Loren Pechtel
-
Posts
1,199 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Loren Pechtel
-
-
9 hours ago, Mrky said:
i downloaded the mod, maybe ive accidentally somehow downloaded the source, but there are files like GameData, and stuff inside it.
anyway i tried running the game and it wont start, thats a problem on my side.
soo yeah, im gonna be scraping the entirety of the idea of accually playing KSP.
Looking at the installed package there's a boatload of .cfg files that modify various things. Those would be included in the source and would have the directory structure meant to go under GameData.
-
10 hours ago, BlackMoons said:
Yea sure its not very realistic and is rather gamey, But basically I need to know 'Does this planet/biome have X?' somehow without having to send a 1 ton drill to every planet/biome to find out.
Though it is kinda tempting making little probes with the universal drill just as a 'sampling' device. be a little tricky to balance just 1 of them on a probe however. I seem to recall that things GUI did tell you the % planet wide?
Hmmm, Tiny landing probes with universal drill + seismic accelerometer for impact detection. Oh and surface scanner. That could be interesting. Only issue is id have to then write down the results or leave the probes in place.
How does impact detection work anyway in terms of number of probes vs science? Does spreading out the detectors help or is it just number of them that counts?
Hey, interesting idea. I use Bon Voyage rovers for science gathering, sticking a drill on one wouldn't be that big a deal. I built a rover for Kerbin that had drills & ISRU. It had some rockets to be used to hop and collect the flying low science. It was either enough fuel for the whole mission from the start, or a minimal mining setup and recharge the tanks after every hop or two.
-
3 hours ago, Mrky said:
okay so i used this mod a lot, i stopped playing ksp on update 1.2.2 and i heavent played it since the new 1.3.0. I remember how to install mods, but this looks wierd, so there used to be a file or two you'd put in GameData folder in the game, but this has a whole another game inside, the .cs files, then the GameData file which looks normal then properties and stuff. in short : I DONT KNOW HOW TO INSTALL THIS!!!!
.cs files are C# source code--meaningful to us code monkeys but of no use to anyone else. KSP mods are written in C#. It sounds like you have the source code rather than the mod itself.
-
52 minutes ago, Bit Fiddler said:
is it possible to get TweakScale to only scale a part in 1 or 2 dimensions? so I can make a fuel tank longer but not change the diameter for instance.
That would be a nice feature for tanks. It would also be very convenient when you find you need to carry a bit more fuel but already have a bunch of stuff attached to the tank.
-
On 7/14/2017 at 9:15 PM, akardam said:
OK, picture worth a thousand words.
KSP 1.0.4, MechJeb2 2.5.3.0:
KSP 1.2.2 MechJeb2 2.6.0.0 Build 698
Both tests were started in an approx 100km orbit of the Mun, and burned to about the same velocity and about the same direction. In the 2nd pic, mousing over the periapsis marker clearly shows you the time-to, but MechJeb doesn't, whereas in the first pic, it does (and as I remember it used to).
Hope this helps...
Note that the info that it was displaying is obviously bogus. Suppressing it was the right thing for him to do.
-
59 minutes ago, Stoney3K said:
IMO, there should be an added difficulty feature on TweakScale that allows it to be used in career or science mode without becoming too much of an exploit:
Only allow certain scale steps up or down once specific science nodes are unlocked. So suppose you don't have the "Heavy Rocketry" tech node yet, you can't cheat your way into building a Skipper or Mainsail by just up-scaling a Swivel. Conversely, unless you have "Precision Propulsion" or "Miniaturization" unlocked, you can't scale down anything or only scale down specific parts, so a shrunk Terrier can't be used as a makeshift Spark engine.
The same would go for fuel tanks, another option in that case would be to nerf the part's efficiency to such a point that it becomes impractical to use, so you would be able to scale up a fuel tank, but the fuel inside would not scale up proportionally with the mass (so the bigger the tank, the more dry weight it has).
