AVaughan
-
Posts
621 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by AVaughan
-
-
On 8/12/2022 at 5:08 AM, Kerbalsaurus said:
Can RSS+RO run of my 8GB, Core i3 processor laptop? Or will something more like this happen.
Up until a few years ago I played RP-1 on an old I7-860 with 12GB RAM.
A modern laptop i3 probably has better single threaded performance.
8GB RAM will be really tight. You will probably end up paging heavily, to the extent the game might be unplayable. (If you try I suggest closing all other programs, using minimum graphics settings and not installing any extra part mods).
-
1 hour ago, magnemoe said:
For the rest I assume the service module move out of the way after separating.
They probably have some sep motors (or similar). With a suitable orientation at separation, even 2 m/s will get them a fair amount of spacing after 5 mins.
-
On Window the windows GUI it is "Settings" -> "Compatible game versions".
2 hours ago, Galileo chiu said:Yeah, M1, I can't find the settings on CKAN
A little bit of research says that CKAN uses a console UI on current versions of OSX. From https://github.com/KSP-CKAN/CKAN/wiki/User-guide#Using-the-console-UI
QuoteChoosing compatible game versions
F10
Game instance settings...
Tab three times to get to the compatible version list
Press A and select a new version from the list to add it as compatible
In general, you will get faster support (and often from someone better than me) on discord. https://discord.gg/VdsxK9p7QC
-
@Galileo chiu I don't have a Mac, so I can't test on OSX, but typically people having problems on Windows have skimmed through the instructions and missed one or more steps.
The most common one seems to be :
Quote3. Open CKAN > Settings > "Compatible game versions" and mark KSP version 1.11 as compatible.
(Also Intel or Apple M1 CPU? I'm only assuming that KSP, RP-1 and everything else work on the new Apple CPUs).
-
2 hours ago, Galileo chiu said:
I can't download RP1 Express install on mac's CKAN, how do I do it?
Follow the instructions on the wiki. https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/wiki/RO-&-RP-1-Express-Installation-for-1.12.3
-
Sending something to Earth-Sun L2 shouldn't require a disposable Starship, nor a special variant.
Assuming the payload has station keeping thrusters, a refuelled Starship should be able to boost the payload onto an Earth-Sun L2 transfer orbit, separate from the payload, then make a small braking burn to set itself up for re-entry in a week or so with a similar re-entry velocity to a lunar return. (It might need extra battery capacity or solar panels, but Lunar variants would need those as well).
Alternatively a refuelled Starship should have enough dV for a trip to L2 and back, with re-entry velocity a little over Lunar return velocity. I wouldn't expect the round trip to take more than a couple of months. (From memory Webb was about 30 days to L2)? So it probably needs solar panels, but Mars variants will need those as well.
-
3 hours ago, NippyFlippers said:
I appreciate you trying to help me, but I have no idea what you are trying to explain to me.
Are you trying to say I need to install it manually and not via CKAN?
If I understand Stonesmile correctly, he is saying that you also need KSP Community Fixes. You can install that via CKAN.
-
1 hour ago, MikeD said:
I've been having some problems with my realism overhaul save and as of right now the biggest thing bugging me is that my delta v readouts are broken. Is there a fix to this issue because so far I have uninstalled and reinstalled the game and a bunch of mods. Any help would be appreciated thanks!
*Image of issue included in the link
On my install (RO + RP-1) the stock dV readout is disabled because it isn't accurate. the normal recommendation is to use MechJeb's dV display. (KER's dV display is also inaccurate).
-
7 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:
So it sure looks like some of those engine covers were blown partially if not completely off. I would guess if an engine straight up exploded it would be worse, but thats a lot of force on all those relatively delicate ‘fiddly bits’ on the engine heads. I don’t know how B7 is back in action next week.
Have we seen the engines for B8 yet? If so they could just swap the engines. Then they have plenty of time to inspect these, or send them back to the factory or McGregor.
-
2 hours ago, kmsheesh said:
hello, enabling this mod through ckan makes the tutorial mission ( go for orbit ) impossible to start and just get back to main menu without launching
In general don't use mods for the tutorial missions.
-
On 6/30/2022 at 3:45 AM, Zendel said:
Hi all.
