blu3wolf
-
Posts
503 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by blu3wolf
-
-
4 hours ago, Starhelperdude said:
I have a question: where is the Nuclear experiment package placed on GATV/ADTA?
Ive been putting mine on the engine mount.
-
On 2/28/2022 at 5:25 PM, blu3wolf said:
If the only issue is due to the missing parts, I am likely safe as there are no currently flying craft using the saturn parts I think.
I was largely correct - it was only my relay satellites (!) using Saturn parts.... oops.
I can always add more
The new parts look wonderful, much improved over the old ones!
-
hmm. Maybe Ill make a backup of my current install before trying that. As it stands Ive only build a few rockets using the Saturn parts, due to their great expense and my low operating funds. Thanks for the advice!
If the only issue is due to the missing parts, I am likely safe as there are no currently flying craft using the saturn parts I think.
Edit: would switching to this Apollo branch also yield the Agena changes? I have a LOT of craft currently active using Agena-D parts. Its my go-to satellite bus for the moment.
-
Is it easy enough to switch to the Apollo branch for an inprogress game, or will this break stuff? Id expect a little pain for my case, as I installed with CKAN to start with.
-
8 hours ago, Pappystein said:
Actually I found where the Citations on Astronautix are... At the TOP of every "family" of Rockets for example:
http://www.astronautix.com/8/8587.htmlBut as you can see by this Citation... Astronautix is Citing itself via Wikipedia's article being based almost completely off of Astronautix (literally almost word for word)
Your link doesnt seem to load a reference properly for me, it just links to Wikipedia's C-3 page. Which text is word for word copied?
Do you know whether it is Astronautix copying Wikipedia, or Wikipedia copying Astronautix?
-
Can anyone recommend a mod to use with this one, to provide ejection seats to the Leo capsule? Ive had a couple losses due to OhScrap parachute failures at about 200m off the ground.
-
So, the bottom of the Leo-C Service Module has a flat base with a crew tunnel to it. Would it be possible to have a similar model for a Leo-A Equipment module? Either as a separate part, or as a part switch for the Meduci-E?
Im planning on building a Leo Modular Space Station, and the original series A plans seem to use a "Gemini Transport" which appears to be a regular Gemini capsule with a crew tunnel to a Ring Docking Mechanism - much like the current Leo-C part, but with the ability to separate the Equipment Module still and fire the Retro Module.
I think for now, my current LMSS plans will just use the Leo-C module, as its not like I really need the ability to use the Retro Module for my current Leo Transport design.
Edit: The first Leo Transport constructed has used the Leo-A modules, while I disregard the gap between the docking adaptor and the module
-
5 hours ago, bigyihsuan said:
Looks like you're doing a multi-launch approach, where I just shoved everything onto a massive Barbarian rocket and did it all in 1 launch.
I'm hedging my bets. Getting the Inon Transfer Vehicle to orbit took 4 attempts with minor redesigns each time. That was costly. Had I attempted to launch one big rocket and it failed, that would be the end of this career save - I'm very tight on funds at present.
Ive researched the Sarnus S-I rocket parts, but the launcher ends up around 40,000 funds, which is a significant portion of what I have. So I don't really have a launcher that would do this all in one go. I suppose that is the same issue the Gemini planners thought to solve, so it seems an apt solution.
I'm still a few missions away from landing. Leo-5 is planning to enter munar orbit and conduct additional science before returning home. Leo-6 will conduct Munar Orbit Rendezvous with a prelaunched Leo Belle Target Vehicle to demonstrate the possibility, and Leo-7 is slated to be the landing, using the Dona lander. Funding will be tight, so I'll be looking out for opportunities to fit contracts in.
-
For the BDB team: This is some really impressive work. Thanks so much.
Below Ive added some screenshots from my current Gemini-inspired mission. Per @Friznit's helpful wiki, I saw that a proposal was made for a Moon landing cheaper and faster than Apollo could achieve. Well in my current career playthrough, I simply lack the funds to purchase the Sarnus and Kane parts necessary for recreating Apollo at this stage, but I might well be able to manage a Mun landing using the Leo parts. The simplest approach seemed to be sending up an Inon stage to orbit for a Leo capsule to dock with, then use the Inon stage for the TMI burn.
