stratochief66

Members
  • Content count

    276
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

150 Excellent

5 Followers

About stratochief66

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast
  1. KSP RO doesn't advertise itself as compatible with Persistent Thrust. If you figure out how to get it to work, feel free to contribute that fix/trick to the community so we can share it with others. I don't know how KSPI goes about scaling their engines, but as far as I'm aware engine property scaling is incompatible with RealFuels engines modules. Generally with RO, if you want 5x the thrust of 1 engine you use a cluster of 5 engines.
  2. I want to share/store documents and plans I (and others!) make for interplanetary missions. I intend to start with basic/boring information, like ballistic coefficients, heat shield information, etc.that will be useful to see for planning a mission. I intend to draw from data of actual carried out or planned missions, but feel free to post information about missions you've carried out with the full RSS/RO/RP-0 stack in KSP 1.1 or 1.2. For starters, I've got this document which lays the ground for a Venus balloon mission. A heatshield is required to slow the craft down at Venus, of course, but the idea is that a balloon/probe combination would be great for gathering information from Venus. I also have the notion that using a balloon would be the best way to attempt to bring a probe back to Venus' orbit from the surface of Venus. Once the balloon & payload are up past most of the atmosphere, a rocket could be used to rise the rest of the way to orbit. https://spaceflightsystems.grc.nasa.gov/SSPO/SP/VenusUpper/Presentations/gage_VenusEntryBalloonsUAVs.pdf
  3. Are you sure you have FAR, or that FAR is working? IIRC, w/o FAR there is much more air resistance, leading to more trouble like that and lower max altitudes.
  4. I'd definitely recommend using KSP 1.1.3 for playing RO, yep. All the mods required for it are still not updated. That said, an enterprising person who'd rather spend their time fighting the install process can follow the 'Golden Spreadsheet" and install mods one at a time. Support and install support not provided, since the 'people who know' are busy building and updating mods! https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/issues/610
  5. @Anjomar You could potentially remove the RO patches for those parts, or modify them to not change scale? As DrLicor says, they may be quite small compared to Earth. An alternative would be to use SMURF instead of RO, since that wouldn't change the parts scales, but make it easier to fly in the RSS?
  6. @Theysen Prior to my vacation, I did a little tweaking of my Scatterer config, which helped make the brightness balance better, so the deserts are less bright without negatively affecting the prettiness of the rest of the planet. IIRC, I adjusted the Gamma or Alpha settings. I'll share when I get a chance, so we can refine things. I also find the Moon to be a bit bright in certain circumstances, but I had chalked that up to me using EngineLight or AmbientLightAdjust. I might do some fiddling, since I doubt I'll have time to get back into my RP-0 series this week, but I could probably do some testing and fiddling to help make the worlds prettier for all. @KillAshley did some great beautification work on the planets a while back, that might be making the Moon a dash too reflective now? Not sure.
  7. Ahh. I'd asked what to turn up specifically on a HeatPump part to increase the effectiveness and you mentioned overcoolFactor. I'll try overcoolFactor on the stock radiators with ModuleActiveRadiator since that is what you meant. (UpThumb)
  8. The OP includes a link to some configs that I don't think have been sent over to RO for inclusion. RO encourages any configs to be submitted as a PR, so we can review and add it to the other RO configs. If you were to submit the configs from here to RO, I'd suggest attempting to get @ReventonHawx's permission for that, or checking how those configs posted in the OP here are licensed.
  9. Take 2. I set a very low overcoolFactor to the ModuleHeatPump, although that wasn't a field previously defined in the cfg for it. http://imgur.com/c2mV8Du http://pastebin.com/SPhRpedB
