Someone2018

Members
  • Content Count

    58
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Someone2018

  1. Actually the interaction issue is with principia, and it seems to be that i either get put at the initial orbit around a planet that i see for a split second. Or inside the planet. Any tips on how to debug this? Like how does hyperedit change the location. EDIT: It seems a more fundemental problem where there is interference with principia's integrators.
  2. Thanks, that kind of makes sense. I only wanted the kerbin side assets, so i kept half of the mod. Which seems to work. FYI, i have RSS, but not RO, lol I'm glad to have my long runway, thanks for that ;-)
  3. An runway I constructed myself near the KSP completely disappeared as static object, but still shows up in the launch list. How do I get rid of it without access to static object. Where are these things stored on disk? And what could cause the disappearance of a static after a game restart? Because I seem to loose them upon reload: [ERR 21:47:07.940] [SurfaceObject]: Cannot return to original parent, it no longer exists. [LOG 21:47:07.942] [Kopernicus] Fixed SpaceCenterCamera [LOG 21:47:07.942] KK: GetCurrentLaunchSite: retuning CurrentSite: Runway_ksiderunway110011_0 [LOG 21:47:07.942] KK: GetLaunchSiteByName: Returning LS: Runway_ksiderunway110011_0 [LOG 21:47:07.942] KK: OnLevelWasLoad: SC Body is: Earth [ERR 21:47:07.943] Exception handling event onNewGameLevelLoadRequestWasSanctionedAndActioned in class KerbalKonstructs:System.NullReferenceException: at (wrapper managed-to-native) UnityEngine.GameObject:get_transform () at KerbalKonstructs.Core.CameraController.SetSpaceCenterCam (KerbalKonstructs.Core.KKLaunchSite currentSite) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at KerbalKonstructs.KerbalKonstructs.OnLevelWasLoad (GameScenes data) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at EventData`1[GameScenes].Fire (GameScenes data) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 [EXC 21:47:07.944] NullReferenceException KerbalKonstructs.Core.CameraController.SetSpaceCenterCam (KerbalKonstructs.Core.KKLaunchSite currentSite) KerbalKonstructs.KerbalKonstructs.OnLevelWasLoad (GameScenes data) EventData`1[GameScenes].Fire (GameScenes data) UnityEngine.Debug:LogException(Exception) EventData`1:Fire(GameScenes) <FireLoadedEvent>c__Iterator1:MoveNext() UnityEngine.SetupCoroutine:InvokeMoveNext(IEnumerator, IntPtr)
  4. I'm loosing attachment nodes on one side of a circular procedural fuel tank if it gets resized, specifically the side that is moving as a result of the resize. I also get occasional KSP crashes and exceptions related to node joints. I tried look at the code myself, but it's very different from the kind of KSP plugins I'm used to.
  5. When using the landing feature on Earth (RSS) i always get put 653KM above the earth, for any altitude. Any clue what could be happening?
  6. Anyone know how to compile this beast? It seems to have dependencies on google compatibility files that cannot find online anywhere. As well as unity engine dlls not included in the managed folder of KSP.
  7. @Rudolf Meier Tweakscaling a powered hinge causes it to loose it's rotation capabilities. As far as I can tell tweakscale is configured for this part, so I'm a bit lost here. The reason I wanted to make it bigger is avoid wobbly part connections. You don't have an issue list on github, hence I'm informing you here. I'd appreciate a reply if and when you've done something I should check out.
  8. For the largest rotating habitat, the mercury, it seems to be about 11 meters in diameter. How do you launch that in any sane way? Even the proposed BFR is 9 meters in diameter, and you still have to fit inside.
  9. @Darinth The latest changes on mechjeb (only in git) were done to make the unguided landing work better with high TWR rockets, from memory TWR>20 was typical for my tests. Prior mechjeb did some silly things like boosting the craft into the air again or even turning the rocket a few meters above the ground to burn of a tiny bit of horizontal speed, which is usually epic fail. The whole SmartASS/Rcs thing was to do the last bit of stability control once it lands.
  10. @Xd the great Try landing without target to see if you have the same problems (on the latest build), I haven't been in the mood for KSP in the last few weeks, but I never even looked into the the guided landing (which misbehaved even more than the unguided one). Out of curiosity what do you dislike about the SmartASS and SmartRcs?
  11. @NecroBones Is it intentional there is no 10m "probe core" in the extended pack?
  12. Ok, will collect a log when I see the problem occurring again. Thanks for the reply.
  13. Does anyone else suffer the problem (on he 10.625x scale) that the Kerbal Space Center is not properly on the ground, so it looks like the whole landmass around KSC is floating (when trying to drill for example its hard to reach the ground) and when returning with a vessel the KSC is often underwater, but before landing on water it crashes into invisible ground. I'm not using scatterer.
  14. In general, you will be more noticable if you report an issue on github. Also, you are not being very specific about the problem you are encountering, for example, are we talking about timewarp for an active or inactive vessel?
  15. Play EVE online at some point in your life? They loved tiny UIs a bit too much, lol
  16. @TriggerAu Any plans to give the most popular KSP mod support for UI scaling? The UI is tiny on a 180 dpi monitor. In practice I have to run 170% scaling, you can imagine the horror of something unscaled.
