• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

372 Excellent


About Jacke

  • Rank
    Rocket Scientist

Recent Profile Visitors

3,775 profile views
  1. Over the entire history of rocketry, computer guidance, whether on-board or on the ground by radio control, is the norm for rockets. Next is inherent guidance by fins or spin stabilization without any other means. Manual guidance is very very rare.
  2. Jacke

    What did you do in KSP today?

    That arch colour scheme. If I was driving, I'd have to really think "Next is the white arch, not the yellow one." That one moment out at the Tracking Station when you were headed towards the VAB and there were two arches in sight, one white, one yellow, I really thought for a moment "Go for the yellow arch!"
  3. Until you have such a filter, here's the KSP wiki page on the Making History parts that lists all of them. https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Making_History_parts
  4. Jacke

    [1.5.1+] Dang It! Continued

    Did you install Module Manager? It's also mentioned in the original post as a dependency.
  5. Making History, the Expansion DLC for KSP.
  6. Jacke

    [1.5.*] Filter Extensions (No localization)

    That may have been true in the past. I just tested the current 7-Zip v18.05 making a new .zip archive with the default options. Win10 Explorer could examine it without apparent issue.
  7. Jacke

    [1.5.*] Filter Extensions (No localization)

    Windows 7 shouldn't make a difference. 7zip was last updated 2018 Apr 30. (Which means I need to update mine too.)
  8. Jacke


    I'd just like to point out to those commenting on @Oneiros's mod here to be a bit more bloody gentle in your feedback. Yes, that was a harsh comment saying to people to be less harsh in commenting. I'm just getting a bit tired of people being so unsocial in talking about a game we're all supposed to have fun playing. Certainly getting unfun reading this. So I decided to speak up. This is Oneiros's mod, who will make the decisions on changes. The way some of these comments deliver their feedback makes them irritating. The substance of those comments likely won't get sufficient consideration. I highly suggest comments be made in a more respectful and gentle manner suitable to amenable discussion. As far as I know, Oneiros is still working out what this mod will be. So both the mod and the original post are works-in-progress. They aren't legal documents to be nit-picked. Here's the best general statement of what I think is Oneiros's objective here. And in the original post, right at the top. The mod includes reducing stock's overpowered reaction wheels and adding realistic throttle limits, which I think are excellent realism limits to add in a major career mod. However, these changes make playing with the mod very different from stock KSP, so some players' reaction is also understandable. However, I would also suggest perhaps a bit more care adding in mods; carefully examine what a mod does, especially for a new mod still under major development. One suggestion I'll make would be to have an inline engine that could be throttled down as low as the Lunar Module Descent Propulsion System, which could be throttled between 10-60% and 100%. Perhaps as an extra cost-Isp lowering option? Oneiros has talked about making the reaction wheel nerf optional. I don't think that's a good idea. Let me explain. I used to play BTSM, a now-dead career total-conversion mod, and I played it a lot. I've also considered writing my own career mod but I just don't have the time right now to advance that. But I've thought a lot about major career mods and this is what I think. 1. A major career mod is the basis for a career. It will affect a lot of things about KSP. The changes it imposes directly and with its required and recommended dependencies effectively define the mod. A corollary of this is two major career mods will usually never be able to be used together unless one is crafted to include another. 2. When playing a career mod, the players of it should have close to the same experience, so that they can easily compare their experiences. Thus other gameplay changing mods beyond those required and recommended need to be carefully considered. It also mean that the mod shouldn't have optional settings that wildly change the gameplay. This is why I don't think making the reaction wheel nerf optional is a good idea. And why I think Oneiros is right not to make the thrust limitation optional. Having those two realism conditions changes the rockets that will be built in different stages of a career. Making them optional means games played with and without them become very hard to compare. Adding in mods that change the gameplay in a serious way that bends or breaks #2 will require careful consideration and likely adjustment by the mod. And that means Oneiros has to have control and the final say here. 3. There should always be a way forward in the career. And this is the one that requires a lot of work. The usual limit in most KSP careers is not having enough funds. This usually requires some special recurring contracts that the player can run to get out of a financial hole. These sorts of contracts will have to be added, either in Unmanned Tech or a mod that is a required dependency.
  9. I did test out the 8k packs once, but I was using the "-force-glcore" command line option at the time and that lead to often screwed up textures. Apparently the 8k textures have to be used with DX9, so no "-force-glcore" or "-force-d3d11". I think KSP on both Linux and Mac uses OpenGL, so no 8k textures for them. This could change though. First, check your KSP compatibility in the CKAN client: Settings > Compatible KSP versions. "1.4" should be checked. Next, ignore all the the non-compatible mods. Click on "Filter" and click "Compatible". That excludes all the KSP 1.0.4 Astronomer's packs from over 2 years ago. Those "2k", "4k", "8k". Those are just the texture packs. You must have one of them but only one of them. AVP itself is called "Astronomer's Visual Pack" and its author is listed as "themaster402" (which is strange, assume it's @themaster401 on GitHub). To install AVP, follow my guide in this post up above. (Always skim the last page or two of a topic for help.) https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/160878-ksp-145-astronomers-visual-pack-v374-warpspeed/&do=findComment&comment=3458958
  10. It's there. AoA Technologies v1.4 for KSP 1.3.1. You need to have "Settings > Compatible KSP Versions" set to include KSP 1.3.1, say by checking the "1.3" box.
  11. Always check out the last page or so of a topic. @Ger_space commented on this back on August 19, on this same page. He's not revised this position since.
  12. Jacke

    What did you do in KSP today?

    Do tell. Inquiring minds want to know. Until then, I'm going to assume it's a Kerbal submarine.
  13. The cross section of solid fuel boosters is actually more complex than that, commonly with star-shaped bores or others to give them steady thrust over time or even decreasing thrust to reduce acceleration increase with the lower mass near the end of burn. The cross section and formulation of the fuel grain is adjusted to give whatever thrust versus elapsed burn time is desired. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solid-propellant_rocket#Grain_geometry
  14. Congratulations! (I really need to play more KSP.) And that made me wonder what the Caveman Challenge would be like with Deadly Reentry added.... Would definitely change the missions. But as long as funds-positive missions could be done, probably doable.
  15. Changing the LAN will change the orbital inclination, AKA plane change, not in size but in direction, so it's a special case of that. And because it's an orbital velocity vector change, it takes less dV if the orbital velocity is smaller, as it usually is for higher orbits. Most astronautics texts have a section where a rough calculation is done to determine the minimum dV for a plane change by adding in 2 other maneuvers, one to raise the Ap to a higher altitude, where the actualy plane change maneuver occurs, then a third to lower the Ap back down.