Jump to content

Someone2018

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    58

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Someone2018

    [1.12] HyperEdit [v1.5.8, July 10, 2018] - Cheat, Teleporter, Orbit/Planet Editor, & More

    in KSP1 Mod Releases

    Posted · Edited by Someone2018

    6 hours ago, Ezriilc said:

    Well, my instinct is that it may have something to do with RSS.  I don't use mods, so I'm no expert.

    Do you have any other mods installed?  Have you tried it without them?  Maybe with just HyperEdit and RSS.

    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.

    [1.8.1] Kerbal Konstructs - 1.8.1.15 - 15.Dec.2019

    in KSP1 Mod Releases

    Posted · Edited by Someone2018

    37 minutes ago, Ger_space said:

    Kerbal Konstructs dies, because you use RO + Kerbin-Side, which will not function in any way. Not nice that it dies, but You installed a configuration, that is not supported in a way. delete kerbin-side and kerbal-konstructs and reinstall only kerbal-konstructs

    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 ;-)

    [1.8.1] Kerbal Konstructs - 1.8.1.15 - 15.Dec.2019

    in KSP1 Mod Releases

    Posted

    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)

    [WIP] Infernal Robotics - Next

    in KSP1 Mod Development

    Posted · Edited by Someone2018

    @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.

    wobbly mechjeb

    in KSP1 Mods Discussions

    Posted

    @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.

    wobbly mechjeb

    in KSP1 Mods Discussions

    Posted · Edited by Someone2018

    @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?

    [1.3.1] Rescale! Comprehensive SD Configs [1.0.2.8] [03 Dec 2017]

    in KSP1 Mod Releases

    Posted

    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.

     

    [1.5.0 <-> 1.8.1] Kerbalism v3.2

    in KSP1 Mod Releases

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Zeroroller said:

    By chance or through modification of the kerbalism files, has anyone found a way to bypass the time-warp bug of vessels (especially bases) having all their EC drained? What I've done so far is enable the infinite electricity cheat when I know I have huge time warps but figured there was a config i could play around with to make it work? On a side note, there are times when I get frustrated with the little things, but I will tell you I CANNOT stand playing KSP WITHOUT Kerbalism. It is just a whole other level. I'm sure working on a mod this game changing might be a huge tasking but keep up the great work!

    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?

    [1.x+] Community Resource Pack

    in KSP1 Mod Releases

    Posted · Edited by Someone2018

    @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)

    [1.12.x] Cryogenic Engines: Liquid Hydrogen and Methane Rockets! (Jan 22, 2022)

    in KSP1 Mod Releases

    Posted

    12 hours ago, Nertea said:

    Perhaps the better question is something along the lines of "why add LqdOxygen"? If the only answer is realism then that's insufficient. Time for a long blurb. 

    In my current gameplay paradigm (which has evolved over time, but is stabilizing), a new fuel type only brings value if has particular gameplay concepts that are different than other fuels'. A lot of my mods did not build on this, which is why it's a bit of a mess in NFP (fuels that shouldn't exist by this paradigm). The effective gameplay (in a non RO context) ways of differentiating fuels:

    • Density: affects ship design significantly in terms of ship size
    • ISRU factors: affects mission design if the production chain for the resource differs or if it is limited in presence
    • Boiloff: affects mission deign and adds ship design-based mitigation strategies
    • Transport factors: transferability and similar affect how the resource is actually used (eg solid fuel)
    • Cost: a poor differentiator because a) KSP cost balance sucks and b) sandbox doesn't care
    • Tank mass ratio: a poor differentiator as it is effectively a scalar on mass and Isp. 
    • Engine selection: a poor criteria but should be mentioned because it drives reasons to use the fuels. For example, Oxidizer is a bit more valid of a fuel because LiquidFuel can be used in some cases without Oxidizer. 

    Typically IMO a new fuel type should not be added unless it provides a new challenge when used. Ideally it should hit at least 2 of these factors. My current fuel lineup looks like this, and you can see why I am only partly happy with it based on the above: 

    • LH2: Fairly good differentiation with 2 strong and 2 weak factors (boiloff, density, engine selection, mass ratio)
    • Argon: moderate differentiation, probably shouldn't exist - 1 strong, 2 weak (ISRU, cost, engine selection)
    • Lithium: Poorly differentiated, should never have added it (ISRU, engine selection)
    • Uranium: Decent (ISRU, Transport, cost, mass ratio, engine selection)

    Now adding LqdOxygen and looking at it in these terms:

    • Similar density to oxidizer so not great
    • Presumably same ISRU properties as LH2/Oxidizer/LF. if different, would need more models/work
    • Boiloff as LH2 - slightly different as presumably slower
    • Same transport factors as any liquid fuel
    • Cost not considerably different
    • Mass ratio not significantly different to Oxidizer
    • Engine selection limited to LH2 engines - already a gating factor to LH2 engines

    The only real reason that works is engine selection - and to effectively use this, you would need to use this resource in other engines that are non-LH2, because said engines are already gated by LH2. It is my considered opinion that using LH2 in these engines is basically only a naming change and doesn't really affect gameplay. Hope that answers your question :D. 

    That being said, the boiloff code completely supports multiple types of fuels and is customizable to do whatever you like, as per one of the items in the FAQ specifically addressing LqdOxygen.

    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.

    [1.5.0 <-> 1.8.1] Kerbalism v3.2

    in KSP1 Mod Releases

    Posted · Edited by Someone2018

    11 hours ago, theJesuit said:

    Coding.

    That's just the way the balance was established.  What do you see needs adjusting?

    Peace.

    I understand coding, but there was no reason included in the pull request :wink: 

    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".

    30 minutes ago, mikegarrison said:

    My kerbals do not seem to be eating or drinking anything no matter how long they are in space. Is there some configuration for this that might not be set?

    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?

    [1.5.0 <-> 1.8.1] Kerbalism v3.2

    in KSP1 Mod Releases

    Posted

    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.

    [1.5.0 <-> 1.8.1] Kerbalism v3.2

    in KSP1 Mod Releases

    Posted

    7 hours ago, dylsh said:

    Yes it does. And yes the scrubber is on. It seems to happen when it’s happening in bachground processing. When I return to the craft, the scrubbers work to get rid of the co2..  but despite co2 levels dropping (albeit very slow) the kerbal also dies of co2 poisoning first. 

     

    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)

    [1.12.x] Cryogenic Engines: Liquid Hydrogen and Methane Rockets! (Jan 22, 2022)

    in KSP1 Mod Releases

    Posted · Edited by Someone2018

    @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).

×
×
  • Create New...