@@RinkieGeintie kind of, i don't know what is working on KSP2 yet but if you suddenly rotate up high in the atmosphere you will suffer from air resistance. gradual tilt reduces that. especially if you're going fast vertically.
yea..... to say the obvious out loud, he definitely is doing it intentionally. At least he isnt pretending not to know what deltaV and thrust to weight is.
it was so painful to watch haha he didn't solve any of his issues, he could have with struts. didn't even try just removed fuel. struggled with clamps for faaar too long. he got to space a seemingly has never tried to orbit before haha every issue he solved on the absolute worst way. it was just a painful viewing experience haha
Fun fact: If not for the bendy physics of KSP2 (as well as not using SAS), your rocket has over 10 000 m/s of delta-v. That would be enough stages to get to Kerbin orbit 2-3 times. I mean, launch, land, relaunch, land, relaunch
@@1mariomaniac I was writing out how honestly with more reaction wheels or RCS, it would be very doable, but then I got to the floppy part at the end and realized what you meant rofl
@@pseudotasuki Matt is secretly an architect, it is known. His preference for knob aesthetics gave him away, it is actually not the strongest shape (anyone who rebuts go ahead and Google penile fracture, you know you want to...), it is architectural preference. Like the architect guy in HIMYM.
@@deeya i've got to disagree... ofc engineering is about to be efficient. but that also means its about getting the strongest shape to space the most efficient way
Matt! Watching your channel grow over the last 2 years has made me so happy!! Thanks for all the entertaining content! Cheers from a Civil Engineering Technologist in Canada, I'm a bridge construction senior inspector for an engineering company, and absolutely love your bridge reviews!
The tracking ball at the bottom is very useful. Please don't eyeball going horizontal, because you actually pointed down a fair bit(which is why you later said you were going down). Blue is up, orange is down, between the two is horizontal. Also way easier to do once you're out of the atmosphere at 70km because there's less physics messing with things, if you build such wobbly rockets they behave a lot better above that point. I usually use a cargo bay on the side and strut to the top(like you did with your boosters), then dump when in space, it helps smoothen things out by reducing wobble while being very light.
Also, you don't just want to go horizontal, you want to go in the direction that you are already going in. There are many directions that are along the horizon, and at 22:37 the wobbles have drifted your heading by 90° and you are thrusting in the normal or anti-normal direction.
You know how in Poly Bridge if you stick a bunch of wood together in a line unsupported and it turns into a rope? Now stick a rocket engine on one end pushing that. You need to build trusses between each segment! (I think you can just strut straight up on the edge from stage to stage to support it, but you can also add fins to each stage and make triangles between them and the next stage if you want it to look like trusses. Time to launch a bridge into space?)
i am not really sure why i watch you playing ksp2 and why i keep thinking that the next video is going to be something well engineered. or made with common sense that is. i love it anyway. regards from Austria
15:00 He did not make that up. You can only connect parts to one parent. So you can put a decoupler on object A (a large fuel tank, let's say) and then connect object B (a solid booster) to that decoupler. Object A is the parent of the decoupler which is the parent of object B. You can place a second decoupler in a position between A and B where it looks like it should connect and support them, but it will only connect to object A. The same thing happens if you try to do something cool looking like split a tank into two and then bring them back together into one. You can fudge it all with struts and make it look right, but in reality the parts will connect at one end of the split and not the other. In short, the structure of a vessel is stored as a tree - it cannot have loops in the structure.
Fantastic job, thought Valentina was doomed at the end there, but you saved it! One recommendation, you should try and take advantage of the maneuverability of the rockets. When you were in orbit you spent a considerable amount of time firing down towards the earth. If you cut throttle (or at least lowered it) you can use wasd to angle the rocket and q-e to spin. Since you were spinning, it would be difficult to angle it in any meaningful controlled way, so you could use q to counter your clockwise spin until it stopped, and then used wasd to point back up towards space. You can see on the navball what direction you are pointed/spinning in if you have trouble eyeballing it. Might be easier to learn on a smaller rocket though lol, rather than a 40 stage giant noodle.
In KSP1, there was an ability to set an emergency abort procedure activated by the backspace button (or the big "abort" near the top of the screen). The best policy from my experience was to set it to disable all main engines, decouple the pod, and deploy the parachute. Very handy if a launch goes wrong near the ground; total catastrophe to accidentally hit backspace during an otherwise successful orbital insertion.
I think you could stabilize the rockets by doing some bridge engineering. You know how you sometimes do an undertruss with cables/ropes replacing the wood in PB2? You could probably do similar with struts (or doing struts vertically from piece to piece might do just as well). I also think playing a 2D space sandbox like “Spaceflight Simulator” could be really helpful in learning what to do when.
