I'm hoping the SR2 mod interface, when it eventually arrives, has some more advanced package management.
I remember every time KSP changed versions, a bunch of my mods would be subtly broken. But each would have to be updated manually.
I never developed mods for KSP, but I would hope that SR2 devs would give modders access to testing hooks and prerelease versions so that the mods can be kept up-to-date with SR2 releases and keep working.
I like your concept a freezing a design, but I'd like to suggest that the penalty for changing a design should be risk.
In the current version of SR2, all the parts are 100% reliable. But in the real world, risk is the reason spaceflight is expensive. I would like future versions of SR2 to add the possibility of parts failing.
I want the SR2 campaign player to make tough choices between making small tweaks to a proven design versus taking a leap with new technologies that promise higher performance.
The player can reduce risk by operating the part in ground tests, dedicated flight tests, or as a ride-along test after the primary mission is done.
Risk goes up when the part is used in new operating conditions, or when a parameter of the part is changed.
So, if you are a clever player and freeze your launch vehicle design, then each time you fly the reliability of all of its parts goes up. The more trusted your vehicle gets, the more contract offers come up. However, if you don't continue to expand your envelope, you will get surpassed by others.
I think it's a fairly narrow fanbase that will enjoy what is almost purely a sandbox game. As the gamification increases with updates, and the fundamentals get more solid (mod API, customizable engines, docking, etc.) then I think more of the famous YouTubers, etc. will give more time and attention to SR2.
@DasAbhinab
Copy this to clipboard:
%userprofile%\AppData\LocalLow\Jundroo\SimpleRockets 2\UserData\PhotoLibrary\Images
Hold down WindowsKey + R
Paste the text from above.
That should open the folder.
Don't feel bad. This is what Buzz Aldrin wrote his PhD thesis about.
It's a bit to much for me to describe in a comment post. I think there are probably several YouTube videos about rendezvous in KSP, such as Scott Manley.
Maybe I could do one specific to SR2, but the only difference is the interface. The astrodynamics are the same.
@AtlantikWall45 is right. Since fictional Droo is much smaller and less massive than Earth, you only need about 4500 m/s DV to get to orbit. But with RSS you need about 9000 m/s. So you need a much bigger to rocket for RSS, and they will be labeled as RSS in the gallery.
I once did a sim study with some astronauts to see if we could tow Dream Chaser on a rope behind a C-17. The purpose was to get the DC on condition for a piloted approach and landing flight test. Fun project.
Also, your post reminds me of an idea for a mod that adds somewhat realistic failures, based on actual historic mishaps. In some cases those failures just cause a degradation in performance, but in other causes the whole part explodes. Some failures trigger some kind of warning of impending doom, others happen suddenly.
I think it would be an interesting challenge for the design of the craft and the design of the automation.
Oh, one other thing I've noticed in my experience in the world... Animal metaphors for people generally don't translate well across cultures.
I really have no idea what you mean when you say you are a monkey.
@AnotherFireFox - you know I love you so I hope you don't mind some unsolicited English advice... When you say "Make a short video..." it reads like a command to me, the reader.
If the subject of the sentence is Andrew, you should include his name. Also, it may be considered rude to write this request as a command. Please consider softening the tone to be a request: "@AndrewGarrison, would you please make a short video about using the RocketEngine script to make a new engine from scratch?"
I'm guessing that before astronauts are added, there will be more options for capsules, cockpits, habitats, etc. Hopefully all of them will be scalable like most SR2 parts.
I wouldn't stress about previously built craft that are the wrong scale or custom crew modules. That's par for the course on early access, sometimes you have to rebuild when new releases break your design.
Inflatable structures for habitats, wings, buoyancy, etc. would also be a very cool addition to the game. However, I can guess that the physics modeling is nontrivial.
spaceflight companies that weren't state-owned or heavily funded, ... But now, there is finally a company that is playing real world career mode; SpaceX.
SpaceX gets a lot of revenue and guaranteed loans from the US government (NASA and DOD.) For example.