  17. FYI, for anyone who wants to give feedback: https://github.com/MoreRobustThanYou/Kerbalism/pull/10 It's regarding the food balance issue I talked about earlier.
  18. @RoverDude If I look at https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/gas-density-d_158.html the density of Oxygen is 1.429 kg/m3 at STP. If look here https://github.com/BobPalmer/CommunityResourcePack/blob/master/FOR_RELEASE/GameData/CommunityResourcePack/CommonResources.cfg#L371 the density of Oxygen is 0.00000141 kg/L, otherwise known as 0.00141 kg/m^3. Why is there a factor 1000 decrease in density? I could understand some compression, but that should increase the density, not decrease it. I see this for several gasses, also CO2 for example, factor 1000 differences. Even water. Can someone explain what is going on here? EDIT: cross-referencing wiki and stock resources suggests the unit of the config file is metric tonne per liter, is that true? (liquid fuel is on the wiki as 5 kg/L, but in the config file as 0.005)
  19. I get the arguments for only adding things that add meaningful choices for the sake of keeping the game somewhat manageable, by going a non-cryogenic oxidizer you are sacrificing specific impulse and increasing weight. Which is silly given that the cryogenic installations for liquid hydrogen are far more challenging comparatively (both lower temperature, and the small molecular size of hydrogen that likes to find leaks). https://www.thespacerace.com/forum/index.php?topic=2583.msg17481#msg17481 shows the specific impulse for liquid hydrogen at sea level with: * Liquid Oxygen: 381 * NItrogen Tetroxide: 340 * Hydrogen Peroxide(95%): 312 Compare to that kerosine (which is not cryogenic) at sea level: * Liquid Oxygen: 289 * NItrogen Tetroxide: 267 * Hydrogen Peroxide(95%): 268 If you consider that Kerbal space numbers never match real life, so given: * Kerbal space non-cryogenic stock engines tend to be around 260-295 Isp at sea level. * We cannot assume either which non-cryogenic Oxidizer we are using, so let's take the average of Nitrogen Tetroxide and Hydrogen Peroxide (95%). I arrive at the conclusion: * Isp can be 20% higher compared to stock engines (Isp of 300-355 at sea level) with Liquid Hydrodrogen and whatever oxizider KSP uses * Isp can be 40% higher compared to stock engines (Isp of 340-410 at sea level) with Liquid Hydrogen and Liquid Oxygen, which a clear performance gain, especially for upper stages that want to maximize their delta velocity This is not even considering mass advantages of Liquid Oxygen, but mass is a bit messed up in KSP in all sorts of ways, so let's not dive into that right now :-P Please note that specific momentum increases as pressure drops, assuming the engine is designed to leverage the advantage. The exacts details of how this changes I don't (yet) have information on, other than that exhaust velocity is a big determining factor.
  20. I understand coding, but there was no reason included in the pull request https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/opag.2017.2.issue-1/opag-2017-0011/opag-2017-0011.pdf <-- this one mentions a much bigger structure, which when inflated is approximately 10 meters high and 23 meters in diameter, and produces food for around 6 people. In terms of volume that is between 2000 and 4000 m3. Another reference is this: https://www.ag.arizona.edu/lunargreenhouse/MidReviews.htm One presentation from there states the design target of 50% of food needs of one person using a 2.1 meter by 5.5 meter (volume 20.9 m3) tube shaped structure: https://www.ag.arizona.edu/lunargreenhouse/Documents/2012-07-20_01_Giacomelli.pdf The kerbalism structure is approximately 5 meters long, with a diameter of 2.5 meters. So that's close the last example. So strictly speaking that part is already pretty overpowered, because it produces 150% of food needs of one person. The Station redux parts are massively overpowered now (at 300% and 450% food production for one person), I haven't seen any indication that humans are anywhere near that kind of food level production in such a small structure. And the 3.75m module isn't even bigger than the 2.5m one, so why does it perform again even better? I can code up another balance pass no problem, and include oxygen production of plants as well. But I wanted to at least discuss out in the open to prevent pull request "war". This processing is done in the background if I remember correctly, have you gone to the tracking center for a while to see if they consume food and water?
  21. Does anyone know why in the last post-1.5.1 version of Kerbalism the Stockalike Station Parts eXpansion redux offers a greenhouses that perform much better than the default kerbalism one? Despite size and weight being comparable? If anything, the kerbalism one which feeds about one person is already performing better than real life prototypes.
  22. Another possibility that a minor inaccuracy in background simulation at high speeds is causing the difference in CO2 processing, although to be more sure, ask @N70. Have you actually dimension-ed your scrubber capacity to cover your needs? (preferably with a margin)
  23. @Nertea What was your reason for not fueling these engines with LqdOxygen (the cryogenic kind) that is present in the community resource pack? The combination of LqdHydrogen (the cryogenic kind) and a non-cryogenic oxidizer seems unusual (not used in real life at all as far as I can tell), especially since you bothered with cryogenic fuels to begin with (and associated boil-off mechanics).