0:25 If you don't already, you **need** to make red or red white and blue hats with MUKSAGA (Make the United Kingdom Space Agency Great Again) on them for RCE merch 😂😂
Saturn upper stages had underunity TWR. You don't need an overunity TWR when in vacuum. The entire Saturn V was about 6.4Mlbs. The first stage (S-1C) output 7.6Mlbs of thrust and alone had a wet mass of 5Mlbs. Therefore the Saturn V thrust-to-weight ratio at launch was 7.6/6.4 or about 1.2. It got to an altitude of about 70km before staging. The second stage (S-II) output 1.15Mlbs of thrust and the remaining stages after stage 1 sep would've weighed about 1.4Mlbs, 1M of that being S-II itself. 1.15/1.4 is about 0.8, before going up to a TWR of 1 after about 2 minutes. It brought the third stage nearly into a 172km orbit. (Already in orbit at 172km, the third stage (S-IVB) output 0.23Mlbs of thrust for a rocket that weighed around 0.4Mlbs, for a TWR of about 0.6.)
Specifically, TWR can matter in a vacuum, but it only matters when you need the thrust to overcome the vehicle's weight. If you're in orbit already, you can affect the orbit with hardly any thrust. On the other hand, if you're looking to do a vertical launch from, say, the Moon, you need a TWR more than 1 (in Moon weight, of course). Not that this nuance matters for RCE, though 😂.
The most likely reason for the uncontrollable wobble is nozzle gimbal moving to compensate for every movement in the nose, producing a force that moves in the opposite direction on the other end, exaggerating the bend with each oscillation. Try disabling the nozzle gimbal in earlier stages and use fixed fins instead. Or just disable SAS whenever it starts to wobble and reenable it after the wobble settles out.
Hay rce I LOVE your videos especially the ksp ones. (pls dont flame me if he dose this later in the vid im only 11 mins in) but somthing i think could help with the wobbleing could be fins. i dont mean just fins at the bottom but like all the way up the rocket. i think this will work because when the rocket wabbels in a derection the fins make it have more air resestince in that derection (if that makes sence) so that the RCS and SAS can correct the rocket without making it woble even more.(keep in mind im not good at this game so i may be compleatly wrong but i think it could help) Thank you
If you're 50 days, and he hasn't commented back at all on any days. You're begging at this point. Just give up, either that or you're a bot. He obviously doesn't want to play that game unless he plays it on his own time. All his vids are recorded weeks or days before the actual release, so there's a chance he's probably recording Spaceflight sim tomorrow and or next week. You don't need to beg for a game every other TH-camr has already played.
You can stop the wobble by putting on the radial decouplers with the long legs at intervals along the length, and strutting them together. It also looks cool with loads of external bracing.
I like how in the final version you stabilise the wonky flexible upper part aerodynamically, completely forgetting that that stops working once you make it to space.
They are basically preset directions. For example if you hit prograde, the rocket will try to automatically align itself in the way you are going. I really wish he’d hit the ‘Up’ button before launching, it would help him a lot lol
@@thespacepeacock Ahh. Now that you mentioned it, every time I watch RCE's Kerbal videos, I'm internally screaming for him to use those buttons. 🤣 So I bet it would really make most of his wild designs more "stable".
@@bloodasp6278 it would stop them from spinning out of control so often yes, but they would still be wobbly as heck lol. That’s currently just the way the game is, but i hope they fix it in a future update
I can't believe how little understanding of the game and even basic physics Matt seems to have even though he's an engineer... like watching this feels like seeing my 3 year old painting with a bunch of colour then telling me it's a butterfly. 😂😂😂
Yeah, it's probably on purpose. Because while Matt is a civil engineer, and this is largely aerospace engineering, structural integrity and the effects of resonance would definitely be something a civil engineer is trained for. I don't think he'd have lasted for 10 years in the industry, otherwise. Fails get clicks, it is known. This was for content. Plenty of TH-camrs that play these games straight, won't get these kinda views.
@@bt1234567892010 Yes but *only* Scott does it. I am also surprised though by Matt's apparent ineptitude. I am zero engineer, but I figured out these little things more quickly? Like geez, your upper rocket is wobbly, really not sure how to fix that? More width underneath it? Check your physics
3:45 RCE, Thrust-to-weight ratio doesn't really matter in space, it only matters if you're trying to launch. You could have 20 stages with a TWR of very low and one big stage on the bottom with a TWR of ~1.5 or something (the Saturn V had a TWR of about 1.1 at launch) and you'd probably be perfectly fine.
