• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Supraluminal

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast
  1. I just had the bad ymax issue recur myself (mine is currently: <ymax>-633</ymax>). I don't know if it happened immediately after the last time I updated or not, but it might have done. Got this one time before as well.
  2. Thanks, this worked. If it's possible, it might be nice to include something in the next release to handle this automatically for those who use CKAN.
  3. Hey @Youen, thanks for all your work on this, it's still one of my favorite mods. However, the latest version isn't working for me. The window isn't opening properly in map view. It just comes up as a weird thin rectangle. It kind of looks like the window is zero width and negative height with just the border visible: I have the mod installed via CKAN. It did this after initial upgrade, then again after I removed it and reinstalled it. Hope there's an easy fix for this one! I'm looking forward to getting it up and running again after the latest FAR upgrade downtime.
  4. I'll second this. I'm really looking forward to having FAR and Trajectories playing nicely together again!
  5. Also really hoping this mod makes a comeback. My best memories, proudest moments, and favorite projects in KSP pretty much all revolve around activities that are essentially impossible without it.
  6. From a quick skim of the last page or two - it sounds like this mod is not currently compatible with FAR in 0.90, but work is underway to get it there? Is that correct, and is there an ETA on a compatible release?
  7. I'm not sure how to measure the shortfall. It seems like multiple tens of kilometers or so? In any case, 10km is kind of a large margin of error for rover deployment - that's around 15 minutes of drive time at 10m/s just to get to the survey area. I fully understand that it may not be possible to make it much more accurate, however. I do all of the reentry phase using the lander only, so the prediction is not looking at any other stages. Generally they're deployed from a carrier that sits in a polar orbit; the drop pods each have ~1300m/s dV to change planes and deorbit. I'm fairly certain I have the orientation right. Like I said, I use MechJeb to keep the pod oriented along its prograde surface vector during reentry, and everything (navball, pod) lines up as expected. The rover's probe core is oriented 90 degrees off the main axis of the pod (the bottoms of the wheels face the point of the fairing), so if it were controlling from there nothing should work right. Nonetheless, I'll take a second look to make sure on this point.
  8. For reference, by "long" I mean the reentry phase lasting something around 1/8th of an orbit or even less. I'm not trying to predict a landing a full orbit ahead or anything. What do you mean by "wings with stock aerodynamics?" All the wing parts that come with stock KSP...? Like I said, I'm using FAR. The OP says "It works with FAR, NEAR and stock drag at this time ; stock wings are not simulated (but FAR/NEAR ones are)," which I took to mean that all wings are simulated when FAR is enabled. I'm also using procedural fairings, if that has any effect. I'm going in nose-first. I'm aware of how the AoA settings should be used. I'm not using Deadly Reentry or any RCS. Specifically, most recently I've noticed this issue while trying to drop-pod rovers onto Fine Print survey sites. Here's what the pods look like: Payload fairing at the front, 48-7S on the back and four of the delta-deluxe winglets to stabilize.
  9. I've been having problems with inaccurate trajectory predictions. It's mostly a problem with long/shallow reentries; it pretty consistently overestimates the length of my flightpath (i.e. my craft lands well short of the initially-predicted impact site). This is with FAR, using MechJeb to keep my craft pointed dead-on to my surface velocity vector and without moving any of the Trajectory AoA sliders off of zero. Am I doing something wrong? Is this a bug? Just an unavoidable limitation of the mod? Great mod overall, though! Even inaccurate predictions are better than none, and it's generally pretty good when my reentry is on the steep side.
  10. Just a quick note to say I've also been having a lot of trouble with inaccurate distances for recovered stages. They're often coming up at ~500-600km distance from KSC when they should be reporting maybe 50-100km at most. I was thinking the same thing. I don't know what the trajectory mod's license looks like, but maybe you could steal stuff from it for this purpose.
  11. This has been a pretty widely used workaround for a while, but personally I've never had much luck with it. It usually makes my lower stage (followed very rapidly by everything above it) explode as soon as I fire the engines. Possibly lowering the throttle would help, but depending on the design that tends to leave me stuck on the pad simply due to a lack of thrust.... My preferred workaround is to simply mount a sizable number of engines (usually SRBs) above ground level, out of contact with the pad. That seems to work well.
  12. Good luck! You're probably going to pick up a lot of speed at that distance. If you want advice, I suggest you aim for a relatively high orbit to begin with... it's much less stressful to drop down to a lower orbit from a controlled situation than it is to burn like crazy to avoid crashing into the planet.
  13. It's a fun challenge, to be sure, but there's a bit of a loophole in that it's completely possible to boost a pretty sizable craft into orbit, then re-enter with a bunch of fuel left. All you have to do at that point is use your copious fuel reserves to fly to the KSC and bail out on the VAB roof. You could specify 'no thrust below 30km' or something to make it harder, but I don't know that there's any way to verify that people are following the rules.
  14. Is it really worth stacking 8 liquid fuel tanks? Have you tested this with the top stage split into two 4-tank stages, or even one 4-tank and one 3-tank stage? I would imagine that the ability to jettison 4 empty tanks halfway through your final burn might make up for the weight cost of one more engine and decoupler. Looks like some of the lower stages have very tall stacks as well....
  15. Thanks! The program is cjameshuff's orbit calculator. Many thanks to him for creating such a useful tool! His table of circular orbit speeds and periods is great, but the calculator is a real step up in flexibility, especially since it'll tell you if your elliptical orbit is going to crash into the planet or not.