Jump to content

rasta013

Members
  • Posts

    664
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by rasta013

  1. @MaxL_1023 @CatastrophicFailure @Aelfhe1m @Gilph @astroheiko

    Man I wish I had more time this week to seriously dig into this...my brain is about to explode with hypotheticals...

    Something I came across and have not had a chance to work through the math on yet but it has direct bearing on this conversation.  There's n upper limit on how much dV can be obtained from an assist but I've never worked through it before.  (never occurred to me to even try maximizing this in KSP until now...)

    https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/128356/gravitational-slingshot-maximum

    Now, this is is of course RL so it's never going to translate directly but I think it's going to have enough of an effect on this kind of assisted transfer to make a difference on the Race to Grannus...also...what are the parameters here?  Fastest transfer vs. insertion vs. return flight will have differing best case scenarios and we all seem to be discussing different kinds so far...

    And do I smell a challenge in the making here? :D

     

  2. 4 minutes ago, lajoswinkler said:

    I'll just prune DMagic because I'm trying to keep the GameData small as possible. Thanks.

    This is your best bet.  I have a saved parts directory from DMOS that I move in once I install PP to trim them out as well.  If you do a lot of this you might take a look at Janitor's Closet since it allows you to both prune or hide and anything hidden can always be restored later...

     

  3. 16 hours ago, Renofox said:

    I have installed the planet pack, but for some reason all science experiments give only default reports like "You record the crews assesment of the situation". I see the mod should have unique science reports, so any idea what could be wrong and how I could fix it?

     

    Other than that, the mod has been great! It really brings enough new things to replay ksp again.

    Yup.  They were removed because of some small issues arising around them.  In the next update the reports will start making their return and each update after that I will be adding more and more until all stock experiments are completed for all bodies in GPP.  This is obviously a long term project but they will be returning.

  4. 18 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

    How many of you use the 'Model Selection GUI' on the modular parts, as opposed to the model-selection sliders?

    Well - I use the GUI anytime it's there since I generally know exactly which nose/mount I'm looking for and can get to it a lot quicker using the GUI.  That said, if it's easier to do it via slider and results in less work/maintenance welllll.....

    Convenience is a beautiful thing but I'd sacrifice it in a heartbeat if it's easier for you since the selection ability is the important piece, not the convenience.

  5. On 5/4/2017 at 2:48 PM, Gilph said:

     

    @rasta013, have you gotten TOT to calculate a good Grannus intercept? Mine seem to be no smaller than a few hundred years.

    No I haven't but to be honest, I also haven't toyed very heavily with it for the long intercepts.  Typically, I pull KSPTOT when I want to plan complicated multi-body fly-bys Voyager style.  I've also used it for a few out-body shots for gravity assists in early points of careers to take advantage of physics instead of tech, but again that's a multi-body approach use as well.  AND I haven't made an attempt yet at one of these types of approaches to get to Grannus either.  So that's the long version of "No." :wink:

    EDIT: But now you've got me thinking and just wondering (haven't plugged this in yet)...have you tried an Otho gravity assist?  I used that approach for a drastically shorter fly-by of Leto and I'm in the early planning stages of a Otho/Nero shot to park something at Hox.  Honestly, I just haven't really started working on things to try and get to Grannus yet since I haven't pulled these others off but you've really got my brain tweaking now...

  6.  

    1 hour ago, Akira_R said:

    I have no current plans to add functionality to any other BDB lab parts (if there are any)

    Great addition man!  Just as a note on this...the only other lab of consequence in BDB is Skylab and this is such a good idea I may run with it a bit and add the Zoology bay to Skylab as well since that would give both labs necessary for Station Science.  Really good idea!

  7. 3 hours ago, MaxL_1023 said:

    The one thing I wish Mechjeb or KER had was the ability to plot multi-body encounters - I like using large moons to help with Gas Giant orbital insertion (especially planet sized moons like Augustus and Catullus) but it is hard to plot these in advance.