I would like the astronaut characters to have specializations that improve as they gain experience. I never liked the KSP pilot/engineer/scientist categories, stars, and special abilities.
Piloting skills can be developed in aircraft, suborbital flights, near-Droo docking, etc. High-skill pilots can stabilize unstable vehicles, optimize launch-to-orbit trajectories, learn to avoid overshooting when pointing the craft in a different direction, precisely landing on a selected place on a surface (runway, pad, or just a flat spot with no boulders), or do "automatic" docking like Mechjeb in KSP. Maybe the button to slow down time should only be available when a skilled pilot is on board.
Astrodynamics skills can be developed by planning multiple maneuver nodes, flying to different SOIs, and rendezvous with other craft. Highly skilled astrodynamicists can take user instructions like "launch to rendezvous with target", "Hohmann transfer to target", "deorbit to land here", etc. The higher their skill level, the more optimal their plans become (combining plane-changes with apoapsis changes).
Science and instrument specializations could be in categories like geology, radars, spectroscopy, biomedical, cryovulcanism, etc. Skills in these areas increase each time a scientific survey is made. Highly skilled scientists will recognize opportunities for science and highlight them. That means picking more productive landing spots, more efficient global surveys, picking better surface samples, and more breakthrough discoveries (orange soil on the moon!)
New recruits come with random skill levels, but skills can be increased in any category. Natural pilots can learn science. Scientists can learn astrodynamics. And so on...
Everyone should try building a lot of different things and find out what they like to build. Maybe landing an SSTO gives you a feeling of accomplishment that other projects don't.
By default the properties, inputs, and instructions should be for the current craft, but it would be useful to be able to script for other crafts that are not currently selected.
Craft properties:
- angle of attack
- angle of sideslip
- flight path angle
- pitch error (difference between nav sphere selection and current pitch)
- heading error (difference between nav sphere selection and current heading)
- roll error (do any modes try to maintain a roll angle?)
- linear velocities (north, east, down)
- linear accelerations (north, east, down)
- Euler angles (pitch, roll, heading)
- angular rates (P, Q, R)
- dynamic pressure
- static pressure
- Mach number
- Reynolds number
- weight
- thrust
- drag
- lift
- lateral force
- moments of inertia
- center of mass (x, y, z relative to datum)
- x, y, z relative to target
- angles to target
+9 4.5 years ago"simple" rockets
+7 4.5 years agoI'm hoping the SR2 mod interface, when it eventually arrives, has some more advanced package management.
I remember every time KSP changed versions, a bunch of my mods would be subtly broken. But each would have to be updated manually.
I never developed mods for KSP, but I would hope that SR2 devs would give modders access to testing hooks and prerelease versions so that the mods can be kept up-to-date with SR2 releases and keep working.
+6 5.0 years agoCraft Properties:
- x,y,z of a part, such as the grappler on the end of a robotic arm, relative to the craft datum.
- velocities of a part, relative to the craft datum.
+5 4.5 years agoI like your concept a freezing a design, but I'd like to suggest that the penalty for changing a design should be risk.
In the current version of SR2, all the parts are 100% reliable. But in the real world, risk is the reason spaceflight is expensive. I would like future versions of SR2 to add the possibility of parts failing.
I want the SR2 campaign player to make tough choices between making small tweaks to a proven design versus taking a leap with new technologies that promise higher performance.
The player can reduce risk by operating the part in ground tests, dedicated flight tests, or as a ride-along test after the primary mission is done.
Risk goes up when the part is used in new operating conditions, or when a parameter of the part is changed.
So, if you are a clever player and freeze your launch vehicle design, then each time you fly the reliability of all of its parts goes up. The more trusted your vehicle gets, the more contract offers come up. However, if you don't continue to expand your envelope, you will get surpassed by others.
+5 5.1 years ago@WNP78 - I prefer the term "CDO".
+4 5.2 years agoIt's like OCD, but the letters are in alphabetical order.
I think it's a fairly narrow fanbase that will enjoy what is almost purely a sandbox game. As the gamification increases with updates, and the fundamentals get more solid (mod API, customizable engines, docking, etc.) then I think more of the famous YouTubers, etc. will give more time and attention to SR2.
