• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

148 Excellent


About stratochief66

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast
  1. 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)
  2. 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.
  3. Take 2. I set a very low overcoolFactor to the ModuleHeatPump, although that wasn't a field previously defined in the cfg for it.
  4. 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: 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.
  5. @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. 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.
  6. 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. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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? 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: 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."
  10. I'll have to check the tank type, try that again. I thought I changed it, but I may have gone to BalloonCryo, which perhaps isn't as good. If you find and share the setting you changed that you know worked, i'd appreciate it. We could/should start (or find a pre-existing) threat for complex RSS/RF automation like kOS or KRPC. IIIRC, I used "time to apo" as an input for my final orbital insertion program, but I had to do something clever so that it turned into a negative number when I was past AP, rather than a very large number. I think I used the orbital period, like: usefulAP = timeToAP - orbitalPeriod when timeToAP was greater than 1000 seconds or something. I know @Agathorn and @BevoLJ have strong kOS/KRPC automation skills.
  11. Behaves well for me. Ignore my failed landing attempt, that was my fault. I'll have to experiment with the range of Mars altitudes I can actually land this great craft on. I had good luck putting it down in Hellas yesterday though.
  12. Amazing to see you carry through this Journey for so many months! I remember seeing the MEM while @TiktaalikDreaming was initially creating it. I wanted to make the RO configs for it, but then got busy, and I'm really happy to see that someone else did a pretty good job of it. I wasn't able to find an RO craft file of it, but I assembled it today and landed it a few times in Hellas, because I like easy mode. I tried making the triple S-II TMI Journey type craft a few times in the past, but I always get heavy boiloff and abandoned the task. Now I'm mostly working on adding and configuring enough components to carry out a late 70s or 80s Mars Direct style mission. Keep it up, @Nittany Tiger, your journey is an inspiration for us Mars lovers.
  13. I'm not sure who the quote is from, but "Every dollar spent in space is spent on Earth"
  14. Keep it up. See you on Mars!
  15. It is fairly regular to use KJR when playing with RSS, reduce/eliminate wobble. )