  10. the Ignitor resource used to be core to how restart-able engines were. Now, they are mostly just important for 'balancing'/making more realistic the restart of very restartable engines, since starting up an engine in reality sort of wastes a bit of fuel to inefficient combustion & spinning up pumps each restart. If you're not sure what an engine (or any part) finally looks like when it is used by the game, I suggest checking it out in your local ModuleManager.ConfigCache. If you're more curious and want to know which patches lead to that final configuration, I'll have to Grep or poke through various MM patches to find all the ones that touch that config during load. Here, the " engineType = H1 " line flags the part to have this RO patch apply the central H1 config to the part in a later MM cycle: https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/blob/master/GameData/RealismOverhaul/Engine_Configs/H1_Config.cfg Nobody is currently managing/updating RO configs for SSTU, but if you post any oddities you notice as an Issue on the RO Github, someone who comes in with an interest in doing that will have an easy place to look for existing bugs they could address. My general suggestion would be to check for other parts that are similar (like the Merlin, which takes multiple engine configs in RF/RO) and see if it experiences the same problem. If it does, you'd want to note that issue as well in an RO Issue. If it doesn't then "make the config for the broken part look/work more like the config for the working part" is good general advice. Regardless, I'm glad you found a quick fix that got it working for you.
  11. @Bornholio Just a hip guy, chilling between two giant nuclear rockets. There are at least a few nuclear rockets that already work within RO, last time I tried them. For example, Atomic Rockets has a number of engines config'd I can see in RO. https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/blob/master/GameData/RealismOverhaul/RO_SuggestedMods/AtomicAge/RO_AtomicAge_Engines.cfg The mod page 'says' 1.0.5, but parts mods generally aren't broken by ever KSP update, so there is no harm in giving them a shot. My interest is in more realistically modeled nuclear engines.
  12. I'm inclined to agree. Feel free to make a PR with your suggested change to RO, or note the inconsistency as an Issue there. I think you're pretty close, you just missed an important element. https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/blob/33048702d67e2ceed46054a48a533db7247c73dd/GameData/RealismOverhaul/RO_RecommendedMods/Procedurals/RO_ProceduralWing.cfg#L3 I pasted an example of how RO configs set that property. You've got to add the " = True " bit, then you should at least see your bit of MM code do something.
  13. Nope, I don't use any USI stuff in my RO/RP-0 install. I did just setup a test using the ModuleHeatPump parts, apologies I haven't taken pictures & useful data to share from that yet. I'll post when I have. I'm taking it slow, so this problem doesn't drive me mad again. Sadly to say, I get the same trouble. Which property would I crank up on RealFuels.radiator1 to get very overpowered cooling for LH2? I tried turning up heatTransfer but saw the same behaviour.
  14. Still trying to work out how to get my LH2 tanks chilled on the surface of Mars. I'll do it slower this time, so it doesn't drive me crazy. http://imgur.com/sRtyV0G
  15. Great mod, and I like how the way it works it appears to be immediately compatible with RSS, which is great. I am testing this mod in my 1.2.2 RSS/RO/RP-0 testing environment, and I was seeing unexpected behaviour with eccentric orbits around Earth. I'll use this post to make sure we're on the same page, and that I'm on the right one. First off, I want to make sure I'm looking at the right code, that is being used by the KSP 1.2.2 version that was shared via DropBox. Is this it? https://github.com/Whitecat106/OrbitalDecay/blob/master/Source/DecayManager.cs#L665 I found that a craft with an orbit of 190 km by 10760 km was not decaying at all. I believe that is because the SMA of this orbit is 11845 km, which is greater than the 'MaxInfluence' for Earth of 6371 km * 1.5 = 9557 km. So, I bumped the orbit to 171.5 km by 5984 km so that the SMA was below 9557 km, and the eccentricity here is 0.308 for reference. This gave me an 'Equivalent Altitude of 615 km (calculated by the equation for Eccentricity > 0.085). The thing I currently find the most disturbing is that eccentricity appears to stay constant, which will be particularly untrue for eccentric orbits. Anyway, most of this is to make sure I'm on the right page. In checking my basic mental logic, I saw this page: http://www.lizard-tail.com/isana/lab/orbital_decay/ which links to a paper that uses similar equations to yours, and also notes at the end that (for eccentric orbits) "The apogee height is decreased whilst the perigee height is little affected until the orbit becomes close to circular."