Galileo

[v1.2.2] Galileo's Planet Pack: Official Release [KSP 1.2.2]

2913 posts in this topic

13 minutes ago, Tuko said:

Does anyone know if it is okay to add roverdudes Usi lifesupport with Gpp and Kerbalism?

I'm playing Gpp with Kerbalism in normal career mode but don't want break it.

 

running multiple life support mods is never a good idea. 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

 

Looking to drop base drop base modules on Ceti but I'm not inclined to install Ground Construction.

So @RocketPCGaming said to install SpaceDock and build it in orbit. I didn't install SpaceDock :blush: as I have doubts that the largest part will have enough clearance for some of the things I'll build.

I'm using SimpleConstruction which makes all labs into workshops and all stock docking ports into Launchpads.

 

I have the same kinds of problems actually.  To be honest, I'm running EPL/Keridian Dynamics side-by-side with Ground Construction/Konstruction.  I use the EPL-KD solution for orbital construction since it tends to be simpler to build out in space with multiple smaller parts.  For the ground though, I'm using GC-K and loving it.  Although I do have to move the pod to the ground location I want to build at it's a small price for the convenience of laying it all out in the editor and building in-situ.  This gives a real nice balance between the two abilities - I haven't tried building the landing pod from GC using an EPL pad though so I don't know if it works but I'd highly doubt it.  Just a bit more info for you off-world construction fun...this is my love too. :D 

On 4/17/2017 at 5:00 PM, New Horizons said:

I am trying to balance contracts from the old Historic Mission Pack against GPP. To do that I need knowledge about the science multipliers of celestial bodies here.

Where can I find that numbers? The cfg files only give detailed information for each situation. But which of them accounts for the rewards calculation, which sems to behave like that:

reward = reward in contract file * prestige * celestial body value

 

Prestige:


Trivial       1.00
Significant   1.25
Exceptional   1.50

 

To find the science values for each planet and situation you need to look in the \GameData\GPP\ directory and browse each individual body's config file.  In there you will find a section that looks like this (from Gael's config)

Spoiler

 

            ScienceValues

            {

                landedDataValue = 0.3
                splashedDataValue = 0.4
                flyingLowDataValue = 0.7
                flyingHighDataValue = 0.9
                inSpaceLowDataValue = 1
                inSpaceHighDataValue = 1.5
                recoveryValue = 1
                flyingAltitudeThreshold = 18000
                spaceAltitudeThreshold = 300000

            }

There's all your science values - you can extract them with regex or grep pretty easily or just manually open and grab them.  This section sits at the top of the config so you'll see it pretty easily.  Hope this helps!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, eberkain said:

running multiple life support mods is never a good idea. 

Very true, that's why I asked but I do like some of the parts he has.  Actually, I like all the parts in his mods.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, New Horizons said:

Thanks for our reply and repeating my question with the solution I already found :-)

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, my apologies.

The situation number is the number you're looking for to use in your calculation.  Depending on where the experiment is run that science body multiplier will change. For example, when in-flight low on Tellumo your science body multiplier for any given experiment that can be run there will be 7.  Take the exact same experiment and land it on Tellumo and your science body multiplier becomes 9.  Does that help explain it better?  Sorry I wasn't very clear to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone ever gone about swapping the homeworld to Tellumo instead of Gael? Thinking of giving it a try, but since I have no idea what I'm doing, thought I'd ask first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Crimeo said:

Has anyone ever gone about swapping the homeworld to Tellumo instead of Gael? Thinking of giving it a try, but since I have no idea what I'm doing, thought I'd ask first.

We have tried and failed. We have no idea what is keeping it from happening. If you or anyone else can get it working, we would love to know how you did it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tellumo is the homeworld of the space Krakens. It would take one just to get off the ground (at lower elevations anyways). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, eberkain said:

running multiple life support mods is never a good idea. 

@Tuko Seconded, installing more than 1 LS system will mess everything up since each is installing new resources into the game. And Kerbalism isn't just a LS mod, it's an overhaul, so if you remove it for USI LS, there is a good chance it will break your save as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Urses said:

@JadeOfMaar thanks for fast troubleshooting with the boulders. I was courious why they are not present and was to lazy to get a Infraredtelescope in orbit till now.

Do they spawn midgame after the typo correction?

They should start spawning immediately (whenever the next spawn cycle is). It won't always be around Ciro, though.

