Youen

Members
  • Content Count

    340
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

444 Excellent

3 Followers

About Youen

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. So no one uses this kind of technique for faster iterations during mod development? Or is there a better place to ask? Does anyone use the LoadScene method from the main menu? Is it supposed to work? Thanks for any hint.
  2. During plugin development, it's useful to have the game automatically load a save file and start the flight scene with a specific vessel, each time the game is started. I had some code that did just that, I think it was borrowed from the AutoLoadGame mod (https://github.com/allista/AutoLoadGame) but maybe it was from somewhere else. Anyway, it worked on old KSP versions, but it doesn't work on 1.7. When I call, from the main menu HighLogic.LoadScene(GameScenes.SPACECENTER), it does display the space center, but something is broken and I can't click on any building or do anything. Does anyone know how to do this kind of thing in a recent KSP version?
  3. I know this thread is old, but if anyone reads this interesting discussion like I did after landing it from your favorite search engine, I'd like to add an existing solution that wasn't mentioned : the Konstruction mod allows to weld* docking ports. The process is then: design your ship/base/space station in VAB as you like cut it in manageable blocks for launch, and add docking ports and RCS/probe cores as needed Launch the blocks Dock the blocks together in orbit Separate unneeded RCS/probe cores (KAS can help here) Then you can right-click each docking ports and select the option to collapse them. This will remove both docking ports, and attach the corresponding parts together, exactly as if it was done in the VAB. Beware, this is an irreversible process, no undocking after welding (the docking ports are completely removed from the ship) This has the advantage of looking nice, and reduce the part count (and reduce wobble if you don't already use a mod for that). Now about practical aspects if someone is interested: Konstruction can be installed with CKAN or from here (the thread says KSP 1.3 but it works fine in 1.6) (optional) I'm trying to avoid getting too many parts in my KSP install, so I've just kept Konstruction.dll (and the dependency USITools.dll), and added ModuleWeldablePort to stock docking ports using a Module Manager config file. I've deleted all other parts from the Konstruction mod. Maybe I could release that as a stand-alone mod. If you need to precisely adjust roll when docking, while there are options for that in Konstruction, I've found it doesn't work so well for precision work. So I do it manually, right before docking, which feels more "role play" actually. I use the Docking Port Alignment Indicator mod, which, among other things, adds a roll angle (visual and numerical) indicator, making it easy to dock with sub-degree accuracy. When done right, you don't feel the "magnetic" attraction, your block just clicks into place seamlessly. Beware, as of Konstruction version 1.2.0.0, there is a bug with the "Compress Parts (Rotate)" option which is supposed to adjust roll when welding, but actually increases it. But if that bug gets fixed, it would probably be the best way to go. I still have to put all this into practice to get my Mun base assembled and landed, but from the few tests I've made it should work well. Happy assembling ! * the term "weld" here just means the parts get attached together, exactly like when you do so in the VAB, it won't merge parts into a single one.
  4. Hi, Does anyone know if there is a combination of mods that would allow playing with RSS and clouds with KSP 1.2.2 ? It doesn't seem environmental visual enhancements is compatible with RSS, and I can't find a recent version of RVE that would work with KSP 1.2.2. I'd appreciate any pointer if such a thing is at all possible. Thanks.
  5. This is normal if your ship has steering fins: when you change attitude, they move, which changes the drag of the ship. Not sure that's the explanation, but maybe it is. If you have different results depending on your ship attitude, even when it is static (not steering, not rotating), then it's something else.
  6. I'm not sure it's an issue, when you use RK4 integration you do not feed it with different accelerations for each 0.04s time step. The force varies very slowly, that's also the assumption used for the cache system. To be more precise, you could adjust the force depending on velocity, by assuming it varies with squared velocity (that would still be faster than going through the whole force computation stuff). I think it would make sense to only give accurate predictions for 1x time warp. Or maybe a prediction somewhere in between. Or ultimately give players the option to choose which one they want, but that's a bit far fetched... Also I'm not sure if using 4x warp means KSP time steps are multiplied by 4, or if it depends on the computer CPU power. In any case, if even the KSP simulation can't be reproduced with high precision, it won't be possible to predict it with a greater precision... I also remember that at some point I made tests and noticed that saving/loading could change the landing spot.
  7. Not necessarily. If I remember correctly the default KSP timestep is 0.04 (you can see it in the game settings). If you just use the same acceleration multiple times (we are trying to solve integrator accuracy, but not to increase force computation frequency), it should be fine, as it's just a bunch of multiplications and additions (you would have about 10 "sub-steps" for each simulation step? That means 20 additions and 10 multiplications). You can even pre-compute acceleration*time_step. I can't guarantee without testing, but I don't think it will have a big impact on performances.
  8. I think it's just the most naive thing you can do: velocity = velocity + acceleration * time_step position = position + velocity * time_step
  9. Do you get the same result as with the previous integrator? That could mean either you did not implement it right (but I don't think so, chances are you would get completely wrong results in that case), or more likely it just proves that precision issues do not come from the integrator, or, even worse, that getting more "precise" results will diverge more from what KSP does. Because KSP does naive integration (with a small time step, but that might only increase numerical errors). That's just a quick thought, maybe I'm wrong Maybe integrating with the same time step as KSP would make it better? For performances, you could use the same force in multiple integration iterations (assuming it wouldn't vary too much over a short time). And then try with a naive integrator instead of Verlet.
  10. Thanks for taking over @Kobymaru, and thanks and good luck to all contributors currently working on the mod.
  11. This thread has moved here: Please only respond in the new thread. Thanks.
  12. You have accuracy issues with KSP 1.0.5 and Trajectories v1.4.5 ? That's weird, because the changelog says accuracy issues with stock aerodynamics were fixed in that release, so it should mean I had actually validated it was accurate after the fix.
  13. That's a bit of an overstatement... Unless you mean my code is so awful that no one can understand it ;-) Unfortunately, I've lost interest in KSP in general for quite some time now, and I don't really want to reinstall the latest version just to fix bugs and upgrade code for the latest version, which is precisely the part I dislike about modding. Maybe I'll get back to it later, but no ETA nor promises. In the meantime, I can at least update the opening post inform people of what works or not, and on which version of the game. I think the most problematic issue is that prediction is not accurate, but I don't know what is the last version of KSP for which it worked correctly? Also, despite what @Kobymaru says, I'm sure there are a lot of people around here that are able to improve the mod (starting with himself). And I'd be happy to release the work of anyone who would like to fix the issues / improve the mod. I can also give direct access to spacedock and AVC, and I think moderators can transfer the opening post ownership, or failing that we could create a new thread, if someone wants to maintain the mod. I'm really sorry to "let down" the current users of the mod, but fixing this kind of issue can be cumbersome, and I don't want to force myself to do it if I'm not even going to play the game after that.
  14. Module manager is used to inject a module in all command parts that will store your descent settings (angle of attack, etc.) so that you don't loose them when switching vessel or saving/loading a game. I have never tested the behavior without it, so you could expect issues. As a side note, I don't see why you would want to remove it ; it's just a tool to standardize how mods add or remove modules to parts, so that they remain compatible with each other (most of the time).
  15. You can't void Trajectories warranty (there is none).