Difference between revisions of "Talk:Rocket"
From Kerbal Space Program Wiki
(→Gravity turn physics) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
Hi, I'm not sure the [http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/w/index.php?title=Rocket&curid=3994&diff=54355&oldid=54351&rcid=67945 gravity turn physics] described are applicable to KSP, because the drag does not depend on the angle of attach (at least no with normal non-winged parts). Also the rocket does not turn on itself because of gravity. If the atmosphere is realistically simulated of turns itself because if the drag (at least it should) but if the drag does not depend on the AoA there is afaik no 'incentive' for the rocket to 'follow' the prograde marker. Following it because of gravity also doesn't make sense, because the gravity acts on the COM and not each part individually so there is no gravitational 'gradient'. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>[[[User talk:XZise|talk]]]</small> 06:59, 14 December 2014 (CST) | Hi, I'm not sure the [http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/w/index.php?title=Rocket&curid=3994&diff=54355&oldid=54351&rcid=67945 gravity turn physics] described are applicable to KSP, because the drag does not depend on the angle of attach (at least no with normal non-winged parts). Also the rocket does not turn on itself because of gravity. If the atmosphere is realistically simulated of turns itself because if the drag (at least it should) but if the drag does not depend on the AoA there is afaik no 'incentive' for the rocket to 'follow' the prograde marker. Following it because of gravity also doesn't make sense, because the gravity acts on the COM and not each part individually so there is no gravitational 'gradient'. — [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>[[[User talk:XZise|talk]]]</small> 06:59, 14 December 2014 (CST) | ||
| − | :Hi, XZise! The winglets on the bottom (as Kerbal X have) and the drag even with the current "primitive" drag model can keep the rocket on the direction. Tested. Why did I wrote gravity instead of drag? I put the winglets in the sentence too.. | + | :Hi, XZise! The winglets on the bottom (as Kerbal X have) and the drag even with the current "primitive" drag model can keep the rocket on the direction. Tested. Why did I wrote gravity instead of drag? I put the winglets in the sentence too.. <small>— Preceding [[w:Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:NWM|NWM]] ([[User talk:NWM|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/NWM|contribs]]) 15:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)</small> |
| + | ::Okay that might be it and you fixed the gravity part. Looks nicer now :) and maybe I give it a spin in 0.90.0 (although FAR is afaik compatible so it's tempting to stay with FAR). <small>(and please sign your posts?)</small>— [[User:XZise|xZise]] <small>[[[User talk:XZise|talk]]]</small> 17:42, 17 December 2014 (CST) | ||
Revision as of 23:42, 17 December 2014
Gravity turn physics
Hi, I'm not sure the gravity turn physics described are applicable to KSP, because the drag does not depend on the angle of attach (at least no with normal non-winged parts). Also the rocket does not turn on itself because of gravity. If the atmosphere is realistically simulated of turns itself because if the drag (at least it should) but if the drag does not depend on the AoA there is afaik no 'incentive' for the rocket to 'follow' the prograde marker. Following it because of gravity also doesn't make sense, because the gravity acts on the COM and not each part individually so there is no gravitational 'gradient'. — xZise [talk] 06:59, 14 December 2014 (CST)
- Hi, XZise! The winglets on the bottom (as Kerbal X have) and the drag even with the current "primitive" drag model can keep the rocket on the direction. Tested. Why did I wrote gravity instead of drag? I put the winglets in the sentence too.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NWM (talk • contribs) 15:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
