Jump to content

Fergrim

Members
  • Posts

    105
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Fergrim

  1. I've been looking for something to use in place of RP-0; something that organizes the realism overhaul engines across the tech tree but doesn't touch so many other details. Would this tech tree work as something to install on top of realism overhaul?
  2. Well the 6000 DV was on purpose, so I'd have the option to follow up with a lunar intercept - or even a large change in inclination, depending on what missions might catch my eye. I was scrounging for science everywhere haha One way I try to maximize efficiency is once I have a rocket chosen and attached to a tank, I start adjusting the size of that tank based on the stage's thrust/weight ratio. So if I attach my rocket and I'm looking at 3.0 TWR - I generally increase the size of the tank until that number is closer to one - to squeeze the maximum DV out of it. But even doing things like that, I feel like I've hit a wall at around 15000 total DV - where no matter how I fiddle with adding and removing stages, or optimizing the vacuum level stages, I just can't seem to really make it much past that number. (this is in career, of course, so not exactly the same issue as if I had 100% access to the whole tech tree) It's barely enough / not quite enough to get into orbit and then get to the moon. Though if I optimize the timing and everything, it could be enough to head directly into a flyby of venus which is occasionally a 9000+ DV trip if I remember right. Like once a year or so. Of course, all these numbers are in reference to a full scale universe with realism overhaul- so 1.25m is never an option for me except for some specific suborbital . Also makes it harder to ask for efficiency advice because the realfuels/real scale rockets dont have nearly as broad an audience as stock. It's worth it though when you light the engines on a rocket that's nearly a kilometer tall. When it's that tall and its first 30 seconds of thrust only accelerate it at like 1-2 m/s and it doesn't even wobble it makes the challenge of full real scale worth it.
  3. Go to the observatory, select the body and click research. This should be available for any body you have discovered but not fully researched
  4. Regarding research bodies, that's fine, but I guess I wasn't clear. I have more than enough upgrades in both respects, though the RnD center and neither one shows. I was about 2000 total science points into that career without ever having seen MLI layer options - same goes for Real Antennas bandwidths beyond UHF and VHF. I've been trying to find someone who can even just point me to the problem, let alone a solution when it comes to these issues for weeks upon weeks now. I tried for the whole three weeks to determine a solution on my own, scouring config files, faqs and google but to no avail. I was extremely hesitant to uninstall RP-1 and was honestly surprised to discover that simply removing it solved all of my problems in one fell swoop. My fix isn't so easy as one of me simply being ignorant, unfortunately. Finally, what's so different about RP-1 that it can't support research bodies? All research bodies really cares about is having access to the planet list. What I'm trying to say here is that research bodies doesn't innately conflict with absolutely anything. I mean, if it all comes down it being actively thwarted because the RP-1 contract progression doesn't want to respect discovered vs undiscovered bodies then I'd rather have the option to choose to use research bodies anyway. For example, right now my install consists of basically everything that an RP-1 install does - kerbal construction time, milestones/achievements, historical progression contracts, kerbalism, realism overhaul + exclusively realism overhaul compatible parts, real antennas and BARIS in place of testlite. Basically all it's missing is avionics and tooling. In this configuration, research bodies works without need for special attention. And given that, there's no reason why it should require any support... unless, perhaps, if I added its building upgrade info to the RP1 custom barnkit. I'm thinking it's just a matter of RP-1 giving itself both first and last bite at the apple when it comes to laying down rules - sort of actively denying other mods their edits rather than sharing. This would explain RealAntennas' issues as well, because realantennas depends on its own custom settings that it applies to the tracking station - bandwidth upgrades also being dependent on RA recognizing a certain level of building upgrade. I haven't used RP-1 long so I couldn't say if it's only recently it started heavily customizing custombarnkit. If not, then I'm at the mercy of someone who knows better pointing me in the right direction because that's the only idea I have
  5. Today I sent up a 20,000 ton rocket into a polar orbit. (this is roughly 7x the weight of the Saturn V fully fueled on the launchpad IRL iirc) The first stage had approximately 90,000 kilonewtons of thrust and began its ascent at an acceleration still of about 1 m/s. It was more like a slow levitation - though it did get into orbit with about 6000 dv to spare I feel like I'm totally in the dark as to how make my rockets smaller and more efficient - though. No matter how I move through the tree, it seems like the general size stays about the same.
