• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,185 Excellent


About swjr-swis

  • Rank
    Self-proclaimed Groomer of the Orbits

Contact Methods

  • Website URL http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/members/156316-swjr-swis

Profile Information

  • Interests KSP

Recent Profile Visitors

8,396 profile views
  1. swjr-swis

    Xenon vented to space

    This bug should be fixed in 1.6.0, according to the release notes:
  2. swjr-swis

    When and why did you start modding KSP?

    When: almost immediately after the first install and play-testing a bit, looking at the install files, and discovering that many files were text format and editable. The oldest archived game I still have that I marked as modded is a 0.7.3 install. Why: because the files were editable. Simple curiousity about what the changes would do in-game, or because it showed potential for improvement/correction of a few things I felt could be better.
  3. swjr-swis

    Electrocutor's Thread

    My suggestion would be to keep that same pace then. It should be a welcome tool whenever it is ready.
  4. swjr-swis

    Electrocutor's Thread

    Would love to finally see some use of this feature. This comes as a close second in the list you mention. But: How close do you feel you are to a starting release for this? Depending the answer, this one might be worth sticking a bit more time and effort in so the other things can benefit from them as well.
  5. swjr-swis

    Why isn't my comms network working!?

    I do remember. This is why I first voted up your answer so it will be clearly marked as a valid response to the question, before I even hit Reply. And my reply was entirely in jest since I felt you had answered the question quite comprehensively and clearly... there wasn't anything to add. Point taken though; I additionally edited my reply to more explicitly state the useless frivolity of my interjection and point the reader where to seek applicable wisdom.
  6. swjr-swis

    Why isn't my comms network working!?

    Anything that can be done with horses can be done with hamsters. It's all a matter of how many. (hint: it's a joke. Listen to Snark, he got it right.) Having flashbacks now to my nephew's Technics Lego contraption powered by a literal hamster wheel because the battery motor had been misplaced... (No hamsters were harmed in the operation of said contraption.) (The hamster may have been miffed with certain larger mammals though.) (Sorry hamster. I still laughed though. Sorry.)
  7. swjr-swis

    The 1.3.1 Club

    Still on 1.3.1 too. Still have my 1.2.2 alongside, as 1.3.1 is a bit of a compromise between a much faster load time and some quality-of-life improvements but also a number of additional constantly-encountered bugs that 1.2.2 didn't have. I haven't yet had the chance to assess 1.6.0 well enough to determine if it's good enough to take the place of 1.3.1. On the plus side so far: it loads even a fraction faster than 1.3.1 as long as I leave out MH (which makes load time double that of 1.3.1). It also has the pretty revamped parts, and can load external seats directly, and a few other nice-to-haves. dV readouts, of course. I really really want the new control-point orientation feature to make a difference too. On the 'meh' side: MH - still too out of stock to fit in. Still disappointed that the mission system is completely separate from career saves. Still cannot really figure out any fun use for it as a standalone feature. Still miffed at structural parts that have no 'historical' relevance whatsoever being in MH instead of in stock. Definitely still miffed at alternate launch sites and mobile launch bases not being in stock. A few of the other shinies are nice. But add the doubled load time compared to stock and it's quickly uninstalled again after just a few loads. There's just not nearly enough I want from it to feel like dealing with the annoyances. So it ends up uninstalled and not helping the case of upgrading. On the minus side: working on a craft feels very impaired by the part selection menu being completely unintuitive with the reshuffling and all diameters of parts having indistinguishable thumbnails now. Those horrible, horrible jet sounds still make my ears bleed and quickly kill any joy of flying my atmospheric craft. Drag has become an even more unintuitive factor with variants not performing as one might expect from how they look or how 'flush' they fit. On the side of 'this already existed in 1.3.1 or before but annoys me more with every newer version that fails to fix it': SAS still tries to murder my kerbals with self-amplifying oscillations when switching from Hold to any other mode. Floating origin still makes control surfaces and gimbals 'flutter' every reset, which still causes unpredictable heading instabilities. Landing legs/wheels still cause unprompted oscillations and explosions. Unpredictable phantom forces still occur and affect craft that are not under powered acceleration. The Mk3 cargo ramp still randomly attacks parts of my payloads. Mirror symmetry and rotation are still braindead and thus incompatible with my symmetry-loving OCD, forcing me to break symmetry and forego the benefits of symmetry groups. "Cannot deploy while stowed"... still, to this day, still! <cry>. Autostruts on legs/wheels are still mandatory and unchangeable and defaulted to the worst option. Kerbal drag cubes are still completely out of proportion making craft with external command seats perform worse than could logically be expected. I really like some of the new shinies and quality-of-life improvements... but they're having to compete with a load of annoyances that seems to weigh heavier every version. 1.4.x was a complete skip, I hardly touched 1.5.x... not sure if 1.6.x will make the difference, but it's not jumped at me yet. Wait, what? 1.6.1?? Where?
  8. You did ask for a comparison 'factoring in both ISP and TWR', yes? I guess I could've ignored that the ratios between the engines correlate almost perfectly to the number of bells, and make my little analysis that much more difficult to follow by referring every time to a 'generic totally-not-based-on-an-approximate-Vector unit-of-engine'. I'm not sure that would've helped any. I agree; that was rather my point. The Twinboar leaves them way behind in the league of cost-effectiveness, even when adjusting for the differences, as shown. Hence the not-so-surprising dominance of that engine in the Eve 3000 challenge, or any situation scoring for cost. Well, at least you do recognize the underlying reason, if still denying the extent. Small steps. Note though that I in no way argue anywhere that the Twinboar is either more efficient or has superior performance, in any other way, other than cost-effectiveness (although adjusted for engine mass by recalculating through a totally-not-based-on-an-approximate-Vector unit-of-engine <breathe>, its TWR is slightly better than either Mammoth or Vector). Anyway, I don't really want this to turn into some type of argument. You expressed puzzlement with certain outcomes, and I know how annoying it can be to have the answer to something dangling just out of my reach, so I did some numbers to explain why those outcomes are not so surprising, since it seems perfectly obvious to me. That's all. I hope you find your answers.
  9. swjr-swis

    PETAMETA-1: the secrets of deep space.

    It's called Time Dilation. It is especially noticeable when traveling interstellar distances at relativistic speeds.
  10. Which effectively is saying the same thing...
  11. Decouplers with integrated fairings would be nice indeed. I would be willing to sacrifice the automatic shroud option of engines to get this, because it would not longer be necessary. And I say 'fairing' and not 'shroud', because I would want it to also cover for the cases where the top is not the same diameter as the decoupler. Let us shape the shell to fit each case in the best way.
  12. I'm a bit lost at this argument, unless you're making fun of me and I'm missing it. There are so many ways to trivially solve the 'lacking' bottom node that I have to believe you are making a joke. A radially attached truss piece (25 funds) or empty NCS cone (256 funds) comfortably offset between the engine bells, for example. Or if you want to be fancy about it: an upside down fairing on the top node, offset to move its top interstage node below the engine, for a few hundred more. Or since the context is about a lifting stage large enough to push 3000 ore to Eve orbit, the bottom node would be provided by the core return vehicle the Twinboars will be radially attached to, for zero net cost. What are we talking about here? In more general terms, since we were comparing cost-effectiveness of top-tier TWR lifter engines, there is no function (and thus no worth) for a bottom node at all - these engines are supposed to be the first to light up. If we're going to calculate net worth based on a general list of pros and cons, I still don't see the Twinboar losing: Mammoth doesn't have a bottom node either, plus it's not radially attachable (Twinboar is). Mammoth and Vector are heavier per engine than the Twinboar. At less than half the price per engine of either Mammoth or Vector, the Twinboar already comes with an integrated and filled Jumbo tank of LFO. Let's not forget this one particular little point. We'd have to penalize its cons in a very biased manner compared to the pros to really make the Twinboar lose out on any calculated net worth.
  13. It is exactly as cheap as I said. Stock game, all default settings: Twinboar - 17000 funds wet, 14062 funds dry. Even without adjusting for the (dry) cost of the integrated Jumbo fuel tank this is already down to 7031 funds per 'engine'. Dry cost of a Jumbo is 2812, subtract even a fraction of that from the dry cost of the Twinboar, and as I stated, its price per 'engine' drops to under 7000 funds. I'll concede that the raw Isp is lower than either, but I did say 'comparable', not equal. I disagree at calling a 5.0-5.3% difference 'way way worse' in any kind of comparative or numerical analysis. Now, in the specific case of optimizing for cost, seeing how cheap fuel mass is compared to engine mass (a factor of roughly 19-28!), the massive 60-75% difference in cost per 'engine' between the Twinboar and either Mammoth or Vector becomes an overwhelming factor, relegating the marginal Isp advantage of those two to a side note. Look at it from another angle: the price difference between the Twinboar and either Vector or Mammoth buys the Twinboar a margin of roughly 1.3 Jumbo tanks of LFO per 'engine'. The Twinboar could guzzle fuel like there's no tomorrow and still come up on top. That price gap all by itself makes all the difference when optimizing for cost.
  14. Corrected this for you. The conclusion is valid for that particular challenge, because it focuses on cost. The Twinboar is simply a ridiculously cost-effective engine in a lot of circumstances, Eve just being one of them. When it's all about bang for buck, the Twinboar is way out of the stock 'balance', there isn't really any competition. Corrected for the fuel and dry mass of the included Jumbo tank, it's less than 7000 funds per 'engine', but with a comparable TWR and ISP to the much more expensive Mammoth or Vector. Nothing even comes close to that RoI in stock.