1 hour ago, MaxL_1023 said:

Tellumo is the homeworld of the space Krakens. It would take one just to get off the ground (at lower elevations anyways). 

There you go again with amusing machinations and mishaps. :D 

5 hours ago, rasta013 said:

I have the same kinds of problems actually.  To be honest, I'm running EPL/Keridian Dynamics side-by-side with Ground Construction/Konstruction.  I use the EPL-KD solution for orbital construction since it tends to be simpler to build out in space with multiple smaller parts.  For the ground though, I'm using GC-K and loving it.  Although I do have to move the pod to the ground location I want to build at it's a small price for the convenience of laying it all out in the editor and building in-situ.  This gives a real nice balance between the two abilities - I haven't tried building the landing pod from GC using an EPL pad though so I don't know if it works but I'd highly doubt it.  Just a bit more info for you off-world construction fun...this is my love too. :D 

I've wanted to use Keridian since KSP 1.0 but never got deep enough into the construction-centered style of gameplay to need it. I have a question for you now. EPL has RocketParts at the end of the resource chain. Doesn't GC have MaterialKits at its end? Shouldn't they be incompatible then? I'm also at my own imposed part limit for mods which keeps me from installing more things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

I've wanted to use Keridian since KSP 1.0 but never got deep enough into the construction-centered style of gameplay to need it. I have a question for you now. EPL has RocketParts at the end of the resource chain. Doesn't GC have MaterialKits at its end? Shouldn't they be incompatible then? I'm also at my own imposed part limit for mods which keeps me from installing more things.

Thanks!

And here as far i understand the concept.

GC have MaterialKits only as standalone or with USI. If you use only GC-Core than this adapts the highest End-Ressource as dependancy. But maybe @allista can clarify it?

Funny Kabooms 

Urses 

Edited by Urses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

I've wanted to use Keridian since KSP 1.0 but never got deep enough into the construction-centered style of gameplay to need it. I have a question for you now. EPL has RocketParts at the end of the resource chain. Doesn't GC have MaterialKits at its end? Shouldn't they be incompatible then? I'm also at my own imposed part limit for mods which keeps me from installing more things.

Well no...but yes. :P 

I'll explain.  GC actually, in its base form, uses Metals as the primary build resource.  This is housed in the CRP and @allista could explain it in a lot better detail than I can how the process works. What I mean with the yes/no answer is that they do use different resources but to date I've had absolutely zero compatibility problems beyond that little detail.  

Just as an FYI - in scanning the GC thread I may be wrong on one detail - it may be possible to build the DIY container in an EPL orbital, fill it up with the resources housed there and then land it to build...or possibly land it, fill at a ground base, build it.  Would have to test this out though as I've never tried.

Edited by rasta013

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Urses @rasta013 I just watched Allista's own video and saw the part about Metals. That's a strong positive for me anyway. I've been hacking things to handle MetallicOre and Metals instead of Ore and Metal. With the kinds of propulsion systems I have I shouldn't worry as much about getting a DIY kit to a far-off planet... I think I'm sold now and will install GC and maybe OSE.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@JadeOfMaar

Annnnnd sold! /*hammering sound*/

Have fun chummer:wink:

Urses

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

@Urses @rasta013 I just watched Allista's own video and saw the part about Metals. That's a strong positive for me anyway. I've been hacking things to handle MetallicOre and Metals instead of Ore and Metal. With the kinds of propulsion systems I have I shouldn't worry as much about getting a DIY kit to a far-off planet... I think I'm sold now and will install GC and maybe OSE.

In the MKS forum, I posted that I made a base on Ceti from a DIY box that I landed.  I used the USI GC bundled version.  With two 3 star engineers in a Ranger Workshop, it took 4.5 days and around 27000 MaterialKits. Was very simple and straightforward.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/04/2017 at 0:27 PM, JadeOfMaar said:

I found the problem. I thought I had dealt with it before. Apparently there's a misplaced } at line 59 just before the first Size {} node in our Asteroids.cfg 

Delete that.

Anyone else who's not seeing asteroids, please try this.