Very strong recommendation: rely not on "getting through the stages". Instead, create a dedicated "Abort" action group (I think it defaults to backspace), and set another action group to pop the chutes. Myself, I'd have abort kill all main engines and cut off most of the rocket, leaving only the crewed bits and recovery hardware (like a lander stage or an abort tower), as well as triggering the recovery engines to get the crew clear of the rest of the rocket. Then the recovery action group would cut off used abort hardware and pop chutes.
He jokes, but asparagus staging in KSP1 was a legit strategy where you could actually have like 40+ stages and all of them were useful. Anyone trying to stack this high note you can use struts between stages to reinforce them so they don't wiggle as much. They'll release at the same time you use the separator between those stages.
This is like watching myself when I started with KSP1, still no expert but this is what I have learned so far: Keep your center of aerodynamic forces below center of gravity, that way you are like a dart. T/W Ratio of 1.33 Strut the H out of everything, hopefully KSP2 will get autostrut as well. Get to 50MS then tilt 10 Degrees, aim for 45 degrees at 10K alt.
@@amppari_234 yea sure.... if you dont want to either be accelerating so slow that you lose all your fuel before you do more than barely hover in place, or go so fast that the atmosphere puts so much resistance on you that you are wasting efficiency. >.> Before orbit, it absolutely matters.
@@MrMeow-iq7kq not really. Having a T/W ratio of barely over 1 means you either have weaker engines wich burn less fuel or so much fuel it's not a problem. Also, the Saturn V had a T/W ratio of 1.2, quite low indeed.
@@amppari_234 no,... it COULD mean that, or it could mean you packed too much weight behind it... every engine has its limit, rather its weak or not. If the T/W is ridiculously low it will hover. 1.2 is still in the ballrange of 1.33 WTF would anyone even say T/W doesnt matter if 1.2 was their counter example?
@@Llortnerof Josh has got a beast of a PC. Something like 64GB RAM. He hasn't got RCE's work ethic though, one video every 6 months or whenever he can be arsed. Maybe the poor sap works for a living.
@@greenaum And he regularly makes it stutter, yes. Through spending dozens of hours doing really silly actions, like seeing if there is a limit to the amount of fish you can fish in Hydroneer, or creating a giant mess of a factory with a belt-cyclone. I'd say he actually has even more of a work ethic... he just spends ridiculous amounts of time on each video. He actually builds all that crap you see in them. It's closer to 1-2 months, though.
Matt : crashes countless of aircrafts, rockets, spaceships and even boats. Also Matt : “Thrust me game, I know what I’m doing” Then : crashes because he don’t have enough power like the game said
The thing about the wobbly end is, this is actually an experiment we did in Shop class, where we made bottle rockets that kept their noses vertical using ping pong balls attached with a string. It slowed their descent so that while they abruptly land, they didn't take damage from each launch.
The rockets are all bendy because for some reason the rigidity for the couplers is set to 0. That means every time you use some type of coupler between joints it is the same as inserting a layer of Jell-o
I had an amazing idea just now watching this Matt. Who needs a tall rocket when you could make one that's only one stage high but as many stages in diameter as possible.
i love how his entire issue is because of the large number of smaller stages, but hes focused on trying to add larger engines to cover the distance instead of using slightly larger stages earlier to skip the issue
"Define well." A deep hole in the ground from which liquid or gas may be extracted. The deep hole in the ground from which the remains of Bill might be extracted is more properly described as a crater.
Maybe you should build 2 rockets, bridge them, then launch a bridge into space? I would like a series where you can do a bridge review on various planets and moons
RCE: UK Space Agency has been successful once again! Also RCE: Failed nearly 10 times to get the rocket into space But good job! Hope you do more space engineering videos!
All of the SM stages should have been SRBs as I'm pretty sure they have the highest TWR and probably even smaller than a methalox engine + fuel. Only problem is that they don't have gimbals, but magical kerbal reaction wheels should be able to take care of the small SRBs.
if you are going to build multiple stages using the same engine, consider external fuel pods that drop in stages and only use 1 of that engine, instead of making like 4-5 of that same engine. You have alot of extra weight for basically no reason. If that doesnt make sense, then just let me point out that you can feed fuel lines between the pods and to the last stage where the engine is at, directing the flow of the fuel. So basically just make each engine section have its own separate set of drop fuel pods. Connecting it all with struts to stop the wobble should also be easier like this. This is all assuming you want to stop building like an architect.
