NeuroticGamer

Members
  • Content count

    56
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About NeuroticGamer

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast
  1. I might be experiencing the same thing and I would have been using Trajectories at the times it has happened. If I switch to another vessel, the UI fixes itself but it is now centered in my screen.
  2. [1.3.1] Throttle Controlled Avionics

    I don't know how I missed that with all the clicking I did in the VAB. Thanks for the clarification.
  3. I've been using it in 1.3 without issues. I just followed the instructions given above to replace the DLL.
  4. [1.3.1] Throttle Controlled Avionics

    I'm trying to figure out if I'm experiencing a bug, an incompatibility, or a feature. I recently returned to KSP, starting a brand new career mode with KSP 1.3.0 and including TCA 3.4.2. The last version I think I played with was 3.2.x (KSP 1.2.2). I noticed that my crafts were not gaining the TCA modules as I unlocked them. I reviewed the in-game help and saw mention that previously launched crafts would not get newer TCA modules. That mechanic sames fair enough. However, launching a NEW copy of same craft results in no new TCA modules. If I created a brand new craft in VAB, I had the newer modules. I tried editing the older craft in VAB, go so far as to re-root and delete/replace my Probodyne HECS with anewly spawned copy. The craft still did not have the new TCA modules. I decided to backup my ships folder and take a stab at editing the .craft file. I found this section: I guessed that the VSLCONFIG section was the offending problem since a newly created craft did not have that section. Deleting that section did not cause any issues and the newly spawned copy of an old craft had the new TCA modules. So, feature or bug/incompatibility. It looks like a bug to me as the non-upgrading feature should be tied to crafts in the save file, not the .craft files.
  5. I've been out of the game for a while. I need to go back and search my mod folder and see what is modifying what. I have the correct value currently but I can't remember if I manually edited the mod patch file or if I created my own patch for the patch :). Mebbe it magically fixed itself at some point, though when I made the post I was experiencing the issue and definitely doing work on my end to get it correct. Fortunately, it is pretty obvious that things are wrong by looking at the in-game values when right-clicking on an antenna.
  6. @severedsoloThanks for all of your work on this mod (and others). I've quite enjoyed this contract pack in my current career game.
  7. [1.3.1] Throttle Controlled Avionics

    I'm pretty sure it is using both based on some VTOL disasters I've had. To be fair, I had failed to do basic CG to thrust vector alignment on the craft while editing, resulting in some hilarious spinning craft as it couldn't both gain altitude and control attitude.
  8. [1.3] RealChute Parachute Systems v1.4.4 | 01/06/17

    I'm not at my gaming computer right now but I'm pretty sure RC doesn't break Lithobrake chutes (RC and StageRecovery opens them) but you can't tune them.
  9. I've noticed that If I install OPM and JX2, the actual values are cut by a factor of 4. For example Communotron 16-S will show 125k in orbit instead of 500k. Is OPM altering range via a different mechanic? Should I be seeing 500k or 125k for Communotron? I've commented out the portion of the patch related to OPM (changing the displayed values back to stock) but I'm now wondering if OPM is using a non-obvious mechanic to increase antenna range.
  10. [1.3] USI Life Support [0.5.0]

