Someone2018

@damonvv Why is Ghidorah a 2.5m design if it's clearly a falcon 9 clone? I was expecting a 3.75m design, like the real life counterpart. Otherwise it becomes near impossible to launch the thing of an earth like planet (with orbital velocity of 7800 m/s) with any kind of payload, even after adjusting for KSP's insane dry weight and similar things.

I narrowed it down to the "moving window change" that really doesn't work well with UI scaling != 100% (i.e. the window is moved offscreen). I have a fix for this, but github forking is broken right now (for me), so I can't put up a pull request. Figuring out the correct settings is non-trivial (took me several hours at least), so don't bother replicating it :-)

I did mostly 1, but also 2. Testing at 100% scale will have to wait, not at my game pc right now, and won't be for the a few days.

The connectivity manager box never appears for me at all (on screen), although i did see it in a non-responsive state after switch from fullscreen to non-fullscreen once or twice over the past week. My resolution is actually large 3840x2160, at a scale of 180% though.

As promised: https://ufile.io/5i5yyxbj

After much annoyance and seemingly non-deterministic behavior I've managed to reproduce with only ModuleManager (4.0.2) and kOS. But the effect is only for the first game launched after starting KSP. Load the game again and the effect is gone. I will post a log soonish.

It might help for that case, but I have permanent UI breakage once I install kOS. Of buttons I actually need to use in order to play the game.

Oh, I have that patch, but since I tried with and without (and got the same warning) I removed it from the example. @PART[*]:HAS[@REFUSE_wet_mass]:FINAL { // cleanup -REFUSE_wet_mass = delete } Anything wrong with the way I clean up?

@PART[*]:HAS[@RESOURCE[MonoPropellant],!MODULE[KerbalEVA],!MODULE[ModuleCommand]]:FOR[ZZZ_REFUSE] { // dry mass REFUSE_wet_mass = #$mass$ // original liquid fuel mass temp_mass = #$@RESOURCE_DEFINITION[MonoPropellant]/density$ @temp_mass *= #$RESOURCE[MonoPropellant]/maxAmount$ @REFUSE_wet_mass += #$temp_mass$ -temp_mass = delete !RESOURCE[MonoPropellant] {} // configure new propellants RESOURCE { name = HTP amount = #$@REFUSE_FuelTanksConfiguration/HTP_units_per_metric_tonne_of_wet_mass_for_HTP_tank$ @amount *= #$../REFUSE_wet_mass$ maxAmount = #$amount$ } // adjust dry mass @mass = #$REFUSE_wet_mass$ @mass *= #$@REFUSE_FuelTanksConfiguration/HTP_dry_to_wet_ratio$ } Anyone understand why patching a simple mono-propellant tank produces a warning about variable not found in PartLoader: [LOG 22:12:15.795] PartLoader: Compiling Part 'Squad/Parts/FuelTank/RCSFuelTankR25/RCSFuelTankR25/RCSFuelTank' [WRN 22:12:15.800] [ShipConstruct for RCSFuelTank]: part cost (330.0) is less than the cost of its resources (811.4) [WRN 22:12:15.801] PartLoader Warning: Variable REFUSE_wet_mass not found in Part [LOG 22:12:15.808] PartLoader: Part 'Squad/Parts/FuelTank/RCSFuelTankR25/RCSFuelTankR25/RCSFuelTank' has no database record. Creating. [LOG 22:12:15.809] DragCubeSystem: Creating drag cubes for part 'RCSFuelTank'

Anyone have problems with clicking buttons in KSP (like the toolbar buttons at the bottom right of the screen) after installing kOS in KSP 1.7?

@pleroy @eggrobin Congratulations with the milestone Realistic geopotential modeling has been in the works for a for a few months as far as I know?

Learn by tweaking inter-mod compatibility, or improvements in general to the stuff you already love. Lower amount of time needed, and you get something out of it. That would be my tip. Mods become attractive when the quality is high.

RP-1/Kerosene, liquid hydrogen now for fuel, only liquid oxygen for oxidizer Liquid methane is an interesting one as the third dominant fuel class if there are actually mods/engines out there And hydrogen peroxide as monopropellant, because hydrazine is too toxic for my taste :-P I try to keep the readme up-to-date, which is why I point to it

@Gordon Dry I can at least use mechjeb ascent guidance without getting exceptions, without knowing exactly where in that mechjeb function it is failing (which requires a debug build, or at least debug symbol file) I can't say much.

I can't find a proper definition anywhere. And this is used for many RCS thrusters.