Someone 40 years ago: "I cant wait to see what computers will be capable of in the future!" RCE: *Literally launching wet (Efficiently shaped) noodles into space.*
Matt knew the Rocket wouldn't work well but he couldn't help himself after he saw the knob-like spacecraft... He just had to force that knob into space 😆
lol you're so ridiculous, this has to be my favourite channel on youtube. everyone else is such a try hard but it seems like you could not care less lol, I love it!
RCE is a wonderful video game salesman. After watching a couple of his videos in any series I want to buy the game because it looks like so much fun, and to play it in a way that makes sense.
Some phrases that I now know RCE has a scuffed definition for:
"That went well"
"Mission successful"
"That works"
You forgot “Not ideal”
Jobs a goodun!.
He also said “I must go faster than gravity so I don’t fall back to earth.” That’s science right there mate.
He obviously attended the Todd Howard School for ItJustWorks
All stages were one hundred percent useful.
Matt you're meant to be leaning about 45 degrees at 10,000 metres high. Don't suddenly turn 90 degrees, gradually turn as you go.
-is what i would say if i was a nerd. 90 degrees on 🔝
this really doesnt matter
As if he had control over everything😂
Sometimes it’s impossible. And tbh it Depends on the rocket imo
@@RinkieGeintie kind of, i don't know what is working on KSP2 yet but if you suddenly rotate up high in the atmosphere you will suffer from air resistance. gradual tilt reduces that. especially if you're going fast vertically.
"Let's build a craft with as many stages as possible"
"Why's it so bouncy?"
I don't know mate, no idea 🤔
Why are there so many stages? Gee I wonder.
yea..... to say the obvious out loud, he definitely is doing it intentionally.
At least he isnt pretending not to know what deltaV and thrust to weight is.
@@MrMeow-iq7kq did you know there are people who actually know what delta V and thrust to weight ratio mean?
@@darthhunter69 did you know,... must ytubers got your goat.
it was so painful to watch haha
he didn't solve any of his issues, he could have with struts. didn't even try just removed fuel.
struggled with clamps for faaar too long.
he got to space a seemingly has never tried to orbit before haha
every issue he solved on the absolute worst way.
it was just a painful viewing experience haha
Fun fact: If not for the bendy physics of KSP2 (as well as not using SAS), your rocket has over 10 000 m/s of delta-v. That would be enough stages to get to Kerbin orbit 2-3 times. I mean, launch, land, relaunch, land, relaunch
Also enough to get to Eeloo (if you can control it anyway)
@@1mariomaniac I was writing out how honestly with more reaction wheels or RCS, it would be very doable, but then I got to the floppy part at the end and realized what you meant rofl
holy crap
Potato
the part where matt added the boosters for separate stages really brought pain to my ksp brain
He is definitely not an aerospace engineer.
@@pseudotasuki Matt is secretly an architect, it is known. His preference for knob aesthetics gave him away, it is actually not the strongest shape (anyone who rebuts go ahead and Google penile fracture, you know you want to...), it is architectural preference.
Like the architect guy in HIMYM.
@@deeya i've got to disagree... ofc engineering is about to be efficient. but that also means its about getting the strongest shape to space the most efficient way
@@THeDoMeTB Then why disagree?
@@deeya that is a myth definitely a myth
To stop the parts from grooving: Struts. Struts everywhere, even between the vertical stages. They make things rigid and are your best friend.
Fun fact: The 2 in KSP2 stands for the 10 times as many struts that you need to get the rigidity from KSP1.
Rocket little blue pill
Matt!
Watching your channel grow over the last 2 years has made me so happy!!
Thanks for all the entertaining content!
Cheers from a Civil Engineering Technologist in Canada, I'm a bridge construction senior inspector for an engineering company, and absolutely love your bridge reviews!
we really need videos where Editor successfully creates all of matt's failed vehicles. 😂
Should I ….??
@@schmichaeltheeditor2243 yes. Please.
I'd watch it
@@schmichaeltheeditor2243 With Matt narrating, perhaps?
@@kevinbreen4510 Or someone like Scott Manley narrating.
I'm starting to understand why RCE doesn't work as an engineer anymore...
;)
We'll know when a civil bridge starts gyrating in to orbit.
Maybe he’d do more sensibly in a game called “Kerbal Drainage Planner Program”
He worked as an engineer? Thats a scary thought...
I know he is just playing to the audience with how he appears... but still
Now, in all fairness, everything he builds in KSP eventually settles in the lowest point. So he's still doing 5 stars as a drainage engineer.
Doesn't he?
you're turning into an architect but I still love your content
Oh lord
Not impossible rockets or bridges 💀
As long as he's building them himself it's just challenges.
