Jump to content

TiktaalikDreaming

Members
  • Posts

    1,968
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1,850 Excellent

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • About me
    Spacecraft Engineer
  • Location
    Lagrange Point 24
  • Interests
    KSP, duh

Recent Profile Visitors

10,925 profile views
  1. Kronal VV gets confused as well. Not surprising. OK, steam craft file; https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2683312355
  2. OK, it still links up; and now that I've panic rushed off to test that, I've reviewed the original image. You'd think after decades doing problem solving I'd know to come to my own conclusions. I'm pretty sure the pieces are just put together wrong. I'm going to do up an exploded thingy with the mod that does that (that I can't remember the name of). The parts are very fussy about where everything goes. It's not your regular KSP lego set.
  3. I'd be interested to know if this is universal. I haven't started KSP in a while. But it would seem likely related to my work flow. I model the parts in full, non-kerbal scale. And then use the rescale options in the cfg files for the parts to drop to kerbal scale. So, realism overhaul parts get "rescale = 1.0". If they changed something with the scaling, or if there's a mod installed that triggers the "if then" type module manager rescaling, then you'd get oversized parts. And possibly inconsistent ones
  4. To be honest, I don't know. Haven't started up KSP in a while. It probably doesn't take long to test.
  5. Ah, I didn't catch the rescaling. That would go a long way. And the landing issues are both gear and the wing. It's fine to have short stubby wings at MACH 12. But you don't want to try landing, with passengers, like that. Even the X-15 had bigger wings, and I get the impression the landings wouldn't be "rich customer friendly". But rich people can be odd.
  6. It looks a *bit* optimistic. The idea of a craft using the A-4 aero size/shape to fit 10 passengers? After shoe-horning one kerbal into the nose as a pilot, I salute anyone who can find space for 10 passengers. Also, landing looks to be a bit un-thought-of. But, at the time, there were a LOT of designs, a lot less thought out, all based on the A-4. People saw a lot of potential, and for many, the restrictions and limitations weren't yet apparent. 2 things you'd want is a much better ISP than 75% ethanol+LOX. That's not horribly hard to get, but to get the numbers talked about it would need really good. As astronautix says, it'd need LH2+LF2 sort of numbers. What they don't say is you'd also need very good propellant density, which LH2 would pretty much ruin. It would be an interesting challenge. You'd need to figure how much space a 10 person cabin would take. Slide bonus propellant tankage where-ever you can fit it. And see how much volume there is.
  7. The idea behind the A-6 etc, I believe was a second stage for the amerika rocket, aka A-10. that said, i am aware there clipping issues. The A-4 and prior have had a revamp pass with rescaling and such. While the A-10 and higher have not yet. The intention is to deal with that, and possibly re-imagine the re-imagined decoupling going forward.
  8. Are you using RO? I think my rescaling only operates IFF RO is installed. I think for just RSS it'll be kerbal sized, and with a reduced efficiency and mass ratio, to make it more typical for KSP numbers... Yep, all ":NEEDS[RealismOverhaul]" I'm not sure if I can do all various combos of things that change things, but I can do the common ones. If there's a call for RSS with realistic ISP and mass fractions, without real fuels and realism overhaul, I can do that. I didn't think anyone did that though.
  9. I suspect this might be because I redid the A-4 Engine as more complex than a dual propellant thing. It consumes *mostly* Ethanol(75%) and LOX, but also potassium permaganate and high test peroxide. To work around this, I figured out the (not very difficult) ways of setting default tanks in ModuleFuelTank and stole those pesky numbers provided by Operation Paperclip. And whether I'm right or wrong about why it doesn't work, adding the default TANKs does work. Fix in quicko patch here https://github.com/TiktaalikDreaming/WernhersOldStuff/releases/tag/0.19.210423 Will add to release packaging on spacedock later.
  10. A lot of things really don't like the rescaling needed. for RO. That said, I wasn't sure if it was an RO or RF thing, and this kinda confirms it's an RF thing. Thanks. And... damn... I was trying to remove dependency on ASET. I started the IVA with a bucket of ASET props, but once I started making all those silly old-style gauges I aimed to remove ASET as a dependency. I'll have to check why. RPM itself supports the screen, I musta stolen something intermediate I think.
  11. No, I've noticed the same thing, just never really got around to checking what might be causing it. I wasn't sure anyone but me was stupid enough to try use RO with these, lol. Ill take a look at the various realism configs. Are you using the full realism overhaul suit or just real fuels?
  12. Cries... I forgot I should update things. Uploading a year or two of work on revamping the aggregate 4 extras. The wings, ramjet, and cockpit all fully revamped. There's 2 editions of the cockpit, with or without RPM. Because I forgot all that and I'm just rolling the whole thing up to the current build, it includes a very early edition of the A-10 Engine revamp, which I don't guarantee won't be awful yet. Thanks @Starhelperdudefor noticing something was off. I couldn't find it.... until I checked what the release version was. LOL. I'll be over in the corner smacking my head into a wall. :waves:
  13. Um, I'll have a look. They *should* have the same colour switch options as the other broadly A-4 parts. Strangeness might very well be bad normals.
  14. First flight with the new gimballing vanes. And an incorrectly converted normal map I'll be reducing the effectiveness of those vanes. I did that on the A-4 as well, moved a larger proportion of the thrust to not gimballed. That bit's just balancing. The most abundantly clear thing I need to do next is a new plume though. "fx_exhaustFlame_blue" is hilariously bad for this, esp stacked up. with the gimballed copies and so on.
×
×
  • Create New...