gemini4

Members
  • Content count

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About gemini4

  • Rank
    Bottle Rocketeer
  1. Okay, so I thought the issue regarding space station contracts had been fixed. I launched a new space station, docked to it, then waited for the specified time. However, upon undocking, the contract parameter for "return the crew home" continued to track the station, not my crew capsule, as the return vessel. Another parameter, however, called "keep the station in orbit" also tracked the station. So, there are two problems I face. One, I didn't equip the station with a heatshield or parachutes, so I can't possibly return the crew in it. (Even if I did include those, it wouldn't be aerodynamically stable, and would probably tumble and burn up). Two, I can't keep the station in orbit and return crew in it! Is there a way I can get the contract to recognize my crew capsule as the return vessel? I though Contract Configurator had fixed this particular issue. Maybe it's an issue with the RP-0 contract itself. Does anyone have any advice on how to resolve this issue?
  2. I solved the problem by just deleting the old contract from the save file. I thought that would lead to save corruption, but everything seems to be working. The "First Space Station" contract is now available from the mission control building.
  3. @leudaimon I actually tried doing exactly that, but the game saved the vessel ID of the original station, and so didn't recognize the new station as the one for the contract. I think there's a contract in RP-0 for a "new space station," but I can't get that one to trigger. The contract configurator window for it says "unknown: not met."
  4. Is there a way to reopen previously completed contracts? I had an issue (this was several months ago) where, when attempting the "first space station" contract, docking and undocking from the station would reset the "crew required" and time duration parameters. As a result, I was unable to complete the contract fairly and had to manually force it to complete through a text editor. After I was done, I destroyed the station to make sure I never tried another station mission, to avoid the hassle I went through the first time. Now, this issue has been fixed, and I'd like to start doing station contracts again. However, the only ones available are "station crew rotation," which tell me to rendezvous with a non-existent space station. Is there a way I can reset the "first space station" contract, so I can complete it properly this time?
  5. Is there a way RP-0 could incorporate contracts to orbit satellites of specific masses, and adjust rewards accordingly? There doesn't seem to be a point to using the larger probe cores, or building heavy-lift rockets, for this reason. As a result, I don't find myself using a lot of larger, more expensive engines or probe cores, when lighter, smaller rockets and probes can fulfill all satellite contracts at lower cost. I'm sorry to bother you when you're working on a new release. It's just been a consistent annoyance for me in RP-0.
  6. Is there a way to disable rated burn times in the difficulty menu, or do I have to manually edit config files for each engine? There are some great engines in RO that have low rated burn times. It might be slightly unrealistic, but I like to be able to have engines burn for very long amounts of time. (Ex. XLR81, which was designed to burn for only about 4 minutes, which I often use for stages with 20 min. burn times) I haven't used TestFlight for this reason, so I'd be really grateful to know if there's a way to fix this. Thank you.
  7. I love solid rocket motors. They can be great for reliable, fairly low-cost launchers, and I the constraints they incur. However, I feel like the procedural solid rocket motors become useless by the mid to late-game. Their dry masses are higher than the existing solids provided, and they a procedural booster costs a lot more than a provided booster of the same size. Together, this makes them nearly unusable when you have advanced solids available, which is a shame. I really like the ability to customize solid rocket motors to my liking, but their performance isn't good enough to justify it. Also, I've noticed that, in my install at least, procedural SRBs can only gimbal in one direction, which can make control very difficult. They also don't seem to have thrust curves, which isn't a huge issue, but a nice realism touch to have.