Just a quick message to say thanks for your help with this! I'm merrily visiting asteroids as we speak

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just wondering:

What if:

- Tellumo, Leto and Hox orbited Grannus (close in with Tellumo in the Habitable zone getting about 2/3rds of Gael's insolation)

- Gratian was moved to Tellumo's orbit

- Grannus was moved somewhat inwards to 4 or 5 times Gratian's SMA

- Otho, Nero and Gauss were moved outwards, orbiting around the Ciro and Grannus Barycenter (really just Ciro since this might not be possible, but they would be far enough outwards to be stable) at about 4 times Grannus' new distance

- Otho, Nero and Gauss were in a 1-2-4 Laplace resonance

 

I might try making a second install and messing with the planet configs - if you see some sort of small-scale quasar you know I messed something up. 

Edited by MaxL_1023
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MaxL_1023 said:

- Gratian was moved to Tellumo's orbit

- Grannus was moved somewhat inwards to 4 or 5 times Gratian's SMA

- Otho, Nero and Gauss were moved outwards, orbiting around the Ciro and Grannus Barycenter (really just Ciro since this might not be possible, but they would be far enough outwards to be stable) at about 4 times Grannus' new distance

- Otho, Nero and Gauss were in a 1-2-4 Laplace resonance

 

I might try making a second install and messing with the planet configs - if you see some sort of small-scale quasar you know I messed something up. 

I am pretty sure that barycenters are indeed not possible in game, i.e. that KSP approximates it as being always a barycenter at the center of the parent body.

So the Gratian / Tellumo thing would be pretty inaccurate (the moon is barely a moon of earth, even at 1/100th the mass, and Gratian is 1/10th of Tellumo's mass). Although Grannus is already unrealistic in this way, so maybe nobody really cares. Especially if there's no way to do it in the engine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Crimeo

Barycenters are possible. You have to set them up manually and not bother with compatibility for career-first mods. Ciro would have to be made into a separate star object in order to join a proper binary system and orbit a barycenter object. Currently it's the center of the universe and cannot do so.

MaxL already offers a lot of constructive and realism-based criticism so for this he's clearly just letting his imagination go wild.

2 hours ago, MaxL_1023 said:

- Gratian was moved to Tellumo's orbit

You may be confused. MaxL likely means Gratian moved to Tellumo's orbit around Ciro after Tellumo goes to orbit Grannus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, rasta013 said:

Maybe I wasn't clear enough, my apologies.

The situation number is the number you're looking for to use in your calculation.  Depending on where the experiment is run that science body multiplier will change. For example, when in-flight low on Tellumo your science body multiplier for any given experiment that can be run there will be 7.  Take the exact same experiment and land it on Tellumo and your science body multiplier becomes 9.  Does that help explain it better?  Sorry I wasn't very clear to begin with.

This made the science behaviour more clear.Thank you. The question still is, which multiplier goes into the reward calculation in a carreer safe game. Too me it seems, that not only the prestige level  applies for the reward calculation. Maybe rewards indirectly go with body index. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Realistically, I do not think that the GPP system would not be stable with Grannus as massive as it is. I could be wrong, but having something with half the parent star's mass on a quite elliptical orbit really messes up solar system dynamics. Leto, Hox and likely at least the outermost Gas Giant would be perturbed enough to either eject them from the system or dump them into one of the stars. As far as I know, geological-time orbit stability requires a body be at something near or less than a third to a half of the hill sphere radius. When applied to binary star systems, I found a paragraph which cites a few papers:

Stable Orbits in Binary Star Systems

In July 2010, some astronomers estimated that 44 percent of F6 to K3 of the main sequence stars in the solar neighborhood that are possibly suitable (i.e., with a stellar mass between 1.5 and 0.5 times that of Sol) for hosting Earth-type planets may be members of binary or multiple star systems, possibly declining to one third to one fourth of very dim type M stars that are difficult to observe (Raghavan et al, 2010; Charles J. Lada, 2006; and Duquennoy and Mayor, 1991). In binary star systems, however, a planet must not be located too far away from either one star or too close to two "home" stars or its orbit will be unstable. If that distance exceeds about one fifth of the closest approach of the other star, then the gravitational pull of that second star can disrupt the orbit of the planet (Graziani and Black, 1981; Pendleton and Black, 1983; and Dvorak et al, 1989). Indeed, stable orbits may extend as far as one third of the closest separation between any two stars in a binary system, but according to NASA's Kepler Mission team, numerical integration models have shown that there is a range of orbital radii between about 1/3 and 3.5 times the stellar separation for which stable orbits around two stars are not possible (Holman and Wiegert, 1999; Wiegert and Holman, 1997; and Donnison and Mikulskis, 1992). In star systems with more than two stars, the limits on stable orbital distance are so stringent that the presence of Earth-type planets in habitable orbits where surface water would be liquid are much less likely.

