• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,181 Excellent

About Jacke

Recent Profile Visitors

5,555 profile views
  1. That's one way to do it. If you can't hold the craft at that AoA, then it needs more pitch authority from RCS or control surfaces that can take the heat. Alternately, there's other re-entry profiles that may work. In this case, to prevent overheating, the key is maintaining altitude until the craft is slower. Use lift to keep the craft at altitude. To refine this, you need to test multiple re-entry profiles. Different initial periapsis altitudes, different attitudes, etc.
  2. Good points. You can turn down science rewards to 10% and face a real challenge advancing through the default tech tree. In fact, that might go too far, requiring interplanetary missions to unlock some technologies that should be able to be developed independent of how far and how well things have been explored interplanetarily. KSP and KSP 2 both need a system where techs get unlocked by researching, developing, and testing and using new concepts and parts. The rewards from exploring out in space should feed back into the career, I'm just not quite sure how best to do that.
  3. If the pilot isn't wondering whether to fly or eat the craft, it ain't Minmus-themed enough.
  4. Those are solar periods. Sidereal periods would be more appropriate.
  5. If changing the tech tree, I'd change it so that uncrewed missions from Start were possible. Move the Stayputnik to Start and retech the other probe pods to match. Move the command pods out. Move the External Command Seat to Start to allow some initial "special" crewed missions.
  6. Hmmm, it's more complex a problem. In the statement of the problem, the periapsis is fixed and the apoapsis is variable. Which means the eccentricity is variable.
  7. It's a solved problem for elliptical orbits using the function between mean anomaly (time based from periapsis) and eccentric anomaly (angle based from periapsis). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean_anomaly At the end of the article just before the references, there's a infinite equation to calculate the eccentric anomaly from the mean anomaly that can be used to figure out the position. From that, should be able to calculate the required orbital parameters.
  8. @Raptor22, I think you should be more cautious and consider the advice here. @linuxgurugamer is a long established programmer and KSP mod author. He supports over 200 KSP mods because he is that good and organized in his method for handling mods and taking them through KSP version updates. He is one of a few people who make and maintain the mods that many people, including me, think are essential for taking KSP from a good to a fantastic game. And like them he does this all voluntarily in his free time for no concrete benefit. I may not have been coding as much as LGG, but I have coded as long as he had. I've also expanded to supporting hardware, systems, and networks and I've had to troubleshoot many an issue, including finding the root cause of software installation issues. I've also manually modded KSP for years. Recently, as LGG suggests, I've mostly switched to using CKAN as it helps me spend less time tinkering and more time playing. First, as LGG indicates and as there are no other complains when the Spacedock stats show this mod is in common use, your issue is likely an install issue. To fix this, you should clean out this mod and its dependencies from your GameData tree and download and reinstall all of them carefully. Second, the way you say you download a copy of the mod source is not the first option you should be using. That tree will only be complete for a given patch on its particular branch. This could easily be a testing version that may have issues that the mod author is still working out. Also, this mod on GitHub has 16 branches. Which one is current isn't obvious and could easily change. Only those working on the software should be looking at that. Normally, I'd use CKAN, but I checked manual install. I went to Spacedock for this mod from the link in the original post, clicked on Download, and got a zip with the GameData tree for this mod in it. That what I used for years (with the software JSGME to add and remove mods) and it looks good. Do this for the dependent mods (ModuleManager, ClickThroughBlocker, ToolbarController) as well as ZeroMiniAVC (which is also needed now due to changes in KSP). Clean out your GameData tree of the files and subdirectories those mods include. Then reinstall them. Then try testing it. If that doesn't work, get a snapshot of your GameData tree as well as the logs from that run and post a link here.
  9. My sympathy on this tragedy. What I think should be done is making sure all trees are living and well-rooted. And adults need to be aware of risks and their degree. Falling trees are more of a hazard than many might think. Jared Diamond mentioned this in an article. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/science/jared-diamonds-guide-to-reducing-lifes-risks.html The risk on a single encounter is low. But the shear number of encounters means the risk is significant. I have a friend who applied this lesson and was saved from a falling tree.
  10. @RobertaME, very good dynamically analysis. I currently run KSP on Windows 10, which I've managed to tame to the point it's not that much of a issue. I also want to see KSP 2 on other OS. I don't have any problem with the female Kerbals.
