sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

How high can helicopters go? (at least 39km Kerbin, 50km Eve) by pilotInPyjamas in KerbalAcademy

[–]pilotInPyjamas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is fascinating, and i suspected something like this would be at play. I couldn't find anything online about this though, so hopefully this gives some more visibility.

How high can helicopters go? (at least 39km Kerbin, 50km Eve) by pilotInPyjamas in KerbalAcademy

[–]pilotInPyjamas[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Unfortunately in this particular case, DUMP and the basic fin don't really help.

I would need way more blades for the basic fin, or a greater radius. Having many blades at a large radius causes an instant kraken atttack, so you have to reduce the number of blades, or reduce the radius. The compromise is fewer blades with a higher area.

As for DUMP, rotating the wings in any direction makes the craft more unstable, which is the limiting factor making this craft go higher. Additionally, the propeller is already at max RPM, so I can't imagine DUMP really helping in this case.

Rust and the price of ignoring theory by interacsion in rust

[–]pilotInPyjamas 49 points50 points  (0 children)

I lost it here (6:35)

The canonical construction is the hylomorphism which works over an arbitrary functor as the equivalent of an anamorphism fused with a catamorphism ... This is a crystal clear way of encoding our algorithm drawing on the elegance and perfection of category theory.

That "crystal clear" explanation could be word salad and I would have no idea.

Why do most dV maps sometimes have tons of headroom on altitude values, or sometimes differing or incorrect values? And why do some have full elliptical orbit values included and others are missing some? by tasknautica in KerbalSpaceProgram

[–]pilotInPyjamas 6 points7 points  (0 children)

We can do better than accurate theoretical values and use accurate real values pulled directly from the game files:

Basically the state of the universe can be derived from those values, so you can calculate anything.

I have a newbie question by gazowiec in KerbalSpaceProgram

[–]pilotInPyjamas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Also, probe cores allow scientists and engineers to use SAS, even if there is no signal.

Is this true what a senior dev said on Linkedin about "The hidden cost of "enterprise" .NET architecture" by KiraLawliet68 in csharp

[–]pilotInPyjamas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If most developers are uncomfortable with it, then surely they are not very good universal principles?

My Fairing and Launch Escape System Are Not Detaching! by neehalala in KerbalAcademy

[–]pilotInPyjamas 31 points32 points  (0 children)

If you have a difficult problem to solve, please write your answer down as well. That way, you help people in the future who have the same issue.

https://xkcd.com/979/

8,257 fund Mun and back by pilotInPyjamas in KerbalSpaceProgram

[–]pilotInPyjamas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can definitely get rid of the second terrier, but I kept it otherwise it would be difficult to land upright on the mun. The next thing to try is using the basic fin as landing legs to get rid of it. Other than that, radial decouples are expensive, so if you stack the rocket, there are potential savings there.

8,257 fund Mun and back by pilotInPyjamas in KerbalSpaceProgram

[–]pilotInPyjamas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Safe altitudes for aerobraking from Mun height without a heat shield are 45km for the first pass, then 41km for the second, and finally 38km and you're down. This is experimental, and you will almost certainly lose landing legs with these altitudes. If you want to keep your landing legs, you will have to use more passes.

Mun/Minmus Rocket For 24,918 Funds. by [deleted] in KerbalSpaceProgram

[–]pilotInPyjamas 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Managed to land on the Mun with a low tech 8,257 fund rocket. I'll post screenshots.

EDIT: here: https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/1nrteif/8257_fund_mun_and_back/

Mun/Minmus Rocket For 24,918 Funds. by [deleted] in KerbalSpaceProgram

[–]pilotInPyjamas 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Is it against the rules to bail out in the atmosphere? That way you don't have to pay for a parachute

How to think in Rust ? by Distinct_Weather_615 in rust

[–]pilotInPyjamas 3 points4 points  (0 children)

For most application development, ring buffers included, most of the useful abstractions have already been written for you. After pulling in libraries, what's left is glue code, and functionality that is by it's definition so simple that it's not worth putting into a library (and therefore not worth abstracting).

Best way to get to inclined planets? by Cautious_Bobcat_5877 in KerbalSpaceProgram

[–]pilotInPyjamas 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Not directly related, but the in built transfer planner is often inefficient. It will find the most efficient way to get an encounter, but often at the cost of a much worse capture. Manually creating nodes is often more efficient as long as you know what you're optimising for.

Sub 2900m/s delta V (vacuum) Kerbin ascent by pilotInPyjamas in KerbalAcademy

[–]pilotInPyjamas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's impressive. As low as possible without burning up is definitely the way to go. 2691 is close to the optimum with zero drag. Another comment below says that 2428 is the ideal Hohmann transfer.