Encountered problem with Electric Charge in Service Modules weight nothing. As well MLI layers do not add up any weight. No issues in console, no errors.
Please, help. Maybe I can tweak something in config.
Some service modules and capsules do have magic electric storage that weighs nothing. I have no idea why but it is something that is known, and has been known for long enough that I'm assuming it was a deliberate choice when configuring them.
-
Personally I think the interest in Starship is some of the military wanting a new toy.
For moving cargo to a forward zone, in general I think they would be better off either para-dropping supplies from a transport aircraft or using helicopters/v-22 osprey. One possible exception is if a large isolated base (eg an island) was surrounded and cut-off from normal aircraft approach and in need of resupply. Even then I think that Starship would just be too vulnerable to interception. (I guess it is possible that no existing air to air missile is able to target something like Starship. But I'm sure that won't last if the military actually acquired some).
Obviously that all changes if we have bases on the Moon or in space.
The other exception is if they think they can use Starship as a giant fuel air bomb.
2 hours ago, RCgothic said:What's the suborbital range for a full starship, reserving enough fuel for a return trip?
From memory a while ago Elon said that a full fuelled Starship (without any payload) had almost enough dV for orbital. So lets say about 9000 m/s. I think the Booster adds something like 2500 extra. So all up lets hypothetically say something like 12,000 m/s. When playing in RO/RP-1 the 3000km down-range contract needs roughly 6000 m/s of dV. So from those figures you might think that 2 sub-orbital hops of up to 3000 km each might work.
But that is neglecting that Starship is designed to re-enter and land with a limited amount of fuel + cargo onboard. I don't know what Starship's re-entry mass limits are but lets guess at 100 tons dry mass, plus 100 tons cargo, plus 20 tons of fuel for landing. So a total mass at re-entry of about 220 tons. However the fuel needed for the return trip (6000 m/s + 300 m/s for landing) is roughly 450 tons. So to be able to fly that return trip Starship's total mass when landed on target needs to be about 550 tons. Fuel for landing would be another 45 tons or so. (Probably more like 50 tons, since a heavier Starship with the same cross-sectional area would have a higher terminal velocity, and would need more landing fuel). So mass at re-entry is probably about 600 tons.
Note that all of this is with a zero ton payload, and without any allowance for landing legs.
You might also need more mass to strengthen the flaps and their actuating mechanisms. Higher re-entry mass also means more energy to bleed off, however this is offset by lower re-entry velocity. Higher re-entry mass with the same cross-sectional area probably has some effect on altitude of peak heating and peak deceleration loads. Centre of mass is likely different as well. (Rotational inertia would definitely be larger, requiring either a longer flip or more engines for the flip, and hence even more landing propellant). I've got no idea what that the net effect of all of that would be other than to say you would need a new design study and probably significant design changes before a Starship optimised for a 220 ton re-entry wants to attempt a 600 ton re-entry.
So even if a Starship has theoretically could have enough range for a return trip I don't think it is practical to land with that much fuel. (At least not without significant design changes).
-
That highlighted tick and cross does look odd.
In general, for those contract types I find switching to all the satellites is enough for contract configurator to assign the sats and sort out which sat is which. Wait a couple of seconds at each sat before switching to the next. If necessary switch back to the first and start slowly cycling again.
Also that looks like an old version of RP-1.
-
Do you have persistent thrust installed? If so try removing it.
-
A SRB exploding at a low altitude, causing enough burning fragments to endanger the parachutes perhaps?
-
It might technically run, but 4 GB of ram is probably not enough for a good experience. The GeForce 410M is also a fairly weak graphics card.
Up until a few years ago I used to play on an i7-860 and a Radeon HD 5770 with 12 GB of ram. 8 GB of ram should be enough for a minimum install, but you will probably want to close other memory hungry programs first.
-
@Kazkar A couple of other possibilities come to mind. (I have made all of these mistakes in the past).
One possibility is that your rocket is actually 20.0001 tons, and the VAB report/KER is displaying that as 20.00 tons. You can check whether rp-1 thinks your rocket has enough avionics by opening the rp-1 display and clicking on the avionics tab. (I'm not sure whether you need to remove the clamps. I often use this to check that an upper stage or a probe core will have control once in space. But I don't normally get close enough to the avionics limit to need it for a booster).
