Of course if you are dead on course you don't need any navigation corrections on re-entry at all, resulting in the SM almost landing on your head because it was uncontrolled due to an oversight. I found a nice report from googleing from NTRS where they analyzed the data from the actual Apollo 4 test flight and the CM had a ridiculous near straight line L/D ratio between 0.36 and 0.38 for almost the entire re-entry, probably as designed, which must have made the flight computer math requirements very simple for those old days. However, navigation was so perfect they both just kinda fell into place. Now if pre-re-entry navigation was messed up (maybe on purpose to keep the SM and CM apart, as it probably should have been designed?) such that on re-entry the command module had to tilt slightly to use its L/D ratio to glide slightly north perhaps 200 miles, then rather rapidly the CM under controlled flight would be 200 miles away from the uncontrolled ballistic SM. Ironically the navigation of the manned programs was excellent such that they didn't need to use much of the possible L/D ratio maneuvering on re-entry, can just reenter the command module ballistically without requiring any navigation corrections, and if the service module is also coming in ballistically because of a software bug, they're gonna end up pretty close together. Maybe another analogy is they used to make lead shot by dripping liquid lead down a couple hundred foot tall tower and the balls always seem to land about the same place although they're not identical compared to ball bearing production for example.Ī lot of the expensive and interesting aerodynamics research into blunt bottomed re-entry vehicles for spacecraft and ICBM payloads goes into the difficult task of getting a stable non spinning stable capsule and a reasonably high lift to drag ratio for moving around to navigate into a target, IF you need to move around, which was needed a lot more for ICBM MIRV warheads than for manned capsules. Think of the space shuttle re-entry tragedy where the majority of the parts fell to ground in a sort of shotgun tight pattern, no random parts surprisingly hit Hawaii or glided over to Japan. I don't have anything special in terms of a computer and it can handle the higher setting fine.Things of a similar density and frontal area fall thru the air at about the same rate in general. Conversely if you play on a very low end machine you may want to leave it alone. I use a lot of lights on some ships but they will not all show if you do not turn this setting up. On the right side of the same menu is a setting for pixel light count. Welcome to Kerbal Space Program Create and manage your own space program.Build spacecraft, fly them, and try to help the Kerbals fulfill their ultimate mission of conquering space. Once in a game save you lose the option to change it. This must be done in the graphics settings at start up. The default textures used on the celestial body surfaces look pretty bad.įor the best, most recently updated textures you need to set the Terrain Shader Detail setting to "Ultra". Note that any new or "clean" install will need to be adjusted again. Some have reported adding the DX11 launch command through steam also works but I have not verified personally. ![]() To fix the issue you need to adjust your configuration files as shown in the guide linked below. This can happen on any planet or moon and seems to only happen with certain sun angles and camera distances. There is an issue with the game config that causes a black flashing on the surface.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |