Nnimrod

Can you bake code into parts? Let's say I want to make a primitive avionics unit for an early sounding rocket that, rather than allowing direct control via the arrow keys, allows you to enter a pitch over angle and a throttle cutoff altitude or something. So that you set those parameters, and then press launch and wait. Is that something that could be done?

To my knowledge, this hasn't been done. Am I wrong? If not, I assume that it's just not feasible? Anyone tried to do this before?

Excellent. Hail Kek.

@R-T-B Does your previous post mean that the latest strategia build works? I'm not using Kerbal Konstructs atm, am using Kopernicus 1.12.1 build 155.

I would also like a way to represent float curves with equations, and edit them.

I've got a question. 1.12.3 with expansions, FAR 16.0.4 and kerbal engineer 1.1.9 installed, nothing else. I load up the stock Mallard, raise the landing gear, set altitude to 10km, and mach number to .535. Calculate data/stability derivatives gives me a reference area of 122 ms^2, an AoA of 7.02544 degrees, a forward velocity of 157.864 m/s, and coefficients of lift and drag of 0.84 and 0.0632. With an atmosphere density of 0.288 kg/m3, that comes to a lift force of 367,762 newtons, or 37,501kg weight. Far says that this if for level coordinated flight, so lift force should be exactly equal to weight, but KSP says the weight of the mallard in this configuration is 39,046kg. I tried a few different speeds/altitudes, and came up repeatedly with a lift force of only 37.5 tons. Is this a rounding error or something, or am I missing something? Also, is there a way to see FAR's outputs with more decimal places? Or even better have it print a range of values to a text file? Like for instance the precise values of the AoA sweep? edit: It looks like my inaccuracy stems from the density value. I pulled them from the KSP wiki. I'll try using some values produced using the USSA equations on Ohiobob's site, because apparently that's how KSP's atmosphere works in stock now. Which is pretty cool.

Thanks bro, have you got one of these?

I was bored, and thought I'd make a little spreadsheet to calculate a bunch of parameters for planes like maximum sustained turn performance, climb rate, stall speed, etc. FAR is doing the heavy lifting, because it calculates Cl and Cd, but I also need to calculate thrust available, thus this thread. I use google sheets, and I haven't done this before.

haha $100 is not much money Don't I know it. Inflation is a helluva drug. I can afford more, but are joysticks really that expensive? I didn't even do any research before posting here. The last joystick I bought was for Jane's USAF, and it uses a gameport connector (I think). If joysticks are just that expensive then give me your recommendations disregarding the $100 preference.

Under $100 preferably. I don't play other flight sims.

It seems like I could use the filters to perma prune all parts that aren't part of a given mod, is that the case? And what happens when a texture is used by two parts, one of which I have perma pruned, while the other is in use?

I'm making a tech tree mod, and placing and balancing every part. For balance reasons I don't want any parts there that I haven't put there, and for memory reasons I don't want the game loading any resources it won't be using. How should I handle mods that add many parts that I won't use, but which add some parts that I absolutely want? Like for instance BDB. The point being that I don't want to load a bunch of textures and models that I won't be using. Option 1. Don't use those mods, and instead redistribute only the assets required within my mod. The issue with this is that not all mod's licenses/authors allow for this. Although it definitely saves memory. Option 2. Include a patch that deletes all parts except those from my mod. I make the other parts mods dependencies and I don't redistribute any art. This is maximally compatible, but is KSP going to waste memory loading resources for parts that aren't even being loaded? Perhaps something could be done with Janitor's closet? It's late and I'm sure I'm missing something, but I figured since I'm considering the possibility that I might actually publish it, I ought to do things right this time.

Pretty cool, I think I'll give it a try.

Excellent!

I really like your models, and I really like anyone making stuff from the early days.

So is scott manley saying your name correctly? "Nertee"? If so then I have not been.

Title basically, does anyone know if KSP scales any differently than might be expected with DDR3 vs DDR4? Or with different generations of processors? Ryzen and up CPUs first intel? What about win 7 vs 10? Different generations of nVidia cards? Do RTX cards see any benefit? I suspect that it probably scales about the same as any other physics heavy unity game, but if anyone has some experience benchmarking it or knows of an article on it I'd appreciate it, thanks. Just as a starter tidbit, I had for years 16gb of very fast DDR3 (2666c11, Hynix MFR) with my 4790k, and recently popped in two more sticks of slower memory (2133c11, Samsung rev. B I think) along side them, and running 32gb at the slow speed seems to result in greater stability. I haven't crashed once with the 32gb configuration.

How much work would it be to attach an explosion to a part failure event? Preferably with a MM configurable random delay. So when your SRB part fails, the warning shows up and between X an Y seconds later it explodes, with explosion strength scaling with the failed part's mass.

So one of the biggest, and least addressed issues with balanced and engaging career gameplay is failure to adequately model the economic challenges that real space programs/rocket companies face. With that in mind, could a mod that checks for various things which modify entryCost, and then returns a modified entryCost be made? Consider two example engines, engine A and engine B. Engine B is a related descendant of engine A. The mod checks to see if engine A has been researched, and if it has it checks for a module called "EntryCostMod" or something like that within engine B's .cfg. Inside "EntryCostMod" it finds engine A = .45, and if engine A has been researched, it multiplies engine B's entryCost by the specified value (0.45). This would make an awful lot possible. For bonus points, some way to handle contracts to buy a certain quantity of parts would be amazing, but difficult I think. Perhaps a reasonable surrogate for this would be to have a bit of code that keeps track of every time you buy a part, and to have a module in the part .cfg called "QuantityDiscount" or something that looks at the running list of how many times you've bought a part, and uses a simple formula to apply a discount to the cost of that part such that buying the part over and over again makes the cost asymptotically approach a specified portion of the original cost. Thanks for taking a look. EDIT: Forgot to mention, but if the quantity discount bit is possible, would it also be possible to make it work for resources like fuel?

A somewhat conspicuous omission to the list of compatible and incompatible planet packs is JNSQ. Starting with a stock 1.11 install, GU and JNSQ both work fine alone, but together they cause the game to stall while trying to load the main menu. Has anyone else had this issue?

Has anyone tried using JNSQ with galaxies unbound? Each works fine on it's own, but the game stalls and won't load the main menu when both are installed. I'm working with 1.11 and a clean install, other than EVE and scatterer.

Got GU set up with Singularity/EVE/scatterer on a clean install and I've got to say the graphics from singularity are as good as advertised. Excellent job! Now to get it working with JNSQ and GEP...

Do you know of any mods that use these graphics atm? That are likely to work on 1.11 that is.

Absolutely perfect, exactly what I wanted.

Thanks very much. I didn't know there needed to be commas between values. I'll try this tomorrow.