    I have had to resort to the Kerbal method - bringing 5-10 km/s of extra delta-V, turning my original first stage into a radial booster (at best) and resulting in a boom in launchpad repair contracts. 

    I think I mentioned this a while back when I first jumped on this thread but for complicated flight paths and multi-body encounters you can use @Arrowstar's KSP Trajectory Optimization Tool.  It is an external tool that interfaces with KSP to extract and inject information into the game.  With it you can plan literally any kind of flight path you want.  It is by far the most robust tool available for flight planning.  It works with GPP but you will have to create a custom Bodies.ini file for it although that is a very simple process.  The learning curve for this tool is steep but well worth the effort and time I've put into learning how to use it (although I'm no expert by any means :D).

     

  8. 28 minutes ago, Alcentar said:

    By the way, what fuel used Polyus FGB, I can not find the information

    OK - so did some digging on this question for you and here's what I've found.

    The Polyus FGB was, of course, the Soviet Star Wars platform.  It was mated to Energia via the FGB Block (Functional Cargo Block) and the FGB Block used for the Polyus was the standard TKS platform made up of the 11F74 and 11F77 pieces (VA and FGB blocks).  The Polyus FGB was launched strangely (upside down which lead to its untimely demise) but it doesn't appear that anything besides the inertial navigation system was different in that block leading me to the conclusion that it's the standard propulsion used on the TKS as mentioned above by @liquidhype.

  9. I love the idea of #3 but I completely understand the hesitation in introducing something that is likely going to result in support requests.  With this in mind I favor #1.  Even though the part list may be extensive the nightmare of recoloring by having to select each individual part and hunt down each button on each part is worse.  With #1, would it be possible to use part highlighting to identify which part is being targeted as you scroll over the list? That bit would make identifying the part you're working on easier for large craft and keep us from having to constantly hunt down buttons in complicated lists.  

    This could even be easier if the part list was able to be sorted by name (not necessary but a consideration maybe).  Just spit balling a bit here...

  10. New one to add to the Compatible list for contract packs: Kerbal Academy seems to be working fully.  I've been able to receive contracts for all the classes and for off world bodies.  Looking through the code of the pack itself I do not see anything that should throw it off either.

    Unless someone else has run into something (been testing this for about 2 weeks) I think it can be safely added to the list now.

  11. 10 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

    Keeping up the progress updates, here's some work I've done on the LEM. Thoughts, especially on the last picture?

    On that last pic I understand where you're trying to go with it and the back panels are good for now even though they were historically a lot more f'd up by the time they land.  The one thing for me is the foil.  It seems kind of flat and dull looking from this angle.  I don't know if that's a simple product of the lighting angle that it's sitting at though.  One other thing, the shadows in the folds of the foil look a bit too dark...again that may be a product of lighting angle but those are the things that jump at out me.

    EDIT: Flat isn't the right word...dull sheen and less "pop" than it does in other lighting situations hence the reason I'm not entirely sure it isn't just a product of the screenie...

  12. 19 minutes ago, Bombaatu said:

    Are you planning to make versions of the DMagic Solar Particle Collector or Soil Moisture Sensor? Those are the last two DMagic parts you haven't done - if they get finished, I can totally drop the DMagic parts :D

    Almost - technically the TRIXIE doesn't have the mineral scanner capabilities of the second multispectal part from SCANsat and since I've largely not been testing using stock I'm not sure if it scans anomalies like the other base multispec part...I think it just does biomes (again not 100% on this and it could easily be rectified).  Also, there's the ASERT scanner but that's really only important to those of us who regularly go after asteroids because we are so science poor we can't pay Soviet rates. :P Oh and also the GORESat experiment and the recon scans as well...

    EDIT: Other than the anomaly, mineral and water scanning though that's it for mapping...the experiments do have quite a few others though but @akron's getting there in a beautiful way so far.

  13. 3 hours ago, New Horizons said:

    This made the science behaviour more clear.Thank you. The question still is, which multiplier goes into the reward calculation in a carreer safe game. Too me it seems, that not only the prestige level  applies for the reward calculation. Maybe rewards indirectly go with body index. 

