is still applies). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHkY3FusJIQ. I sincerely hope this helps and that I didn't misunderstand what you said. I agree though, the developers should add a rendezvous tutorial somehow for those less knowledgeable on the topic of space travel. My first exposure to rendezvous was in the original SimpleRockets, so because there was no tutorial on the topic and before I started to look up how to actually rendezvous, I was intentionally launching my orbits in the opposite direction to the spacecraft I was trying to rendezvous with thinking that I could reverse my direction if I could only get close enough (I was a lot younger then).
+2 6.0 years agoTruth be told, when I play space simulators like KSP, and SimpleRockets, I never really worry getting withing 1 km of my target. although it is an ideal, I typically get within 5 to 6 km and make my way to the spacecraft. It's a little more expensive in fuel, but it a space simulator where money is no obstacle and you are literally creating the thing you are sending up to dock with (you can incorporate the minute amount of extra fuel into your craft's fuel budget).
@Kell Yes, very much so. I am already starting to use it to plan a trip to Cylero
+1 5.3 years ago@MarioG thanks.
+1 5.3 years agomaybe the devs can simulate weather effects similar to how they did in simpleplanes and then prerender a cloud layer that is also randomly modified for the viewport or something.
+1 5.9 years ago@ForeverPie sadly, no trees yet, but simpleplanes barely has any trees either.
+1 5.9 years ago@donwea, ok. that's totally understandable why you chose a different style. I am glad to see that you decided to make a promotional poster for simplerockets. To be honest, I might try my hand at making a poster for myself using blender because this is kind of inspirational. You might put up a forum post with a challenge to see who make the best promotional art for the simplerockets 2. If you do, be sure to set up some criteria for judging.
+1 5.9 years agoYay!
+1 6.0 years ago@detroitmoose. First off, I want to give my apologies for not answering sucha simple question. I have been caught up in school, and a research essay due at the time of writing this, so I haven't had much time to think about what I would recommend as a decent strategy to go about controlling your craft for docking using rcs. Added to this, I haven't experimented much with actually docking in SimpleRockets 2, so I am not the greatest source in that regard. I can, however, relay some things that I have learned from playing other simulators like orbiter 2016 and KSP. One of the key things to note about docking is to make sure that you aren't translating from side to side, up or down too much while. You want to move from side to side or rotate as little as possible to first off make sure that your fuel lasts while you dock, and second to keep down on overcontrolling your spacecraft which can lead to undesirable results in the long run. Of course, you are going to have to move side to side, and rotate when docking, but the less you have to do, the better. I personally learned how to dock by looking up tutorials like here on how to properly dock in orbiter 2016 by using the docking port alignment MFD, then applying what I learned to simulators like simplerockets 2 and KSP that don't have the docking port alignment MFD. This is how I learned how to dock and control spacecraft for docking, but that could be a bit more involved (not to say of course that it's impossible to learn this way, it's just impractical). Honestly, if you are still uncertain about docking and rendezvous, I am sure that Scott Manley's video here with nearly 500 K view will be insightful.
+1 6.0 years agoOn whether you should place RCS nozzles on the front and rear of your spacecraft, I would advise you to do so. without forwards and backward translation controls, you will be stuck with only using your main booster for docking. If you are docking, and you notice that you are moving to fast, then the only way to slow down would be to rotate your craft to either allow the rcs on the sides slow you down or use your main booster by rotating some more (the more practical of the two).
On the uncontrollability of your spacecraft when rendezvousing, that could be the game itself, or possibly the ship that you are using. Right now, SimpleRockets 2 isn't that RCS friendly at the moment (although I don't know h
nice. I agree with tsampoy, the A-R-10 is also my favorite, although, I was impressed by your Burke 2 L.E.O. SSTO flight on youtube.
+1 6.0 years ago@XjayIndustrys, glad to help.
+1 6.0 years agohere's a brief rundown of the markers:
+1 6.0 years agothe green arrow is your apoapsis (the highest point in your orbit)
the orange arrow is your periapsis (the lowest in your orbit)
when getting planning an encounter, there are two markers that show up:
the first one (the white one that looks like a rocket) is the visual representation of where your spacecraft will be closest to your target for a closest approach. the second one (the other white one that looks like a satellite) is the closest your target will be to you visually at your closest approach.
additionally, when in the map view, there is a box on the right that has all of your orbit details. to save "space" (pun intended) in this post, I won't detail each here, but at this Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_elements. everything in the orbit details is described in great detail and then some on this page.
note that if you are just starting out, I wouldn't worry a whole lot about everything in the orbit details box except inclination. your Inclination is critical for things like rendezvous, and so are the rest but the rest are for calculations like delta-v required for something, transfers, etc. Hope this helped, and happy flying.
You can resize your slider sizes by changing the UI size though settings, but that still doesn't solve the immovability issue.
+1 6.0 years agoFrom my current limited knowledge in space logistics, the most "efficient" way of planning a rendezvous is to a satellite is by waiting until your target is in a good position, and there are ways of determining this optimal position for a given target, but I don't know how at the moment. But, because it's the most efficient means does not mean it's the only way. I typically wait until my target is around 15 to 20 from vertical until I launch when the target is in roughly a100 km orbit, and design my spacecraft with extra fuel on board to compensate for any extra delta-v I have to expend to rendezvous my orbit. For a more complete guide on how to rendezvous, I recommend Scott Manley's "Orbital Rendezvous And Docking Tutorial" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHkY3FusJIQ. In this video, he details how to "catch up," or "slow down" relative to your target for getting a close rendezvous.