This would still make TweakScale a good tool for building realistic replicas and good-looking craft but it would not be possible to use it to cheat your way into tech that you haven't unlocked yet anymore.
Maybe the mechanism can be dependent on the difficulty setting, so in Easy mode there may be no restrictions, but scaling parts only becomes a useful option when there's no other real choice if you play Hard mode.
As a general approach, how about you can tweak it one size for every node above the node where it was discovered that you have researched? If there are no more nodes above then all sizes are unlocked.
-
54 minutes ago, BlackMoons said:
Also, whats the difference between Deuterium and Lithiumdeuteride? the reactors seem to run on either the same and consider both "Deuterium reserves"?
Deuterium is heavy hydrogen. A gas unless you keep it very, very cold.
Lithium Deuteride is a molecule made up of Lithium + Deuterium. It's a solid at room temperature.
The latter is vastly easier to store which is very valuable in a spacecraft, even though you're giving up 2/3 of the mass.
-
1 hour ago, strudo76 said:
Does Stage Recovery take advantage of drogue chutes if they are fitted?
Also does it take into account the different chute materials offered by RealChute, or is just having the chutes enough?
Thanks.
Drogues cost more per unit of drag and there's no need for them with Stage Recovery unless you're landing something that's within physics range. Also, what you're landing with Stage Recovery is normally light and draggy. I use only mains, set to open at 1000m and I've had zero problems except with stages dropped too fast. (A stage that comes off above 2000 m/s risks burning up.)
-
KSP 1.2.2, got a problem with the M9 Heavy-Moa engine cluster. It won't let me put a decoupler below it.
-
1 hour ago, akardam said:
So, I'm experiencing an oddity vis-a-vis Apoapsis/Periapsis times. Have searched this thread and the GitHub issues tracker, and don't appear to have come across a solution (or even a mention of the problem), so here it is.
I've noticed when on an escape trajectory from/around a body, that the Time to Apoapsis AND the Time to Periapsis show "Inf"... most of the time. Take the following example.
- Depart Kerbin for Mun, free-return trajectory (still in Kerbin SOI): Times shown for both A and P
- Enter Mun SOI (on flyby/escape trajectory): "Inf" shown for both A and P
- Reduce velocity to almost-orbit (still on Mun escape trajectory): Times shown for both A and P
- Enter orbit of Mun: Times shown for both A and P
- Break orbit around Mun for Kerbin atmo entry (before reaching P, so that a P still exists): "Inf" shown for both A and P
Note: While accellerating out of Mun orbit, I noticed that while I had achieved escape velocity, it wasn't until my A showed something on the order of Gm to Tm (terrameters) that it would switch from showing a time to showing "Inf" for both A and P.
Currently I am running KSP 1.2.2 x64 with MechJeb2_2.6.0.0-698. I first noticed this in my heavily modded install, so I tested it in a fresh install with only MechJeb2 and a MM patch to apply MechJeb to all command pods and probes, and I experienced the same.
Previously I had run KSP 1.0.4 with MechJeb2 2.5.3.0 and don't recall experiencing this issue.
Let me know if any more info (logs, screenshots) would be helpful in chasing this down, or if it would be helpful to open an issue on GitHub.
I've seen such data before and I think what's going on is that you are not actually on an escape trajectory. Rather, you are in orbit but the orbit goes outside the SOI of the body in question so you would not actually complete the orbit.
-
On 6/27/2017 at 3:31 PM, Spricigo said:
Given the fact no landing is necessary and also the possibility of refuelling (maybe also ISRU), the task is possible (even easy)
If that is practical/efficient/convenient is the question to consider.
Good luck with the ISRU before you've found the ore to mine!
-
A slightly different approach:
Raise your periapsis to the high 50s, make multiple passes. If your engine etc survive, fine, but if you lose the stuff below your heat shield turn around and go nose first to protect your ablator. You don't get nearly as much drag nose first so it will take more passes to slow down, but likewise, because you're cutting the air much better you take less heating and that high in the atmosphere nose first is safe. Keep an eye on your apoapsis, make sure to turn tail before your last pass or else you'll lawn dart.
