seaces
-
Posts
175 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by seaces
-
-
Question:
The mod says it will upgrade the tracking station to level 4, I am playing in science sandbox and when I right click to on my tracking station it says level 3.I have custom barn kit installed as well.
Is this normal and how can I verify it is actually level 4?
-
I am facing this issue where if I time warp above x1000 long running experiments like seismic observation that take 14 days will show NaN value and will stop running. Also noticed that the craft running this experiment losses connection to the network as far is the Kerbalism mod concerned but when I go to map or check the status in top left corner I can clearly see that the craft has connection to the network.
To fix this I have to change the scene by swithcing to other craft or space center or switching between buildings. Then Kerbalism will refresh the status of the crafts and connections and NaN will disapear only to come back when I timewarp.
Also it seems so far to only affect crafts on the ground I do not think I have seen same bug on crafts in orbit but I am kinda early in the game so I do not have much of experiments that will take ages in orbit.Any suggestions how to fix this or why I am getting this?
-
@Gameslinxyour Parallax v2 looks amazing. Will Beyond Home get ever updated to support latest Parallax?
Also what planet pack was used to make trailer for Parallax 2.0?
-
Thank you all for your suggestions and tips. All very useful on how manage large ship going interplanetary with loads of dV. Hard to pick best answer as they are actually useful to me so I will pick one random to mark this question as answered.
-
OMG, this is why I love this forum. You get to discuss stuff and exchange ideas and you guys gave plenty of ideas. Anyway here is my reply, sorry if I missed someone to quote:
17 hours ago, FleshJeb said:Efficient staging and/or orbital refueling is your only good answer.
One of the most efficient staging methods is called Asparagus, and has the benefit of a reasonably consistent TWR. You can also have multiple stacks of asparagus-staging, arranged in series, to suit the TWR and dV needs of that phase of the mission.
https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Asparagus_staging
https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/68532-staging-methods-overview/
If you really want to get into the weeds, a guide on optimizing multiple stages is on this page:
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/multistage.php
I've built "serially asparagus-staged" LFO rockets that have in excess of 20000 m/s dV, and an average TWR > 1.0. Because when you're trying to circumnavigate the planet at faster than orbital velocity, you have to thrust straight down for extended periods.
Thank you for the links provided. When I was building my craft I was aware that my mission payload as well as dry weight of the stage that is supposed to get me to Gateway needs to be light I tried to cut down on dry weight as much as possible. I arrived at idea of multiple smaller tanks connected with fuel lines that I keep dropping in space as I go. Per you link provided I think I made something called "Breadcrumb" staging. Stage pushed by two Terrier engines and FLT-T400 tanks (I think) that I drop. Initial TWR is around 0.5 and it grows as I burn till 1.1.
6 hours ago, jimmymcgoochie said:There are a few tricks that can increase your delta-V:
- Simplify, then add lightness. Do you really need that part? If not, get rid of it and save some weight. Is it really practical to do such a complex mission right now, or can you get away with a simple orbit of Gateway with the occasional coincidental flyby of a moon when the orbits align?
- Can you get a gravity-assisted capture or aerobrake when you arrive? Try to find an encounter with the biggest moon you can so that its gravity will slow you down relative to Gateway itself and so will help you brake into orbit. The alternative is going for a really low periapsis and using Gateway’s atmosphere to aerobrake, but this is a high risk strategy as you could a) burn up, b) overdo it and fall into the planet or c) get wrecked by radiation, assuming Beyond Home has magnetosphere configs for Kerbalism and you’re using the radiation system.
- Orbital assembly will allow you to build something larger and heavier than your biggest launch rocket can handle in one flight. You can also launch partly fuelled tanks and then send up a tanker to fill them up later.
Trying to cut the corners on transfers doesn’t work very well or very often. Stick to the proper transfer windows and you’ll save a lot of delta-V which means you can build a smaller, lighter mission.
Doing long voyages with Kerbalism is hard, but still feasible- here’s a ship I made to attempt a Grand Tour of the stock system, landing on every planet and moon (except Jool, obviously) in one trip:
It was huge, slow, laggy, weighed thousands of tons once complete, it didn’t even make it to Moho and I had to skip the Mun and Minmus on the way home too, but it got everywhere else and had decades of supplies for its crew of two. It’s all stock parts too, with the exception of the life support bits that Kerbalism itself provides.
