Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Nao]

Not just that, but the they also seem to steer it in the wrong direction. Or at least the craft tends to be very unstable in gneral.

There is definitely something fishy about controls in 0.17, just recently i had my control surfaces reverse rotation but normal rest of the steering when capsule was build upside down. (capsule was actually rotating properly - against control surfaces)

[LoSboccacc]

just make one of those:


(that's a aerospike)
and start it at minimal thrust.

definitely some issues if even that doesn't go straight

[Rose]

http://youtu.be/LSMzos2eGfI

I did this as a test of video capturing with MSI afterburner.

[Guardian G.I.]

http://youtu.be/LSMzos2eGfI

I did this as a test of video capturing with MSI afterburner.

Do you really play the game with such lags?

[Rose]

It clears up after I separate the first stage, which doesn't usually explode like this.

[Techhead]

By the way, if you want proof that gravity turns give more delta-v, I did some tests with my demo copy of KSP. My SSTO test rocket on full burn, straight up, gave me an apoapsis of 1630 km, with a very eccentric orbit. It took me a couple of tries, but one flight profile (full burn with a gradual gravity turn) managed to get an apoapsis of 1988 km, in a more circular orbit. Granted, the 1988 flight had an periapsis below ground level, but not by much.

I figured I would quote my earlier post for anyone who doubts the efficiency of a gravity turn. This is with a full burn SSTO. Mind you, I forgot to mention I had several less successful test launches, but I would still prefer the results of those to the pure vertical launch.

If you're wondering why it's called a gravity turn, it's because gravity will actually pull a slight deviation eventually towards the earth under thrust. When you're leaving SAS on, you have to do it manually (which increases aerodynamic stresses.

[Nao]

http://youtu.be/LSMzos2eGfI

I did this as a test of video capturing with MSI afterburner.

Haha nice! I just finished my 202t Rocket design. Witch achieves kind of similar framerates at launch

Managed to get 202t of "test load" into 77km orbit, with 5800L of fuel left for last stage (single mainsail engine)

I would really like to see your design , can you post your craft file ?   I'll post mine =3. (when i'll find out how >_< , is it possible to attach small(330kb) files here ?)

edit:
Welp at least my old mediafire acc stil works, http://www.mediafire.com/?ser16e9ea980u9o
22,3 tons of struts. Takeoff weight: more than 1710tons takeoff thrust 28500kn (2850tons)

Spoiler: pics (click to show/hide)

[jhxmt]

Okay, I caved - the last version I played was 0.11, before even the Mun had been put in (I think), and all the discussion here and the shiny, shiny new planets have caused me to purchase 0.17.    Time to go crash me some spacecraft!

(Also, we can EVA now?  Yay!)

[Rex_Nex]

Yea, turning terrain detail to low reaaally helped me. I can set everything else to min/max for almost no FPS effect, but terrain detail is a huge difference. Make sure that's low...

Also, thanks for the tips.

[sluissa]

I actually specifically switched to using mod packs because of the lag I was getting. It's still bad right off the launch pad, but not nearly as bad, and I can actually manually fly things now all the way. Before I was just setting SAS on and hoping for the best until about 5000 meters.  Reducing your part numbers really does help.

[Aseaheru]

whats IVA? inter vehicular activity?

[Putnam]

whats IVA? inter vehicular activity?

Intra.

[Aseaheru]

ok, thanks.

[LoSboccacc]

To me the laggiest part is between 18000 and 25000 meters.
Within those altitude, the framerate drops to a slideshow, no matter what

[Guardian G.I.]

Lag can be somewhat fixed by dropping graphical settings to minimum.
That doesn't fix the crashes, though.