  6. What makes this incompatible with real solar system? So far I've been able to add any other stars to it without issue - if they are stars, it means they are far away from the starting system and if they are far, they won't impact the solar system as implemented by RSS. It looks really good and I'd def use it if it'd work with real solar system and major major bonus if it had a research bodies config included. Just my two cents
  7. Edit: Beginning of an answer to our issue at the end of this post Aelf thank you so much for your response. Okay, so I'm not seeing the MLI options and I'm not seeing Real Antenna options - the ones I do see aren't responding to my tech tree unlocks. Also, in research bodies, no matter how much I upgrade the DSN - the research bodies contracts remain locked due to not meeting the building upgrade requirements. I have a theory, I think RP-1's custom barnkit is full on borked. Every issue I'm describing, and yours too, seem to revolve around it failing to recognize these unlock progressions. I mean, besides tooling, RP1 is not too far off from Realism Overhaul. Maybe a temporary fix would be to excise the troublesome configs in the RP1 folder. But now that I know that I am indeed suffering from a variety of bugs - I'm not only saddened but I'd desperately love a fix. I'll post another log as well, if that would help. Edit: My current install is one of the slimmest mod wise I've ever done, it has very little on top of what the RP-1 express install required however I did just notice that I don't have community tech tree installed which, I swear was always a default necessity but I could be wrong. I also just noticed a Kopernicus update along with a community fixes update. It wouldn't fit my above theory, but maybe one of the above will solve the issues I described. It's hard to determine the source of these problems though with how damn bossy a few mods are, specifically RP-1 and Kerbalism. Two mods I really like, but also two mods that got an F in preschool under plays well with others. Edit: Just finished testing, and I did so lazily, so my conclusions are broad but useful. I can definitively say that the problem is with RP-0 in particular. Having uninstalled RP-0 and then gone through a proper reinstallation of Realism Overhaul (+ dependencies, plus many suggested and recommended) my MLI layers are back and only allowing me to add as many as I've unlocked (just checked) and also while Real Antenna still isn't showing up on EVERY antenna, the parts it does show up for all allow me to adjust their settings for tech level - as opposed to with RP-0 installed where you're restricted to tech level 0 which makes your prospects for getting any traction outside of Earth's SOI very dim. I don't know what RP-0's problem is. It's somewhere between the barnkit and the tech tree. Given the fact that everything else works fine together (I'm running Construction Time, Contract configurator, realism overhaul, RSS, Kerbalism etc Basically RP-0 without tooling/avionics) I'm 80% confident in my general assessment of RP0 being the problem, though.
  8. ugh, i've been searching and waiting for an answer on this for weeks. I don't think the add on forum gets nearly as many eyeballs as the general one does, even though basically everyone uses mods. I've never had such an impossible time getting help before - between google failing and no forum responses, it's so insanely frustrating
  9. I'm just wondering if it's working for other people. On the vast majority of parts with antennas, I can't get Real Antenna's options to show up in the part right click menu. It does on some, but a really random assortment and a minority, in all cases. If it's working for other people, at least I know I can just try to reinstall and hope for the best - because all of my attempts to fix it have come to nothing now for weeks and I'm just frustrated and tired.
  10. I'm just wondering, does RP1 remove the ability to choose MLI layers for tanks? I was using just realism overhaul for a while and decided to try RP1 and I generally really like it, but I've been looking to build a cryo upper stage and I can't find any tank labeled for cryo and I noticed the option to adjust MLI layers on tanks is no longer there like it was for realism overhaul. Service tanks aren't meant to replace fuel tanks, right? in game it says they aren't meant to hold bulk fuel. So with no tank using electricity for cryogenic cooling, and no tank offering the ability to adjust MLI layers i'm not sure what I'm supposed to do to optimize. I didn't think this was a question requiring a log, but if it is, I'd be happy to post one. I AM having issues where Realistic Antennas options aren't showing up in the PAW for the vast majority of parts approved by RP1, so if my MLI/cryo options are simply missing perhaps this could be related. But yes just asking because I'm not sure what SHOULD be there and I can't find the information anywhere else. Thank you
  11. I was able to disable it by simply not installing testflight. Not because it was too hard but because it's too simple, and focusing only on launch and even then, only on engines is boring. I was surprisingly able to get BARIS, however, to work in its place. So long story short, yes it's easy to do
  12. Does no one have any input at all that could help me? There is literally no information on google, I'm totally adrift here. I have noticed, additionally, that SOME parts actually do have the proper options available for real antennas in the PAW. But in looking at their config files, there's no obvious reason why some work and others don't. Like, none of the stock ones work properly. However, one random antenna from the AIES pack does work as do a random assortment of built in antennas like on probe cores and capsules. But if I open up the control console for RA, I WILL see every single antenna on the craft listed. But without these VAB options I am unable to change things like which frequency band I'm using and how much powershould go through the antenna which are pretty important. It's so frustrating having no clue and no way to find out
  13. I think the problem with this is that the game doesn't really distinguish a "you". "You" are wherever your attention is. The seat of that attention is, by default, at the KSC. So you are basically always at the KSC. There are mods, however, that require kerbals be brought home to the KSC for them to recover from long missions and/or radiation etc. Here, I think I found something that might help you do what you're looking for. https://spacedock.info/mod/1286 The description is " IMBY (or Not In My BackYard) is a modlet that restricts recovery of vessels to within a range of predefined "beacons". By default the only beacon is the KSC and recovery is limited to within 100km. If you try to recover from further, a message will pop up alerting you that you are too far away. Additional beacons can be created through the Beacons.cfg file that is generated after the first run. Future plans for the mod include a UI to allow creating new beacons and parts that allow for mobile beacons (for bases and recovery ships)." Is this close?
