atomontage

Members
  • Content count

    79
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

22 Excellent

About atomontage

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Jeez... NOW I am ashamed! Haha. Yeah right, I used diameter instead of radius... *sigh* Thank you much for your great answer and very quick reaction! Mr. Kraken, bless this dude and this mod for us please! Oh did you already do it? Okay then, but do it again please! For more reliability..
  2. Hello, @Shadowmage! Firstly, let me thank you for your great work on SSTU - I've been really enjoying the mod for a while, its a pure awesomeness. And all those PBR textures... jeez, its cool as hell! *drools* I have a question. Lets say I have a standard MFT-A 2.5m x2.0 lightweight tank filled with LH2: Then the volume of this tank is 5 * π * 2.5^2 ≈ 98.17 m^3 (Notice that the menu says its volume is 24.5 m^3 and its usable volume is 20,8 m^3.) Now as we have mass and volume we can calculate LH2 density: m / V = 1475kg / 98.17 m^3 ≈ 14.025 kg/m^3 Google says the density of Liquid Hydrogen is something around 70.8 kg/m^3 that is almost 5 times greater. If we consider the told volume (20.8 m^3) then the calculations are correct and the resulting density will be 70.91 kg/m^3. I have also looked into the CRP config - it defines LqdHydrogen density as density = 0.00007085000 which seems to be correct. Does SSTU divide the resulting volume by 5 just to match stock LF and LOX? Because it fills itself with stock resources correctly. But it seems like a strange solution as it completely breaks the usage of LH2 and other resources. My SSTU version is 0.39.149 (KSP is 1.3.1). Thanks!
  3. atomontage

    [1.4.1] BARIS - Building A Rocket Isn't Simple

    Windows restricts usage of quotation marks in filenames so yes KSP can't create a craft file with it. You also cannot name your craft 'con' (without apostrophes) as Windows forbids to use that word as a file or directory name. About launch failures.. I think its normal. Its like you've just started your rocket career - its obvious your rockets will fail over and over again. Thats my opinion. I've had many failures too during early career stage. Also 25 reliability is very low (with default BARIS settings). My parts are mostly 80 and failures are now much less often. Even so something with reliability 60 does fail sometimes.
  4. I believe its just a part of a name. But I'm not sure... No, its not a different mod. Its GPP that renames kerbals.
  5. Ok, I've found it under %APPDATA%. I've reuploaded it to Google Drive and the link remains the same. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KmlA_2tx_YonmaRUxoVP1bCe0AqOek5T/view?usp=sharing I believe it only remains them once. I didn't play it much though. The reason to rename is that it replaces Kerbin with Gael so it also renames kerbalnauts to Gaeleans instead of Kermans so it makes sense.
  6. I've just checked - yeah, output.log seems to be obsolete. I believe it persisted through the copying process. I have like 6 KSP installs. Two of them are for testing (like for this case when I needed pure stock). But still it is from the correct directory. It seems KSP didn't refresh it at all since the last.. crash I think? And ksp.log is ok. Is it enough for you? Or should I do something else to produce more logs?
  7. Um sure output.log: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KmlA_2tx_YonmaRUxoVP1bCe0AqOek5T/view?usp=sharing ksp.log: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1J68ogFuojvW0Go57lokUGGhnpo1Cd25R/view?usp=sharing
  8. hello, @garwel! Firstly, thanks for the awesome mod! Now I have a bug here. It seems KerbalHealth is not fully compatible with Galileo's Planet Pack. The reason might be is that GPP renames kerbalnauts in such a way that their second name becomes Gaelean instead of Kerman. I tried KerbalHealth in a pure stock install (well ok, with KER installed) and reproduced the steps by adding another kerbalnaut into the vessel - everything seems to be ok. I get the following once I add more than one kerbalnaut into the ship in the VAB: (Notice that I also tested this on a pure stock vessel - Kerbal X.) It seems that the default kerbalnaut (the one that is always put into a fresh vessel loaded in VAB just like Jeb) does NOT cause the bug. In my case it's Galileo Gaelean (see screenshot above). Every other one does cause the bug. You'd probably also want a screenshot of my kerbalnauts (those are added by GPP by default): And just in case you're interested in mods I have installed then here is the list: Thats all. ps: oh and I have a quick question here. Is it compatible with other stars? For example, GPP adds one more star that is included in the star system - it has a very high orbit though. Its just like an another celestial body in the system but it is a star. Will it provide radiation once a vessel is close to it? Im asking this because its not a planet - I know ppl have already asked about adding radiation to gas giants for example. But what about a star? Also Kopernicus treats it like a proper star now. Solar panels work, heating works, sunflares work. Thank you and have a great day!
  9. atomontage