  8. @Fizwalker Are your fuels settled? For most upper stage engines, the fuel stays stable for a couple of seconds following MECO, but after that, it is often necessary to use RCS or solid motors for ullage. If your're not getting the message "[Engine] has encountered vapor in feed lines and has shut down!" when trying to start your engines, then your fuel is stable. You can see that in the engine icon in the lower left. If it is red, your fuel is unstable, and your engine should not be ingnited. Most engines also require certain resources to ignite. For instance, many kerolox engines require TEATEB, although this is included by default, and typically matches the number of ignitions your engine has. Most other engines require ElectricCharge to ignite (presumably using sparkplug ignition systems, or some power to open fuel valves). Other than that, the only thing I can think of off the bat is to make sure that your staging is set up correctly.
  9. I remember that after downloading Mainsailor's part textures, I was unable to choose those custom textures on tanks on previously constructed rockets. Does the same issue apply here, and, if so, will using previously created rockets cause any performance impact (My thinking is that the tank part files are outdated, and might be handled differently for some reason)? Thanks for the response. I like Mainsailor's textures, but find myself not using most of them. I can definitely see myself using a bunch of these textures, though.
  10. I love this mod! Outstanding work on these engines, they make a wonderful complement to FRE. I just want to make sure before I download, however, are these engines RP-0 compatible?
  11. Never mind the issue I was having before. It was specific to KSP 1.1.2. When I upgraded to 1.1.3, everything worked fine. Thanks for your help, though, @nightingale.
  12. Ah, thanks. I typically make sure the mods are working in a test save file before opening up my actual save. Most of the time, I encounter little difficulty, and many mods that I am using on KSP 1.1.2 were built for KSP 1.0.5 and run without incident. Likewise, I am also running many mods built for 1.1.3 without incident as well, but I guess since orbital drift is handled differently in KSP 1.1.3 than in 1.1.2, this was one of the mods that has been drastically affected by the change.
  13. @ebigunso I checked both in the settings.cfg and the in-game menu, and I can't find any instance of Orbital Drift Compensation. I believe the feature was introduced in 1.1.3 to stop the phantom drifting of orbits at 1x time acceleration. That's what makes me wonder if my copy of Orbital Decay, which is meant for 1.1.3, isn't working on my file because 1.1.3 handles orbital drift differently.
  14. Hello. I have been playing on an RSS/RO save file that is based in KSP 1.1.2, with several mods from 1.1.3 installed without difficulty. I tried to install the new Orbital Decay mod, after issues I encountered with a previous version forced me to uninstall it (I mentioned this in the Realism Overhaul thread). I have since reinstalled Orbital Decay (thanks for your response in the RO thread, Whitecat), however I noticed that my orbits were not decaying. As this is a rather central feature of the mod, I would really appreciate it if someone could fill me in as to why this is happening. Is the 1.1.3 version not compatible with KSP 1.1.2, and if so, is there a version of the 1.1.2 mod that is still available for download? If you need a log, just let me know, and I can post it. Thank you so much for your response.
  15. I'm sure this is already a known issue that has been discussed elsewhere in this thread, and I sincerely apologize for asking this again. I have an RP-0 install that I have been running since KSP 1.12, and although several of the mods have since been upgraded without incident, many have not, and thus still remain in their original state. This includes my version of CC. When attempting the First Space Station contract, I encountered the now-known bug, but I was too lazy to upgrade and simply terminated the contract. Fast forward two months, and I had a Human Orbital (2/LEO) contract, which I preferred to use an already launched "station" (More a food container with docking ports on the side) to facilitate this mission. Unfortunately, upon completion of the orbital parameters, undocking reset the contract. A perusal of the Github releases showed that a recent release had fixed this issue. "Wonderful," I thought to myself. Very fortunately, I made a backup of my version of CC just in case anything happened. When I installed the new version and booted up KSP, I found that all contracts were divided into categories, and each category had a drop-down list of contracts (I'm not sure how long this has been the case, I've been using an old version of CC for a very long time and have had few issues with it). That wasn't a real issue. The issue was that, while the auto-accept contracts were behaving normally, every RP-0 contract had no description and no option to be accepted. Thus, I was left with only the contracts I had already accepted, one of which was corrupted. Sorry to bring this up, and I know others probably have done so already. Is there anything I can do to fix this? I'd love to be able to complete my 2/LEO contract without editing the save file, but I obviously don't want to destroy my game. Thanks so much for your response.