    That's a good question and I'm not 100% positive of the answer.  My understanding is that it would work like this...

    Contract is generated ->Chooses Body->Chooses Applicable Situation->Generate Parameters->Generate Reward

    In that order it would be looking into the config file for the chosen body and situation and generating the contract and ultimately the reward based on those initial parameters.  As suchThis is a bit of an educated guess though and I'm definitely not the expert on this.  To get the real nitty-gritty on it you might ask over in the Contract Configurator thread and see if @nightingale can give you better insight into the mechanics than I can.

     

  14. 47 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

    I've wanted to use Keridian since KSP 1.0 but never got deep enough into the construction-centered style of gameplay to need it. I have a question for you now. EPL has RocketParts at the end of the resource chain. Doesn't GC have MaterialKits at its end? Shouldn't they be incompatible then? I'm also at my own imposed part limit for mods which keeps me from installing more things.

    Well no...but yes. :P 

    I'll explain.  GC actually, in its base form, uses Metals as the primary build resource.  This is housed in the CRP and @allista could explain it in a lot better detail than I can how the process works. What I mean with the yes/no answer is that they do use different resources but to date I've had absolutely zero compatibility problems beyond that little detail.  

    Just as an FYI - in scanning the GC thread I may be wrong on one detail - it may be possible to build the DIY container in an EPL orbital, fill it up with the resources housed there and then land it to build...or possibly land it, fill at a ground base, build it.  Would have to test this out though as I've never tried.

  15. 15 minutes ago, New Horizons said:

    Thanks for our reply and repeating my question with the solution I already found :-)

    Maybe I wasn't clear enough, my apologies.

    The situation number is the number you're looking for to use in your calculation.  Depending on where the experiment is run that science body multiplier will change. For example, when in-flight low on Tellumo your science body multiplier for any given experiment that can be run there will be 7.  Take the exact same experiment and land it on Tellumo and your science body multiplier becomes 9.  Does that help explain it better?  Sorry I wasn't very clear to begin with.

  16. 12 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

     

    Looking to drop base drop base modules on Ceti but I'm not inclined to install Ground Construction.

    So @RocketPCGaming said to install SpaceDock and build it in orbit. I didn't install SpaceDock :blush: as I have doubts that the largest part will have enough clearance for some of the things I'll build.

    I'm using SimpleConstruction which makes all labs into workshops and all stock docking ports into Launchpads.

     

    I have the same kinds of problems actually.  To be honest, I'm running EPL/Keridian Dynamics side-by-side with Ground Construction/Konstruction.  I use the EPL-KD solution for orbital construction since it tends to be simpler to build out in space with multiple smaller parts.  For the ground though, I'm using GC-K and loving it.  Although I do have to move the pod to the ground location I want to build at it's a small price for the convenience of laying it all out in the editor and building in-situ.  This gives a real nice balance between the two abilities - I haven't tried building the landing pod from GC using an EPL pad though so I don't know if it works but I'd highly doubt it.  Just a bit more info for you off-world construction fun...this is my love too. :D 

    On 4/17/2017 at 5:00 PM, New Horizons said:

    I am trying to balance contracts from the old Historic Mission Pack against GPP. To do that I need knowledge about the science multipliers of celestial bodies here.

    Where can I find that numbers? The cfg files only give detailed information for each situation. But which of them accounts for the rewards calculation, which sems to behave like that:

    reward = reward in contract file * prestige * celestial body value

     

    Prestige:

    
    Trivial       1.00
    Significant   1.25
    Exceptional   1.50

     

    To find the science values for each planet and situation you need to look in the \GameData\GPP\ directory and browse each individual body's config file.  In there you will find a section that looks like this (from Gael's config)

    Spoiler

     

                ScienceValues

                {

                    landedDataValue = 0.3
                    splashedDataValue = 0.4
                    flyingLowDataValue = 0.7
                    flyingHighDataValue = 0.9
                    inSpaceLowDataValue = 1
                    inSpaceHighDataValue = 1.5
                    recoveryValue = 1
                    flyingAltitudeThreshold = 18000
                    spaceAltitudeThreshold = 300000

                }

    There's all your science values - you can extract them with regex or grep pretty easily or just manually open and grab them.  This section sits at the top of the config so you'll see it pretty easily.  Hope this helps!

