@Kell - I reject your point (1) because a lot veterans are alive. Maybe you are thinking of Memorial Day.
I think the key difference is that there is no central authority that governs all celebrations. In USA, New Years Day is one day, but in Thailand they take a whole week (Songkran).
The origins and purposes of Veterans Day and Pride Month are different, so it's unreasonable to expect them to have the same conventions.
Are you asking Andrew to make a short video of making an engine?
Are you asking the community?
Your picture looks more like a dog than a monkey. ;)
Are you a code monkey?
@PurpleSeba888 - let modders do it first. Eventually take the best parts and make it stock. I'm fairly sure KSP had comms mods before comms were a stock thing (approximately 2014?)
@Kell - if I'm not mistaken, Ctrl-rightclick copies the part and all the children parts that are attached. If the primary part is the root of a tree, you can Ctrl-rightclick a branch and it copies the branch and all the twigs and leaves attached to it.
It's probably going to be unsatisfying, because there's not currently support for controlling multiple vehicles simultaneously. So you won't be able to land the boosters while also getting the payload to orbit.
If the craft docks successfully, the orientation changes suddenly to the other craft's, and the autopilot immediately tries to flip the combined vehicle around. (This also happened in older versions.)
When I made the video, "w" and "s" were flipped -- that is, "s" translated toward the other craft. But when I load the sandbox, the orientation is correct -- that is, "w" translates toward the other craft.
Furthermore, Lagrange points are unstable equilibrium points. So you would need station keeping automation to be active when the craft is not in focus.
@Kell - personally I would like the benefit of better plausibility of fictional solar systems. US² can help a designer find planet compositions, atmosphere compositions, temperatures, and orbit parameters that are self-consistent. First, I think there's an educational benefit to exploring more realistic planets building. Second, as a player I think there's a benefit to planning a mission for a planet by making guesses about the destination based on real phenomena.
I think the US² output is already in an open json format, so there may not be any changes needed on the US² side. And writing an importer for SR2 might be straightforward.
I want to use SR2 with middle school kids. Our local districts have a bunch of Chromebooks. I think they can run Android apps, but I don't know how licensing works. It would not be practical for each student to buy the game in the Play Store.
@mjdfx150529 - I'm really glad to see someone thinking in this direction, and putting out a concept to provoke a conversation. I see the general theme of this concept is small-medium-large in discrete steps. I think that will be familiar and comfortable for KSP veterans, but I think SR2 has a very procedural / continuum theme that could really make for a novel campaign-mode experience.
I have some half-baked ideas that I'd like to throw in. None of these are particularly special to me, so feel free to push back on any of them.
1. Trade-offs between continuing a legacy system versus a clean-sheet design or new tech.
2. Point designs can get great performance, but they are brittle.
3. Parts have a chance of failing randomly. More operating time at a condition reduces the risk. Changing a parameter on part increases risk. Operating at a new condition increases risk.
4. Aborting a launch and recovering whole pieces is worth more than an unmitigated disaster. A failure on a test stand on Droo reduces risk more than a failure in deep space because the forensic data is better.
5. Part experience can combine. Test full-scale on the surface. Test sub-scale in orbit. Then fly full-scale in orbit and benefit from both risk reductions.
6. Size is mostly limited by infrastructure (facilities, tooling, transport), not so much by technology.
7. The technology milestones should improve efficiency, reduce risk, reduce cost, or add completely new capabilities. That could mean starting with a performance penalty that is half the ideal performance and gradually reducing that penalty to something like 10% of the ideal. The return on investment should taper off asymptotically.
8. Astronauts are sort of orthogonal to technology. Each individual character builds up experience quickly, but they cannot be duplicated.
9. Astronaut character performance should improve with experience in similar situations (not just purchased with XP points).
In general, I'd like the player's experience to loosely follow the history of spaceflight. Instead of a tech tree, I think it should work like a surface gradient. The player chooses one path up the tech mountain from what is an almost infinite variety. There are relative ridges, valleys, and cliffs, and it's hard to see the ideal path.
Oh, by the way, I didn't make this. I got the link from developers' post on Steam:
The best case scenario is mid-March. We are currently focusing on a significant update for SimplePlanes so that's why it's taking a bit longer than usual. I can't wait to get back to working on the procedural rocket engines full time! (I did manage to add a visual effect for under-expansion recently: https://imgur.com/jDyC7Z1 )
I would be surprised if there were any downstream interactions. I think each part is considered on it's own with no regard for upwash, wake, turbulence, etc.