+1 6.0 years agoOn your other question (about the burn gizmo, delta-v, etc), the burn gizmo is a tool that allows you to plan and execute burns. The green pull things ( I have no idea what they would actually be called) are to used to change your velocity prograde and retrograde (in your planned burn, they add, or subtract velocity to your orbit). The red ones are for changing your inclination (the angle your orbit rises/ falls relative to the equator). The blue ones change your velocity in the normal (outward) or anti-normal (inward) direction (these are very useful to use, but I don't have enough room to detail what this means. for more information these, you will have to consult YouTube or Wikipedia for that). Delta-v is the more scientific of saying the maximum speed that your spacecraft can propel you to or the required change in velocity needed to perform a maneuver. It depends on the situation which one you use, but it's pretty obvious most of the time which one it's referring to.
Other terms you might want to know: (I listed these just in case you don't know them, and not to insult your intelligence, I simply listed these here because I have no idea if you know these critical terms for orbital mechanics):
apoapsis: highest point in your orbit
periapsis: lowest point in your orbit
right ascension *(aka, longitude of the ascending node): the angle from a reference direction (typically the vernal point. )
*argument of periapsis: the angle that you orbit's periapsis is measured when measured from the ascending node (note that this is not relative to the equato
Thank you for this wonderful creation.
+1 6.0 years agoTo say the least, I hope there are intentions of adding interesting locations and things to do at each planet. What is the point of building a spaceship other than to say that it went to a place? I understand that ksp suffers from a similar problem and people still enjoy it, but it also 7 different and unique locations each with interesting things spread around the place (though sparsely).
+1 6.0 years agohow about an artificial planet the size of a small moon orbiting close to the sun that would have served as some power station or sorts to an ancient civilization.
+1 6.0 years agoOr how about a geosynchronous moon to an inner planet at an obscure inclination. I haven't seen that done in a space simulator before.
lol
+1 6.0 years agocall it "Fartiper"
+1 6.4 years ago@SpaceSharkie201 considering I made this nearly 3 years ago, and I've neglected playing anything simplerockets 2 related since then, yours will likely be bounds better. I'll be learning this stuff in a lot of detail one of my coming semesters, but until then.
3.1 years agoCongratulations!
4.4 years agoI would love to see it just to mess around with it alone.
5.9 years ago@XjayIndustrys, maybe about 2.5 minutes. I haven't tested it scientifically. :)
5.9 years ago@XjayIndustrys lol. Just stick a hotdog out the window for about 3 minutes, and you have lunch (just mind the lack of breathable oxygen).
5.9 years agoIt does though. I am able to do aerobrakes using cylero's atmosphere.
5.9 years ago@pedro16797, really! I thought that the devs would have used a prop system to make the launch site. I might look into making my own replicas then and putting them in the game when modding support comes out (assuming it hasn't already came out).
5.9 years agonothing, because of school.
5.9 years ago@pedro16797, yeah. what I meant to say was launch sites with runways and buildings.
5.9 years agoglad to hear you love it.
5.9 years agoall of these would be nice, especially the dummy PoV. I am always one for first-person flying.
5.9 years agoI have never seen that. It could very well be a glitch.
5.9 years agodefinitely
5.9 years agoit can be moved. if you click and hold in between the minus and plus sign, you should be able to move it around as you please.
5.9 years agoThis is likely an issue over the center of lift and center of mass. If the center of lift is above the center of mass, then your rocket will flip head over toe until it crashes. the simplest solution to this, like Sumeee said, is to add fins to your second stage. if you are unsure if this is the problem, click the eye icon in the editor and then the red and blue indicators (center of mass, and center of lift respectively). As long as you keep your CoM, and CoL in their respective places, your spacecraft should never barrel out of control unless you bank or yaw to hard to one side or something.
5.9 years agoglad you made that decision.
5.9 years agolol
5.9 years agofascinating!
5.9 years agoI hope so.
5.9 years ago@donwea thanks
5.9 years ago@donwea. This could be very nitpicky, but the color pallet that You chose, with all the orange hues and such, doesn't really match the overwhelming amount of blue that I see in when playing simplerockets 2. I am not a graphic designer by any stretch, but I found it odd to see a lot of orange in the poster when the game it's promoting doesn't have a lot of orange in it. Don't get me wrong though, I love the colors on this. If this poster was advertising for any other space game, I would have absolutely no problems. all of that to say this, I feel that the colors should be changed to match more the colors that the game typically displays like light blues, greens, and grays. great work so far. Again, I love the design. it's very appealing to the eyes. also, I wouldn't mind seeing a vector file. I hope all of that made sense. I can try saying it in another way if there is something that I need to clarify.
5.9 years agoI like it. i am glad you thought of this; However, are you open to some constructive criticism?
5.9 years agohere's a rendition of the plane that I made to add to the all-important pool of truth:
5.9 years agohttps://drive.google.com/open?id=1i5VQFEiTZGFd_IdlcY753aJUH3E3uUYj
@sumeee, that would work, but the developers still need to represent the scrap field which I guess could be a big modified torus or something which of course wouldn't be that taxing on a computer. Eventually though, the developers will also need to show that field not only spread but also decay because of atmospheric, and solar pressure which they would also have to add to space stations for the sake of consistency. These effects would have to be calculated in the middle of time warps which could slow down the computer. I don't know what the implications of this might be, so I couldn't say for certain. At least Jundroo wouldn't have to redesign their movement system for the spaceships though because it looks like the developers use cartesian elements for crafts instead of Keplerian elements, so that's a start.
5.9 years agoTo add to this list, you can obviously see the star projectors themselves in the sky. Absolutely no effort was put in to hide them.
5.9 years ago