 

Grannus has a SMA of 2,000,000,000,000 meters, with a PE of 1,200,000,000 AFAIK. Leto is at 542,593,000,000 meters, with an AP of about 600 Gm. This is about a 2-1 close approach ratio - too far out for stability. I suspect that the only way Leto and Hox could be stable is if they were in some sort of resonance. 

 

For fun, I wanted a binary system with close-in planets around each star (including a Tidally-Locked Tellumo close in to Grannus for the whole M-Dwarf super-earth vibe) with gas giants orbiting well outside the binary pair, giving the "twin suns" view along with many, many slingshot opportunities and the potential for other more complex stellar systems. 

I guess a system parent called "CiroGrannus" could be made at the Barycenter, with Ciro and Grannus in orbits around it, then parent all planets appropriately. I lack the skill to make this however. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

You may be confused. MaxL likely means Gratian moved to Tellumo's orbit around Ciro after Tellumo goes to orbit Grannus.

Ahhhh that makes sense yes.

Quote

@Crimeo

Barycenters are possible. You have to set them up manually and not bother with compatibility for career-first mods.

Has anybody done this in available packs??? That's awesome. Maybe not because of "career-first mods"? What are those?

If the star version is too difficult due to needing a center of the universe object, at least I would hope somebody has tried in a public mod with a binary planet pair? Or IS "making a fake central object" what you mean in the first place by "setting it up manually"?

Edited by Crimeo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MaxL_1023 said:

snip

I think it's possible, but a lot of testing would need to be done. Basically we would be making the barycenter the center of the system (that's the only part I am skeptical about) and everything else would just be put basically where you specified earlier. This will require sigma binary obviously and I don't know if a barycenter at the center will work. Have to try. Or maybe @Sigma88 can just give us a yes or no

10 minutes ago, Crimeo said:

Ahhhh that makes sense yes.

Has anybody done this in available packs??? That's awesome. Maybe not because of "career-first mods"? What are those?

Career first is just a way of saying you can play through an entire career with as many mods as you can handle. Making the system revolve around a barycenter would likely cause a lot of mods, contracts, strategies, to stop working correctly, thus killing any hopes of a career play through

Edited by Galileo
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Crimeo said:

Has anybody done this in available packs??? That's awesome. Maybe not because of "career-first mods"? What are those?

By career first I mean any mod that intends to be functional in a career or science game and not just in sandbox. This means all contract-related mods and any planet pack build with depth like this one and Kerbol Star System.

@The White Guardian's Total Rebuild.........

Spoiler

0gBcwXo.png

 

Edited by JadeOfMaar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm, if the barycenter is just a magical "star" in the configs with zero or near-zero mass/gravity but a huge SOI, I'm not sure why it'd be expected to break all that much. You could just name it "The System's Center" or something, make clear in the description what it represents, then even if it shows up as a celestial body in the map, so what? The map is just indicating a point of navigational interest. Contracts and science would exist for being "In space high above the system's center" etc., which is also fine -- you could and probably would (for sake of fun/novelty) want to have some planets orbiting each star near-in, and also some planets orbiting further out around the barycenter, so it would actually realistically be an orbit of both navigational and scientific interest I think.

I would have expected solar panels to be screwed up, but that was already potentially an issue with a mod like GPP in the first place and seems to work as one would hope yes?

Mods that allude to things like "solar science" and assume universe center would be screwed, but also why would anybody ever even reasonably expect such a thing to work in a binary star system mod? That feels overly accommodating...

Edit of edit: I'm thinking something like these classic blob models of molecules. The stars are like red and one gray blob, so large they collide into each other, and you move directly from one star's SOI to the other's in the inner system, but if you go far enough out, you fall into only the "system center's" larger SOI -- I think this would work with existing KSP SOI mechanics? I'm not sure you can have them "collide" like this. I know you can't have multiple bodies influence your trajectory at once, but that's not what I mean. I mean colliding as in the sphere would overlap like below, even though you are always officially in only one SOI.
intermolecular-force-6-638.jpg?cb=136490 

Edited by Crimeo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now