+4 5.2 years ago@DasAbhinab
+3 3.0 years agoCopy this to clipboard:
%userprofile%\AppData\LocalLow\Jundroo\SimpleRockets 2\UserData\PhotoLibrary\Images
Hold down WindowsKey + R
Paste the text from above.
That should open the folder.
How about logging?
+3 4.5 years agoFlight data parameters, but also discrete events and user-defined text messages. Like "Show Message" but saved for later review.
Block diagrams like Simulink?
!PID controller
+3 4.5 years agoDoes the mod API let new challenges be added?
+3 4.8 years agoDon't feel bad. This is what Buzz Aldrin wrote his PhD thesis about.
It's a bit to much for me to describe in a comment post. I think there are probably several YouTube videos about rendezvous in KSP, such as Scott Manley.
Maybe I could do one specific to SR2, but the only difference is the interface. The astrodynamics are the same.
+3 5.0 years ago@AtlantikWall45 is right. Since fictional Droo is much smaller and less massive than Earth, you only need about 4500 m/s DV to get to orbit. But with RSS you need about 9000 m/s. So you need a much bigger to rocket for RSS, and they will be labeled as RSS in the gallery.
+3 5.0 years agoUseful!
+3 5.1 years agoI once did a sim study with some astronauts to see if we could tow Dream Chaser on a rope behind a C-17. The purpose was to get the DC on condition for a piloted approach and landing flight test. Fun project.
+3 5.2 years ago@Chancey21 from your Martin Master specs:
+3 5.2 years agoWet Mass: 41,385kg
Dry Mass: -181,176kg
🤔
@AndrewGarrison - maybe an axes conversion block with options for the output frame:
Maybe I'm trying to make it too general...
+2 4.2 years agoAlso, your post reminds me of an idea for a mod that adds somewhat realistic failures, based on actual historic mishaps. In some cases those failures just cause a degradation in performance, but in other causes the whole part explodes. Some failures trigger some kind of warning of impending doom, others happen suddenly.
+2 4.3 years agoI think it would be an interesting challenge for the design of the craft and the design of the automation.
Maybe I'll make HAL 9000.
(Because HAL is easier.)
+2 4.4 years agoCan the active Vizzy script use the nav-sphere without fighting with the built-in autopilot?
Maybe an instruction to disable the built-in autopilot would be useful.
Are Vizzy scripts going to be stored in parts, like a flight control computer?
+2 4.5 years ago!this would be my reaction, I think
+2 4.5 years agoOh, one other thing I've noticed in my experience in the world... Animal metaphors for people generally don't translate well across cultures.
+2 4.8 years agoI really have no idea what you mean when you say you are a monkey.
@AnotherFireFox - you know I love you so I hope you don't mind some unsolicited English advice... When you say "Make a short video..." it reads like a command to me, the reader.
If the subject of the sentence is Andrew, you should include his name. Also, it may be considered rude to write this request as a command. Please consider softening the tone to be a request: "@AndrewGarrison, would you please make a short video about using the RocketEngine script to make a new engine from scratch?"
I hope you don't mind the suggestion.
+2 4.8 years agoIt appears this mod needs to be updated for the new version. (I'm using 0.7.2.0 beta right now.)
+2 4.8 years agoDoes SP have a "flat Earth" map? Keeps the math easier if you aren't doing international flights.
Clearly SR2 had a curved planet.
+2 4.9 years agoNumeric input fields for pro/retrograde, radial in/out, and normal up/down would also help. Maybe with clickable +/- increment buttons.
+2 4.9 years agoSpace Shuttle used hydrazine APUs during ascent and entry/descent/landing.
Maybe to keep things simple, in SR2 there could be an APU part that uses "monopropellant" the same as RCS.
+2 5.0 years agoSeems like something that should be in the FAQ.
+2 5.0 years agoI'm guessing that before astronauts are added, there will be more options for capsules, cockpits, habitats, etc. Hopefully all of them will be scalable like most SR2 parts.