The tracking ball at the bottom is very useful. Please don't eyeball going horizontal, because you actually pointed down a fair bit(which is why you later said you were going down).
Blue is up, orange is down, between the two is horizontal. Also way easier to do once you're out of the atmosphere at 70km because there's less physics messing with things, if you build such wobbly rockets they behave a lot better above that point. I usually use a cargo bay on the side and strut to the top(like you did with your boosters), then dump when in space, it helps smoothen things out by reducing wobble while being very light.
Also, you don't just want to go horizontal, you want to go in the direction that you are already going in. There are many directions that are along the horizon, and at 22:37 the wobbles have drifted your heading by 90° and you are thrusting in the normal or anti-normal direction.
"I just need to go fast enough to miss the ground, then I'll be in orbit"
Sounds right to me
Have you considered using struts to tie the top to the bottom to lose the wobble..? Three might do it depending on how long they can go..
he did some of that in the last "successfull" ride
@@8paolo96 the tip was all over he could've added more from the top down to mitigate that ..
@@tylerhallon5007 He just loves a bendy tip
@@tylerhallon5007 The bendy tip was because the reference "rocket" had a bent tip..
From my experience, struts for whatever reason really don't want to go all that far. They also don't like to span over several stages it seems.
You know how in Poly Bridge if you stick a bunch of wood together in a line unsupported and it turns into a rope? Now stick a rocket engine on one end pushing that. You need to build trusses between each segment! (I think you can just strut straight up on the edge from stage to stage to support it, but you can also add fins to each stage and make triangles between them and the next stage if you want it to look like trusses. Time to launch a bridge into space?)
Matt's rockets in Kerbal have thus far been the epitome of "pushing rope"...
A lot of thrust-ing, but it's just not staying up 😅
i am not really sure why i watch you playing ksp2 and why i keep thinking that the next video is going to be something well engineered. or made with common sense that is.
i love it anyway. regards from Austria
This is architect level spaceflight bodging
Gotta follow the old saying, "if struts don't work, you haven't used enough struts."
"Oh no why does this have so many stages"
I love this content
15:00 He did not make that up. You can only connect parts to one parent. So you can put a decoupler on object A (a large fuel tank, let's say) and then connect object B (a solid booster) to that decoupler. Object A is the parent of the decoupler which is the parent of object B. You can place a second decoupler in a position between A and B where it looks like it should connect and support them, but it will only connect to object A. The same thing happens if you try to do something cool looking like split a tank into two and then bring them back together into one. You can fudge it all with struts and make it look right, but in reality the parts will connect at one end of the split and not the other.
In short, the structure of a vessel is stored as a tree - it cannot have loops in the structure.
You may enjoy some reaction wheels when youre trying to steer really heavy rockets like these, or very small winglet control surfaces.
You can use struts along the entire rocket (not just the boosters) to stop the wobble
Fantastic job, thought Valentina was doomed at the end there, but you saved it!
One recommendation, you should try and take advantage of the maneuverability of the rockets. When you were in orbit you spent a considerable amount of time firing down towards the earth. If you cut throttle (or at least lowered it) you can use wasd to angle the rocket and q-e to spin.
Since you were spinning, it would be difficult to angle it in any meaningful controlled way, so you could use q to counter your clockwise spin until it stopped, and then used wasd to point back up towards space. You can see on the navball what direction you are pointed/spinning in if you have trouble eyeballing it.
Might be easier to learn on a smaller rocket though lol, rather than a 40 stage giant noodle.
In KSP1, there was an ability to set an emergency abort procedure activated by the backspace button (or the big "abort" near the top of the screen). The best policy from my experience was to set it to disable all main engines, decouple the pod, and deploy the parachute. Very handy if a launch goes wrong near the ground; total catastrophe to accidentally hit backspace during an otherwise successful orbital insertion.
Ah yes, always loved Kerbal Stage Program 2, such a great game.
More KSP = More Entertainment
17:00 in the vid. "were going a little bit side ways." .....
As I said before, I love every music UK SPACE AGENCY interlude Matt puts in his video.
0:52 the austrien space agency
There's a node in the SAS that says "Up" and while you can only click it once you're moving at little, it really help with pointing Up.
All I could think the entire time it was wobbling and bounching was "ADD MORE STRUTS!". Like particularly up and down along the graft to stiffen it.
I think you could stabilize the rockets by doing some bridge engineering. You know how you sometimes do an undertruss with cables/ropes replacing the wood in PB2? You could probably do similar with struts (or doing struts vertically from piece to piece might do just as well).
I also think playing a 2D space sandbox like “Spaceflight Simulator” could be really helpful in learning what to do when.