  14. am I right in understanding that all komplexity changes is dividing each building's upgrades into a set of 10?
  15. The closest thing I can think of is a full realism overhaul+RP-1 mod install. This includes just about every kind of additional challenge that people have come up with, all in the vein of increased realism
  16. you keep asking for "best" when there are "best" versions of totally opposing game types. When you're playing vanilla, which one annoys you most often: A) Obscure rules that stop you from doing whatever you feel like doing B) Lack of obscure rules/mechanics that create additional challenge by forcing you to handle challenges more realistically - IE life support. Or the fact that the tech tree starts with manned flight rather than probes C) Lack of interesting/end game challenging places to visit Basically, are you more frustrated that you can't. Does the idea of a hyper realistic aerodynamics system make you excited or do you already feel the frustration at it taking ten times longer to design a jet that doesn't randomly fall out of the sky. I like realism to the point of tedious. For example, a favorite mod for me is 'researchbodies'. It makes it so you can't see or plan trips to any planet except those that you've discovered and thoroughly researched via ground based telescopes. Also there's a setup for probes where any probe you launch, has to be flown using a NASA looking computer and bans you from using any third or first person view like would be standard in stock- so having no pilot involves all the challenges of flying something remotely. etc Knowing that would help a lot. Also, remember KSP is at 1/10th scale or so which makes things much easier. This is why people love real size real solar system (though of course, it's always played with real life thrust/weight ratio rockets and fuel tanks so even though it's a more challenging scenario your rockets are also about 10x more powerful. And of course there are a ton of mods that simulate part failures and requiring maintenance etc SO yeah which side of that are you on?
  17. I use the SAVE restore mod for things like this. Something like that happens, you go and click restore and you're given like ten saves to choose from rather than one
  18. I'm not even needing a solution here. I've just been trying to figure out why the the damn RealAntenna specific options aren't showing up in any RA antenna module part windows for the past month and finally I give up and am humbly pleading for help. To clarify, it does seem that everything works in actual flight in terms of being able to control probes and such - but being unable to choose power level or frequency is definitely not sustainable :s https://file.io/jBDjthHgLrTQ <~~ most recent ksp.log Besides this single issue, my RO+RP1/kerbalism (and quite a few more) install is working perfectly - so, yeah, I'm desperate for any forward progress haha Thanks to anyone who's able to take a look also even feedback regarding your personal experience with getting RA to work with realism overhaul would be great, google has absolutely nothing for me on this topic - so i have no idea where to even start vis a vis missing options from part action window. Please feel free to request whatever other documentation or information necessary - im haunting this post hard hoping for a miracle solution
  19. So basically as the title says, I'm using a rescaled stock system at 10x, realism overhaul and real antennas. None of my probes have any connection while on the launchpad, but if I force them to launch anyway (using gravity turn or mechjeb ascent) consistently five seconds later or so, the connection pops up. This happens with every conceivable setup I could think of, all kinds of antennas and power settings. One clue, I think, is that the DSN on the map appears to be in the ocean, like off to the east of KSC a little bit. Anyone have any ideas as to how I could fix this? Despite the workaround I've established, it's still really frustrating. Edit: My basic theory is that it has something to do with the rescale, and the kerbin DSN being in the ocean. Figuring rescale somehow resulted in the DSN being in the ocean (which I thought was prevented by the scaling code) and that might be why I can't connect on the launchpad. Maybe it's occluded until I get just a little above the launch pad? Ugh I'm not sure, that's just my best guess as of now
  20. Oh good, so would this be why clicking research bodies makes every KSC object unclickable/doesn't go to the telescope screen as of recent? It's one of my few must have mods. I could have sworn it was working for me a couple weeks ago, but recently I only get the aforementioned effects when trying to get to the observatory.
  21. Np, of course Do you know if there is any other option to rescale in general outside of sigma? As far as I know, it's the only one, which is why I thought it was sort of married to kopernicus. If there's another way, I'd be glad to look into that as well
  22. Hey! First of all I wanted to sincerely thank you for working on this. Being able to even have a prayer of getting the latest version running on kopernicus early like this is really great. I just have one question, perhaps you can save my head some banging against my desk, does Kopernicus 1.10 currently work with sigma rescale? I use Kopernicus to run OPM and Valentine, and I've always preferred to play at like 3.5 - 6x. But I like to basically adjust those settings myself, so I've always used sigma rescale.. But in trying to get KSP running recently, I've narrowed my issue down to sigma + kopernicus (you know, standard KSP crashing on load business). Should I expect sigma rescale to work with your latest branch or should I just stop trying until someone tells me it's good to go again? If you know it should work, I'll happily blame my ineptitude and get back to work on making it work. Just figured I'd ask rather than get any more frustrated/confused.
  23. Thanks for this, I'll remove miniavc and the cache files and let you know.
  24. You literally are just scanning the log for entries regarding errors. Any given heavily modded instally is probably riddled with minor errors, the trick is in trying to distinguish between game crashing errors and the minor ones.
×
×
  • Create New...