Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Jso

  1. 2 hours ago, Zorg said:

    edit: well ok dont know what the number itself is exactly, could be mach? But we can guess its the velocity at which the aero shock effects and the entry plasma effects show up. The numbers in the comments are defaults possibly? 


    2 hours ago, jefferyharrell said:

    Gotcha. I'll install it in my game and see what happens. Thanks again.

    It's the mach number for the reentry effects. The default numbers are way low because otherwise you'd never get reentry effects in a stock system since you're moving too slow for plasma to appear. That's not really a problem in a 2.5x system so you can bump it up to more realish numbers.

    This is mine:

    	// AeroFX
        @aeroFXStartThermalFX = 7.3 // 2.5
        @aeroFXFullThermalFX = 10 // 3.75
    	// Temp warnings
    	@temperatureGaugeHighlightThreshold = 0.95 // 0.75


    Just to add about your ascent... 100x100km is kind of skimming the atmosphere. You'll have a less dramatic climb going to 150x150km. Also with very little practice you can do a direct ascent to the Mun. With tons of spare deltav for corrections burns it's especially easy.

  2. 6 hours ago, thunder175 said:

    I was looking at the Kerbalism/BDB compatibility patch and had a question on the early probe cores. How was the built-in solar panel charging set? Assuming based on real-world parameters? Reason I ask is because when using Kerbalism, turning on the built in science experiment exceeds the available power generated due to the spherical panels thus making the early cores pretty much useless for science gathering. So was thinking about how to balance the generation and consumption values for the early cores.  The problem is on the Kerbalism side not BDB, but just figured I'd ask the group here as well. 

    We have no balance rules for EC related parts other than comparing them to other similar parts.

    We adjust solar panels and batteries as needed so the spacecraft can accomplish it's mission. If the power requirements seem excessive from a balance standpoint we may trim down the on board science or adjust other power consumers. Keep in mind that purely battery powered probes are expected to hibernate when idle. If Kerbalism is adding additional power consumption you'll need to account for that.

  3. 32 minutes ago, JoeSheridan said:

    nice, now i have a reason to check the patch out, now that i can use it to check out the performance of the upcomming new parts. 

    Some things we already know:

    Saturn IB Apollo is still a dog.

    Saturn INT-21 puts about 63 tons to LEO, and Saturn V can send 35 tons on TLI, both with comfortable margins. Relative to the rest of the mod those numbers are balanced.

    Apollo (including the petal adapter and LES) weighs 23 tons, so that mission is a bit OP. I'm not sure what if anything we may do about that, since making Apollo heavier will hurt the Saturn IB.

  4. 4 hours ago, scottadges said:

    What's the best way to maintain control during a standard equatorial gravity turn? I keep nosing down and flipping around 10-12Km (even when activating the liquid engine to compensate). Or are the SRBs just too powerful/unstable to hold any kind of angle?

    10-12K is around Max Q, so your angle of attack is too high. High acceleration worsens the effect so you also might be overthrusted.

  5. 10 hours ago, Pappystein said:

    So you look at the skeletal legs of the ATM mount... and you think.  This was mounted ontop of a rocket that could pull 4 or 5x the force of Gravity to get to space....    And you realize that the ATM itself is pretty massive....   And you wonder....   HOW THE HECK DIDN'T THIS break!   The solar panel broke!  This thing is at least 10x more likely to break!

    I've been wondering the same thing.

  6. 1 hour ago, Crimor said:

    Currently trying to figure out what's causing a bug in my modlist regarding tweakscale(If I make the part smaller and then duplicate it, the max fuel storage gets reset), and I've made it not happen on non bluedog parts but it still happens on these, anyone had similar issues in the past that I could use to figure out what's causing it faster? The cycle of removing a couple of mods, starting the game, and rescaling a part only to do it again and again is becoming less and less fun :v

    Compare the final config of the working and non working parts in GameData/ModuleManager.ConfigCache and maybe you can figure out what's different. FYI, we haven't updated our Tweakscale compatibility files in over a year so they are definitely out of date. I'm not sure anyone on the dev team still uses it.

  7. 6 minutes ago, Heliotrope said:

    Sorry if I was not clear on my post, I am aware I *can* make LDC hydrolox and with the engines that run on hydrolox it could work. I was just curious if that would be realistic, something they could do in reality, or would there not be much point.