The stock SimpleAirways aircraft has fuselages on the wings. The wing parts make lift and induced drag, and the fuselages store fuel and make the wings look rounded like actual airfoils.
@Skywylder - I don't know for certain, but I think A380 has an automatic system to pump fuel foward or back to control the CoM (in aeronautics we still often say "center of gravity or c.g.). I'm thinking they have an optimum static stability margin and minimization of trim drag.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_margin
@KraZIvan - arrows are ascending and descending nodes. That's where your orbit crosses the equator[^1] of the planet you're orbiting.
If you are going to do a plane-change maneuver, those are the points to do it.
[^1] technically not equator... but the "plane of reference"... I think the equator of Droo lies in the plane of reference in this game. But in real life... not the same thing.
@KraZIvan - to make RCS less sensitive, you can edit the properties of each nozzle. Set the thrust lower (or maybe it's fuel consumption?)
I think there may also be a control power adjustment. You might get stuck trying to set different thrust levels for rotation vs. translation, depending on your lever arm lengths. Remember to put your RCS as far from the CoM as you can.
@KraZIvan - well, one thing that annoys me to no end is that the RCS in rotation mode fires all the way up to the commanded pointing direction. That is, it doesn't anticipate stopping on the heading and pitch angle. Therefore, it overshoots many times, wasting huge amounts of monopropellent.
I'm really eager for the modding API to open up. I haven't designed a bang-bang controller for a Type II system since I was a grad student, but it would a fun refresher.
I think you could use my Wind Tunnel suggestion: https://www.simplerockets.com/Feedback/View/b6LbCH/Wind-Tunnel
Even though you might not have "wind"... you could still look at the forces and moments resulting from firing the RCS, and tune them to have the right thrust or positioning to be balanced.
@Kell - I reject your point (1) because a lot veterans are alive. Maybe you are thinking of Memorial Day.
I think the key difference is that there is no central authority that governs all celebrations. In USA, New Years Day is one day, but in Thailand they take a whole week (Songkran).
The origins and purposes of Veterans Day and Pride Month are different, so it's unreasonable to expect them to have the same conventions.
+1 5.4 years agoAre you asking Andrew to make a short video of making an engine?
+1 5.4 years agoAre you asking the community?
Your picture looks more like a dog than a monkey. ;)
Are you a code monkey?
Gravatar I think.
+1 5.4 years ago@PurpleSeba888 - let modders do it first. Eventually take the best parts and make it stock. I'm fairly sure KSP had comms mods before comms were a stock thing (approximately 2014?)
+1 5.5 years agoI'm still having some trouble with the staging changing in the editor when I change something on the rocket.
+1 5.5 years agoOr....
- build a simple craft
- fly to wherever you want a station.
- press F6, call it "station goes here"
- build a big complicated space station in the editor
- launch the station at "station goes here"
+1 5.5 years agoI think it's something that a lot of players want, and you're right that it will help make the game more engaging.
But I think there's a lot of other features and fixes to do first.
I think KSP was out for three years before it got EVA.
+1 5.5 years agoCould there also be a tool to select the place in a parking orbit of a planet to escape the planet SoI tangent to the planets' orbit around the sun?
+1 5.5 years agoWhen mod support becomes a thing, I expect there will be some community-developed career modes.
+1 5.5 years agoI think induced drag is there, but it's optimistic and works better at low speeds, low accels.
I think SR2 is based on UnityFS, which seems more oriented toward general aviation than fast, heavy spaceplanes.
+1 5.5 years agoHoly sigfigs Batman!
That's intense level of precision on the numbers you listed.
I think the Droo map is composed of six squares that form a cube that is projected on to a sphere.
!cube sphere
The map files are stored in the program folders. However, I think there are various layers that are assembled procedurally in the game.
+1 5.6 years agoNot interested in amerispace engineers? 🤔
+1 5.6 years ago@Kell - if I'm not mistaken, Ctrl-rightclick copies the part and all the children parts that are attached. If the primary part is the root of a tree, you can Ctrl-rightclick a branch and it copies the branch and all the twigs and leaves attached to it.