SpoilerHere we have the Bossart-1X launching a pair of Inon stages. The lower of the two is for achieving orbit, the upper is the Inon Transfer Vehicle.
The ascent seems a little steep, but with the Bossart launchers that isnt surprising, or even terribly problematic.
The sustainer phase takes some time, with the low TWR.
Did I saw low TWR? Then what do you call this??
This is the fourth launch of this payload... so far making this the biggest expense of the program. The stage took about another 3 minutes after this point to circularise, and it arrested the descent rate at about 80200 m.
The upper stage can conveniently de-orbit itself once it has delivered the payload to orbit.
Meanwhile the launchpad has been reconditioned, ready for the Leo-4 crew to ascend.
The Leo capsule for this mission features a conjoined service and equipment module. It is also a much easier payload to get to orbit with!
Like the Inon Transfer Vehicle, it features a sustainer phase - although this is much quicker and easier for the lighter Leo capsule.
From the initial parking orbit, a rendezvous is planned. Old hands have likely spotted the issue before I did: the rendezvous is on the dark side. Whoops!
Finally in position to dock. The anticipation is real, and yet the mission is still just beginning.
Successfully docked with the ITV!
The Leo-4 mission is well underway. While this one is a munar flyby only, it will be an important stepping stone to the program's aim to put a Kerbal on the Mun, and bring them back again.
I've played a fair bit of KSP, but not with BDB before - you've revitalised the game for me. Thank you.
-
11 hours ago, DeadJohn said:
I often use Delta lower stages with Atlas-Agena upper stages.
Isnt that just an Agena upper stage, if you arent using the Atlas part?
Or are you putting an Atlas stage on top of a Delta rocket?
-
13 minutes ago, Friznit said:
See also "Atlas Unflown" page of the wiki
I'll make a note about the engines if it's not immediately clear where to find them
On the note of the wiki, Im currently assembling a Belle Target Vehicle using your (very helpful) wiki. I went looking for a little more detailed view on how the acquisition lights were attached, and found this on StackExchange:
I note that image has a different positioning of the approach lights to your build example:
Your build example above has the lights on the materials bay, rather than the TRU as in the image above. I dont know the origin of the image, so I dont know whether its authoritative or not, but I thought it might be worth mentioning.
Edit: I might be mistaken here... these approach lights seem to possibly be different to the running lights. Ill position my running lights there anyway as I think it looks good
-
Oh, I like that idea. This will let me keep using my Bossart designs as I approach the Sarnus engines!
Thanks very much for the quick advice.
-
What are the Bossart -1X and ADLV parts for?
Im also struggling a little to find the engine appropriate to the Bossart-II. The unofficial wiki seems to use a different set of names for some of the parts. Edit: disregard the Bossart-II engines question, its the upgraded config from Booster upgrade 2.
-
On 8/16/2021 at 4:47 PM, Apricot said:
Some engines like LV-45 seeme updated and named differently (liquidEngine2 => liquidEngine2_v2) in KSP 1.12. Needs configurations.
Would also be nice to see configs for RestockPlus. Im going to have a short fiddle and see if I can get something I like working.
Edit: I see there are already such configs! Not sure how I missed that...
-
On 11/24/2017 at 8:32 PM, Citizen247 said:
Fair enough. As I said I wasn't sure if I was just missing something. It just seemed strange to me that the replica that's close in dimensions, mass and powerplant would have ballpark performance to the real thing (slightly slower) with a nose cone, but hugely better performance with a nose intake (i.e. something that should struggle to go supersonic in a dive having the ability to supercruise). Although I also get that KSP, even with FAR, by its lego nature isn't going to ever be a rigorous flight sim.