-
Has anyone played with the Kolonization mod's kits to haul a rover and some machinery to unpack it on site? (This would require it to be manned.)
-
18 hours ago, Snark said:
Great to see a lot of careful description... but I gotta say, sure would be nice to see a screenshot or two. Picture worth a thousand words, and all that.
Just sayin'.
Have you tried turning on the fuel crossfeed display in the VAB? Just wondering whether it might be educational.
It's supposed to burn all the orange fuel first. Those boosters drop off, exposing the terriers. They burn the fuel in those side tanks to circularize, then they burn the fuel in the tanks above them to take that science rover to Minmus. (And possibly the Mun, I haven't checked if I have the fuel for that.)
-
13 minutes ago, Tex_NL said:
True. But it is not that hard to get lvl4 or even 5 pilots before you unlock ANY of those features in MechJeb.
So your statement of not having highly skilled pilots before unlocking much of the techtree is still moot.How? That means interplanetary voyages and the MechJeb unlocks are in there with the science.
-
1 hour ago, Tex_NL said:
Have you tried it yourself yet? No? Why not do that first and you'll have your answer.
If it doesn't work simply remove the mod. Nothing gained, nothing lost.As @Loren Pechtel said: 'interesting idea', but not exactly a new one. This got suggested very soon after the crew skills where introduced. Sadly this is still not an option.
I have to disagree. A 3 star pilot has full control. All you need to do for 3 stars is:
- Kerbin orbit.
- A flag on either Minmus or Mun.
- A fly-by of Minmus or Mun (depending of where you did NOT plant a flag).
- Solar orbit. (Just pop out an in of Kerbins SOI).
Which isn't the top-level MechJeb capabilities. The ascent/landing/docking stuff should be at higher skill levels.
-
47 minutes ago, ArmchairPhysicist said:
The biggest hazard with a mass driver wouldn't be atmospheric drag (unless its putting a package into an escape trajectory) it's the g-forces. Space guns could easily put a drone into orbital altitude, where it could be retrieved by a station or another drone, or it can stabilize its own orbit.
So far the drag issue is a total showstopper with mass driver launches from bodies with a meaningful atmosphere. And note that you must still do a circularization burn with a mass driver launch.
-
1 hour ago, ArmchairPhysicist said:
Quick question, are there any plans for non rocket launch capabilities in this pack? It would be nice to put cargo in orbit with a space gun.
And how would the cargo survive the fire? Think of what would happen if you were coming back from Eeloo and re-entered with your periapsis at zero. A space gun would be worse.
The only workable system that I can think of that wouldn't cause KSP to simply fall over would be a space elevator. The elevator cable couldn't have a reality in the physics model but you could have a properly modeled base station, a modeled synchronous station and a line drawn between them and move the rocket along the line rather like HyperEdit's lander does. I doubt you could make it possible to dock with the line other than at a station but that would be an awfully tricky maneuver to pull off anyway.
-
1 hour ago, oryon said:
Is there a way to make the modules os MechJeb not part dependent, but pilot skill dependent?
I mean, MechJeb only when pilots are onboard, at each level, a new module is available for that pilot.
Interesting idea--use the higher of the unlocked capabilities or the pilot skill capabilities. Note, however, that it's not going to make a big difference as it's pretty hard to get high skill pilots without having unlocked much of the tree.
-
30 minutes ago, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:
I'm having trouble picturing how everything is connected then. Is there no central fuselage anywhere? And why would you need an adapter from the Mainsail to the Poodle? They're both 2.5m. A pic would really be helpful.
Also, I'm gonna guess that you probably have some form of fuel mod installed. Mods are always a good place to start looking when there's a problem.
Oops, brain not in gear.
Terrier, not poodle.