    A one person capsule is EXTREMELY cramped; I've seen plenty at space museums. Imagine sitting in a modern airline "cattle car" seat for 15 days and, no, you can't get up to go to the bathroom. IIRC, you get about 7-ish days of hab time/seat if you use the first capsules; If anything, @RoverDude is giving more hab time in those base parts than is realistic or historical. The simple solution is to fly faster. Burn a bit more fuel and get to Minmus in 2 or 3 days instead of 5 or 6 days; That doesn't require any new tech nodes. The Apollo missions had quite a bit more room to move around compared to the early manned missions. And they didn't spend more than 2 weeks in them.
  11. I believe a double click in empty space deselects your target. I had Googled for how to eliminate clickthrough in KSP mods and it sounds quite painful. The official fix, being a programmer but not knowing KSP/Unity, is there is a new API and GUIs have to be rebuilt from scratch to cleanly eliminate clickthrough. There are hacks other mods have done but it sounds tricky to get it right. I end up slowing down how quickly I click on Precise Node to limit the number of time I have things like target deselect happen. I'm also constantly moving Precise Node GUI around to avoid conics of other vessels. I blame KSP/Unity for having such a crappy API for so long that hundreds of mods have clickthrough problems with no easy fix.
  12. Dunno if there is any strong doco but here is a short version as I understand it: 3 types of efficiency losses are tracked/modeled: air drag, gravity drag, thrust vector drag Air drag is resistance from the air being pushed out of the way on a body with an atmosphere. Having nicely shaped rockets (pointy) helps here. Use fairings around your space payloads. Worst air drag is within 10 to 30 seconds of launch; you are moving fast and the atmosphere is thick. Gravity drag is the loss from being deep in a gravity well. For example the worse case is having thrust equal to your weight at the surface. You won't lift off but technically you are pressing down on the launchpad with the weight equivalent of a sheet of paper (ignoring the streaming hot gases beating on the pad); This would be 100% gravity drag loss. As you get further from the center of a body's mass (assuming you are trying to orbit), gravity drag goes toward zero. The perfect launch on an airless world is to get enough altitude to clear mountains then burn sideways until you achieve orbit. Atmospheres need to be cleared and this causes you to waste a lot on gravity drag. Thrust vector drag is the loss from having to point your rocket thrust in some other direction than prograde. This can't be zero unless you have a perfect launch that already starts at a "gravity turn" angle (10 to 20 degrees with a strong enough booster to not go sideways, think bottle rockets). A common place to generate a lot of this drag is a weak engine on an upper stage that is struggling to push you into orbit. Your thrust vector will be way off from prograde. The window also sums them all up for you. In general gravity drag is the biggest hitter. You can improve by increasing the angle. The tradeoff is that you then experience more air drag and potentially parts burning up from heating. A certain amount of thrust vector drag is unavoidable. You are trying to turn from straight vertical to horizontal. GravityTurn generally does a much better job on thrust vector drag then you manually launching rockets into space. My guess is that thrust vector savings are one of the biggest that users gain by automating launches.
  13. [1.2.x/1.3] MemGraph 1.1.0.3 - with Stutter Reduction

    I'll have to play with this over the holidays. I started the install process and it ran for 5 hours on a 6th gen i7, with the current fastest M.2 SSD, and a 125 Mbps internet connection. Looks like it was mostly the Microsoft tools taking FOREVER I still have to resolve the variation in the Unity download vs the patch level used by KSP.
  14. For simple probe control? Yeah a single 1000G antenna is great. However, if you want to transmit science data from Outer Planet Mod objects, you need a BUNCH of even these uber antennae. I manually modified my copy of the CommNet spreadsheet I mentioned. If I put 4x JX2's per satellite in Kerbin orbit (to replace the wimpy tracking station), then try to reach a 2x JX2 Relay in orbit of Plock, I'm looking at 76% to 92% signal strength, depending on orbit location. As in "Give me more power Scotty!!". I will likely be putting JX2 constellations in Kerbol orbits that are near Jool and Sarnus in order to get near 100% science return from the outer planets. With the RA-100, it was darn near impossible to solve this. Do I absolutely need 100%? Probably not, even with Community Tech Tree upping the science I need. But, it will look AWESOME to see those relay constellations out there :).
  15. @ryohpops Thanks for the details! I think I understand it. I will play with it in a sandbox over the next few nights. In my case I want to put satellites in Kerbol (not Kerbin) orbits. If I understand the math correctly, the single launch mode (even though I have a adapter with 6 or 7 satellites making the delivery to parking altitude around the Sun/Kerbol), will result in the final constellation being fully deployed far faster than the multiple launch mode. It appears that the trade-off is needing more delta-V on the individual relay satellites as they peel off from my main adapter stage.