Pacca

Members
  • Content Count

    28
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Pacca

  1. The only thing I thought was a little odd was the that the deployed experiments have their own power and communications; is it possible to have them use a craft for power and communication relays? I feel it'd be rather silly to set up extraneous power and communication setups around an already established relay base (which already have very few uses for electrical power once landed). That aside, everything else looks fantastic! Hopefully some of the larger surface features are still physics objects, so they can be grabbed and hauled into space! Could be fun to build advanced cargo missions to bring boulders from deep space to Kerbin
  2. I've been paying much closer attention to delta V, engine weight, and twr as of a late, and I've noticed some interesting things. To start, I've just recently noticed that the overall delta V of a craft is heavily affected by engine weight, sometimes even to the point of affecting which engines I'd prefer to use. Previously, I'd picked engines solely based on their ISP, size relative to the craft/stage, and the overall twr of the final craft/stage. However, since 1.6 added the delta V display to the stock game, I've been gradually prioritizing it over those other things. Nowadays, I'm often shocked to find that the Delta V shoots up when I use an engine with noticeably lower thrust and ISP, seemingly just because of how light the engine is comparatively. I've started using the Spark engine over the terrier in all my deep space 1.25m craft in my early science games, despite the size the difference being quite noticeable; the delta V will tend jump up by shocking amounts just by swapping into the lower efficiency engine! I've even run into some scenarios that make seemingly worthless engines worthwhile; despite the poodle appearing to be inferior to the wolfhound in a variety of ways, it actually gives the craft more delta V in many cases! I'm sure this is an obvious thing that rocket science has to take into account, and I probably look quite dumb to a lot of people right now, but I just find it fascinating how a difference in mass of 1.55 tons can make 113m/s of delta V come from a noticeably less efficient engine! I was just wondering if there was a good way to quickly quantify this at a glance looking at the engine stats. As it stands, I'm only really able to find the best engine for a craft through trial and error, since I'm not really sure how the engines weight plays into things. I've gained a general intuition for how thrust and ISP factor into a crafts design, and this new variable is getting me all confused And now for the "Kerbal" aspect of things; I've recently been infatuated with the idea of making a rocket with the highest possible twr that can reasonably be achieved. I personally find it hilarious when I make rockets that are so powerful, that they are immediately burned up before they could ever hope to hit space Does anyone have any tips for getting the most twr per part, while keeping burn time high enough to use that twr? I'd love that
  3. Funnily enough, I actually kind of hope the new suits do have tron lighting. Not for aesthetic reasons or anything, but just because it'd make it easier to keep track of them in the dark. I remember my first ever interplanetary stranding on Ike; having something other then just the forward facing lights could actually have been quite helpful there...
  4. My first ever docking attempt was, believe it or not, the one in the in game tutorial. I'll bet it took me well over an hour of fiddling and bouncing around (certainly felt like it) before I finally docked successfully. Sadly I messed up a bit afterwards and wasn't able to bring the stranded tutorial kerbal back home due to ship switching being disabled X3 I spent a huge portion of my early time in the game trying to construct very poorly thought out multi-launch rocket probes, so I immediately got a lot of practice with it. Nowadays, I can do it pretty effortlessly if I have full control of both crafts. If the docking ports on both craft are both mounted away from the center of mass, or one craft doesn't have any control, it can be quite a mess, but I can still just barely pull it off with some very careful maneuvering. I still feel pretty bad at it at times, despite the practice, but definitely better then before.
  5. Really proud of it! Love how futury it looks :3 Both sections have inflatable docking ports on them, so the ring can be docked to transport Kerbals and resources, as well as merging the station parts into one vessel so it can be safely switched away from without the ring losing collision and drifting away. Already using it to store Kerbals in space ^w^ It's not the first of it's kind though; I launched a variety of less successful ones, one of which even survived reentry and landing! Thought the ring looked pretty neat flying through Kerbins skies :Y
  6. I just realized that stock rotating parts where announced immediately after I built my first successful jointed rotating space station. Thought that was funny X3 But I'm very excited for the robotic arms and new surface features; I've always been a fan of over the top probes, and I really need good reasons to build rovers! Excited to start recreating articulated landers and rovers as well :3
  7. omg yes!!! They could literally only add what's been explicitly shown in the screenshots and I'd be insta-buying it. Very excited to see incentives for making permenant surfaces bases and actually exploring the surface! And that's not even mentioning stock hinges!