There’s no need to build something quite so gigantic for a simple interplanetary mission, but you do need to keep an eye on the life support and also on the crew stress as stressed-out Kerbals have a tendency to accidentally dump food/water/oxygen overboard. Keep the crew happy with a spacious, fully pressurised ship and tick enough of the boxes to avoid stress buildup and you can run missions that last for years- add in the active radiation shield and radiation detox unit that you unlock late in the tech tree and you can run missions that last decades, just as long as you pack enough supplies.
The moons around Gateway some of them are inclined so I struggle to get encounter with them. So what I will do (no idea if this will help) make insertion burn by going retrograde in relation to the Gateway, going against its spin if you know what I mean. My biggest issue with kerbalism is habitation/stress management. To get 20m3 per Kerbal I need loads of hitchikers. I almost sent Kerbals to another planet but aborted mission as I could not provision them with habitat for 3+ year mission (mostly due waiting the transfer window to get back home) as craft was to heavy for the engines that I had unlocked at that moment. Now I am aiming to unlock a tech node where I get that gravity ring part (I think it comes with kerbalism) has almost 100m3 of habitation and provides loads of habitation bonuses. That and radiation management, this time I play with radiation resets whenever they land home, I tried once with lifetime radiation but I was roasting them way to fast even with full shielding going to the Mum/Minmus in stock solar system. In no time I would get 25% of lifetime radiation and if I send them like that interplanetary they are very close to dying from radiation poisoning by the time I get them back. Note I play on Hard.
Where is radiation detox unit and how I can operate that one?
2 hours ago, king of nowhere said:1) i don't. I use transfer windows and gravity assists to reduce deltaV cost as much as possible.
If I still need lots of deltaV, I use ions. If ions are not an option, I use nuclear. All things you won't do.
So, if you want to build ships with lots of deltaV with only LFO, the only thing you can do is build a huge ship with multiple stages. No other way.
The rocket equation states that deltaV=ln(Mw/Md)*Vex: that is, the deltaV is equal to the logaritm of the ration between the wet mass (Mw) and the dry mass (Md) of your ship, times the velocity of your exhaust gases (Vex) - which is equal to Isp*g.
So, to increase deltaV, there are only two things you can do: increase Isp, or increase the Mw/Md ratio. You don't want to increase Isp, so you've got to increase the Mw/Md. Which goes threefold:
a) reduce the weight of the payload. self-explaining
b) increase the amount of fuel. again, self-explaining
c) use multiple stages. As the amount of fuel you bring increases, the mass of dry fuel tanks increases too. And of course, to lift all that stuff, you need a big heavy engine. So after you burned most of your fuel, you want to ditch all those empty, useless, heavy spent fuel tanks. And you want to ditch that big powerful engine that's no longer needed, and use something smaller and lighter instead. Drop tanks are also an option.
Still, you can't prevent the mass from skyrocketing fast as you increase deltaV. Say your probe weights 1 ton, and you want 2 ton of fuel to give it 3 km/s. then if you want to add 3 more km/s, you need to make another stage with the same 3:1 ratio between dry and wet mass, so you need 9 tons. An additional 3 km/s will again require three times more mass than before, so 27 tons. Three more km/3, to bring the total to 12 km/s, and you're at 81 tons. And then 240, and so on. Past a certain size, rockets become hugely impractical. Which is why people prefer to use orbital mechanics to reduce deltaV requirememnts as much as possible, and to use more efficient engines.
This game lets you "cheat" by mining new fuel everywhere cheaply. that also reduces the deltaV required. of course, if you're using kerbalism, then you're not supposed to use that - or you're supposed to use the kerbalism isru functionalities, which make refueling less practical than the alternatives.
2) it's not exactly required that high deltaV=low thrust; the rocket equation has nothing on thrust. However, there are two practical factors that link high deltaV to low thrust:
a) to maximize deltaV you want an engine optimized for efficiency. those tend to have lower thrust
b) to reduce your dry mass you want a smaller engine. and of course this means less thrust than with a bigger engine.
So, nothing to do there. you want to maximize your deltaV, you can do it by sacrificing thrust.