0:25
If you don't already, you **need** to make red or red white and blue hats with MUKSAGA (Make the United Kingdom Space Agency Great Again) on them for RCE merch 😂😂
Saturn upper stages had underunity TWR. You don't need an overunity TWR when in vacuum.
The entire Saturn V was about 6.4Mlbs.
The first stage (S-1C) output 7.6Mlbs of thrust and alone had a wet mass of 5Mlbs. Therefore the Saturn V thrust-to-weight ratio at launch was 7.6/6.4 or about 1.2. It got to an altitude of about 70km before staging.
The second stage (S-II) output 1.15Mlbs of thrust and the remaining stages after stage 1 sep would've weighed about 1.4Mlbs, 1M of that being S-II itself. 1.15/1.4 is about 0.8, before going up to a TWR of 1 after about 2 minutes. It brought the third stage nearly into a 172km orbit.
(Already in orbit at 172km, the third stage (S-IVB) output 0.23Mlbs of thrust for a rocket that weighed around 0.4Mlbs, for a TWR of about 0.6.)
petition to make rce read this (and actually learn from his mistakes one goddamn time)
Specifically, TWR can matter in a vacuum, but it only matters when you need the thrust to overcome the vehicle's weight. If you're in orbit already, you can affect the orbit with hardly any thrust. On the other hand, if you're looking to do a vertical launch from, say, the Moon, you need a TWR more than 1 (in Moon weight, of course).
Not that this nuance matters for RCE, though 😂.
The most likely reason for the uncontrollable wobble is nozzle gimbal moving to compensate for every movement in the nose, producing a force that moves in the opposite direction on the other end, exaggerating the bend with each oscillation. Try disabling the nozzle gimbal in earlier stages and use fixed fins instead. Or just disable SAS whenever it starts to wobble and reenable it after the wobble settles out.
You should find a design that has like 200 stages of decouplers in a row. You can just rapid fire them off. Like right below the capsule or something.
Hay rce I LOVE your videos especially the ksp ones. (pls dont flame me if he dose this later in the vid im only 11 mins in) but somthing i think could help with the wobbleing could be fins. i dont mean just fins at the bottom but like all the way up the rocket. i think this will work because when the rocket wabbels in a derection the fins make it have more air resestince in that derection (if that makes sence) so that the RCS and SAS can correct the rocket without making it woble even more.(keep in mind im not good at this game so i may be compleatly wrong but i think it could help) Thank you
If your ever having trouble going *up* there is an up option in the SAS menu... Just in case it is not obvious, Its the up arrow.
RCE is quickly becoming one of my favorite channels on TH-cam. BOOOOOOSH
Day 50 of asking Matt to play SpaceFlight Simulator.
Sounds like a great idea!
If you're 50 days, and he hasn't commented back at all on any days. You're begging at this point. Just give up, either that or you're a bot. He obviously doesn't want to play that game unless he plays it on his own time. All his vids are recorded weeks or days before the actual release, so there's a chance he's probably recording Spaceflight sim tomorrow and or next week. You don't need to beg for a game every other TH-camr has already played.
@@TheSuitMusicOfficial but HE hasnt played it
Dont listen the suit he's just an average hater. just jealous so keep up
Don’t
You can stop the wobble by putting on the radial decouplers with the long legs at intervals along the length, and strutting them together. It also looks cool with loads of external bracing.
Watching Matt trying to get to orbit is like watching an architect trying to build a bridge.
I like how in the final version you stabilise the wonky flexible upper part aerodynamically, completely forgetting that that stops working once you make it to space.
A true rocket of architecture
2:04 oh my god Paddy just casually playing in THE CURSED FOREST OF DEATH
What are the buttons over SaS control for? Been wondering if most of RCE's builds will be more "stable" if he uses those.
They are basically preset directions. For example if you hit prograde, the rocket will try to automatically align itself in the way you are going. I really wish he’d hit the ‘Up’ button before launching, it would help him a lot lol
@@thespacepeacock Ahh. Now that you mentioned it, every time I watch RCE's Kerbal videos, I'm internally screaming for him to use those buttons. 🤣 So I bet it would really make most of his wild designs more "stable".
@@bloodasp6278 it would stop them from spinning out of control so often yes, but they would still be wobbly as heck lol. That’s currently just the way the game is, but i hope they fix it in a future update
Haha you’ve done so many of these!! Give it one shot at getting to the Mun!