    I'm not sure what you're asking then. If you're wondering if you could just take a Hypergolic Titan and fill it with Hydrolox fuel with no other modification but an engine swap, no you couldn't do that. But this is KSP &)

    Titan unflown proposals. (Our LDC is a generic LDC concept, not any particular design at that page).

  8. 10 minutes ago, Heliotrope said:

    I am greatly curious about alternate space history (and like to play them in KSP with this mod C: ), and was wondering if anyone knew what those heavier payloads might be? Larger space stations like Salyut? Or something else. Or maybe they just proposed the rocket without any idea of the payload, which is entirely possible ;P

    Space based weapons platforms for the Air Force.

    10 minutes ago, Heliotrope said:

    Also, does anyone think a Hydrolox LDC variant would be realistic, or would development be too much?

    Delta IV, or use the fuel switch and roll your own. The LDC parts are great for that.

  9. 1 hour ago, ltajax said:

    Random question, what solid kick engine is supposed to be used for the third stage in Thor / Fenris & Alpha / Able  with Pilgrim  / Pioneer 0 / 1 ? 

    The Starra - 20 is the right one i think, but as far as I can see there are no decouplers that give enough distance between the tank and the probe, the antenna clip into the tank. The Starra 13-A fits but it lacks the fuel required for a burn to the Mun in JNSQ it seems.

    Use the HLR-VD03 0.125m Decoupler with the Stara 20 in the ABL X-248 config and a 0.125m top diameter. The antenna just touches the solid motor, but that's the correct setup.

    Sort decouplers by mass and the teeny-tiny one's are easier to find.




  10. 28 minutes ago, KeaKaka said:

    Quick little bug or missing feature,

    The nozzle extension on the XLR-129 cannot be automated, so when it is switched to automatic switching in the right-click menu it doesn't switch automatically, it's still manual.

    That because automatic switching waits for the primary engine to flame out to switch modes. It doesn't know how to deal with switching when the secondary engine become more efficient.

  11. 4 hours ago, computercat04 said:

    That's a lot of mods, try a clean install with just BDB and it's dependencies. At the very least update B9PartSwitch to the latest version. Yours is very old.

    If those are craft files, try building from scratch. We frequently break craft files with updates.

    Edit: BDB is compatible with KSP versions 1.8.1-1.10.1. There are numerous unresolved issues with 1.11.

  12. 2 hours ago, Pappystein said:

    Early in the development of both the Atlas and Titan Missiles, the Remo-Wooldridge corporation, the soon to be TRW, pointed out to the USAF that a better fuel source than cryogenic Liquid Oxygen should be found.  Liquid Oxygen boils off at a prodigious rate when exposed to normal terrestrial temperatures.   The USAF approached both General Dynamics (Convair Division) and the Martin Company about converting to some form of storable liquid fuel.   Convair pointed out that a storable fuel would destroy the balloon tanks in short order… and the extra weight would inviolate their entire launch principal.   This quickly excluded Atlas from being “up fueled” to a new storable propellant.   You see, even today with all our advances in chemistry and metallurgy, storable fuels tend to be very caustic, very cancerous, and generally unbelievably BAD to be around.   Back in the 1950s we are talking about nitric acid and any of various fuel types that nitric acid self-combusts or goes hypergolic with.   Why is self-combustion an important factor for room temperature stored fuels?  The short answer is I do not know.   The longer answer involves a lot of chemical and engineering equations that deal with ISP.    I will stick with I DON’T KNOW because it is easier to say and takes up less space in this article… by tens of paragraphs!

    Mobile users would appreciate if you putt walls-o-text in a spoiler :)

    You would appreciate this book. Aside from it's tendency to go boom at inconvenient times, freezing point of storable fuels is a huge factor.


  13. 5 hours ago, CAPFlyer said:

    Also, just to clarify - this is all BDB rockets.  I tested it again in a new save on the most current version of 1.11 and *only* the BDB engines have this problem with performance not matching calculations when using MechJeb PVE ascent guidance.  When I use stock, or even like Missing History or other similar "stockalike" addons, PVE is rock steady on its predictions and it does what it says it'll do and I end up where I should be.  With BDB, the dV calculations are not matching performance, meaning I'm consuming fuel at full rate, but what's coming out the back isn't right.  I don't understand enough about how the addons are done and what is involved in performance calculations, so I can't tell you where the problem is, but I know that all the engines are substantially under performing compared to what they were under 1.10.



  • Create New...