Regarding your concerns with kerbalism, yes, it requires a lot of additional life support resources, but not too much. in the end, the mass of the food and water and oxygen is still a pittance compared to that of the living space. My suggestion there is that it's still a lot more convenient to add more supplies for a longer trip, than it is to add more fuel to travel faster. One kerbal can live one year with less than 100 kg of resources. To shorten the trip by one year, you could easily need to double the mass of your ship. Put three redundant units for everything essential, and you'll be fine regarding malfunctions, too. you can easily last 20+ years that way if your ship is well made. Again, it's a lot cheaper than making a ship three times bigger to have a shorter trip.
3) you can take a look at my kerbalism grand tours linked in my signature; but the short answer is, with a BIG ship. Of course, a smaller crew would allow a much smaller ship either, and I like to put additional functionalities.
the one that most closely resembles your mission parameters is Bolt, from my second mission; a relatively small ship, only 4 crew members. Only living space was 4 hitchhicker containers, a lab some cupolas (all stuff that reduces stress). the living space itself was about 50 tons, and with roughly 10 tons of supplies I could have lasted almost 30 years. Still, to avoid isru and make a grand tour, I needed a good 20 km/s on the main ship. Which I got by a multiple drop tank design, and it raised the total mass up to 5000 tons. even using nuclears.
Thank you for mathematically explaining what is happening. Kinda goes in line what I noticed by trail and error, except that I suck at math big time
(I play this game by trial and error and some feel) but anyway I got what you are trying to say. I am just now going through your Boly/Nail (very cool stuff) I might have some few questions around that one specifically. For now how radiation detox works where I can find it and activate it?
Also I am still new to deep interplanetary voyages with kerbalism, but is it worth to take greenhouse for food? Is there any breaking point where it becomes better to have greenhouse then ready to consume supplies to sustain kerbals?
I must admit that I was playing KSP on and off for years but never went past Duna or Moho in stock let alone used ISRU in stock. What is the pain in using ISRU with kerbalism?
-
Hi,
So I have a few questions on how you guys manage crafts that need to have huge amounts of dV for interplanetary missions. To put it bit in a context: I have a quite heavily moded instance of KSP with Beyond Home mod and I got sick of waiting optimal transfer windows for my probes (I play probes before kerbals + I have life support mod installed) so I decided to send relatively small probe, to planet called Gateway, which is around 1500kg heavy (with its own propulsion to hop around some moons once it gets there). The transfer window planner told me that I need around 3500m/s of dv to get there with insertion burn. However, as I dont want to wait for two years for optimal transfer window (I also dont wish to warp for that much as I dont want to miss other transfer windows and funs stuff to do) I picked a transfer that is around 6200m/s which is basically ASAP. Anyway, I managed to build a transfer/capture stage for the probe with required dV but bad TWR for most of the part. Now as for the research progress I dont have access to nukes, ions or other fancy propulsion, just good old LFO tech for now.
So to the questions:
- I am interested to see how you guys build monsters that need huge dV? Just to get additional inspiration and ideas for future missions especially crafts with LFO engines only.
- Perhaps I am wrong, but crafts with huge dV end up with low TWR always, well at least if you use space optimized engines (high vacuum ISP)? In my case that is mostly true then I need to split the ejection burns etc. In this case I ended up setting up a burn in solar orbit to get me to Gateway, which is fine but that will take me longer to get to Geteway. When I use a probe not much of a big deal, but in the future if I wish to send Kerbals then I am in pain as I use life support mod called Kerbalism. A craft to support few kerbals for a few years to go and get back would be even bigger with even more abysmal performance.
- For any players here that are playing with some life support mods, how do you manage it when you go long distance for a few years?
Feel free to reply even if you can cover some of the point or add any other points.
-
I see, makes sense. I just wanted to make sure that everything works.
-
Hi @Nertea,
So I was using this mod since at least v0.7.0 and at that time I had editor button visible in KSP in line with screenshots from your first post. After I updated the mod via CKAN to v0.7.1 I lost that button. Any idea why?
-
Hi All,
So I recently I started experimenting with KSP stock fairing used as interstage as I have a lander with dual engine configuration. So instead of putting two decouplers on each engine followed by bi-adapter I wanted to put these engines in an interstage which can be decoupled. Bellow is a screenshot so that you can see what I am talking about:
Now my problem here is I dont know how to decouple the interstage so that I am left with the clean lander above with engines ready to fire. I guess that I need to insert the decoupler but I dont know how. I tried inserting a 2.5 decoupler in one of the interstage nodes between the lander and the interstage plate but that did not work. Any suggestions?