I wouldn't stress about previously built craft that are the wrong scale or custom crew modules. That's par for the course on early access, sometimes you have to rebuild when new releases break your design.
+2 5.0 years agoInflatable structures for habitats, wings, buoyancy, etc. would also be a very cool addition to the game. However, I can guess that the physics modeling is nontrivial.
+2 5.0 years agoHow about shocks that refract light?
+2 5.1 years agoSpaceX gets a lot of revenue and guaranteed loans from the US government (NASA and DOD.) For example.
+2 5.1 years agoDeja Vu. It means they changed something in the Matrix. 😉
!matrix
+2 5.1 years agoAll the cool aerospace engineers call them "tethers".
+2 5.2 years agoNice. This looks useful.
+2 5.2 years agoI would like the astronaut characters to have specializations that improve as they gain experience. I never liked the KSP pilot/engineer/scientist categories, stars, and special abilities.
Piloting skills can be developed in aircraft, suborbital flights, near-Droo docking, etc. High-skill pilots can stabilize unstable vehicles, optimize launch-to-orbit trajectories, learn to avoid overshooting when pointing the craft in a different direction, precisely landing on a selected place on a surface (runway, pad, or just a flat spot with no boulders), or do "automatic" docking like Mechjeb in KSP. Maybe the button to slow down time should only be available when a skilled pilot is on board.
Astrodynamics skills can be developed by planning multiple maneuver nodes, flying to different SOIs, and rendezvous with other craft. Highly skilled astrodynamicists can take user instructions like "launch to rendezvous with target", "Hohmann transfer to target", "deorbit to land here", etc. The higher their skill level, the more optimal their plans become (combining plane-changes with apoapsis changes).
Science and instrument specializations could be in categories like geology, radars, spectroscopy, biomedical, cryovulcanism, etc. Skills in these areas increase each time a scientific survey is made. Highly skilled scientists will recognize opportunities for science and highlight them. That means picking more productive landing spots, more efficient global surveys, picking better surface samples, and more breakthrough discoveries (orange soil on the moon!)
New recruits come with random skill levels, but skills can be increased in any category. Natural pilots can learn science. Scientists can learn astrodynamics. And so on...
+2 5.3 years ago@AndrewGarrison - the log viewer has newer messages on top. This feels upside down. I get confused about which way a signal is trending.
+1 4.2 years ago@crowxe - height is just the 2norm of the position vector? Well, distance from the center of the planet...
+1 4.2 years agoNED (north east down) is common in aerospace, but scientists tend to use ENU (east north up).
If the eventual career mode involves science, maybe an ENU option would be good, too.
+1 4.2 years ago@AndrewGarrison - does the vector class have a property for its own frame?
It might make it easier on most folks not to have to know the input frame for the conversion.
+1 4.2 years agoVelocity(Angular)tooltip says angular acceleration, but the units are angular rates (rad/s). I think the tooltip should say angular rates.The usual order is P, Q, R (roll rate, pitch rate, yaw rate), but the current order is probably a Unity thing.
+1 4.2 years agoAndrew said he would be updating the GUI soon so you can add the custom expressions without editing the XML.
+1 4.3 years agoEveryone should try building a lot of different things and find out what they like to build. Maybe landing an SSTO gives you a feeling of accomplishment that other projects don't.
+1 4.5 years agoWill there be user-defined variables? Arrays? Flow control?
+1 4.5 years agoUse-defined functions that are callable from other functions?
By default the properties, inputs, and instructions should be for the current craft, but it would be useful to be able to script for other crafts that are not currently selected.
Yes, I know this is what I suggested in the past.
+1 4.5 years agoWhy not hydrogen?
+1 4.5 years agoThe pros use a digital flight control system. This is something robots do much better than humans.
+1 4.8 years agoEventually there may be career-mode save games. Sandboxes are like creative mode in Minecraft instead of survival (limited resources).
+1 4.8 years agoBut they caught a fairing!
+1 4.8 years ago@Kell - I also get them confused. And then there's the Labor Day vs Memorial Day that I somehow flip-flop.
+1 4.8 years ago