  8. I tried following this tutorial on the wiki, but there are no templates for C# in the copy of Visual studio I have, so I can't directly follow the tutorial. It seems there's a marketplace full of alternative templates, but I have no idea what they do, what they are for, and if they'll work for KSP. I can't seem to figure out how to compile anything when I mess about by myself, either. How should I go about setting it up so I can build my first hello world addon? EDIT: I just realized this may be in the wrong section. Feel free to move it if necessary.
  9. I'm trying to make small rovers with only one or two wheels, which balance themselves using reaction wheels. At first glance, it seems like an easy thing to do, considering how notoriously strong reaction wheels are in KSP. I made a few designs that had a few SAS modules, a probe core, and a set of two wheels. It works just fine if you make one and say, roll it down a hill; it stays upright and moves forwards without issue. But for some odd reason, reaction wheels seem to always react to player control, even when they're set to "SAS only"; attempting to actually engage the rover wheels by pressing any of the directional keys causes it to fall over. I tried to troubleshoot using highly simplified designs that only used three parts, a probe core, SAS module, and a set of wheels. Despite ensuring that all reaction wheels (including the ones in the command modules) were set to SAS only, it would always suffer the exact same problem. Attempting to engage the wheels causes it to stop directing itself and fall down. Releasing the keys allows it to re-right itself if it has the ability to. I'm aware that this is kind of a silly thing to do, but I want to make sure it's possible before I start working on a 3D model for a silly little item I might want to mod into the game.
  10. I'm trying to create a part based on a premade model. The only major change to the model was that it was scaled down in Blender to match KSPs' scale. I did a lot of reading and searching, and seem to have the vast majority of the work done. The part appears in game with the correct model, hitbox, and test stats (cfg copied from the atmosphere sensor, currently unchanged). The only problem is, it doesn't texture properly at all. It renders just fine in Unity, but renders improperly in game. I think I've somewhat figured out the problem; the model accepts four different texture files, which map to different sections of the model. I set all four of these properly in Unity, and it looks fine there. But in game, it seems to map the last defined texture in the list to the entire model! I replaced the last texture with "none" to be certain, and sure enough, the entirely model was re-textured to an off white color in game. I tried looking for questions that related to this problem, but I didn't find anything helpful. Does KSP support this, and I'm just doing it wrong? Do I have to jump through loop holes to make it work? Or am I approaching this entirely wrong? Keep in mind, this is my first attempt at modding KSP. I apologize if I'm not providing enough info; feel free to tell me exactly what you need to see and I'll look into adding it.
  11. I feel it'd be better to have some sort of robotic arm part that has a claw or attachment node on it, kind of like what the ISS has. It'd cover everything you'd want functionally (although not visually, but it makes more sense for space).
  12. I can't figure out what an "NRE" is, but if it's what I think it is, then I'm very excited to try out the SM-25 again :3
  13. Oh, so it's Kerbnet map is different from the Survey Scanners results? I couldn't tell the difference...
  14. I simply have no idea how to properly use this piece... I used it a lot in sandbox because it looked cool, but the actual information it provides seems very difficult to use. Having to actively monitor it and guess which section of the ground it's referring to as it sweeps past in orbit is not an easy task. I initially thought that maybe it would update the Survey Scanners color map to be more precise, but it doesn't seem to affect it all that much. The only feature I actually found to be somewhat useful was it's unique Kerbnet ore highlight feature, but that can easily be done using just the Survey Scanner instead. Initially I didn't think too much of it; being in sandbox mode starting out, I just saw it as another mediocre part. But then I started my science save to discover that it was an extremely high tier part stuck all the way in the back of the tech tree at 1,000 science points 0.o How are you actually supposed to use this part, and why is it so expensive? I feel my mining operations could really benefit from it, but I have no idea how to use it to its full potential.
  15. I tried building a new Service Module by completely throwing out the SM-25 and it's added parts and building a new one based off of a new SM-25. And it suffered from the exact same fueling issue I decided to ditch it for a more standard setup with a rockmax tank and some radial additions, but given all the trouble the Sm-25 has given to me in the past I feel I should just stop trying to use it now...
  16. It's good to know there's a proper solution for at least one of these issues! I imagine that undocking issue could potentially ruin all sorts of stuff if there wasn't at least some workaround. The issue appears to be consistent with the craft, so here's the .craft file. Feel free to tell me if I messed something up, this is the first time I've shared a craft publicly before. The former issue near the beginning can be replicated by simply placing the Service Modules Wolfhound onto the SM-25, and the later issue is already what the craft is suffering from; I don't know how to fix it without doing something dumb like adding fuel lines. The rest of the rocket appears to work as intended, though. As for the staging GUI, it's fine that it's unknown; the fix was as easy as switching vehicles, so if it ever comes up again, it shouldn't be that big of an issue.