  17. Nert - been a while coming but I've actually got these parts loaded in a career to see how they play and I've just started getting to them.  I will have more feedback in the coming days regarding their uses/bugs but just from the early results I would like to say a gigantic...

    THANK YOU!

    I'm playing on the Galileo Planet Pack (yeah, big surprise it's all the rage...) and these parts are shaping up to be extremely handy.  There's several reasons why.  First and foremost are the distances to the furthest reaches.  The outermost planets, Hox and Leto, both have massive orbits requiring a significant amount of either fuel or time to get there.  These engines help solve the fuel issue so that I don't have to deal with the extended times it would require.  The outermost planets aren't the end though.  In the most recent update a sort of borderline sub-stellar L or low M Class star was added that is within travelling distance, albeit with stupid times and fuel requirements which this mod one again helps to address.  Plus, it's giving me things to work towards on the high end finally without being stuck completely with having to go toward warp drives as a peak technology.  

    As always - Thanks again man!

  18. You beat me to the punch by about 30 seconds...

    Just now, DMagic said:

    SCANsat does not measure altitude above the atmosphere. It measures from the surface, the same value as what you would see on the altimeter.

    I just tested this thinking I may have been babbling and lo' and behold my previous babble is meaningless...hmmm... :blush:

    With this in mind the change makes a lot more sense.

  19. 7 hours ago, Rodger said:

    A small random idea - I've made the trixie have a max orbit scan height of 1000km instead of 500, as in OPM the gas giants have biomes, but often an atmosphere higher than 500kms. I made my own patch for the scan height just so I'll be able to map the gas giant biomes. Might be worth just adding to the base part though, maybe with a cost offset?

    Max orbit height just denotes the max you can scan from, not the ideal (or lowest) scan height.  More importantly, the max height is actually meaningless for mapping purposes.  The height of the atmosphere of a planet doesn't matter since SCANsat looks at your height above the atmosphere NOT the height of the atmosphere for determining the altitude of the instrument in question.  In other words...if you're 500km above a gas giant's atmosphere that's 500km high or 500km above a terrestrial atmosphere that's 70km high then in both cases your altitude for SCANsat instruments is 500km since it measures from the edge of the atmosphere, not the surface.

    For any gas giants of OPM or GPP you don't need to add height since the max only defines the limit.  All you've done is make it easier to get perfect scans of altitude, terrain and biomes from higher altitudes on all bodies - not just gas giants - and you've eliminated the challenge of needing to scan at different altitudes since the instruments don't all overlap in altitude ranges.

    UPDATE:  As an edit, you've got me thinking now about behavior in game and I'm testing something real quick to see if something has changed...stay tuned.  See below.

  20. I didn't get to test as much as I wanted too last night but first brush is pretty cool.  The idea of tweaking in more levels of DSN might work better than anything else actually.  The other issue I see would be people taking umbrage at having to install another mod to launch or breaking immersion by using tiny antennas that have massive power for no other reason than as placeholders.

    More testing is coming for the first but a suggestion on the second - instead of using scaling to create multiple new copies of larger, more massive sizes, instead create only a single upgrade to add one more tier to the relays.  Then employ the new upgrade system to add additional power level upgrades to the 4 levels of antenna.  The additional antenna is the peak power model (say 500G or 1T) that can have the higher mass level and operate as the core network antenna (kind of like the JX2 is right now).  This would help prevent people from feeling like they need to run another mod to make their antennas feel right (or even be able to launch) and keeps the control firmly in the realm of advancing tech.  I know I'd hate to feel like my tech is advancing but comms are doing nothing but getting larger.

×
×
  • Create New...