    [1.4.1+] Dang It! Continued

    I hope I didn't miss something essential in exploring the following issue as there's too much beer in me. Anyways. I wanted to add support for SSTU solar panels. As some of you may notice, its a popular mod. I use it too. So... after trying some configs inserted directly into \DangIt\ModuleManager\Entropy\Solar.cfg (I've simply replaced ModuleDeployableSolarPanel with SSTUSolarPanelDeployable for testing purposes), I got the following stuff: KSP.log: That one made me to look up the source. I'm not familiar with MM syntax neither with MM config files. But as far as I researched any module declared with MODULE { } inherits its parents' fields (as, for example, the ModuleDeployableSolarPanel.isTracking one). So isn't is safer to change the parametrization to return this.part.Modules.OfType<ModuleSolarReliability>().First().isTracking; ? PS: and as always.. Thank you @Ippo for DangIt! and @Coffeeman for Entropy and @linuxgurugamer for maintaining this mod! KSP really lacks of random failures. Not sure if it's nice to call all of you for thanks but oh well.
  10. @OHara thanks for your help. I've also tested a few parts - added my conclusion to the original post. Btw, in both cases of testing (Mk3 and Mk2 variants) cockpits were root parts.
  11. KSP Version: 1.3.1.1891 (Windows 7 x64), fresh install, fresh sandbox savegame. I keep this particular KSP install for such testing only. Mods / Add-Ons: All Stock Description: if there is a long enough part inside a cargohold that consists of two shorter ones, then drag is applied to the payload. (I think its because the game thinks that payload part is clipping through the cargobay. Although visually it is only clipping through its front or its back as it is longer than the cargobay.) I also think the problem is known. But I'm not sure. Also I'd like to know if it's gonna be fixed or not. The reason I'm reporting this is because there are many modded parts that are longer than the longest cargobay available. Fuel tanks for example. It also limits how one should attach their payload inside cargobays. UPD: not every part bugs. Incomplete list of parts which I've tested (yes = causes the bug): - FL-T800 Fuel Tank: yes - Modular Girder Segment XL: no - M-Beam 200 I-Beam: no - Mk1 Cockpit: yes - Orange Tank: yes - RT-10 Hammer Solid Fuel Booster: yes (omg i've ignited it inside my cargobay.. omg.. oh nevermind it didnt explode) As a lil' bonus I've also tested the situation when a small part is placed between two cargobays. It didn't bug at all (tested with 2x FL-T200 Fuel Tank). Steps to Replicate: 1) Create a plane with two connected short cargobays so they make a longer one together. 2) Put a long enough part inside - its length must be longer than one of the short cargobays. Example: two connected Mk3 Cargo Bays CRG-50 and an Orange Tank inside. 3) Attach additional parts like a Cockpit, landing gears and an engine (if the payload isnt a fuel tank - then attach a fuel tank too of course). 4) Launch the craft. 5) Make aero forces visible in parts' gui menu through the debug menu. 6) Open the payload right-click menu. 7) Accelerate and watch its drag. Result: The payload's drag isn't zero although it must be as it is fully enclosed. Fixes/Workarounds: - attach the payload differently (if there are multiple crafts or parts as a payload); - use different nodes; - use the largest cargobay available; - don't put larger parts inside Other Notes/Pictures/Log Files: Both Mk3 and Mk2 cargobays have this problem. I believe its an internal technical logic problem, not a bug. Its just how the game calculates drag. But still it is a problem. Craft files: Mk2: https://www.dropbox.com/s/kk4h6y8h4alamx0/Bugged Mk2.craft?dl=0 Mk3: https://www.dropbox.com/s/fe4zaluf436nniq/Bugged Mk3.craft?dl=0 Screenshots (the right part-menu reflects the payload on both screenshots): Thank you Squad for making one of the best games! No sarcasm involved. Bugs happen. (I believe there is no need to include logfiles. Will attach if Im wrong.)
