Jso
-
Posts
684 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Jso
-
-
34 minutes ago, biohazard15 said:
Mariner B: electrostatic analyzer arm clips into probe core if "angled" is selected, and sticks out of Burke SAF fairing if "straight" is selected.
Please advise.
Put it somewhere else so it doesn't collide/stick out. Use an Atlas SLV-3B, Vega or Centaur. I think it was planned to use Centaur.
-
On 4/13/2020 at 4:35 AM, DeepWaterDaz said:
I have tried modifying the patch by replacing the "_" by a "?" wildcard since it was pointed out that KSP does not recognise the underscore. New patch below:
You don't need to do that. MM handles underscores just fine.
On 4/13/2020 at 4:35 AM, DeepWaterDaz said:@INPUT_RESOURCE[*],*
This is not matching because INPUT_RESOURCE doesn't have a name field, it has a ResourceName field. INPUT_RESOURCE[*] is looking for name=anything and since there are no name fields it never matches. Just use @INPUT_RESOURCE,* and it will do what you intend there.
-
22 minutes ago, lk00david said:
booted up my game and saw this, https://imgur.com/a/ssC4Y4F how worried should I be?
Something changed your ModuleEnginesFX to something else. RealFuels?
-
1 hour ago, Tonas1997 said:
Here it is:
// Probe cores: 1.2x the unit cost @PART[*]:HAS[#CrewCapacity[<1],@MODULE[ModuleCommand]]:FINAL { %entryCost = #$cost$ %entryCost *= 1.2 } // Crewed capsules: 5x the unit cost @PART[*]:HAS[#CrewCapacity[>0],@MODULE[ModuleCommand]]:FINAL { %entryCost = #$cost$ %entryCost *= 5 }The former won't work, whereas the latter will
% means edit or create. I don't believe it will accept any operator other than = (assignment). So when when you initialize your value use % (because @ will throw an error if the value does not exist). Afterwards use @ to edit the existing value. @entryCost *= 1.2 will work.
-
1 hour ago, biohazard15 said:
So... Any guide on how to properly test the new despin device? I've launched some Vanguards with it and cheated some test crafts to orbit, but still can't fully figure it out.
More importantly, is there any point in using it without additional realism-focused mods?
It's intended for mandatory rcs users, but if you turn off things like mechjeb and sas for the spin stabilized stages you don't need that. Place a pair in symmetry on the side of your craft, spin up with the spin motor decoupler, de-spin with the yoyo-but-not-really-depin-device. How this stuff will work is still being sorted out.
-
2 hours ago, derega16 said:
I'm confuse about titan III and IV launch sequence. Both part description and real launch sequence doccument said the mainengine is air start 10s before SRB seperation but nearly all real launch photos I found show it start at launch on the pad with march diamonds between two SRB plumes. Which one is more accurate and how much performance difference between these two?
Just to pile on here, the core stage was never ground lit with SRBs. The pair of solids can lift several hundred tons more than the rocket with it's max theoretical payload so there's no scenario where you would need to ground ignite the core. We've all asked the same question - what you're seeing is exhaust gasses interacting with the airflow behind the core.
-
25 minutes ago, Big Katz said:
Will these be included in the next official release of Bluedog or is this a seperate prject you work on?
We assimilated the Zorg a while ago. It's all official.
-
32 minutes ago, Tonas1997 said:
I'm getting an error with this patch:
@PART[*]:HAS[#CrewCapacity[<1],@MODULE[ModuleCommand]]:FINAL { %entryCost = #$cost$ * 2 }I never used variables before, so I don't know what I'm doing wrong - but I suspect numeric operations have to be done in some other way...
%entryCost = #$cost$ @entryCost *= 2
-
2 hours ago, derega16 said:
I have a request, can you make resupply pods support another resource from Community resource? I think use case for just ore and KIS inventory is too small with CR it can be use for something like SSXP inflatable parts which requires material kits
Yes. Requests left here tend to be forgotten, so the best way to get that done is create a new issue here and give us as much information as possible. The name of the mod and what sort of resources it needs. There's already support for TAC-LS, Snacks, and USI-LS.
-
1 hour ago, nasa legolas said:
So, I've been trying out the new mercury parts, but the heat shield keeps inflating every time i place it. how do i fix this?
The plugin's not loading. You need KSP 1.8.1.
-
2 hours ago, Zorg said:
I dont think SAF can support two modules on one part, certainly I've not tried. They could be regular decoupers I suppose but I would rather keep them integrated.
ModuleJettison?
-
3 hours ago, blowfish said:
-
New module for assigning PAW groups on other modules:
ModuleB9AssignUiGroups-
takes one or more
MODULEnodes that each identify a module to have its UI group assigned-
each one must have an
IDENTIFIERnode to identify the module-
it must have a
namewhich is the name of the module (wildcards and regex are allowed) - it can have any other fields that uniquely identify the module
-
This is the same as the
IDENTIFIERin a module switcher
-
it must have a
-
each one must have an
-
uiGroupName- unique identifier of the group -
uiGroupDisplayName- human readable name of the group to show in the UI - only applies to fields/events that don't already have a group
-
Cannot apply to
ModuleB9PartSwitch,ModuleB9PartInfo,ModuleB9AssignUiGroups(itself), orModuleSimpleAdjustableFairing
-
takes one or more
Oh! This has possibilities.
-
New module for assigning PAW groups on other modules:
-
JNSQ rescales the ScanSat altitudes, and that works on our parts as well. From what I can see the Mercury main chute deploys just fine even if the drogue is still blocking it. Sounds like you've got something wrong in your install.
