Jump to content

Daniel Prates

Members
  • Posts

    1,261
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Daniel Prates

  1. Well @flart beat me to it. In any case, here too are my logs, both ksp and player. Debug mode enabled. You will see i entered KSC, then the station, then I enabled 'debug mode', then I went back to KSC, then back to the Station: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/wv6cwe20y5oj087/AAB6x6SsKeQZYBhDXBgyOeIpa?dl=0 You see @garwel if it is indeed the case - KH computes differently the factors when the vessel is loaded and when it is in the background - that would sure be a good thing to look into. This by all mean doesn't make the mod "unplayable", bu all means, but it kinda forces you to keep your eyes on the vessel at all times if it is a long voyage, say a manned flyby to any other planet. Leaving it alone for some time to take care of some other thing elsewhere could be fatal to the kerbals you left behind.
  2. Sure. Just explain me how/where from extract the logs. @garwel I am asking because I don't know how to make different logs. As far as I know, the player.log file is made when I exit to main menu, isn't it? How do I make two logs, one in ksc and other commanding the station? I will try loading the game, reverting to desktop with the game running, save the log, go back to the game, go to the station, go to desktop again and save the log again. I hope that generates two different logs.
  3. Man this is aggravating.... here is a Mun station, complete with a centrifuge. Internal space and artificial gravity is enough so that the Kerbal can stay there indefinitely, as the monitor states. But when I return to the KSC.... the data on the monitor changes. Confinement and microgravity for the very same Kerbal on the very same spot have worsened, so that he no longer has positive health increase, he has health deficit and will eventually die. When I return to the station, the monitor again shows the correct data. Anyone has a clue on why, on the KSC, the factors are being computed differently?
  4. Guys help me out pls. Wasn't there a similar mod to this, it allowed to track and repeat flights, but you could put anything else in orbit as long as it didn't exceed the weight of the last stage of the tracked original flight?
  5. Same here, I am using kiwi and seeing no issues. Well... there are two nodes down the tree overlaping somewhat, but they work. What saddens me is the lack of future maintainance. I hope someone pick this up.
  6. Same here @hemeac, this has been my favorite tech tree and I hope someone keeps your excellent work going. Many thanks!
  7. .... 6 hours later ..... If this is in "beta" it may as well be considered final, Ive been using it and it seems flawless.
  8. Oh this is good, I always personally liked this one more than craft manager. Subassemblies is a nice touch.
  9. Same here. Usually a remote probe. Easy. The crew go separately. Heck the scientists can even live in the station while you send successive different experiment probes and run one after the other. With kerbal health or kerbalism it is even more interesting as providing a prolonged stay is harder still. While you're at it, install near future electrical + system heat and give a try at running nuclear reactors plus a dedicated heat management system; the cyclotrons seem like they were made for that.
  10. Yeah I guess flaws will appear eventually. As for tantares and habtech2 I am confident, part names in the VAB and configs are easily relatable. It is with SSPR that I worry somewhat. Nertea uses a nomenclature that is certainly obvious to him but wast for me. But we'll see.
  11. Grimmas if you could, do check what parts of SSPR work and which doesnt. I went through all part configs but I am as yet unsure that I got all of them right.
  12. @visssius that's you in particular, come on, make us proud.
  13. What a great idea! I hope this is progressing well. Many kudos!
  14. I love how the thread title says "real science?", with a question mark like that. Leaves open to speculation if it really is just weather baloons after all or, actually, really... you know.... ALIENS.
  15. I would like to see a lateral view of it with the CoM and the CoL shown; but right away I can see that four main gears, on a two on the front, two on the back arrangement, is troublesome as when you pitch to take off or when you are landing, you are bound to be not totally level for some moments, even if for mere split seconds. That being the case, for a few critical seconds all that weight is resting on two gears alone, it is no wonder they fail. See, it is all design. Try placing all four on the same alignment and see if it works; think about puting a 5th right on the middle just in case. Carefully bring it as close to the CoM as you can, then bring it back the other way a little bit from then nose; the steering wheel is not supposed to bear loads, the plane is just supposed to tilt to its side and not hit the ground, that's it: 95% of the weight has to sit on the main gear. But it wont work if, when you pull up to take off, two of them lift the ground and two dont and all the weight sit upon them and overload the gears! If you open the part UI during flight, pin it and watch it during the takeoff or landing, the wheelstress meter will tell you when you are forcing the gears too much. I bet it is what I imagine. Tell me later if I got it right, it is bound to be something like that. PS: I know what you are thinking. What about those antonovs with 16 wheels, the b52 with its car-like arrangement etc? Well you see, those have wings with high incidence angles, their "wing pitch" is is super upward. When the plane speeds up, it lifts the ground all level-like, it doesnt suport itself alone on the last two poor pair of wheels. If you build a plane that has to "roll" the nose upward, that "bogey" arrangement design doesnt work.
  16. And now for something completelly different: (Naked guy at organ playing chords) (old man saying "it's...") PRAISE AND NOT COMPLAINT! Have anyone tried to see comets through telescopes? Its quite a sight and a game experience. Only thanks to Tarsier's!
  17. Oh we are the ones who are thankful! @visssius you requested this one, do you mind doing some testing? I am specially curious about the SSPR parts, because the names on the configs are a bit unusual.
  18. Well you see that's weird, the weight should be distributing and wheel stress had to be decreasing. Share us some pictures, wheel stress can be caused by other factors, not only total overall weight - also, tweakscaling things all over the place isnt good. It works fine for size and fuel quantities (blunt things, lets call it) but more complex values like thrust, isp etc., and so also wheelstress, those scale weirdly. It is always preferable to use more of the intended part that to just double its size. Airplane/spaceplane is a cool subject, lets discuss your case further! Share some pictures!
  19. I dont really know how your design is but the more realistic aproach would be to add more gears, perhaps another pair or two so that the weight is distributed amongst them. Sure beats the rather gamey aproach of going into the configs and just doubling the weight limits.
  20. Hey there @General Apocalypse this mod works fine, except that the 'explorer program' disapeared for some reason. Since it is a requisite for other contracts, it breaks the rest of the missions. Can you take a look at it? Thanks! edit: @Grimmas that's what you were taliking about in your last post, isn't it? Maybe someone should fork this if the owner left. If nobody doesn't, I will! This is a great mod, it deserves being maintained.
×
×
  • Create New...