Drew Kerman

Members
  • Content count

    4,804
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,483 Excellent

About Drew Kerman

  • Rank
    KSA Operations Director

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://www.kerbalspace.agency

Recent Profile Visitors

8,489 profile views
  1. They don't do that. Galileo already said it's not supported yet (I doubt the skybox reflection ever will be but planetshine is a thing that could be coming eventually) It only reflects the sky color. So if you don't want black water then you definitely don't want it reflecting a black sky
  2. Sure if you like navigating through menus and having to hit Apply to see the results of every tweak Turn off "real sky reflections" in the main menu options and then Mod+F11 to open the settings window in the flight scene and mess around with all the water settings. Try changing the colors.
  3. Except for the moonshine, yea it should be black as night. But if you really don't care for it then try Ambient Light Adjustment
  4. Drew Kerman

    [1.4.*] Adjustable Mod Panel, ver 1.5

    Nice to hear you got it sorted. Thanks for the heads up but I just have it as a dependency, so whatever version it is is fine for the mod that is using it as I'll be using MAS in the future
  5. ooof @Arrowstar you seeing this too? All I do is load up MA in the default state, set a UT coast for 180 days, and this is what the Graphical Analysis tool tells me when I open it up and click to output the default settings. Decay box is not checked in the UT coast and confirmed the 1000 log events per event is set Also no matter what vessel I select from the list loaded via SFS it always sets the name from the first vessel in the list
  6. Drew Kerman

    [1.4.*] Adjustable Mod Panel, ver 1.5

    @Apaseall well looks like you got your work cut out for you. Don't forget to take em out a bunch at a time
  7. Drew Kerman

    [1.4.*] Adjustable Mod Panel, ver 1.5

    I can't find any of that anywhere in my output.txt or ksp.log files. So here is my the list of DLLs reported by my ksp.log file Do a diff check against yours and start removing anything that's not included on this list to figure out what's causing the problem
  8. That's maximum load at takeoff, so not as big a deal
  9. Nice! Okay, good deal and thank you for the explanation of the time warp, I was just about to post over in the orbital decay thread about it. The only problem with that of course is there's just no way I can run the game in real time all the time! So if things will not be accurate over time warp, then perhaps we can figure out a proper time warp to coast step ratio so that if I have to time warp the game at say 1,000x just to enable me to get through days faster, I should reduce the log step accordingly and still get good approximate results. Am I thinking of that right? Also, I hate to kill the momentum here but I'll be overseas for work 8/18 - 9/2 and then leaving the following weekend for a 4wk cross-country road trip (whoo hoo!). So I won't be around much for testing, but will still at least be checking in when I can to offer thoughts in response to whatever anyone else is posting
  10. Ok it's only giving me a single tooltip saying "area of the spacecraft that is normal to the velocity vector" I get that, but not sure how I would best calculate that in KSP. Any ideas? I get the second two parameters come from the Solar Cycle mod, I see it gives that information. The best idea I have for the m^2 value is to do this: So what we have here is a screenshot via Kronal Vessel Viewer which lets me create an orthographic projection of the spacecraft, seen here head-on. That's a 1m truss section on the right. I've approximated the sizes of the various rocket sections with boxes - although using the selection tool in Paint.NET even for non-geometric shapes it gives me an accurate pixel area so I could go even more detailed, but for this simple example I just kept things simple. Anyways so with the areas of the boxes in pixels added up and divided by the area of 1m^2 in pixels I get 7.5m^2. If I use the simple Engineer Report in the VAB it tells me the vessel is 4.1m x 4.1m (measuring the tips of the fins) which would be 16.8m^2 so I know at least I didn't screw up my measurements and got a larger number. Alright so I used HyperEdit to throw the ship up into a 75km circular orbit and used RCS to point the nose prograde so what is shown above was what was relative to the velocity vector (right?). Orbital Decay told me I had 16.4hrs until decay. I imported the orbital data and told MA to coast for 16.5 hours. Here's what I got: So with MA's modeling it will take just over 10 hours to begin scraping through the atmosphere. Interestingly tho if I warp ahead at 1,000x the game will drop me to normal speed with a warning the spacecraft is hitting the atmosphere at ~7hrs and if I reload the save and warp ahead 10,000x I get dropped out at ~9hrs. There are also some recent posts on the Orbital Decay thread that say the mod isn't working, but with this low orbit at least I am seeing decay happening. I can't really test the two together really until Papa_Joe takes a look at your implementation Arrowstar and considers if it can be used similarly in the mod. There is also this implementation offered by FreeThinker that could factor in as well. Yea I don't have as much time for testing today as I hoped, this will be all I can do but also I think it's all I'm really able to do right now I can't see any apparent usability issues with either MA or the OD mod at this time so I think the next step would just be to get them using the same basic decay calculations - we may have to wait until Papa_Joe has more time after working on BDAc
  11. Drew Kerman

    [1.4.*] Adjustable Mod Panel, ver 1.5

    Still not helpful without logs. Could potentially be a diff issue that causes the (apparent) same result
  12. Drew Kerman

    [1.4.*] Adjustable Mod Panel, ver 1.5

    Most likely. No problems in my 1.4.5 install. But no one will know for sure until you post a log file
  13. Drew Kerman

    [1.4.X] KS3P

    sounds like the dust filter. Why didn't you just post a screenshot?
  14. Thx for the update. Looked at the paper but I'm afraid I'm going to be of no help other than to stand here and go "Frickam frackem firecrackem shish boom ba! Arrowstar! Arrowstar! Ra ra ra!" If you find it an interesting challenge I know you'll stick with it, so that's what I'm hoping for. I'm sure anyone else using the mod would appreciate a more accurate modeling as well. I wonder if @Papa_Joe has had any free time to look at it more closely himself. Pretty sure also I remember @Whitecat106 saying before he got busy he wanted to rewrite the mod since his original pass was more of a proof of concept