Well, the characteristics of the nose cone vs other nose cones would have a massive impact on performance. Comparing a nose cone to a nose intake? apples and oranges here. Specifics between each apple will have broad differences on performance. Apples to oranges? Massive.
FWIW, the curves look good for the cone and intake in question. And with that curve, I am not surprised about it having much better acceleration performance.
As far as having KSP match aircraft performance, its going to depend on a bunch of factors that are simply not that detailed in KSP. Things like CG evolution due to fuel tanks being partly drained, effectiveness of baffles in reducing slosh, different materials having different parasitic drag, general inability to control CG... you can make an aircraft in KSP and FAR that has the same shape as an F-16, but by moving the CG forward you will end up with drastically different performance than the real jet (and also by virtue of not having a flight computer to fly it for you).
-
Using 1.9.6, I think (.version file says its 1.9.5, but the download says 1.9.6). Im crashing on switching scenes. Interesting, error.log reckons Im crashing from an access violation, much as you normally would when you dont have enough RAM. Using 64 bit, and the interesting part is that Im getting errors about not being able to allocate memory when only about 70% of it is in use.
Logs: http://www.blu3wolf.com/KSP/error.zip
I have a number of other mods installed. Like, quite a few. Your mod comes up quite a bit in the logs, so Im looking here, but if you think its caused by something else, Im all ears.
-
On 09/06/2017 at 3:03 PM, severedsolo said:
Absolutely. To be honest the only reason I didn't is because I haven't checked whether they play nicely together. I know Crew R&R doesn't always like it when mods interfere with the roster.
All I'm really doing is flipping the Protocrewmember.veteran flag, if Crew R&R is OK with this I'll be happy to recommend it. (I'm so happy you brought that mod back).
Regarding CKAN, I'll put a PR up later, but I'm not a fan of CKAN so I'll only be supporting manual installs. (not that this is complicated, but as I said, not a fan)
was going to ask about how much later, but I see the question above regarding 1.2.2, so I guess Ill have to wait for my other mods to get updated to 1.3 then. This looks like a pretty cool mod!
-
Getting 8 fps on a pretty decent rig myself, looking at an 80 part ship, Im not sure where I should be looking. Ill try the legacy shaders and see if that helps at all.
-
45 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:
In my defense, the stock tree / science progression is crap and it's way easier to land a lot of hopper probes and not land until later, whereas IRL we essentially shot straight for the moon.
@everyone I really don't know what's going on with KAS; I haven't even started up the game in a couple months now. Busy busy busy.
Obviously you are free to balance your mod as you see fit, no defense necessary! Im using CTT, but I dont think that makes massive changes to how things work. I personally dont think KSP career needs to mirror the real world one - the system is different, the parts are different, and the progression too is different.
Im looking forward to testing the SEP stuff, hopefully I will not be able to reproduce the issues with KAS.
-
On 02/01/2017 at 5:32 AM, garwel said:
Do you think there might be added something to make sense staying near the experiments longer and/or coming back later? Like gathering additional data that can't be transferred. I use life support mods, so I don't see a point right now to monitor the SEP experiments.
Yes. Id move the automatic transmission deeper into the science tree. Ive unlocked it already before constructing a single SEP buildout, as ive been doing probe missions to the mun/minmus. Next two missions are mun probe missions, then the next program is a manned mission, probably to the Mun. SEP is going to come in handy for that!
-
So Im trying to get a probe to Minmus. Launched it to LKO, set up an intercept with a maneuver node, got a Pe of 7000m. Good enough for now. Warp to SOI. As soon as my craft goes on rails, the velocity changes. Now I am not on an intercept at all, but instead have a much less eccentric orbit that is more easterly, less radial out from kerbin.
Done an orbit, made an adjustment before Ap to try to intercept again. Found a nice cheap correction burn, only about 250 m/s - and I did overengineer the probe, so thats not a big issue. Except the same issue happened again, of course.
Mods list is in the other Question I asked, 999 Days and 499 hours. Its updated from that - the current suite of USI mods, plus Ground Construction, plus NRAP, plus planetary domes. Barring FAR and KCT, all installed via CKAN. Some obviously through command line (eg planetarydomes, which CKAN doesnt recognise as 1.2.2 ready).
