eightiesboi

Members
  • Content Count

    377
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

124 Excellent

About eightiesboi

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Profile Information

  • Location Array
  • Interests Array

Recent Profile Visitors

1,789 profile views
  1. Please follow the instructions above and post a link to your logs in dropbox / gdrive / onedrive so that people can help you.
  2. Hey Papa_Joe!

    Just saw that you were active again and I wanted to say, "Welcome back!"

    eightiesboi AKA Scott

  3. Hi. You don't provide enough information to give intelligent answers to your questions. For example, PE / AP, your reentry heat settings, mods that might have an effect, etc. You also might want to turn on the thermal debug menu and see what's causing the overheat. Is the skin being exposed (poor trajectory alignment) or is it conduction? And I presume the chute isn't deployed. Generally, more information is better. I used to be loathe to post links to logs and screenshots because I didn't want to inundate the community with too much information, but it's better that than to be too general, and in the event that there is a genuine bug, having more info at the outset helps to chase it down and kill it.
  4. For me, what works depends on what I want to set my rotation relative to. I tend not to use Dynamic, as I prefer to choose the reference body myself. Then I switch on SAS and let it be. I find that my vehicles tend to hold that relative positioning over time. Example: I have a vehicle with fixed solar panels en route from Kerbin to the Mun. I change the reference body to the Sun, set my orientation as I choose, set SAS to on, and then let it go. I have not, however, updated yet to 1.7.3. Hope this helps!
  5. You can look at the OP and see the link for KIS for dummies (https://github.com/ihsoft/KIS/blob/master/User Guide.pdf) or, in game, note that you can put the manual in your inventory. It explains all of the non-fun items.
  6. It's just a dare, really. I wanted to see if I could live without it. Especially with KSP 2 inbound, I wanted to see what alternatives exist if favorite mods become abandoned. Can you imagine what would happen if @linuxgurugamer, @Nertea, @Starwaster, @zer0Kerbal, etc joined the ranks of the vanished ( @Papa_Joe, we miss you)? Squad made a good game. Our modding community made it excellent. But I'm afraid of getting too attached. Lol
  7. My professor would be proud of me. Thank you for looking into this! I've had so many interesting (in many senses of the word) missions because of the feeling of realism (and real stakes) that this mod brings to the game. It's why I set up real abort sequences and use a LES.
  8. I *did* say my stats was rusty... lol But I do think that an 18% chance of failure on launch with four SRBs is a little high... And, if I understand your intended modeling, I don't think that's right. Shouldn't the probability of failure be impacted by the overall failure of the vessel? For parts other than SRBs (as I understand it), there are two checks rolled: vessel failure, and then part failure. If the vessel passes, no part rolls. If the vessel fails, all the parts roll until either one fails or they all succeed. If the SRBs are rolling independently--without the vessel failure roll--then the probability that one of them will fail is both independent of the overall vessel AND is greater the number of SRBs on the vessel. With all of the other parts (again, based on my admittedly feeble understanding), the probability that one of them will fail is conditioned on the probability of failure for the overall vessel (i.e., the chance that a part will fail is irrelevant if the vessel passes its failure roll). If the overall chance that a vessel will experience a failure is 5%, and each part has an independent 5% chance of failure, and there are four parts that could fail, isn't the chance that a failure will occur closer to 1%? Again, I haven't done statistics in over a decade, and my memories of HLM and MLM have long faded, so forgive me if I am totally wrong.
  9. Is AGM unaware of TAC-LS parts? I went to add toggling the water purifier and carbon extractor to my "2" key in AGM, and I couldn't find the parts listed under any category or via searching. I was able to add them via the tweakables menu; however, on doing so I noted that once you enabled the tweakables menu in the root part, you couldn't disable it (or rather, you can click the button to disable it, but nothing happens.) Update - Once I clicked on another part and came back to the root, the "disable" button behaved as expected. Only asking about the TAC-LS now.
  10. Let me see what I can come up with, although here's a question: is it 1/20 per SRB or per vessel? If it's the former, it may be observation bias on my part. I uploaded a test craft that has suffered more than a few explosions on launch. Stock + Making History + Universal Storage II + Cryogenic Engines (it also had ScanSat and Aviation Lights, but I removed them.) It's in the same folder as my logs. Thank you! PS - You've mentioned before that SRBs go through a different failure calculation process. Since I don't know what that process is, what follows is total speculation. It feels (and I hate relying on feelings, but here we go) like the more SRBs, the greater the failure risk (which makes sense) but that the failure rate rises faster than I would expect. Could it be that the mechanism that determines SRB failures is multiplying the chance of failure by the number of SRBs, instead of treating each SRB separately? That is, if there is a 5% chance of failure for each SRB, then each 5% chance should be "rolled" independently; however, if the number of parts were first multiplied by the failure chance, you would end up with a 20% chance of failure, which would be incorrect. I admit, I haven't played with statistics since grad school, but if my wild speculation were correct, that might account for my observations. Or I could be wrong.
  11. Hey @linuxgurugamer, Recovered a vessel from the launchpad to the VAB using the KCT recover button. Waited for it to recover, rolled it out, hit the "Fill tanks and Launch" button. However, on the launchpad, the LH tanks (using Cryo Tanks and Cryogenic Engines mods) did not refill the LH (although Oxidizer did refill correctly). Logs: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AoyHZiRU1jT-zb0OKvWrwXzj5oDUZw?e=LoZDJ8 Thank you! PS - Noted that I am still on 1.4.6.6, but the changelog indicates that's the version that benefited from having additional resources added for refueling. I will be updating shortly.
  12. Hey! How often should SRBs be failing? My Hammers are at least generation 70, yet whether they are new or tested I am getting about one failure for every six that successfully launch. Logs here: https://1drv.ms/u/s!AoyHZiRU1jT-zboxlfo62rLNevINpA?e=3gK7ih Note that around line 161842 in the output log or 1028 hrs in KSP log, there are a lot of messages regarding the single SRB failure. Let me know if it's me or a bug or something in between, and thank you!
  13. AutoActions is one of those great little QoL mods that just make life easier. ShouldBeStock(tm) Batch file run. You now have control of my network. New logs from second run in folder inside the link. I hope that made sense. You have logs and screenshots from your short trip? Interesting..... Let me know what else you need... I am also going to try to narrow down the conflict by playing whack-a-mole with my mods.
  14. Remember, dogs have owners. Cats have staff. I did try the wipe and reinstall. No good. Logs are now posted to the same location as the screenshots (https://1drv.ms/u/s!AoyHZiRU1jT-zbxqgdxzCbvdSUcAfw?e=3KSSmB). I also tried a very clean (nearly stock) install and did not experience the issue, so it is definitely a mod-interaction. I'll try process of elimination tomorrow.