+1 5.6 years agoYou can also drag the parts to the upper left corner icon (only appears when dragging) and to will add the part(s) as a subassembly you can add later.
+1 5.6 years agoBooks.
+1 5.6 years agoIt's probably going to be unsatisfying, because there's not currently support for controlling multiple vehicles simultaneously. So you won't be able to land the boosters while also getting the payload to orbit.
+1 5.6 years ago@Kell - anyone building important rockets probably shouldn't be on beta channel...
+1 5.6 years agoI'm having problems while docking.
I made a bug report but when I download that sandbox, everything seems to work fine.
I suspect the problem is related to un-docking and then re-docking (like Apollo pulling the LEM out).
Some problems I noted working on this experiment:
- The RCS goes haywire when I get in close.
- The docking rings get stuck slightly off-axis. Docking peaks at 86%, but oscillates down to 40%.
- If the craft docks successfully, the orientation changes suddenly to the other craft's, and the autopilot immediately tries to flip the combined vehicle around. (This also happened in older versions.)
- When I made the video, "w" and "s" were flipped -- that is, "s" translated toward the other craft. But when I load the sandbox, the orientation is correct -- that is, "w" translates toward the other craft.
+1 5.6 years agoFurthermore, Lagrange points are unstable equilibrium points. So you would need station keeping automation to be active when the craft is not in focus.
+1 5.6 years agoAnother potential use of inflatable structures. (Habs, airbags, wings, etc.)
+1 5.6 years ago@Kell - personally I would like the benefit of better plausibility of fictional solar systems. US² can help a designer find planet compositions, atmosphere compositions, temperatures, and orbit parameters that are self-consistent. First, I think there's an educational benefit to exploring more realistic planets building. Second, as a player I think there's a benefit to planning a mission for a planet by making guesses about the destination based on real phenomena.
+1 5.6 years agoI think the US² output is already in an open json format, so there may not be any changes needed on the US² side. And writing an importer for SR2 might be straightforward.
I want to use SR2 with middle school kids. Our local districts have a bunch of Chromebooks. I think they can run Android apps, but I don't know how licensing works. It would not be practical for each student to buy the game in the Play Store.
+1 5.7 years agoAndroid for me.
+1 5.7 years ago@mjdfx150529 - I'm really glad to see someone thinking in this direction, and putting out a concept to provoke a conversation. I see the general theme of this concept is small-medium-large in discrete steps. I think that will be familiar and comfortable for KSP veterans, but I think SR2 has a very procedural / continuum theme that could really make for a novel campaign-mode experience.
+1 5.7 years agoI have some half-baked ideas that I'd like to throw in. None of these are particularly special to me, so feel free to push back on any of them.
1. Trade-offs between continuing a legacy system versus a clean-sheet design or new tech.
2. Point designs can get great performance, but they are brittle.
3. Parts have a chance of failing randomly. More operating time at a condition reduces the risk. Changing a parameter on part increases risk. Operating at a new condition increases risk.
4. Aborting a launch and recovering whole pieces is worth more than an unmitigated disaster. A failure on a test stand on Droo reduces risk more than a failure in deep space because the forensic data is better.
5. Part experience can combine. Test full-scale on the surface. Test sub-scale in orbit. Then fly full-scale in orbit and benefit from both risk reductions.
6. Size is mostly limited by infrastructure (facilities, tooling, transport), not so much by technology.
7. The technology milestones should improve efficiency, reduce risk, reduce cost, or add completely new capabilities. That could mean starting with a performance penalty that is half the ideal performance and gradually reducing that penalty to something like 10% of the ideal. The return on investment should taper off asymptotically.
8. Astronauts are sort of orthogonal to technology. Each individual character builds up experience quickly, but they cannot be duplicated.
9. Astronaut character performance should improve with experience in similar situations (not just purchased with XP points).
In general, I'd like the player's experience to loosely follow the history of spaceflight. Instead of a tech tree, I think it should work like a surface gradient. The player chooses one path up the tech mountain from what is an almost infinite variety. There are relative ridges, valleys, and cliffs, and it's hard to see the ideal path.