Another is that if you use the slider at the bottom of a tank to remove fuel, then the launch clamps will replenish that fuel on the pad. That can mean that you think your rocket is under the avionics limit, when it is actually over them. (Use the tank utilisation slider, or the Real Fuels GUI to remove fuel if you want to use a partially filled tank).
I have also occasionally made a small tweak to the physical dimensions of a procedural avionics unit, and then later noticed that the control limit had unexpectedly changed by a small amount, eg from 20 tons to 19.95 or so.
-
5 hours ago, PDCWolf said:
Internet today is what prevents the gross oversaturation of the market from creating a second industry crash
Internet is what enables the proliferation of games we have today. If we lived in a world without internet, people would need to go to a physical store to buy games. That would drive up the cost of buying games and reduce the number and variety of games that got released.
Physical game copies would cost money to produce, and more money to distribute. Physical stores also cost money to build/rent, maintain, pay staff, stock for shelves etc. They also have limited space, so they can't carry physical stock of millions of different games. Indie game developers like Squad with niche games like KSP 1 would probably find it almost impossible to get stock on shelves without first signing with a publisher. (Early access would also be impossible, and without early access or a publisher I doubt Squad would have even been able to afford to finish KSP 1).
There are many reasons why some indie titles benefit from being released via early access whilst still in development. These include getting funding to finish the game, but they also include getting feedback from outside the small development team (and possibly any friends that were acting as early access/beta testers). This is important for working out if there is enough interest from paying customers for the game to be successful in the market. It also gives the developers a whole horde of bug report/suggestions and other feedback that hopeful result in a better game.
Small indie developers with an unknown product need some hype to be successful. They need to get streamers and review sites actually playing and writing about the the game. Small indie developers don't have the advertising budget to get noticed any other way. Note that for that strategy to be successful the initial impression has to be good. (Or at least good enough that reviews/ first impressions video etc are positive, and people decide to buy the game). If the initial release is good/popular, then that can result in hype and publicity that can drive even more sales. It doesn't matter if this is an early access release or not. It doesn't matter if the game could have been even better with the advantages of early access or not, what matters is whether customers, streamers and reviewers recommend/promote the game to their friends and audience.
Large publishers like Take Two have other options, especially with an established game like KSP. Online review sites know that there are a couple of million owners of the first KSP out there who are likely to be interested in a sequel. (And getting page views and advertising revenue is the raison d'être for such sites). Assuming KSP 2 is good, then KSP youtubers/streamers will also be happy to do pre-release streams/videos of KSP 2. Assuming TT are willing to splash some money around on advertising, and distribute some review keys, then getting day one reviews out will be easy. (That is something that no indie developer can expect if they don't have a publisher/advertising money and/or hype).
Also note that first impressions matter. If the initial word of mouth is that a game isn't worth your time/money, then that impression will probably stick. A premature/bad early access release can be fatal to a games development. Pushing KSP 2 out to early release too early could result in a backlash from unsatisfied customers expecting the finished product. From Take Two's perspective that risk is almost certainly not worthwhile.
Personally I think a large developer or publisher who doesn't need early access money/feedback can get the same amount of publicity and hype potential with less risk by releasing a finished game rather than an early access game. If have an advertising budget, then they can get reviews and first-plays and hence get noticed. Whether their game then develops hype depends on the game and whether it appeals to the market. Early access does not provide any advantage here, and if the game comes across as unfinished/unpolished then can be a problem.
Ultimately the choice of early access or not belongs to Take Two. They are the ones funding development, they get to make these choices. I'm sure they have thought about it. They have probably spent more hours considering the pros and cons of it than anyone on these forums.
3 hours ago, rmaine said:Early access tends to completely turn me off. I've seen too many games where "early access" seems to mean that the game isn't actually finished and never will be.
These days my personal philosophy is I only buy an early access game when the already released content is enough to make me go "Stuff waiting. I want to play that now". That way even if the game never gets more content, I'm still getting something I consider to be worth my money. (Anytime I violate those rules, I typically end up being disappointed).
-
2 hours ago, LTL King said:
If parts don't load because you don't have that mod.