  11. Not true at all. It's known that it will never be realistically available. Metallic hydrogen is similar to monatomic hydrogen: both are wildly unstable under any usable temperature and pressure. Metallic hydrogen only exists under massive pressures. Monatomic hydrogen only exists in near vacuum. Putting either in KSP 2 as an effective fuel is damn stupid.
  12. No problem. Well, as a Steam user, when I see games go up exclusively on the Epic store--which I'm unlikely to use--I feel a loss, even if the exclusive is temporary. Then I look at it again and remember that the closest I've come to wanting an Epic exclusive game is Rebel Galaxy Outlaw. And I've not spent the time to come close to finishing the original Rebel Galaxy. "Bribe", like a lot of strong words, gets misused, as you've mentioned often from a lot of emotion. But at least in North America and Europe, there's few outright bribes. But there's a lot of over-sharp actions, with a lot of these put into contracts. And contracts often have terms that limit what we as consumers get as benefits. And in the end, if the exchange of funds happens, there's always a bit of getting the power to call the tune. Well, as a network administrator, I kind of feel security in a lot of the platforms doesn't get properly or sufficiently addressed. (Especially as the user needs to be aware and cautious.) To a degree, Apple's closed garden is a bit more secure. But it's not impossible to get equivalent security in other means. And using it as a club to ensure a captive paying audience is a bit of an abuse. And all of the meta-services that enable what we do--for a cut--are to a degree anti-competetive. I feel it has to go beyond just anti-trust to actions that limit interest rates. As the interest rate limits are avoided in various ways, it will be a far-from-perfect solution. I don't think a decision in these suites will significant change the landscape. But I could be wrong. But I think they'll need legislation to make a proper level playing field. And I think it may come from Europe, where they do realise that appropriate regulation can often be a better solution. Whatever happens, it's going to take a while.
  13. There's also the contracts (including the automatic World's Firsts) that when a player achieves the goals in space, they receive the rewards. Especially using Contract Configurator, these rewards can be virtually anything. Exactly! Using rockets as well as R&D to develop new versions is how rockets improve. There's also just finding out what things are like out there. Every probe to every planet, every orbital observatory, every crewed mission has improved our knowledge of space and the bodies out there.
  14. I'm feeling very meh about KSP 2. I also can't vote because the options are no where near what I think about KSP 2. For an example, take the upcoming Odyssey update for Elite: Dangerous. It's just be announced this week that it will only be walking on planets that will be added. The feature people wanted more, being able to get out of the seat in the cockpit and move around their spacecraft, will be a no-show at launch. And there's other signs that far too little has been completed for something that should be releasing in a little over half-a-year. As for KSP 2, it's kind of the same. Sure, a lot of things have been shown. But there's also a lot of unknown. And to boot, there's all this drama that happened. We'll have to see KSP 2 in near-complete or release versions before we can properly judge it.
  15. Never said it was right for the others. Never said I support Apple or Google here. I say a pox on all 3 houses. There's no such thing as a free lunch. I'm Canadian, so I don't have to pay directly when I visit a doctor. But my taxes pay for it. The benefit comes from being single-payer health care. And here's another cliché that's also true: who pays the piper calls the tune. Epic isn't giving away money. They're using their deep pockets to exert control. For Epic's benefit, not ours. Then why do people who know the game industry well and have followed it for years think this is not all sunshine and roses, like Jim Sterling and Yong Yea. <snip> I actually don't have a dog in this hunt, as I've not been interested in the games affected by all this flinging around of exclusives. But I see that this is all about restricting open marketplaces for games for these corporations own benefits. It applies to all parties. Google and Apple want to keep what control they've established (with Apple being more restrictive) and their revenue streams. Epic doesn't want to give Google and Apple a cut of their revenue stream. And Epic's campaign of being the people's true altruistic champion in 2020 is as honest as Apple's was in 1984, as in not at all for both. And both are insulting comparing themselves to far graver threats portrayed in _1984_. Anti-trust arguments are very complex here. Part of Apple's motivation for their tight set-up is security. It's true, but it also benefits Apple financially. I suspect the solutions that will be right will be very close to those that put limits on interest rates. I'm at least wise enough to know that all these corporations aren't my friend and very few of their actions are for my benefit.