• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

153 Excellent


About westamastaflash

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer
  1. You are always welcome to do this :-) Thanks!
  2. Yes. I just moved into a new house so things like KSP are currently on the back burner. Rest assured that I will get to it at some point in the next month or so.
  3. I have been working on trying to put together a set of RealFuels engine configurations that aren't as serious-to-reality as Realism Overhaul is, but instead offers up to the player the ability to build and customize 'semi-realistic' engines of all types, and allow career gameplay progression, unlocking better and better engines with science points and funds, while still enjoying using 'real' fuels with various benefits and drawbacks instead of the stock LiquidFuel and Oxidizer. This is not intended for realism purists. Here's the spreadsheet I'm using to develop these configurations. I'd appreciate feedback, especially on the thrust that each engine produces. I significantly increased thrusts across the board. I looked at this wikipedia article and started rough-estimating thrusts for each size engine (and engine role). I want keep the main KSP engine/mod engines sizes (0.625, 1.25, 2.5, 3.75, also - 5, 7.5), give them 'about right' thrust levels for a realistic sized Kerbal system, and offer multiple fuel choices, and require as few part mods as possible to try to reduce the number of parts in memory (and KSP loading time). The only item that is planned to be released is a set of engine configurations (much like Realfuels-Stockalike), with hopefully only a few required mods to fill in the gaps where stock engine models don't exist. Right now I am thinking that ModRocketSys, SpaceY (both packs), and Kerbal Atomics (optional, perhaps a second set of configs just for it?) will be the supported mods, and this would give a player engines from 0.625 to 7.5m, with the largest thrust being the Emu-IV with 3.2mN of thrust (4 emu's / equivalent of 4 F-1b's...). As for gimbals, I'll probably just let all engines gimbal? I would be interested to hear feedback/suggestions as to the usefulness of something like this. I'm building this for my personal Kerbin 10x Rescale + Outer-Planets career game, but thought community input might be good if I was to release into the wild (if it is useful). For each engine size, 5 stock or mod engines will be identified: L, L+, U, U+, and O. I'd also like to do Aerospikes and Nukes as well. Thrust levels are significantly buffed from stock. Each of these engines will be assigned a 'base thrust' value, and given the following configs, which are unlocked at various techs. Engine mass will be set based on the 'Goal TWR' by tech level as seen in the stockalike configuration tool. All engines will get the following options. Fuel mixtures across different engines all have the same ratios for simplicity's sake. (ratio is "Mass Ratio" as seen in the stockalike config tool) Kerosene+LqdOxygen (Default, and available from the start), ratio 2.6 Aerozine-50+NTO (Available with Fuel Systems), ratio 1.6 Hypergolic Bipropellant Since this is slightly better than straight UDMH+NTO, I didn't want to clutter up the list of configs LqdHydrogen+LqdOxygen (Available with Advanced Fuel Systems), ratio 5.5 Common in lots of modern rocket engines LqdMethane+LqdOxygen (Available with High Performance Fuel Systems), ratio 3.55 like SpaceX Raptor engine Hydrazine+NTO (Available with High Performance Fuel Systems), ratio 1.2 (is this correct? Or did i get it backwards and it should be like .8?) slightly higher-performing hypergolic bipropellant. Like Aerojet Rocketdyne's AMBR or HiPAT engines. Maybe useful for semi-realistic ISRU applications when you can create N2H4 (peroxide process...) and N2O4 (catalytic ammoina oxidation) from planetary atmosphere & ice mining. A, U, U+, and O engines will also be given the option of Hydrazine monopropellant from the start as well I'd like to include the stock and Kerbal Atomics nuclear engines as well. (LH2, LNH3, LCH4) This will also include a set of configs to remove unused fuel types from the real fuels tank types to save screen real estate in the fuel selection box. In addition, a second set configurations will be provided that will convert each engine into a "near-future" 'full flow staged combustion cycle' version of the engine. These configurations will increase the cost of the part by 4x, increase the thrust by about 33%, and improve the ISP for each fuel type by 7%. (these numbers are what the stockalike configuration tool uses). They will also require the Nanolathing technology in order to use them. There will be 10 or 11 possible configurations for each engine. Unlocking configurations and increasing the tech levels will require Science points as well as credits. Too much?
  4. For modular fuel tanks, is there any way to make this work? I know that the Hangar Mod works with modular fuel tanks, perhaps there is some code in that could be used for this? I love being able to skip launches when I'm using 10x rescaled Kerbin and want to get lots of stuff into orbit. EDIT: Seems to actually be working with modular fuel tanks just fine?
  5. Thank you! I must have had an older/different version. @PART[*]:HAS[#node_attach[*],@MODULE[ModuleDeployableSolarPanel]] { %node_stack_root = #$node_attach$ @attachRules = 1,1,0,0,1 @bulkheadProfiles = size1, srf }
  6. When this patch is in place: In this mod, the Gondola parts will only attach at one node to a parent part, and then no other parts will allow themselves to be attached. The parts contain a ModuleDeployableSolarPanel module, but also have 4 nodes *and* are surface-attachable. Without the patch, things attach just fine to all the nodes.
  7. "Add Attachment Nodes to Solar Panels" breaks some mod parts, particularly when the mod part has nodes already. Probably should be modified to specifically fix the stock solar panel parts only.
  8. I believe I have found the culprit. It's a small patch that adds attachment nodes to solar panels. Problem is it just checks for the module, it doesn't actually make sure it's a solar panel... "Add Attachment Nodes to Solar Panels" Once I got rid of it, all better!
  9. No errors at all. I'll have to do a binary search of mods do try to determine which one might be interacting and causing the problem. With over 100 installed it will be a bit of a challenge.
  10. I love this. I am having a bit of trouble, it seems I can attach the gondola parts using one of the nodes, but I can't then attach anything to the rest of the nodes. The Gondola drill will connect, but none of the other parts. I have a lot of mods so perhaps some incompatibility... maybe something to to with the JSI transparency or something?
  11. Thank you! I should have just done a search for it in the cfg files :-)
  12. Another question. Is there any equivalent to the Claim Jumper for atmospheric resource harvesting? I'm working on a set of sort of 'Real ISRU' templates and converters, and the once piece I'm missing is an inflatable factory that could be used to suck in the atmosphere. Do the PATH_INDUSTRY templates support the use of ModuleResourceHarvester directly?
  13. This would be great. Maybe a configurable slider from 0% to 100% return (equipment does break and degrade, so perhaps an 80% recycle rate initially)?
  14. Do you get the equipment back when you deflate a module? I deflated the Hacienda IMF but I can't re-inflate it.
  15. Apppears to be a known issue in the library that you are using for compression and encoding: https://github.com/jawa-the-hutt/lz-string-csharp/issues/6 I started looking at this. You can leverage the .NET framework's built in gzip compression(broken in unity, but I found a working version using MSFT's free code https://github.com/Hitcents/Unity.IO.Compression) and Base64 functions since you've got PC power behind you. I'll send a pull request when I get it working. OK. so it appears to be the root culprit is that for some reason the config node GetValue is not returning the full string. Once it reaches 463 characters it just cuts it off. Best solution I think will be to create a list of compressed path entries instead of a single one. Update. So it appears the culprit is the use of the forward slash character in Base64. the serializer seems to be interpreting it as the start of a comment when there are two in a row. Should be a simple change to modify the Base64 value to replace "/" with something else.