That's fine.
Best guess from the screenshot you shared is that either you don't have sufficient avionics on that stage (science cores don't provide enough control for rcs), or you don't have comms.
Here is the the rocket I used for my first orbit in my last campaign
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1GEL5tiJg8DJB8R7-pr4FYLfBpu4aLo71/view?usp=sharing
It successfully reached 315 x 7200 despite the second stage engine failing early. It has science instruments and a few days of power. It easily has enough margin to add a small solar panel if desired, or to launch polar. (You will need to coast toward apoapsis, then use rcs to point towards the horizon, then manually spin up and ullage before dropping the avionics and igniting the last stage).
1 hour ago, LTL King said:You wanna narrow down the list.
I'm pretty sure those craft files are from his current YouTube playthrough/dev stream. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLI_cTKGllaWjtxrJVH8j4EDD_KEIYdZOG . The craft name and episode number are enough for viewers to pick which craft they are interested in. (Or you could just download the lot and open them in sandbox until you find one you like).
-
@LTL King @Joesk There is a channel on discord for sharing craft files. Discord is also a good place for help and advice. https://discord.gg/VdsxK9p7QC
7 hours ago, LTL King said:I added RCS and gyro to the probe to allow me to circle around to apo and push up the peri.
I can't get any RCS or Gyro to work.I'm not sure which of the RCS part packs you screenshotted have RO/RP-1 configs.
If RCS isn't working then check you have high pressure tanks, the correct fuel mixture, enough avionics, and for manual control, not MechJeb, you also need a comms connection.Edit: For RCS parts make sure they have an engine config button in the PAW, otherwise they probably aren't correctly configured for RP-1.
You shouldn't have any gyroscope parts at that stage in career. -
8 hours ago, mikegarrison said:
This is basically nonsense. The amount of energy it would take to extract the 400 ppm of CO2 from the air in large quantities is immense, and then you still have to crack it into methane, which I remind you requires at the very least all the energy that you can release by burning it up.
We would have to be just swimming in free green energy before this made any sense at all other than for PR greenwashing purposes.
Meanwhile trees are busy extracting the CO2 from the air for free, if we would just stop slash-and-burning them.
Personally I think the "make our own methane" project won't get any further than a pilot plant to develop the processes and equipment they intend to eventually use for ISRU on Mars.
If they are making large amounts of LOX on site, then they might be able to capture small amounts of carbon dioxide from that plant, for relatively low additional energy and cost, which might be enough for an ISRU pilot plant that only runs some of the time.
I also recall hearing something about Musk offering a prize for carbon capture technology, so I think they are hoping for a better capture tech. -
@LTL King KSP 1.12.3 is the latest version of KSP. (Do not read version numbers as decimal numbers, read them as major version <separator> minor version <separator> patch level. 1.12 is later than 1.9.
KSP 1.12.3 is the only version of KSP that the latest release of RO, RP-1 and related mods is designed to work with.
@Kazkar RO, RP-1 and a number of other related mods had new releases about 24-48 hours ago. The CKAN metadata tab has links to the github repositories. The github release page for each mod lists the changes. From memory most of the changes shouldn't break anything in existing saves.
However do not update Scatterer. For some reason new versions of scatterer break things.
-
@LTL King In the steam beta tab select none. That opts out of all old versions that are archived under the beta tab, and gets you the latest version.
-
16 minutes ago, Antares777 said:
Thank you for your reply, eventhough this news is a bummer as by the kerbalism guide I see no other way to generate food for long missions and colonies.
I may be asking another redundant thing, but why I can't see the robotic parts from the Breaking Ground DLC? Are they not supported too? There's a way to make them appeat and use at my own risk?
Most of the parts from the DLCs are also unsupported.
From memory deleting or disabling the file GameData\RP-1-ExpressInstall\RP-1Express.cfg should allow unsupported parts to load.
SpaceX Discussion Thread
in Science & Spaceflight
Posted
I don't know.
If you sum up all the launches between 1950 or so, and 2002 (the year SpaceX was founded), what percentage failed?
I wouldn't be surprised if 20-25% failed.
None of that means that modern launch vehicles are unreliable, just that there were a lot of failures back in the 50s and 60s.