EDIT: *sigh* This may not be reproducible after restarting KSP. Will edit further if it happens again.
-
1 minute ago, Kaa253 said:
EL is still there and working correctly. Roverdude has said it will be deprecated eventually. I will be comfortable with that if orbital construction with GC (
) is made possible.
This is indeed the correct thread to discuss CTT placement of MKS parts but I am pretty happy with its place in the Simple Command Modules node (it is on the same 90 science points level as the stock Hitchhiker with a crew capacity of 4). I have seen and used other mods with 3 man capsules at this level (e.g. HGR).
Well, the Salamander is in the 90 Science node. The stock 2 man lander is heavier, not fantastic, and at the 160 science node. With the Salamander, Im never going to bother unlocking the stock 2 man lander capsule. Then again I guess I wasnt going to anyway, if there was any possible alternative available. 90 Science just seems very early compared to stock parts in CTT.
Looking at GC, it looks pretty good actually. About my only qualms with it are the no orbital construction. For the moment, I guess what I can do is, disable the parts for ground construction for EL, and use EL only for orbital construction.
-
Its not in the NetKAN for UKS, so Id say it was downloaded but not installed.
-
3 hours ago, RoverDude said:
0.50.15 - 2017.02.04
------------------- Bundled the 'Ground Construction' mod as the standard off-world construction mod for USI.
- For users of EL, Technicians and Mechanics now have the ExConstructionSkill.
- You can no longer scrap EVA Kerbals... (Thanks jd284!)
- New nodes on the Tundra modules and KSPedia entries (Thanks dboi88!)
- Added an antenna to the Salamander (Thanks voicey99!)
- Updated the Karibou to use CCK (Thanks DStaal)
- You can now toggle local logistics and planetary logistics separately on warehouses
- A new line of Tundra ISM's have been introduced. These use the 4.75m form factor and are equivalent to the Ranger ISMs.
- Fixed a bug where some expandable parts were not properly receiving shielding from fairings.
- Fixed cost bugs with the Tundra PDU and P-Log Modules
- Material Kits can now come from the local vessel even if the container is not a warehouse.
- The Ranger mini hab now has its own texture.
-
Agriculture converters no longer require Organics as an input
Relevant changes for USI-LS:
-
Some changes regarding habitation overrides:
- Any vessel with a habitation value of over 50 years will disregard Hab/Home penalties regardless of the voyage length.
- For better balance, Scouts/Pilots must be in a vessel with at least one year of habitation to enable their bonus.
- With an MKS Colonization bonus of 500%, crew in LANDED vessels with a habitation time of one year will be exempt from habitation penalties.
- Both of these values may be customized (the above are defaults) via the GUI available at the space center.
Great stuff to see! Some questions.
Is Ground Construction a hard dependency, seeing as its bundled? For those preferring to use EL (I personally just dont want to be limited to prefab DIY kits), will its presence cause issues? Will removing it?
With the change to Ground Construction, you mentioned that EL parts will not be in MKS for the future. Is there plans to change the resource chain in MKS to accompany those changes?
On that note, for a career in progress, would you imagine this would cause save breaking mayhem?
Glad to see kerbals no longer scrappable! This is a major part of the inquiry regarding updating a save in progress, actually...
For the salamander, using CTT it seems to be in a relatively early node compared to other 2 man pods. Is that something you fix? Or should I bring that up on the CTT thread?
) is made possible.
[1.12.5] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.13.0 "Забытый" 13/Aug/2023)
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted · Edited by blu3wolf
So the Kane landing contracts require you to take a magnetometer scan when landed. Does the MLEM have a magnetometer mounted normally that Im missing? So far as I can tell it does not, but quite possibly Im just not seeing it.
Edit: Also, the MLEM-CRD Cosmic Ray Detector doesnt feature in the Apollo issue - is it supposed to be attached to the descent stage?