Gordon Fecyk

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gordon Fecyk

  1. While that took the funny checkerboard patterns away, it also defaulted the surface textures to the same stock Mun-like texture, just in different colours. All of the surface textures, including the grass on Kerbin. So that's not really an option either. I'll check my graphics driver again. [Update] Well, whatever's going on appears to be restricted to Jool's moons only. After inspecting the surfaces of all other bodies beyond Dres, I'm not seeing the checkerboard behaviour. Maybe I'll just power through Jool's moons and then not worry about this graphics glitch afterward.
  2. Don't just use Kerbal Alarm Clock. Use Transfer Window Planner as well, which calculates transfers for the active system on the fly rather than rely on pre-loaded stock system transfer windows. TWP lets you create KAC alarms for your plotted transfers.
  3. Would anyone get upset if I used Roverdude's Orion Project engines for the rest of the JNSQ Exploration series? To be fair, I'd have to assemble my pain trains in low Kerbin orbit, and use EVA Struts to make sure they don't turn into wet noodles. But after a trial run I just put together a ship with habitation, three unique landers including a Laythe space plane, and the Medusa engine, and ended up with 76 km/s in delta-v. And two gees of thrust.
  4. Perhaps the new surface shaders can be turned off in KSP 1.8 or 1.9 to work around this, to pre-1.8 shaders?
  5. In Team Galileo's JNSQ system I'm planning a Jool Five mission, including rovers and landers for each body. All five Jool moons are exhibiting a checkerboard pattern that I've only seen once before on JNSQ Moho, in Kopernicus 1.8.1-1. That seemed to be fixed with a dev version Sigma88 let me try, at least until I cheated a craft out to Tylo: This pattern seems more pronounced the brighter the daylight. For the sake of troubleshooting I removed EVE and Scatterer. I still have Distant Object Enhancement but that's only supposed to affect the sky box. It's stock graphics and lighting at this point. I've tried this on a couple different PCs, including a Gen4 Core i7 with a GTX 1080 card, a Gen8 Core i7 laptop with RTX graphics, and a potato laptop running an AMD Ryzen and discrete Radeon graphics. I get identical results, but this only starts happening past Dres. It was worse in KSP 1.8.1 / Kopernicus 1.8.1-1 as it occurred on Moho as well. On a lark I swapped Tylo and Minmus thinking it might be the distance to the sun, but the above screen shot happens in orbit of Jool or Kerbin. Any ideas where I should start to troubleshoot this? I could always go back to KSP 1.7.1 / Kopernicus 1.7 but I really like the 1.9.1 features too much.
  6. Those engines have a major disadvantage at low altitudes and slow speeds. They come into their own around Mach 1.2 or so, around 450 m/s near sea level, but getting to that speed with a heavy craft is tough. Have you tried Whiplash engines to see if you can get the takeoff speed? If that works you could use a mix of those and Rapiers to get past that 450 m/s barrier, and still have some LFO engines when you run out of air.
  7. Not sure what's happening. I took my 'on a lark' video and launched something to dock with ol' boom boom. Seemed to dock and then thrust without difficulty.
  8. On a lark I got the Medusa to work in 1.9.1. Was surprised to see the thing ejecting the bombs into a sail - I imagine that makes things slightly more efficient. Launching it into orbit was fun as I couldn't strap anything to the sides or rear - ended up launching a Goddard-like contraption. The thing with just a set of adapter tanks and Vernor RCS thrusters and a large docking port, got me a basic craft that could get to Jool in 45 days. I'm pretty sure I expended 100 to 120 km/s using the NPU-250 shells and hardly any ablator oil. Here's a short video launching the thing into orbit. Makes me wonder if I could use this to get a very large payload to Lindor or Nara in JNSQ using a regular Hohmann Transfer.
  9. Hm, I haven't seen a Dres appreciation post in quite some time. Does JNSQ Dres count:? This is the last of three videos that deal with the asteroid belt in Team Galileo's JNSQ system. This version of Dres looks rather different and is significantly harder to get to, but not impossible for the Good Ship Overkill.