I can't believe how little understanding of the game and even basic physics Matt seems to have even though he's an engineer... like watching this feels like seeing my 3 year old painting with a bunch of colour then telling me it's a butterfly. 😂😂😂
Yeah, it's probably on purpose. Because while Matt is a civil engineer, and this is largely aerospace engineering, structural integrity and the effects of resonance would definitely be something a civil engineer is trained for. I don't think he'd have lasted for 10 years in the industry, otherwise.
Fails get clicks, it is known. This was for content. Plenty of TH-camrs that play these games straight, won't get these kinda views.
@@deeya I mean, Scott Manley does it. his KSP2 vids get roughly 500K or so.
@@bt1234567892010 Yes but *only* Scott does it. I am also surprised though by Matt's apparent ineptitude. I am zero engineer, but I figured out these little things more quickly? Like geez, your upper rocket is wobbly, really not sure how to fix that? More width underneath it? Check your physics
@@XanderCrews4Prez yeah I'm assuming Matt plays up most of the idiocy for his audience because it's popular
3:45 RCE, Thrust-to-weight ratio doesn't really matter in space, it only matters if you're trying to launch. You could have 20 stages with a TWR of very low and one big stage on the bottom with a TWR of ~1.5 or something (the Saturn V had a TWR of about 1.1 at launch) and you'd probably be perfectly fine.
Absolutely. TWR no longer matters very much in orbit because you are already moving. The ratio is really important for starting up and stopping.
If you want all the stages, individually set a ton of Sepatrons to their own stages
Very strong recommendation: rely not on "getting through the stages". Instead, create a dedicated "Abort" action group (I think it defaults to backspace), and set another action group to pop the chutes. Myself, I'd have abort kill all main engines and cut off most of the rocket, leaving only the crewed bits and recovery hardware (like a lander stage or an abort tower), as well as triggering the recovery engines to get the crew clear of the rest of the rocket. Then the recovery action group would cut off used abort hardware and pop chutes.
He jokes, but asparagus staging in KSP1 was a legit strategy where you could actually have like 40+ stages and all of them were useful.
Anyone trying to stack this high note you can use struts between stages to reinforce them so they don't wiggle as much. They'll release at the same time you use the separator between those stages.
This is how I imagine the workflow of engineers at SpaceX.
Creating the strongest shape is very hard
Your bendy rocket videos are some of the greatest/funniest content I’ve seen on the Internet.
It's like RCE hasn't heard of the onion method of booster staging.
Me, after leaving the room for a minute: "What the f*ck has he built now?"
Wife: "a bomb, I think..."
Fair assessment, tbh.
Why not call it: The UK Stage Agency?
Matt: stages go from ground up, so (traditionally) the first section to fire up is the 'first' stage, but in your case, who knows :)
as an aerospace engineer, i can tell you are a civil engineer
This is like watching myself when I started with KSP1, still no expert but this is what I have learned so far:
Keep your center of aerodynamic forces below center of gravity, that way you are like a dart.
T/W Ratio of 1.33
Strut the H out of everything, hopefully KSP2 will get autostrut as well.
Get to 50MS then tilt 10 Degrees, aim for 45 degrees at 10K alt.
T/W ratio doesn't matter that much as long as it's over 1
@@amppari_234 yea sure.... if you dont want to either be accelerating so slow that you lose all your fuel before you do more than barely hover in place, or go so fast that the atmosphere puts so much resistance on you that you are wasting efficiency. >.>
Before orbit, it absolutely matters.
@@MrMeow-iq7kq not really. Having a T/W ratio of barely over 1 means you either have weaker engines wich burn less fuel or so much fuel it's not a problem. Also, the Saturn V had a T/W ratio of 1.2, quite low indeed.
@@amppari_234 it does when you’re goofing around with these monster designs that lacks stability. Then too much acceleration is no good either.
@@amppari_234 no,... it COULD mean that, or it could mean you packed too much weight behind it... every engine has its limit, rather its weak or not.
If the T/W is ridiculously low it will hover.
1.2 is still in the ballrange of 1.33
WTF would anyone even say T/W doesnt matter if 1.2 was their counter example?
Both Matt and Josh: Is there a limit
I'm kinda curious what limit Josh would try to find, though. And the explosion would probably kill his framerate.
@@Llortnerof Josh has got a beast of a PC. Something like 64GB RAM.
He hasn't got RCE's work ethic though, one video every 6 months or whenever he can be arsed. Maybe the poor sap works for a living.
@@greenaum And he regularly makes it stutter, yes. Through spending dozens of hours doing really silly actions, like seeing if there is a limit to the amount of fish you can fish in Hydroneer, or creating a giant mess of a factory with a belt-cyclone.
I'd say he actually has even more of a work ethic... he just spends ridiculous amounts of time on each video. He actually builds all that crap you see in them.