And you're right, there's no central fuselage. The top of the rocket is a skycrane part, I forget what mod it's from. It has 5 connectors laid out in a plus shape--the central for slinging your payload, the outer 4 for the rockets that push it. It's a fiery mess when you're pushing it through the atmosphere but it makes it so easy to land rovers on other worlds because the rockets are attached to the top. Land, uncouple, fly up a bit then turn sideways and your booster is out of the way.
-
On 7/8/2017 at 1:49 AM, bewing said:
If you think that 4 hours of driving a rover around is an unbelievably long time -- then yes, rovers are not for you.
There are people who spend the time to drive rovers all the way around the Mun, or Ike, or Duna, or even Kerbin -- see the ElCano challenge.
There are two rover autopilots that I'm aware of.
MechJeb will hold speed and bearing but requires keeping an eye on it and periodic quicksaves in case you don't see hazardous terrain in time. I have once used it to visit all the biomes of Minmus--the game running while I did something on another screen and kept an eye on how my rover was doing.
Bon Voyage simulates rover driving. It's done entirely in the background (you're free to use timewarp), it doesn't take keeping an eye on it but you should quicksave anyway as it will occasionally put you in a hazardous spot and I have on occasion seen inexplicable explosions. It makes rovers quite viable for planetary exploration.
-
300 science means you have the Nerva engine. If you don't need landing engines and are carrying anything of any size I find it the best choice. For large enough stuff I've been known to use it for the interplanetary voyage and bring along a separate landing engine.
The imperfect nature of the game means you give up some efficiency for using it (there's no easy way to do an interplanetary burn from low orbit with it) but it saves so much fuel that it's worth it anyway. Interstellar Fuel Switch is highly recommended when using it so you can use the ordinary tanks to fuel it. The stock game is quite lacking in larger liquid fuel only tanks.
-
A simple part. Inline, thin, no mass, little or no cost, it comes in the various sizes that rockets come in. If the part goes outside physics range it looks to see if there is any point of control on the rocket it's part of. If not, the rocket is destroyed.
-
38 minutes ago, Cpt Kerbalkrunch said:
I've seen that before on a similar setup, but it was for an asteroid grabber I built. I'm guessing then that the tanks above the orange ones are the drop tanks for your Poodle stage. I think that's where you see fuel flow get funny sometimes. The tanks above don't have engines of their own, so l think the game is thinking they are going to be drop tanks for your Mainsails (even though the decouplers are facing, I'm assuming, the other way). I build designs like that where the top tanks really are the drop tanks for the bottom engines. It allows me to dump the weight without dumping my engines. Anyway, unless someone gives you a better answer, I'd just use the fuel flow priority setting like you've been doing.
And one last thought, with crossfeed disabled on the vertical decouplers, enable it on the decouplers attaching to your central tank with the Poodle, instead of just using flow priority. This might help the game realize those tanks are meant for the Poodle, not the Mainsails.
No. It goes:
Mainsail
Tank
Adapter Tank
Decoupler with crossfeed turned off
Poodle
Tank -- decoupler with feed enabled to tank & 2x fuel-holding nosecones to make it aerodynamic.
Skycrane (which I believe has some tankage)
Everything is behaving like the decoupler has crossfeed enabled.
[1.12.x] Anatid Robotics / MuMech - MechJeb - Autopilot - [2.14.3] [4th March 2023]
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted
As of KSP 1.2.2 at least, no. You have to be very careful with low TWR upper stages. In general you can fly them with a higher periapsis, though--but note that the resulting orbit is likely to be far from circular. I haven't considered this a big deal as if I have a low-TWR upper stage it's because I'm going beyond Kerbin. MechJeb doesn't do a good job of flying elsewhere from a low Kerbin orbit anyway so I'm going to raise the orbit whether on launch or afterwards. (For everything but ascent and landing MechJeb uses maneuver nodes and they are a simplification based on the assumption that the whole burn occurs at the node. If your burn is spread over too many degrees of orbit it's not going to go well, whether done with a node or with MechJeb. This is especially an issue when using the Nerva engine.)