It's still strange, but at this point you'd need a minimal reproduction scenario (as in less mods, and the simplest instructions) to get proper help I suspect. And for 1.2.2 I don't think that's even going to happen anymore, because it's ancient. Why are you on 1.2.2 if i may ask?

I see multiple module managers, maybe get rid of the older versions. If you use kerbal engineer redux does it show a non-zero TWR? Does switching away to the space center and then back to satellite make a difference?

@HansSoban Assuming you had a perfectly spherical orbit, ejecting a satellite while pointing prograde will reduce it's oribital speed at that point (you can calculate it based on the ejection force and the total satellite mass). This means that the satellite doesn't have enough velocity to make the same orbital altitude 90 degrees later in orbit (with gravity constant). This will make the satellite orbit slightly elliptical, thus moving radially up and down relative the celestial body. Your satellite should still have a stable orbit (i.e. apoapsis, periapsis, and orbital time are fixed given the stock 2-body gravity mechanics), can you check that? How different are these parameters from your launcher?

@Gordon Dry I managed to find a very bruteforce way of patching B9 tanks, which I pushed. Can you give examples of mods that use FS or IFS? (because I never encountered them, other than a mod that migrated to B9 just before I started using it, and investing in niche support at this point for stuff I don't use is a bit meh)

I'll see if there is a smarter way to deal with B9 tank configs, than adding all their names as they are found. FYI the BDB ones are probably not even working in SMURFF. I'm aware of IFS, what is FS? (i.e. have a link?)

I will wait for the buildings to be on fire, lol The scaling ideas are not that different, so there might be some super overpowered engine now. I only excluded the NearFutureSomething launch abort engines. I wasn't aware that it was a common thing to have high TWR engines in stock game. Please be aware I haven't even looked into the ISRU stuff, so you won't be able to create any of the fuels after launch. This is why I referenced the readme, which has the latest info.

Something which is in early development, and thus not even versioned yet. It essentially patches a very limited set of realistic fuels into the stock game. It's scaled to the Real Solar System. Please see readme at: https://github.com/madman2003/REFUSE If you are curious about this, please let me know what you think of it. Can be from a gameplay perspective, or realism perspective or a "code" readability perspective.

@Nertea Given the use-case you mentioned I understand why you went for these thrust numbers. Out of curiosity, how did you balance engine mass? EDIT: most rockets are at a factor 3-4 higher TWR in real life, but this has to do with kerbin's orbital velocity of 2300 m/s vs 7800 m/s for earth while having similar gravity, your use-case doesn't really scale with orbital velocity as far as I can tell, which is why you end up with high TWR by KSP standards

The mono-propellant engines you added have a TWR of 70-80, which exceeds the best bi-propellant in the stock game by a factor 3. This is a bit crazy. Judging by the physical size, I would expect a thrust of a factor 5-10 lower than current. An engine which is physically larger, yet only has one nozzle: The aerojet MR-80 is a (mars) lander engine with a mass of ~8 kg and a thrust of ~3.8 kN while being 40 centimeters long (see page 17 of https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a545862.pdf). That gives a TWR of 48, which is higher than a typical RCS thruster, more in line with not-so-high-TWR bi-propellant engines. KSP stock engines have TWR's that are more than a factor 3 lower than real life (some people claim up-to factor 4). That would put you in the 12-16 TWR range. That's usually expressed by engines being far too heavy compared to IRL counterparts. But in this case your combination of 2/4 thrusters might just be output'ing an insane amount of thrust. My "ballpark" recommendations (despite the current size models being smaller than the 40 cm of the aerojet MR-80): Chickadee (2 thrusters): 8 kN thrust, 0.056 metric tonnes mass, TWR of 14.6 Mockingbird (4 thrusters): 16 kN thrust, 0.112 metric tonnes mass, TWR of 14.6 A set of 4 chickadees can still land a mk1 pod/can, with a TWR which is high enough for a planet without extreme gravity. (mars/duna being a typical case) And a set of 4 mockingbirds can do the same for a mk1-3 pod/mk2 can. Should be enough for propulsive landing of a lander. Although not for getting into orbit again i suspect, unless it's just a moon. If you wanted them to be some sort of base landers, or large craft landers, or work in very high gravity, maybe make them bigger. Although at some point moving away from monoprop makes sense.

I doubt I’ll find anything, because principia takes over the simulation of positions of crafts and planets and uses the full history of a craft to determine where it will go next. But if I ever discover a way I’ll let you know.