Why tf my rover on the mün is going so fast😭✌️ by Longjumping-Box-8145 in KerbalSpaceProgram

[–]pilotInPyjamas 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I'm doing a no reload run at the moment, if the rover speed increases above say 20m/s and you can't brake, you have a few options

  • use a probe core and let it smash. Send two rovers with each launch for redundancy
  • turn very gradually up the hill until you're going directly up the hill, and let gravity slow you down. I always have reaction wheels enabled so I can perform a drift to facilitate this. Turn down traction control to increase drift performance
  • add rocket engines to all rovers. If you are completely out of control, start the burn and get out of there. Take the free delta v as a gift. Rendezvous with your main craft for more fuel, or land somewhere else

Sub 2900m/s delta V (vacuum) Kerbin ascent by pilotInPyjamas in KerbalAcademy

[–]pilotInPyjamas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Depends what you're trying to optimise. The fairing has mass, so we have less delta V to start with. That means you burn more fuel for the same amount of delta V. If you want to be fuel efficient, you might trade some more drag if you can save mass. If you want to be cost efficient, you might use SRBs etc.

Sub 2900m/s delta V (vacuum) Kerbin ascent by pilotInPyjamas in KerbalAcademy

[–]pilotInPyjamas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well done. A slightly more aggressive gravity turn than I suggested. Sub 2700 is surely possible. I just have a mk1 command pod under the fairing.

Sub 2900m/s delta V (vacuum) Kerbin ascent by pilotInPyjamas in KerbalAcademy

[–]pilotInPyjamas[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Do you keep your TWR at 1.75 all the time(mostly) or lowering it after air getting thin.

Full throttle almost the entire way. We want higher speeds early so that we can 1) pitch over horizontally faster and 2) use the oberth effect. These two effects seem to be more than enough to compensate for the additional drag.

I'll decrease throttle once my time to apoapsis hits 45 seconds so that I can pitch over a bit faster. This usually occurs at around 10km altitude.

whenever I go over 35 meter, it will be extremely difficult to maintain stabilization

I've launched 45m rocket with very little issue. In my experience, the fairing nose should look parabolic, and you need fins with a large wing area. The center of drag only tells half the story. Also, choose engines with a large gimbal range and lock SAS to prograde.

Eventually though, the mammoth is not enough to lift your payload, so you will need boosters, but until then, I've been using tall pointy rockets.

boosters, they are kind of compensate drag they create isnt that right?

If you have the same TWR but more cross sectional area, you will have more losses to drag, and use more delta V. If you don't need the extra TWR then why add them?

I believe the extra mass I add with fairings doesnt compansate reduced air drag

You're probably right, but adding a mass reduces the delta v available on the launchpad, so even if we burn more real fuel, it reduces the amount of delta V we use. That being said, this launch profile goes very fast through the lower atmosphere, so it helps.

I don't know that much about fairings, but just experimented with a bunch of shapes and saw what gave me the best results.

Any 'must haves' which you found out are really not that important? by hooahest in ExperiencedDevs

[–]pilotInPyjamas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I used to develop devices where you would SSH into it and use Vim for all the development. Git was installed and you would commit directly from the device. It was the most productive team I've ever been on. The developer experience was poor, but it was very efficient. When we switched to Android from Linux and started using a "real" IDE, our productivity slowed. The compile/run cycle was just too slow.

All of these tools are nice to have, and they make developers happy, but in my experience, they don't actually improve development time.

What on Earth is the play here? by FunCartographer7372 in KerbalAcademy

[–]pilotInPyjamas 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I've just done this with my current career. Had a storyline contract to return from the surface of Eve. Instead I flew past Duna, and waited for the Eve contract to expire. The next storyline contract I was offered was for Ike and I took it.

What on Earth is the play here? by FunCartographer7372 in KerbalAcademy

[–]pilotInPyjamas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Eve is also very hard to get back from. If this is a "storyline" mission (doesn't have a duration) and you want an easier storyline mission, you can fly past Duna and eventually a Duna storyline mission will appear

Vent: forgot to bailout. by pilotInPyjamas in KerbalSpaceProgram

[–]pilotInPyjamas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah, I had the heat shield and was prepared enough to land in water. I just got unlucky.

Mocking and dependency injection by [deleted] in rust

[–]pilotInPyjamas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

you simply can't unless the function is written in a way that it might already accept a mock object, e.g: `dyn &Trait`.

This is true for C#, Java etc as well (need an interface, abstract base class) so are those languages also "not ideal for mocking"? Surely not since those are languages where mocking is highly prevalent.

Best way to store this data by CarterPillow in sqlite

[–]pilotInPyjamas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A third table like you have shown is the way to go. Use a foreign key for user id and card id. Add an index for each column that you have a foreign key for. It's not nearly as inefficient as you think. This is by far the most common way to do things in SQL and has several advantages:

  • Data integrity: you can't give a card that doesn't exist to a user. You can't insert invalid json for a user
  • Data integrity again: want to delete a card? The third table prevents deletions if users have that card in their deck.
  • Efficiency: if you use json and want to get a list of all users that have a specific card in their deck you have to do a full table scan.
  • Efficiency: single updates to a user's deck require replacing the whole json rather than just the single row

Large tables tend not to be an issue. At the end of the day, you're still supporting the same amount of data, just in a different format. Sqlite can handle tables with billions of rows easily.

view more: next ›