• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About NermNermNerm

  • Rank
    Bottle Rocketeer
  1. Thanks Maja for putting this release out. I've been using it for several days now and it's working great!
  2. Yup, that was it, thanks!
  3. When I surface-attach a part in the VAB & SPH, parts don't snap to angles, and they end up not aligned at 90 degrees to the part they attach to. See the below picture; the science instruments I just slapped on aren't pointing directly out and look all ajumble. Surely there's some mode I swapped into or some configuration change I made that got me into this state, but I've now forgotten. Yes, I know how to fix it using offset&rotate tools, but it's a pain to do it for every surface-attached part. Can anybody give me a clue?
  4. I filed an issue against the GNR-3750's overheating problem: When I re-engining the overheating GNR-3750-based craft from my last post, it was kinda irksome to discover that switching my craft from the overheating GNR's to the plain-old Rhino didn't change the Delta-V very much. I think it might be worth reconsidering the density of liquid hydrogen or the mass of the GNR engines. Take a look at this table - I created a ship using 500t payload (to diminish the effect of the mass of the engines), a single "Kontainer Tank - Round (15m)" and enough engines to generate ~2k thrust. Wet Mass(t) delta-v(m/s) Rhino (1) 2534 4129 GNR-3750 (1) 1303 4385 LV-N "Nerv" Atomic Rocket Motor(33) 2628 9061 Like probably a lot of people, I'm thinking of the GNR engines for traveling between fuel depots (and not trying to lift it off of Kerban). If you triple the number of fuel tanks on the GNR to bring the wet mass up around where the stock engines are, then you get a more impressive delta-v (7084), but still not better than the Nerv's. I gotta say up until now I just always put Nerv engines on all my interplanetary craft without really giving it much thought. I had wanted to use the GNR's to replace the Nerv's for a long time if only because of the vast numbers of engines you have to use to power large craft (it took me a while to get the refuelling infrastructure up on Jool to do it). I haven't wrapped my head around the above table yet. The one thing I can say for sure is that I want something cool to come of the added difficulty of using the Nuclear engine, and the data shows that if there is such a thing, it's not being able to design ships that are less dominated by fuel tanks.
  5. I'm trying to build a ship based on the GNR-3750 Nuclear Engine, and I must be holding it wrong or something because the engine overheats on long burns. My latest example includes 16 stock "Radiator Panel (large)" plus 3 "Thermal Control System (large)" plus one "Thermal Control System (medium)" and still a full-thrust burn will cause it to overheat before I can even get to the Mun. Is there a companion part I should be using?
  6. Hm. Good to know. But in this case, I was intending to attach on the stack node. I was able to use a wrench to attach a Spherical container in the very same spot where I couldn't attach a Flat container.
  7. Sorry for the confusion - I was using the wrench. Is there a difference?
  8. I'm sure this has been hit before (I've sure hit it enough). I've got a Kontainer Tank - Flat 1.25m that just won't attach to anything. I know I've got the part hovering over an attachment node, but when I click to attach, it says the part can't be surface attached. No amount of rotating, moving or changing nodes seems to make a difference. I attached a Kontainer Tank - Round in the same spot with no problems. Anybody know what to do about this?
  9. Thanks! I did a little more playing around that mostly confirmed what you say here. (That half-empty every six hours didn't seem to bear out exactly, but it's as likely an Excel-fail on my part as anything.) I think the rule of thumb can be simplified to this: a 4500 tank will simply do for whatever you need; much less than that probably won't. I can't find any evidence for a tax on Planetary Logistics in general. If there is one, it's too small to be noticeable. 4500 is enough, practically speaking: If you've got more than one drill head or are drilling in an especially rich area, you'll lose stuff at 4500 units, but unless your goal is to coat the planetary body in a layer of Colony Supplies 3 meters deep, you'll still get enough production with 4500. So naturally, I'm going with large or huge tanks for my bases from now on. I'm thinking back to a comment on a Marcus House video "That rocket's not very aerodynamic..." "Given enough T/W, everything's aerodynamic." I am breathing deeply the wisdom of the master.
  10. I've been doing some experiments on the catch-up mechanic lately. Is how it works documented anywhere? In my current play-thru, I'm going to be obliged to try it. I ran a few experiments and seemed to find that the small container tanks (Kontainer Tank Flat, 1.25m), are lossy. That is, I believe it's the case that if you have a mining drill (MEU-500-A) and a logistics capable tank (Kontainer Tank Flat), that you'll only get about 10% of the resources that you should be getting. With a 2.5m container, it also seemed to be lossy, but there I got 80% of the resources I would get if I was timewarping with the ship in-focus. It feels to me like other factors are involved as well, but I haven't tested enough to have a good handle on them. Also, I think that the only time planetary logistics totals get moved is by the ship that's currently in-focus... But I swear I saw them move without that a time or two. Can anyone confirm or deny?
  11. Thanks! I tried out the Tundra Kolonization unit. The docs should probably be updated - based on the documentation, all they do is allow for procreation, but I see that it makes the Hab & Home time for Kerbals go up, in exchange for ColonySupplies. That's cool. Much better than rotating crew in and out of the Medical bay, and it allows for fun scenarios like having reasonably-sized space buses traversing the void, picking up Supplies at both ends. Still, I think the Medical Bay is busted.
  12. Yes, I had the tourist in the medbay and the scientist in the medbay (also tried a medic, tried adding them to the medbay in different order). The medbay was started (the screen shows "Medbay: 105% load" and "Workshop Efficiency: 7.9%"). If I time-accelerated for a while, I saw the Colony Supplies get consumed, but I don't think that is very telling because I can observe that even if the Medbay is not occupied. As to the "go tourist at the same time" question - perhaps I'm just going about it wrong. My goal is to create a ship that can stay out for a very long time. Of course, I can just build a vast ship and place only a few Kerbals in it, but that seems un-fun. I wanted a largish ship with a goodly population... You know, the whole 5-year mission to go where no Kerbal has gone before kinda thing. I would have thought that the Medical Bay was the way to achieve that sort of thing. One clue - I continue to suffer with the "Coroutine couldn't be started because the game object ... is inactive" problem. Could that be the cause?
  13. I've been trying to understand how the Tundra Medical Bay works and having no luck. I put a ship with a medical bay in orbit with a crew, then waited for the crew to become homesick, trucked up a medic and put the homesick kerbal and the medic in the medical bay, clicked on "Start MedBay" and I don't see any impact on Hab or Home time; Colony Supplies do get consumed, but to no apparent effect. Also, if it works like the documentation says it should, I'm a little concerned there's a problem. The documentation says that you can fix a homesick kerbal, but what if all your Kerbals set off in the same ship at the same time? The whole ship (including the scientist/medic who's there to save the day) becomes homesick and useless at the same time as all the kerbal they're supposed to cure.
  14. I'm generally enjoying the Contracts mods, but I got this crash upon completion of "Boot Camp" (for engineers): There's a lot going on with this save w/r/t contracts that's bad, so... If I have a contract, exit the game, and come back, the contract will be gone. It seems to do with the game's auto-save feature. If I QuickSave and reload, the contract is not destroyed. I'm not being offered any Rescue contracts on this save. Pity, I really enjoy them. The Training vessel for Boot Camp sometimes appears below ground. I have ContractConfigurator, ContractPacks(Field Research & Kerbal Academy) installed. I also have USI Kolonization, IR, and some other unrelated mods.
  15. Thanks V8jester, the Joint Reinforcement is the piece I was missing.