-
@Gordon Dry I did not know about disabling pressurization before EVA. I did EVAs before from pressurized parts without disabling pressurization and did not notice any side effects, unless I missed something. Is there a reason for doing this?
-
Another question around Kerbalism.
So I noticed when I have a pod that can be pressurized nitrogen is used to keep the pressure. Now for example, when I make a craft with one pod and after few EVAs I run out of Nitrogen and get warning that there is no pressure anymore in the pod. Is there any way to calculate how many EVAs I can do with certain amount of nitrogen on board whilst I am still in VBA designing the craft?
-
1 hour ago, king of nowhere said:
as i said, it's about 50 rad. 1 hour at 1 rad/h will give your kerbonaut 1 rad, which will equate to 2% radiation damage.
but you don't need to send a probe to measure radiations. you press B while on the map, centered on a body, and you see its radiation belts, and how much radiation they have.
as a rule of thumb, the inner belt of kerbin and the belts of jool are the only one that are really dangerous. everything else, you can mostly ignore. solar storms are also dangerous, but if you correctly use fuel tanks as sunshields, they won't be an issue
Thank you @king of nowhere this is really helpful.
-
Hi,
So anyone having issues with Breaking Ground parts and this mod pack? I just sent a crew to Lua with some breaking ground DLC experiments and I cannot deploy any of them. They are all highlighted in orange if I try to do that. I don't even know what orange highlight means in EVA construction but what ever it is I cannot deploy anything. -
Thank you for all this information! One question, How do you know what is the max dose of radiation can a Kerbal receive before it dies? That number would help me as I could send a probe, get radiation values and figure out how long a Kerbal can sit before it gets cooked.
-
3 hours ago, Tacombel said:
Get the link from Imgur. Use Under image from URL just under your message and add .PNG to the end of the link. Done
Done, that did the trick. Update my post and also quoted below:
15 hours ago, seaces said:Hi All,
I was wondering if someone can little bit explain to me how radiation works in this game with Kerbalism. I get the main principles CMs and belts around planets are places where is extreme radiation. What I am struggling is a feel for what is really dangerous and what is tolerable and will not burn my kerbals. What is low radiation but still fine, what is medium and what is no-go.
For example, I have small craft in orbit as below:
As you can see the craft position in the image around Pe is not in the radiation belt and it is showing that habitat radiation is 8.9mrad/h which I suppose that is number that is actually hitting Jeb inside. The craft has maxed out shielding yet I get warning that kerbal is exposed to radiation. When I hover the mouse over the yellow radiation icon I get value not from habitat radiation of 8.9mrad/h but the general radiation value of 0.032 rad/h. So I am confused what is the actual value that is hitting Jeb inside habitat radiation (8,9mrad/h) or radiation value (0.032rad/h)? Also both of these numbers to me look like really small, less then 1 yet they trigger warning. I admit I don`t have a sense of scale of rad/h unit and perhaps 0.032 is something to be aware of.
-
Hi All,
I was wondering if someone can little bit explain to me how radiation works in this game with Kerbalism. I get the main principles CMs and belts around planets are places where is extreme radiation. What I am struggling is a feel for what is really dangerous and what is tolerable and will not burn my kerbals. What is low radiation but still fine, what is medium and what is no-go.
For example, I have small craft in orbit as below:
As you can see the craft position in the image around Pe is not in the radiation belt and it is showing that habitat radiation is 8.9mrad/h which I suppose that is number that is actually hitting Jeb inside. The craft has maxed out shielding yet I get warning that kerbal is exposed to radiation. When I hover the mouse over the yellow radiation icon I get value not from habitat radiation of 8.9mrad/h but the general radiation value of 0.032 rad/h. So I am confused what is the actual value that is hitting Jeb inside habitat radiation (8,9mrad/h) or radiation value (0.032rad/h)? Also both of these numbers to me look like really small, less then 1 yet they trigger warning. I admit I don`t have a sense of scale of rad/h unit and perhaps 0.032 is something to be aware of.
-
Thank you to all of you for tips given, gonna give them a try.
-
Hi,
So I am at the stage where I want to make sure I design efficient rockets but also extract maximum out of my rocket with a good ascent profile.
My usual approach to rocket design that lifts certain payload to LKO is to have first stage around 2.0 TWR, second stage around 1.2-1.5 and by the time second stage is done I should already be in LKO. Using this design, my throttle profile is to keep my throttle set 100% all the way until AP is around 75km and then I coast and burn once again until I get LKO.
