• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

95 Excellent

About scimas

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Profile Information

  • Location Array
  • Interests Array

Recent Profile Visitors

2,142 profile views
  1. Yeah, although I had heard many times that youtube comment sections are some on the worst places, I had never seen anything "bad" in there. Some comment sections are filled with inconsequential "Who is watching this in...?" type of comments, but nothing inherently bad. That Scott Manley video was the first time I saw really messed up comments all over the place.
  2. The video coverage is always so bad man... Every time I hope they will get better, but they never do. They had actual footage of the fairing separation but chose to keep showing the people instead.
  3. Great job on planetary trajectory plotting! Though I haven't played yet.. Also, no support for 1.8.x? Since it isn't mentioned in the change log I assume it isn't there; but I thought it might be there since 1.8.1 has been out for almost a month now..
  4. The documentation is very comprehensive. KOSPROCESSOR:BOOTFILENAME is literally the third search result for "boot" in a total of four results.. That depends on what situation your ship is in. If you're moving at a very slow speed, then it is highly likely that the retrograde direction is moving around wildly. Whereas heading(90, 0) is more or less a fixed direction. And I repeat again, SAS has to be off if you're using kos' cooked steering.
  5. 1. SAS should be off if you're using kos' steering. Or they will fight each other. 2. Simply placing a file in the boot directory isn't enough, you need to point the bootfile to your program too. Either you do that via VAB / SPH when building the ship or manually via the terminal when in flight: set core:bootfilename to "/path/to/program". From next time, that program will run automatically. Also, I would change the first line to wait until SHIP:LOADED and SHIP:UNPACKED. I have seen sometimes that using just one of them isn't enough.
  6. Supposed to go live at 7:40 PM UTC
  7. Looks really nice! But the rover (or its wheels) not moving up and down with the now visible surface details is a bit silly. I know it would require a lot more processing for that level of detail (not to mention possible wheels/landing legs kraken), but that doesn't stop me from wishing it was there...
  8. Aren't ship:control:pilotXXX Get only, except for pilotmainthrottle?
  9. @Eriksonn As far as I understand, your mod is going to do its job only once (when its installed in a save). So it wouldn't be a problem if it did more computation than strictly necessary. Since you're facing the problem of different density of points near the poles vs near the equator, one easy (conceptually) solution would be to sample the points thrice. Once with the regular latitude, longitude (what you're already doing). The other two times use coordinate systems that are orthogonal to the original and each other. So the "north pole" would be at the original equator at 90 degrees separated longitudes. That should give you a good enough uniform sampling density, and then simply take the mean of the generated coefficients. I think that should work, if I'm not making any mistake. Looking forward to the mod!
  10. That would work for two dimensions, for example if your burn was only along tangent and binormal. How do you decide which one to change in three dimensions? If you adjust the normal component, should the mod auto adjust tangent or the binormal component to keep the total Δv constant? I would say don't try to get the first manoeuvre perfect, you usually can't execute it to the predicted accuracy anyway. Rather make a manoeuvre that takes you close-ish to the planet and plan more manoeuvres along the way to fine tune it.
  11. No, only up to 1.7.2. Wait for the next new moon when Principia's releases happen, the next release might support 1.7.3. Although I'm not a dev, so this isn't a promise from them of supporting it then. Probably you or some other mod has made changes to the stock solar system, which prevents Principia from using its configurations to integrate it. See,-reporting-bugs,-and-frequently-asked-questions#kopernicus-users
  12. Successful launch of Chandrayaan 2 to better than GTO! I'm happy today Now hoping for a good landing
  13. @eggrobin @pleroy I discovered today that the flight plan can't handle flipping of an orbit by buring retrograde. That is going from an prograde/retrograde orbit to retrograde/prograde orbit by burning along only the tangent. There comes a point when the pro/retro directions flip around and the flight plan fails to compute the correct trajectory from that point forward. I know that no one in their right mind would plan a maneouvre like this in serious gameplay. Flipping around by burning binormal works just fine. It is just something you might want to consider handling for completeness' sake.
  14. In stock, your ship's motion is only affected by the current body. That is, if you're near Kerbin, Kerbin's gravity is all that matters. Mun won't affect you, Minmus won't and even Kerbol (the Sun) won't affect your motion. Same goes for the planets and moons. Kerbin's motion is only affected by the gravity of Kerbol; Mun, Minmus and all other planets don't matter. Also, since Kerbol isn't "orbiting" around a body, it isn't affected by all the planets orbiting it either. Although this is a decent enough approximation for the game, it is highly unphysical. So Principia makes it so that the gravity works like the real world. Everything affects the motion of everything else. There are 2 exceptions, rockets don't affect each other (except collisions obviously). And rockets don't affect the motions of the celestial bodies. In addition to this, celestial bodies aren't perfect spheres and even if they were, the internal mass distributions are never uniform. Which further changes the shape of the gravitational field (see Principia also models these features where data is available (eg The RealSolarSystem mod). All of these things taken together make many different orbits and effects possible. (see,-reporting-bugs,-and-frequently-asked-questions#interesting-things-to-do) If you want to have those in your game, this is the mod for you.
  15. Then it's probably completely caused by the size of orbit and the sampling rate. At the 86 km orbit, the angle by which your velocity vector rotates in a finite non-zero Δt is much more than in a 100 km orbit in the same Δt. Try an even higher orbit and the error will become even smaller. Since the angular velocity goes down as r^(-3/2), the error also probably false at the same rate.