It's closer to 1-2 months, though.
Matt : crashes countless of aircrafts, rockets, spaceships and even boats.
Also Matt : “Thrust me game, I know what I’m doing”
Then : crashes because he don’t have enough power like the game said
Yes!!! MORE KSP = MORE LIKES
The thing about the wobbly end is, this is actually an experiment we did in Shop class, where we made bottle rockets that kept their noses vertical using ping pong balls attached with a string. It slowed their descent so that while they abruptly land, they didn't take damage from each launch.
You should do words heaviest plane
The rockets are all bendy because for some reason the rigidity for the couplers is set to 0. That means every time you use some type of coupler between joints it is the same as inserting a layer of Jell-o
Day 234 of asking matt to play scrap mechanic
Matt Lowne: removes just enough propellant to have the most efficient rocket
Real Civil Engineer: 16:32
Why call them boosters when you can call them BOOSHters?
I had an amazing idea just now watching this Matt. Who needs a tall rocket when you could make one that's only one stage high but as many stages in diameter as possible.
First
Lol no.
I love matt sayin stuff like " oh no we are loosing altitude , we must be slower than gravity. 😅😅🔥
I bought this game because ive been binging your Kerbal videos. Keep it up!
i love how his entire issue is because of the large number of smaller stages, but hes focused on trying to add larger engines to cover the distance instead of using slightly larger stages earlier to skip the issue
"Define well." A deep hole in the ground from which liquid or gas may be extracted. The deep hole in the ground from which the remains of Bill might be extracted is more properly described as a crater.
5:56 the SOOIII had me cracking up
40 Stages of love "starts off strong and ends in disaster" lol
his refusal to use struts to stop the "wiggly" bits astounds me
The colors make it look more like the English Space Agency, not to be confused with the other ESA, haha
If it moves, when it shouldn't: more struts
If it doesn't move, when it should: more boosters
So you're saying that in KSP: struts = duct tape and boosters = WD-40?
@@chrisatkinson9621 basically. But yeah, similar meme
I'm such a fan of you on KSP !
Keep going !
This got me cracking up when he said all four stages were totally used 24:14
12:52 Out of context: "Thats straight, thats good" has masiv meme potantial
Maybe you should build 2 rockets, bridge them, then launch a bridge into space? I would like a series where you can do a bridge review on various planets and moons
I can't wait for RCE to learn about the Z and X keys when needing to instantly start and stop thrusters.
RCE:
UK Space Agency has been successful once again!
Also RCE:
Failed nearly 10 times to get the rocket into space
But good job! Hope you do more space engineering videos!
All of the SM stages should have been SRBs as I'm pretty sure they have the highest TWR and probably even smaller than a methalox engine + fuel. Only problem is that they don't have gimbals, but magical kerbal reaction wheels should be able to take care of the small SRBs.
With all the meta references they make in loading screens I can't wait for the "getting rid of architects" loading message
3:47 this dude really made The Flaccid Rocket ☠️
if you are going to build multiple stages using the same engine, consider external fuel pods that drop in stages and only use 1 of that engine, instead of making like 4-5 of that same engine.
You have alot of extra weight for basically no reason.
If that doesnt make sense, then just let me point out that you can feed fuel lines between the pods and to the last stage where the engine is at, directing the flow of the fuel.
So basically just make each engine section have its own separate set of drop fuel pods. Connecting it all with struts to stop the wobble should also be easier like this.
This is all assuming you want to stop building like an architect.
Someone 40 years ago: "I cant wait to see what computers will be capable of in the future!"
RCE: *Literally launching wet (Efficiently shaped) noodles into space.*
6:00 loving the new background music
I love watching the rocket equation in action here.
Matt knew the Rocket wouldn't work well but he couldn't help himself after he saw the knob-like spacecraft... He just had to force that knob into space 😆
lol you're so ridiculous, this has to be my favourite channel on youtube. everyone else is such a try hard but it seems like you could not care less lol, I love it!
its weird that its a combination of that, and that you actually know what youre talking about sometimes as a real engineer lol...
Don't use "control surface" fins like you did on top of the rocket. Use rigid ones. And put on some reaction wheel modules.
23:39 RCE: Valentina having a whale of a time.
Me: No her mic has cut out and you just can't hear the screams.
RCE is a wonderful video game salesman. After watching a couple of his videos in any series I want to buy the game because it looks like so much fun, and to play it in a way that makes sense.
16:38 or you know fire your main engine and all sets of boosters at the same time. you need more power and you are constantly skimping on the power.
“That was going so well.”
Define ‘well’.
A hole in the ground, full of water.