The flight profile is as soon as the rocket get to about 50m/s and its stable of launch pad, angle to 60deg instantly, wait for prograde marker to catch up and then instead of staying in the prograde marker I "pull the marker" by flying rocket on the very edge of the marker all the way till 50deg. I continue slowly pulling my prograde marker and aim to be around 45-35deg at about 10km. Then I check my time to AP and ensure that is going up and also verify in Kerbal Engineer that my horizontal speed is catching up with my vertical speed. I keep pushing my rocket till about 20deg but by that time I am already at stage 2 and will probably start coasting any moment. Sometimes I find myself up in space with still first stage not finished let alone second stage fired which was made in the first place for upper atmosphere and orbit insertion.
Thing is my rockets on the way up with Kerbals in them burn like a massive fireball, legit sometimes I think that my rockets burn more going upwards to space then when they are coming down to Kerbin. Poor Kerbals have really fiery and aggressive launch.
Anyway, does burning like this all the way up create massive drag inefficiencies, more then gravity? Some people say burn horizontally as much you can and get that horizontal speed, forget about fire but still I think this much drag would count for something?
To burn or not to burn.....
-
5 hours ago, Akira_R said:
What KSP version?
Latest, which if I am correct is 1.12.2.
-
Hi @TriggerAu,
Thank you for this mod and KAC as well. I am using them since I started playing this game. Just noticed possible bug KAC/TransferPlanner, dont know which of these two is culprit. Before when I used TransferPlanner there was a button to send the calculations straight to KAC. Now that button is gone and when I go to settings menu in TP and look under KAC Integration I get message that KAC is not visible in the scene while clearly it is. I get the same error when I am in space centre, tracking station or in orbit.
Any idea?
-
Hi,
So I am having this strange issue with my game. I am playing in science mode now and every time I have a craft in space, save game, exit KSP come back and load everything back I encounter the following strange behavior:
- I cannot create maneuver nodes for active crafts in orbit, only the crafts just launched during that gaming instance,
- Cannot EVA from crafts that were in orbit or other planets before I saved game and came back, I get message that I need to upgrade my astronaut complex
What is going on here???!!!
-
On 7/18/2021 at 6:51 PM, king of nowhere said:
some chemical processes cause that. personally, i discovered that I can go just fine at x100000 warp, as long as i don't require any change from the game. trying to set up automated actions, like "stop this process when the ship is in sunlight", will cause the incoherent behavior message. but with nothing set on actions, it works just fine.
if you did not set actions, then i have no idea.
I get that but I wish I dont get that message as in the early game I relay heavily on the generator to produce electricity for my crafts until I get to solar panels. I set them to auto to conserve oxygen by not running generator when battery is full. That means I have set LOW Electricity to run generator and HIGH Electricity to turn it off.
-
Hi there,
I am having annoying issue when I go to x10000 time compression and more. I always drop from that to a lower value as I get error message saying that _FuelCell has incoherent behavior at high warp and it has to drop it. You know how many times I get spammed by this and dropped out of warp on the way to Minmus....
-
9 hours ago, Gotmachine said:
RemoteTech is unsupported in current (3.x) releases, and my advice is to not try to use both mods together. There are many bugs, and even that put aside, the balance is all over the place
We have fixed the RemoteTech support code in the in-development next major Kerbalism version (4.0), but there is currently no playable release of that version, and we have no ETA on a release.
If you want a realism oriented comms mod, I would suggest looking at RealAntennas which is available for stock and fully compatible with Kerbalism.
As far as I know RealAntennas do not patch all of the antennas and especially antennas from the mods such as Near Future. Shame, otherwise brilliant mod. I was trying to make use of it but it did not work for me due this reason.
(I play this game by trial and error and some feel) but anyway I got what you are trying to say. I am just now going through your Boly/Nail (very cool stuff) I might have some few questions around that one specifically. For now how radiation detox works where I can find it and activate it?
[1.12] Stockalike Station Parts Redux (June 12, 2022)
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted
Anyone having similar messages of errors when loading KSP with this mod:
[WRN 23:23:22.129] Warning on PartSubtype BlackHandles on module ModuleB9PartSwitch (moduleID='endcapSwitch') on part crewCabin500f: No transforms matching '25mCapBlack' found
?
I just installed this mod with CKAN and I am getting loads of similar messages which did not happen before this mod.