Welcome to the forums!
-
2 hours ago, Leszek said:
Specifically the Mercury capsule doesn't line up withe Atlas.
Do you mean the Atlas tapered tank is narrower than Mercury? There's an option on the part context menu to change the top size between 0.9375 and 1.25. You want 1.25. This is true for the 1.62 release you got from Spacedock (the current stable version) and the development files on Github (not even a little stable).
-
1 hour ago, Zorg said:
I'll take another look at the capacities of the A/B and D racks but for gameplay purposes the D rack needs to be a clear upgrade.
I think it used to be the A/B rack had a little more battery. The D total build was lighter, and the rack had a fuel cell just to make it better, because there's only so much we can do. The two racks now looks like they were both copied from the same file.
-
3 hours ago, biohazard15 said:
After playing with these ranges for some time, there's my impressions. Note that this is for 2.5x, zero inclination, 400km circular orbit:
- You need at least 8-9 sats (Courier\Telstar) to make a "ring" (i.e. each sat can see next\previous sat)
- They cannot guarantee you a reliable network. Best you can do is to launch your probe to be near one of the sats. Anything beyond that is a matter of luck
- Absolutely nothing OP detected
I'd say bump them up - otherwise they'll be useless in rescales unless you launch a ton of them. Even then, I see only two uses for them - a) teach new players about comm network principles and b) comm networks around small bodies.
I'm thinking about bumping the weak (<500K stock scale) antennas to make the vessel - sat connection more usable, and I added a relay info button to help with planning. We have a lot of weak antennas. Courier and IDCSP look about right to me.
If you're rolling you're own rescale, you should scale your antennas to be antennaPower * rescale to be on the same page as everyone else. We balance on the assumption that will be the case.
-
31 minutes ago, CDSlice said:
The Atlas booster doesn't allow surface attachments, so where are you going to stick the parachutes?
It does along the avionics pods on the big tank. That's where I stick smart parts.
-
34 minutes ago, biohazard15 said:
As you can see, Couriers can't connect to each other, but they both can connect to Explorer.
They look occluded. What antenna power do the Couriers have? If you're antenna ranges aren't rescaled then they're out of range of each other too. If you've got the hoop antenna on Explorer 7 then it's got about 16x the range of the Couriers.
-
3 hours ago, adm-frb said:
When I uninstalled, 'Comfortable Landing' the problem disappeared...
Comfortable Landing is modifying the cfg and introducing the problem in the Apollo and Gemini capsules.
In GameData/ComfortableLanding/Configs/BluedogPod.cfg all the instances of eventOffName = Lights On need to be changed to eventOffName = Lights Off
-
-
33 minutes ago, Mudwig said:
I have to use the nudge tool to lower the avionics into the fairing base where it's supposed to be, so maybe that's part of the problem?
That would be my bet. It's easy enough to test, try not nudging it down and see what happens.
PF makes an assumption that the fairing base is always at or above the bottom of the fairing sides. It makes sunken bases like those tricky.
-
32 minutes ago, Gordon Dry said:
I did that, but the decoupling power was so low that the 4 lowest IDCSP satellites collided with the transtage during that acceleration.
The decoupling occured via action group - but that should make no difference I guess?btw the transtage got no plume, just a heat color animation.
There should be a mesh toggle for the base that will raise it off the floor a little. Accelerate under minimum rcs power. Alternatively, accelerate, coast, jettison, accelerate, coast, jettison, repeat... Any difference in velocity (orbital period) will allow them to separate. It takes some time to get coverage. The higher the orbit the more time. The real constellation used several launches with over 20 satellites a little below geosynchronous altitude.
-
On 11/6/2019 at 6:32 PM, biohazard15 said:
1) Gemini lander - barely enough fuel for 2.5x rescale, at least on the Mun. Defintely not enough if you use it as supposed (i.e. using lander tank as launching pad) - you can't reach 20km x 20km orbit with 2nd stage tanks (but you can if you keep "landing" stage and use all its fuel!)
14 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:Well, for 1) yeah, it is meant to be optimized for 2.5x... but our balance fella has been out on medical leave for most of the last dev cycle (and continues to be - thoughts out to @Jso! Can't wait for you to be able to use your right arm again!). I know I managed to successfully complete a mission with it in I think 2.7x though - do you know if the saddle/side tanks were partially drained? I think I remember having to transfer remaining fuel from the descent tank into them.
I recall looking into this and I think we decided it needed help from an additional decent stage and possibly the mother ship for all but hovering to land.
2 hours ago, Gordon Dry said:How have the IDCSP been positioned?
They got no fuel for translation or maneuvering themselves and the Transtage got not enough Delta-V to settle them all.
Or did I miss a small part like a tiny Monopropellant engine?Historically they would be jettisoned at intervals while Transtage accelerated, and then allowed to disperse over the next few months.
-
15 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:
If anyone missed it, yeah the boosters attach to the skirt like on an Atlas IIAS
I think the proper sized boosters (based on the scale written in the diagram) are Emeralds (GEM-46s) but the GEM-60s might look a bit closer to the actual drawing.
Stats-wise, they look like something between a GEM60XL and an AJ-60A.
I think the proper sized boosters (based on the scale written in the diagram) are Emeralds (GEM-46s) but the GEM-60s might look a bit closer to the actual drawing.
[1.12.5] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.13.0 "Забытый" 13/Aug/2023)
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted
It's so it flys in the correct attitude. Boosters arranged vertically, verniers on the side.