Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


220 Excellent

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • About me
    Modder and Toolsmith
  • Location
    Cambridge, UK

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. TestLite 0.3.2 now available. Main changes: Overburning an engine no longer yields quite as much du. Ignition reliability is now displayed alongside cycle reliability in the part picker info. Download TestLite 0.3.2.
  2. Fairly straightforward if you're accustomed to cfg-bashing. You need to add two things: a Family (GameData/SPEngine/Families/) and a part to use it (GameData/SPEngine/Parts/). The two are joined together by the familyLetter. Look at the existing cfgs to see how it's done; it's pretty simple. But tbh if there's any engine types that you feel are missing, feel free to make suggestions and I might get around to adding them. (Currently there's two on my todo-list, the C-class methalox expander (RL10-CH₄) and U-class methalox staged combustion (Raptor); they'd be so late in the tech tree that I would never unlock them which is why I haven't gotten around to it yet.)
  3. the mod is for KSP 1.8.1, as is in both the title and the 0.3.1 release announcement. there is a dependency on RealFuels, as the OP mentions. the configs are basically written with RSS/RO in mind; while you could config-bash something for stock, it's not something that's supported out-of-the-box. I recommend using ROEngines as well, as that's the setup that gets regularly tested; but it should also work with the hotchpotch of FASA, Taerobee, plain RO etc. that's listed in the README.
  4. Herewith, a summary of the first five years of the Snowbird Space Programme flying out of Kodiak, Alaska (which in my alternate history is part of Canada, because everything's better with Empire). Follow the links (into EK) for the screenshots. After the standard pootling about with sounding-rockets (Kármán line was passed on 26th May 1951, by James 11), the sound barrier was broken on 1st October 1952 by Jeffrey Cunningham in the "Bertie" rocketplane (of course, around the world superjunkers had been flying past Mach 1 for over 18 months, but we chose not to sully ourselves with such ungentlemanly contraptions). Further Bertie flights (shared between Jeffrey and our other pilot, Laura Peters) continued to be interspersed with bigger and better sounding-rockets built around the LP series of ethanol/LOx engines, until disaster struck on 14th June 1953 when the ninth Bertie flight crashed on landing, killing Jeffrey. Undaunted, our rocketeers continued improving both our technology and our ground facilities, paving the way for the twin-engined Percival 30 to place our first satellite, the onion-shaped Sapphire 1, into a polar orbit on 1st April 1954. This was followed by a new rocketplane, Bertie II, with an improved pressurised cockpit, which reached 50km on its first flight on 29th May. A scientific satellite, Sapphire 3, launched on Percival 32 on 18th November; its few hours of battery life were enough to detect the Van Allen radiation belts. We lost another pilot on 24th November 1954 when Bertie II crashed in a cross-wind landing. With Laura dead, crewed flights stop until the time comes to put capsules into space. 1955 was mostly a sequence of unexceptional satellite launches (with some engine failures thrown in), but Percival 35 did succeed in sending Pyrope 1 to an orbital-speed re-entry (despite a partial engine failure on the second stage), achieving this feat on 9th October — which may turn out to have been a first, since competing programmes mostly focussed on sending probes to the Moon, something which we hope to do during ’56 with the newly-designed KR and PKV engines. I look forward to the confusion that will inevitably result from both @capkirk's rockets and my payloads being named after gemstones.
  5. Our players and their launch sites are: Tyaedalis: Cape Teykn: Xichang soundnfury: Kodiak Falcon: Brownsville Marsh: Tanegashima user1453: Kourou MPGPT: Wenchang norcalplanner: Satish Dhawan Kirk: Hammaguir Pap: Uchinoura Elouda: Svobodny Jceratops: Wallops Anomaly: Baikonur wrobz: Mahia I'm documenting my career with the help of Encyclopædia Kerbonautica; my EK server can be found at http://jttlov.no-ip.org:8084/ and my logo/flag is here.
  6. Now out: S. P. Engine 0.3.1. Adds scaling of part models, and many fixes to plumes etc., particularly ROEngines compatibility. For KSP 1.8.1. Download Simple Proc Engine 0.3.1.