  10. Any April First jokes in this community yet? Come on, humour is one of the best medicines we can have right now! If there isn't already a thread for this, please post a funny April Fool video here. Until then, I'm not mentally. Why safe?
  11. We're still hanging in there at the Great White North. Managed to visit Edna and Dak, soon heading to Dres. The rest of the playlist is still available.
  12. By chance did you dock two vessels on the surface? I know I've encountered the docking and construction milestones whenever I've joined two separately launched craft together, even if one was from the runway and the other from the launchpad. So you might have accomplished this milestone earlier.
  13. Gas Giant Version Ready I put together a beta release of Explodium Breathing Engines for use on stock Eve and Jool. This works with Alien Space Programs with Jool as the home world, or with craft sent to stock Jool. I have support for additional planet packs for both engine and intake types. I created a new atmospheric resource based on OhioBob's data so I wouldn't interfere with Rational Resources or the Community Resource Pack, nor should this require either of these. This release still needs localization and a different set of textures to identify the "explodium light" versions of these parts. I'd like to try making variants for the tanks using the variants module, though this might not work for every part. --
  14. What I've been doing here, is finding out what the overall heat value was from each reaction, coming up with a percent comparison to what KSP jet fuel (RP-1?) did, and then adjusting the stock engines' ISP based on the percentage difference. I figured the stock jet engine efficiency was based on the type of jet and its intended role. The Goliath, for instance, is far more efficient than the other jets and exceeds the ideal ISP I came up with for RP-1 to O2. The other engines were less efficient than the ideal ISP, and any deviance from the ideal ISP I could explain as inefficiencies in each design, or less-than-optimal combustion products (carbon monoxide, for instance) that would produce less energy or no energy. So to keep things simple I just correlated heat value with efficiency. This is where that 45% value I came up with came from. I don't know if this would work in reality, but it seems to work for this simulation for game play's sake so these engines don't seem overpowered. If I had my way, I'd modify Advanced Jet Engines to get the real life thrust, but that seems hard-coded to work with ambient oxygen rather than ambient fuel and would take considerable effort to re-code for this. I tested a hydrogen jet a moment ago with two modified Hades (Juno) engines and intakes, and used the 34% ISP value I came up with here; about 2100 seconds. It seemed to work in stock Jool's atmosphere fine, but as I expected the air densities I encountered were maybe half of those I found on Eve in spite of the tremendous pressure. This meant less mass to pull through the engines, which in turn meant less thrust. I'll confirm with Realistic Atmospheres Jool later today, but it shows promise. At least I can get thrust. I'll take 34% for now, just to knock out a set of parts for testing. But thanks so much for doing the math you did, and taking time out for it.
  15. You did pretty good from what I see on your posts here. It looks like you confirmed what I discovered, just finishing the math right down to the specific impulse numbers. You ended up with half the ISP using hydrogen as you did using methane for LOX-only. I can put together a test version and see what happens.