  12. Found an easy-to-fix bug. Well I think it is easy to fix. Engines incorrectly calculate their thrust upon copying (if set to be with 2 or more chambers). I've created a github issue as well. Posting here so ppl will not have to worry if they encounter it. (Tested on pure KSP 1.3.1. All info included in the issue.) Thank you for this great mod! Love it. I wish DangIt! properly recognized many SSTU parts, but its a known DangIt! issue I think to not recognize procedural stuff.
  13. @Malcolm made some patches including ones for PBS. Also he asked me to help with translation and Github stuff. My note: personally I don't play with PBS so I included the internal part names in brackets for better understanding. Translated text begins here. 1) Hitchhiker's Storage Container: MODULE { name = ModuleKerbalHealth partCrewOnly = true recuperation = 2 crewCap = 4 resourceConsumptionPerKerbal = 1 } These changes balance it a bit against the habitats from PBS and also adds the Recuperation ability as to Med Bay from MKS (see below). The Recuperation factor is not that big, just 2%, but it's gonna be the lowest in terms of electricity consumption. Thus I tried to make the Hitchhiker's Storage Container useful all the way to the late game as a cheap way to boost kerbal health. My thoughts are: the module has 4 gym devices (what do you think are those chairs with levers and foot holds at the walls? Ain't they control consoles are they?) and a bunch of boxes with some stuff inside including delicious food and board games. Being inside the module helps kerbals to regenerate their muscle tone and have some rest. (Translator's note: this one is not included in the patch.) 2) Planetary habitations Mk1 & Mk2 I think modules with a cabin, a bed, a sofa, a microwave oven and a TV just can't be less comfortable than a round can with four chairs and a box of cookies (like the Hitchhiker's Storage Container). For comparison, the Hitchhiker's Storage Container has Crowded coefficient = 0.375 (the lowest among the stock parts). The aircraft passenger cabins have Crowded = 0.5. Also I've looked at the MKS integration patches, some of which have the Recuperation bonus for modules like Medical Bay (which has Recuperation = 8) but for enormous 5 EC/s per each Kerbal and for only Kerbals that are inside. Okay so I made these patches for players who wish to build a planetary base out of PBS parts instead of MKS so they would require the changes. I think its logical that if a Kerbal isn't working in a lab, in a workshop or in a greenhouse and isn't piloting then one would like to relax, have a rest, take a break and watch a movie from a Kollywood collection on a giant plasma TV. Habitat Mk1 (KKAOSS_Habitat_MK1_g) BEFORE: Crowded = 0.45 AFTER: Crowded = 0.40 ADDED: MODULE { name = ModuleKerbalHealth partCrewOnly = true recuperation = 3 crewCap = 3 resourceConsumptionPerKerbal = 2.5 } Its a bit lighter in terms of mass (per 3 Kerbals) than the Hitchhiker's Storage Container, but much more cheaper. The mod dev probably focused on the cost when he was assigning Crowded = 0.45. I think its not fair that a spacious module with three beds, a microwave oven, a sofa and a giant plasma TV set is just a little bit more comfortable than an aircraft passenger mk1 cabin which has only two chairs and a