  7. @nepphhh TestLite 0.3.0 now released, compiled for KSP 1.8.1. @pt1243 Not quite sure I follow your question, but here goes. Ignition failure rate doesn't show up in MTBF at all. The MTBF is 1/(2Sum(f*(t)), where the sum is over the four different failure types and f* is the instantaneous failure probability (pdf divided by complement cdf). failureRate is the full-burn failure probability, p = 1 - cycleReliability. There's a 0.15p probability of failure in the first 5 seconds, so λ = -⅕ln(1 - 0.15p), and f*(t) = λ so MTBF = 1/(2λ) for those first five seconds. Then over the next B (burn time) seconds there's a 0.85p probability of failure, so κ = -ln(1 - 0.85p) / B and MTBF = 1/(2κ). (Technically this is an approximation, because each failureType has its own kappa value. If you want to calculate it exactly, you need to do what the code does and handle each failureType separately.) Calculating the overburn MTBF is a bit harder, because the Permanent Shutdown failure has a bathtub curve (f*(t) = 1 / (2B + 5 - t)) whereas the other three just continue on the exponential curve defined by κ. So Sum(f*(t)) = (1-0.18p) / (2B + + 5 - t) - ln(1-0.7p) / B, and then plug that into MTBF = 1/(2Sum(f*(t)). Hopefully I've done all my algebra correctly there! Though tbh I think in most cases the MTBF isn't really the figure of interest; what you actually want to know is "what's the probability of a failure in the first x seconds", and that's just the cdf, P(T < x) = 0.15p + (0.85p)(x-5)/B if 5 ≤ x ≤ B + 5; (0.15p)x/5 if 0 ≤ x ≤ 5; and some ugly mess bounded below by p + (x - B - 5)/B if x ≥ B + 5. @HebaruSan thanks, appreciated!
  8. @hypervelocity I think you might be confused about what TestLite does. It's not a simulation mod (you probably want KRASH for that), it's an engine-failures mod. HTH
  9. Haven't used KK so maybe I'm missing something obvious, but could you explain why you expect either mod to be affected by the other's presence?
  10. You're welcome! Last time I read this, a couple of years ago, it was in "pretty good for a fanfic" territory, but the recent chapters absolutely bowled me over. Not ashamed to admit I cried at Flower of Kolus. I also love the conlanging; though one thing that's been bugging me about Old Kerba grammar is that the order of prefix-noun-suffix is strictly ambiguous. To take an example from the end of the last chapter (though it's a word we've seen before), "minsathona" (we'll drop the pluralising 'a' from the end, to simplify matters): this could parse as either (min-sath)-on = independence from (the smallest deeds), i.e. "not depended on for the smallest deeds" or as min-(sath-on) = the smallest (independence from deeds), i.e. "of all those not depended on for deeds, the smallest". Is this (a) resolved by context, (b) resolved by an as yet unstated rule of the grammar (e.g. prefixes always bind tighter than suffixes, or there is a precedence order of the various affixes), or (c) left ambiguous, allowing for all kinds of double meanings and erudite puns? For instance, both meanings could simultaneously be in use in the CotK's remark: "that which is not a tool of the Kerm is not/cannot be depended on for the smallest deeds" and "of all the useless things in this world, kerbals are the puniest" both seem like things a Children leader spoiling for a fight might say :-) Ooh, and have a bonus grammar speculation: there doesn't seem to be a 'bin-' affix yet, but 'binat' appeared in 'bolad-binat', "university", so could 'Kerbin' be a corruption of 'Kerm-binat'? "That which the Kerm understands"?
  11. It has a hard dependency on RealFuels (≥12.6). Strictly speaking it doesn't require RO, but such setups are untested and might break in unexpected ways.
  12. Nope, if you're trying to recreate an existing rocket just whomp up a .cfg (clone a part / engineConfig and give it the stats you want). SPE is aimed at the career game and thus needs to be balanced, and I haven't been able to come up with a decent balance formula for changing Isp. Merely calculating Isp vs Pc curves for all the propellant combinations would be a major project in itself, never mind coming up with cost and mass formulae. Given that @ferram4 tried it and burnt out, and he knows more about the relevant physics than I ever will, I think it's a bridge too far. tl;dr: "the S stands for Simple".
  13. TestLite 0.2.2 now available. Main changes: For KSP 1.6.1. Cost of Extra Telemetry reduced from 3x to 2x. Various bugs fixed. Download TestLite 0.2.2.
  14. Now out: S. P. Engine 0.2.0. Adds another four engine families, and retargets to newer versions of KSP and RO. O-class: Staged-combustion hypergolic vacuum engine. (Like RD-0210 — Proton upper stage.) P-class: Staged-combustion hypergolic engine. (Like RD-253 — Proton lower stage.) V-class: Kerolox vacuum engine. (Like LR91 (Titan I) and Merlin1Vac.) W-class: Kerosene/peroxide pump-fed vacuum engine. (Like the British Gamma 2.) This has been split out from the X-class sea-level version (Gamma 8), the configs of which have also been overhauled. For KSP 1.6.1 with RealFuels 12.6. Download Simple Proc Engine 0.2.0.
  15. I think all you need to do is to use reflection to get the TestLiteGameSettings type, then (somehow) the equivalent of: TestLiteGameSettings settings = HighLogic.CurrentGame.Parameters.CustomParams<TestLiteGameSettings>(); if (settings != null) { /* Do things with: * settings.preLaunchFailures; * settings.determinismMode; * settings.disabled; */ } as per the code in TL that does this. However I don't know exactly how one does that in looking-glass-land, as I've never really used reflection.
  • Create New...