  16. So I was doing the math... ...and it appears engines breathing hydrogen and burning oxidizer might actually be less efficient than ones breathing hydrocarbon vapours. Back at the ExV Wiki I described burning RP-1 with a lot of ambient O2 and got a pretty decent low heat value per RP-1 unit, which I'm treating as having a direct relationship to specific impulse - the hotter, the more efficient. I would compare this heat value to that of burning hydrocarbons in the air with onboard O2, and I got a 45% reduction in heat value, which I equated to a 45% reduction in specific impulse so I could keep the thrust levels the same as stock jets. I also compared this to burning hydrogen with ambient O2 and got a low heat value about 2.5 times that of RP-1. This is where I figured hydrogen could be more energetic, and more efficient, than RP-1. What I hadn't considered was the reverse problem, of ambient H2 and burning that with onboard O2. Jets are very efficient in reality because a little fuel goes a long way, and because you don't have to carry the heavier oxidizer around. The reverse problem actually requires a less explosive ambient fuel to be more efficient. Or so it seems. My original C2H6 math went like this: 2 kmol C2H6 = 60 kg, 5 kmol O2 = 160 kg 60 kg C2H6 + 160 kg O2 -> 176 kg CO2 + 108 kg H2O + 3114 MJ energy 0.375 U C2H6 + 1 U O2 -> 1.375 U exhaust + 97.31 MJ energy Compared to KSP's RP-1 analogue which produced about 215 MJ energy per KSP mass unit, this was about 45% less efficient, which is where I got the ISP values from. The same math with ambient hydrogen seems to go like this: 2 kmol H2 = 4 kg, 1 kmol O2 = 32 kg 4 kg H2 + 32 kg O2 -> 36 kg H2O + 479 MJ energy 20 kg H2 + 160 kg O2 -> 180 kg H2O + 2395 MJ 0.125 U H2 + 1 U O2 -> 1.125 U H2O + 74 MJ 74 mega joules, even less efficient than 'explodium' with the same engine. 34%. This might get us out of the depths of Jool, or off the surface of Nara, but not much further. Have I missed something?
  17. I'd create new intakes that use ModuleResourceHarvester to harvest hydrogen, so they only work if it's a resource in the atmosphere. That's how the current explodium intakes work, so the engines don't work on Duna or even on Kerbin. And since the chemistry will be different I can make engines with better efficiency than the current ones.
  18. Separate engines or mode-switchable ones? I was thinking about the engineering effort it would take to build one of these things, then build a hydrogen variant, and then possibly build one that could switch combustion modes. I'd end up with an engine that would need to operate over an extremely wide range, from the comparably low power of hydrocarbon vapour to the stupidly high power of hydrogen, and not explode going one way or just going cold the other. Assuming no one would want to take a single craft to say, both Saturn and Titan in RSS, or both Lindor and Hyugen in JNSQ, it makes more sense to me to make two sets of engines. But is there a gameplay case for a single set of parts that could do both? --
  19. It's been brought up once or twice. The chemistry of hydrogen is quite different, certainly a lot more explosive, with a low heat value almost five times that of 'explodium.' So in theory, higher efficiency. I think I'd want to redo the math for a hydrogen variant, and have these engines and intakes switch modes. I'd also want to double check the density at datum levels of Jool (both versions) and Nara to make sure there's even enough of it to pull through a jet engine. For all of the pressure, there isn't as much of it. As an aside, I had other plans for Nara when the time came.
  20. RealChute Lite is a compact implementation of RealChute that makes the stock chutes work in Ferram Aerospace. It replaces ModuleParachute in parachute parts, which is probably why I can still edit the min pressure in flight or in assembly below 0.04 or 0.02 atm when TweakChutes is loaded. I can ask for this to get changed in FAR or in RealChute so it implements what TweakChutes does, but in the meantime I'll just respect the limits set in the part configs. Part 8 and a half coming shortly on line now.
  21. Oh boy, I see a part seven and a half coming on... So what I'll have to do is reproduce the landings of the Duna rover and Duna lander, using drogues set for 0.02 atm to match the minimum set in there. Is there a workaround to avoid TweakChutes and the RealChute Light implementation in Ferram Aerospace from conflicting?
  22. Really? I've managed to just turn the minimum air pressure setting down to nothing, and regular chutes work. They don't work very well, but they work. Mind you I have TweakChutes removed to revert to stock behaviour.
  23. Have you considered an alternate tech tree for this, if you're going to do a probes-only game? One that starts with probe cores such as UnKerballedStart, for instance?
  24. Both need absurd amounts of delta-v, but Dres is easier to land on and the Dres canyon is safer than the Moho sinkhole. I'd say do the canyon first and then tackle the mohole.
  25. Almost done Episode Eight: Ike. Episode seven with Duna is already out. And it seems like Team Galileo may have taken the planet's name a little too literally. The playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLQDZ9YZtAQPzePj4FtzHucINfF-dDkTwO