Bahamut

Members
  • Content Count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About Bahamut

  • Rank
    Bottle Rocketeer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I'm having a minor issue with the probe pack, ubm, and remote tech installed. The probes that come with the seti pack don't have a signal processor, so they don't work with remote tech (they always have local control). I wanted ask if this was a known issue or if its been brought up already. Thanks!
  2. So, I copied my ksp folder into a duplicate (and removed most mods). Keeping a bare minimum to test. Using hyperedit to see where the barrier was, the low/high split was exactly where you said it would be at 1.6 Mm. So it could be another mod cfg file interfering with that value, though I'm not sure how to trace that down without reading the cfg files of potential suspects.
  3. Yeah, I'm guessing something is wrong because I wasn't seeing that number. Any suggestions as to how I can figure out what is affecting that value?
  4. Does Sigma Dimensions affect the altitude at which high orbit is set at? In more testing, I've found that while low space starts at 90K, even with 6.4x rescale, high space still starts at 250k. Any ideas if Sigma changes that or if I have a conflict with another mod that is overriding that?
  5. I think the plant growth study is from the mod "Station Science", which may be why you can't find a part for it? Hope that helps!
  6. I found that buffing the ablator amount by 2 - 2.5x (and rounding up to nearest round number) was a good balance for 6.4x. For example about 350 ablator for 1.25 heat shields and around 1500 ablator for 2.5 m heat shields.
  7. OK, I'll try that tonight and see if results are different. EDIT: Had to rebuild my mods list again, but changing the physicsconfig file :FINAL seemed to have helped a lot. Still burning a lot of ablator, but I was able to do a direct entry from 7 km/s without feeling like I was going to burn up. This was with me changing the atmosphere height multiplier back to 1.285, which is closer to expected atm height.
  8. The file is copied above. Yeah, I'm using SMUFF at 0.5 lever already.
  9. OK, yeah the combination of a one pass for aerobraking and using a powered rocket was able to get my test probe back to Kerbin safe and sound. Started with 375 ablator before the first pass, had 18 left by landing... that was too close, lol. Picture album shows the final configuration that was able to make the landing. Also had to cheat a little by using forcing local control since I didn't have a satellite relay for RT (lost control during landing). Towards the end, the probe would tip over, so on my successful run was able to use spin stabilization to keep the probe facing the right way until my drogue and then main parachutes could deploy. Overengineered, but totally worth it for the first successful landing.
  10. Actually yeah, I just did some more testing after changing the atmosphere height factor to 2. I used a mostly similar ship (though I beefed the ascent stages to account for the higher atm height). I tried to use a mild aerobrake maneuver using my vacuum stage cryo engine in atmo. The target perapsis was 100 km out of a 140 km atmosphere height. 1) Don't use vacuum stage cryo engine's in atmosphere... that part of the rocket blew up in about 10 seconds 2) Though after that disaster, the probe/science/heatshield part of the rocket survived the first re-entry. Though by this point my solar panels blew up and my battery definitely would not last till the next pass (RT installed). 3) With no control, the rocket still made it halfway through the 2nd pass before blowing up. I think from this, I definitely need to be VERY careful with designing my rockets. I'm going to need to design a re-entry stage that has some kind mono-prop or radial-based propulsion with a heatshield to both slow myself down without blowing up everything I need to keep control and flying for the true landing. Then come out from the aerobrake close enough to LKO that I can then use a traditional landing. What is going to result looks very similar to a skip re-entry though to make it a single pass, it's going to have to be powered and I'm going to have to test to see if I can reliably build something to survive that. Wow... 6.4x is challenging, in a way that I haven't felt since first learning to fly in stock KSP.
  11. I've been experimenting with a 6.4x system and have been experiencing some difficulty with re-entry. By searching the forum, I've implemented the physics modifier from RSS, and boosted ablator quantity in some heat shields. To test, I have a rocket that launches a small probe with one pie of universal storage science and a 1.25m heat shield. Re-Entry from LKO is OK. However, re-entry from returning from a Mum/Minmus trip results in a destroyed probe within ~15 seconds of entering the atmosphere with speeds of >7500 m/s. With stock KSP, I could re-enter from such an oblique orbit and not burn up. I'm sure that the high speed is the source of my problem, but not sure if: 1) This is to be expected for realism from a 6.4x or RSS type system, and I should use very slight atmosphere entry with retrograde burning to slow myself down more before attempting re-entry. 2) The heating physics is still too severe and that I should be able to do a single-pass re-entry when returning from the moon. Any pointers would be great!
  12. I can confirm that I have had this issue tonight as well. I have no problem with radial decouplers attached to solid boosters, but any stack decouplers will be treated as if crossfeed was enabled. Therefore, the delta-v calculation was off.
  13. Has anyone encountered with 64-bit KSP where water landing at any speed causes the ship to come apart? I'm using the workaround with unfixer to use FAR, KJR and other mods. I know they aren't unsupported, but would like to know if anyone could help me pinpoint if there is a specific mod causing these issues. Thanks!