I'm still sad that tables aren't part of native Markdown. Also, I wish
+1 5.7 years ago$ \TeX $displayed math.Oh, by the way, I didn't make this. I got the link from developers' post on Steam:
The best case scenario is mid-March. We are currently focusing on a significant update for SimplePlanes so that's why it's taking a bit longer than usual. I can't wait to get back to working on the procedural rocket engines full time! (I did manage to add a visual effect for under-expansion recently: https://imgur.com/jDyC7Z1 )
+1 5.7 years agoPut this in File Explorer:
%userprofile%\AppData\LocalLow\Jundroo\SimpleRockets 2\UserData\PhotoLibrary\ImagesOr copy, Win-R, paste...
+1 5.8 years ago@mjdfx150529 - time for some pork chop plots?
+1 5.8 years agoI'll probably never use these, but I references take me back...
Is there no "smashing pumpkins into small piles of putrid debris"? ;)
+1 5.8 years ago@KraZIvan - it's going to be a few days. I'm out of town for the long weekend.
+1 5.8 years ago😢
+1 5.8 years ago@KraZIvan - BTW... In aerodynamics, q is oftentimes the symbol for dynamic pressure (with a bar over it) or pitch-rate without a bar.
+1 5.8 years agoI would be surprised if there were any downstream interactions. I think each part is considered on it's own with no regard for upwash, wake, turbulence, etc.
+1 5.8 years agoThe stock SimpleAirways aircraft has fuselages on the wings. The wing parts make lift and induced drag, and the fuselages store fuel and make the wings look rounded like actual airfoils.
+1 5.8 years agoYou'll need about 32 Pixies to replace the thrust of one Apex.
+1 5.8 years agoApex have the best thrust for their mass, but they have the lowest Isp in all cases, I think.
+1 5.8 years agoBetter to use a load of Pixies, I think.
I put three command pods on one craft thinking the CMG moments would be additive. However, my craft doesn't seem and faster in angular acceleration.
+1 5.8 years ago@Skywylder - I don't know for certain, but I think A380 has an automatic system to pump fuel foward or back to control the CoM (in aeronautics we still often say "center of gravity or c.g.). I'm thinking they have an optimum static stability margin and minimization of trim drag.
+1 5.8 years agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_margin
At least I still have my first comment on this.
+1 5.8 years agoSomething like this:
+1 5.8 years agoGenesis Wave
😜
@KraZIvan - helpful reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_node
+1 5.8 years ago@KraZIvan - arrows are ascending and descending nodes. That's where your orbit crosses the equator[^1] of the planet you're orbiting.
If you are going to do a plane-change maneuver, those are the points to do it.
[^1] technically not equator... but the "plane of reference"... I think the equator of Droo lies in the plane of reference in this game. But in real life... not the same thing.
+1 5.8 years agoHere's my example: https://youtu.be/Dc6ZM6cADow
Usually you want to do a translunar injection burn just before Luna rises over the horizon.
+1 5.8 years ago@KraZIvan - to make RCS less sensitive, you can edit the properties of each nozzle. Set the thrust lower (or maybe it's fuel consumption?)
+1 5.8 years agoI think there may also be a control power adjustment. You might get stuck trying to set different thrust levels for rotation vs. translation, depending on your lever arm lengths. Remember to put your RCS as far from the CoM as you can.
@KraZIvan - well, one thing that annoys me to no end is that the RCS in rotation mode fires all the way up to the commanded pointing direction. That is, it doesn't anticipate stopping on the heading and pitch angle. Therefore, it overshoots many times, wasting huge amounts of monopropellent.
+1 5.8 years agoI'm really eager for the modding API to open up. I haven't designed a bang-bang controller for a Type II system since I was a grad student, but it would a fun refresher.
I think you could use my Wind Tunnel suggestion: https://www.simplerockets.com/Feedback/View/b6LbCH/Wind-Tunnel
Even though you might not have "wind"... you could still look at the forces and moments resulting from firing the RCS, and tune them to have the right thrust or positioning to be balanced.
+1 5.8 years agoI use this tool in my video:
https://youtu.be/Dc6ZM6cADow
For example, circularizing the orbit at 2:10.
+1 5.8 years ago@AndrewGarrison - Thanks. I will let you know if it happens more.
I'd love to give my PC a challenge if you want to throw in more (optional) eye-candy into SR2!
+1 5.8 years agoAnyone else having a problem where the SR2 sometimes doesn't start?
I get an all-white window, not responding.
+1 5.8 years agoI was thinking git might work well with this. Keep the old versions of the craft. See the diffs between versions. Get contributions from other users.
+1 5.8 years ago