table. Considering the low cost, I assign Crowded = 0.40, Recuperation = 3 for 2.5 EC per each Kerbal (think of cooking popcorn in an oven and watching TV). Habitat Mk2 (KKAOSS_Habitat_MK2_g) Added: MODULE { name = ModuleKerbalHealth partCrewOnly = true recuperation = 4 crewCap = 4 resourceConsumptionPerKerbal = 2.5 } This one is three times cheaper than the Hitchhiker's Storage Container, 100 kilograms heavier and requires more electricity: 1.5 against 1.3 (probably for the microwave oven); wherein it adds hab space for 4 Kerbals while inflated only. The low cost is compensated I think by high electricity requirement, being tricky to deliver and impossibility of usage while deflated. As in the Mk1 part, I also add this one the ability to Recuperate the idle Kerbals. Also it also has the K-Box console and the K-Station with K-Nect along with the Kollywood movies collection. 3) Central Hub (KKAOSS_Central_Hub) Added: MODULE { name = ModuleKerbalHealth resourceConsumptionPerKerbal = 1 multiplyFactor = Sickness multiplier = 0.7 crewCap = 2 partCrewOnly = true } This one is big, heavy and expensive. Aside from that, it can also represent the lab though its not that good. I added the Sickness multiplier to it so Kerbals can get rid of flu. The coefficient is 0.7 (the stock lab has 0.5). The rest of the attributes remain the same as for the stock lab. Didn't touch Recuperation = 2 and Crowded = 0.5, I think its fair enough. The Crowded one is not the best, but the module is already too universal. Planetary Cupola, Garage, Heat Shield, Planetary Lab The KH dev has probably forgotten those. I assign those attributes which follows their stock counterparts. Planetary Cupola (KKAOSS_Cupola_g) Added: { MODULE { name = ModuleKerbalHealth recuperation = 1 resourceConsumptionPerKerbal = 1 } MODULE { name = ModuleKerbalHealth resourceConsumptionPerKerbal = 1 multiplyFactor = Crowded multiplier = 0.5 crewCap = 2 } } Garage (KKAOSS_garage_side_g_2) Added: { MODULE { name = ModuleKerbalHealth alwaysActive = true shielding = 7.5 } RESOURCE { name = RadiationShielding amount = 0 maxAmount = 7.5 } } //To be honest I don't understand why do stock cargo bays mk3 have radiation protection. Does it mean someone may put habitats inside those? For pure roleplay someone could, but in fact I doubt they will. But because the stock ones already have the protection, let PBS ones have it as well.// Heat Shield (KKAOSS_base_heatshield) Added: { MODULE { name = ModuleKerbalHealth alwaysActive = true shielding = 3 } RESOURCE { name = RadiationShielding amount = 0 maxAmount = 3 } } Planetary Lab (KKAOSS_Science_g) Added: { MODULE { name = ModuleKerbalHealth resourceConsumptionPerKerbal = 1 multiplyFactor = Sickness multiplier = 0.5 crewCap = 2 partCrewOnly = true } } P.S.: Initially I wanted to add the Recuperation ability to the Greenhouse, but then I looked at the IVA model carefully and concluded that Kerbals would not consider it fun to sit on bags with dirt watching at bare walls with a few racks with seedlings inside. So I thrown that idea away. Instead Recuperation goes to habitats. Also I would suggest to change the Hitchhiker's Storage Container attributes (see the beginning of the post). Translation end. I've just created the pull request.
  14. atomontage

    KSP Weekly: We’re turning into polyglots!

    Yeah, same thing here. I hope they just got flooded with russian volunteers willing to help. Where do I bloody sign the "most "Russian localizations" of games have questionable quality." thing? And SQUAD! Don't tell us then you could not do it better!
  15. atomontage

    Otherwordly Fanart: First artwork!

    thi~ *phfflomp* *got sucked into Hyperspace*