# atomontage

Members

79

## Community Reputation

22 Excellent

• Rank
Rocketry Enthusiast

## Recent Profile Visitors

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

1. ## [WIP][1.7.x] SSTULabs - Low Part Count Solutions (Orbiters, Landers, Lifters) - Dev Thread [11-18-18]

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. ## [WIP][1.7.x] SSTULabs - Low Part Count Solutions (Orbiters, Landers, Lifters) - Dev Thread [11-18-18]

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. ## [1.6] 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. ## atomontage    Galileo

Hello, Galileo!

Firstly, let me thank you for your great work on GPP and other adjacent mods. They are great!

Secondly, I have a question. In the GEA thread

you asked the author to remove any of your textures from their pack. Did they? Im asking because we're about to ban this pack in our local KSP community as it violates many of the KSP community rules (as far as I believe).

Thanks and have a nice day!

1. I haven’t actually checked in a long time. Someone said he removed everything and that it doesn’t violate licenses anymore. If so, that’s great, but I can’t be bothered to download and install his pack and check. I have heard he just rips a bunch of textures from Space Engine now. But thanks for the kind words! Glad you like the mods!

5. ## [1.7.3] Kerbal Health 1.3.7 (2019-07-16)

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.
6. ## [1.7.3] Kerbal Health 1.3.7 (2019-07-16)

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.
7. ## [1.7.3] Kerbal Health 1.3.7 (2019-07-16)

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?

10. ## [1.5.1, 1.6.1, 1.7.2] 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.
11. ## Parts' drag calculation inside cargo bays

@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.