  17. I just had a very strange mission in KSP X3 It was basically the Minmus equivalent of Acapello 13 The initial goal was really simple; just do an Apollo styled mission to drop off scientists at a science base I'd previously placed on Minmus. Things started going wrong before I even finished the ship though! When playtesting the CSM, it's engine would burn for less then a second and immediately die out! Its' body was an SM-25 Service Module, and it had various components in it, mostly fuel tanks. It had an FL-T400 attached to the upper portion of the SM-25s' interior, with reaction wheels and RCS tanks attached to it, and some extra liquid fuel + oxidizer tanks attached to it. There were also some super small oscar tanks attached to the outer nodes inside the SM-25. Here's a screenshot with some parts removed (a lower oscar tank, a radial mono propellant tank in the middle, and some radial batteries to fill in the gaps) to clearly show the important stuff I was able to work around it by attaching the engine to the components inside the SM-25, offsetting it so it didn't clip, and auto-strutting it to the root part so it didn't wobble in odd looking ways. I felt really dirty doing this, but it worked... Afterwards, I messed up by accidentally unstaging some stages after setting up a Minmus encounter. Since I didn't technically need them (my Minmus rockets as of late have been overkill X3) I went ahead, docked the CSM and Lander modules together, and eventually setup a stable Minmus orbit close to the surface. Somewhere along the lines, the GUI freaked out; the staging diagram on the side became empty, and it started saying that every single burn (even ones that took less the 1 m/s; keep in mind this is a Wolfhound pushing a standard Apollo setup) would take about 1 minute and 20 seconds! The problem went away when I switched to another craft and came back, but it spooked me for a while, and made maneuver nodes a fair bit more difficult to use (and reordering of staging nearly impossible; in fact, I was able to delete ALL the stages in the menu since they were all empty, and it removed the entire interface from my screen). This is where the next big hiccup happened! I undocked the lander so I could let it land, but I didn't move it right away, so the docking ports were still in contact. While I was making preparations to set up the landing, the ships redocked! I went back to undock them again, and I couldn't Neither docking port had an undock option, yet the ships were still glued together! I tried switching away and back to it, but that didn't fix the problem; they were simply glued together and I couldn't find a workaround I ended up having to land the Lander and the CSM together!!! Shockingly, this part of the mission went relatively smoothly, despite the extra baggage After that odd landing, I did what I wanted to do and launched the Ascent stage, with the CSM in tow (thank god, this was a Minmus mission and not on a Moon with stronger gravity ) From there, I used all the remaining fuel to setup an aerobrake so I could slowly burn off my orbital speed to land safely. During this, however, I noticed that the stats page in the corner said I had fuel left, but all the engines said they were empty As it turns out, some or all of the oscar tanks (I couldn't quite tell, I was in the atmosphere at the time and not dying horribly was a bigger priority then counting up tanks) had fuel left!!! I used some of them to kill some speed by transferring fuel to the tanks that the CSMs' engine could actually use, but it was quite the hassle, since I had to clip the camera through the hull to access them. After another accidental unstaging that cost me a lot of science, I finally landed and was able to return my Pilot to Kerbin. My initial plan to leave the ascent module so the scientists could return in one mission failed, but I was able to deliver them and bring my Pilot back despite everything, so I considered it a success, even though a new return mission is needed now... tl;dr: What are the rules behind how engines use fuel tanks? I thought they just used whatever was available to them either in that stage or via crossfeed, but clearly this isn't the case. Are there ways to prevent the staging GUI from breaking? And what should I do if my docking ports decide to never undock ever again? EDIT: Here's the craft file for the mission.
  18. As it turns out, 5 files failed to validate! It seems to work now, thanks for the head up :3
  19. Toggling crossfeed doesn't appear to do all that much; even when I attempted to disable it so that the ISRU could only refuel the miner itself as a workaround, it still didn't do anything. The difficulty options are set to whatever the default "normal" settings are. I'm not sure how to mess with them mid game... It should be able to feed at least Liquid Fuel to the docked craft; if not that, then the lander itself still has a half filled tank connected directly to the ISRU that can accept both Oxidizer and Liquid Fuel; shouldn't it at the very least refill that? This is very confusing...
  20. There are no fuel cells, both probes are powered entirely by solar panels (and engine alternators, when those are running). I might run some tests later (although I'll have to redock these exact two craft again anyways to make up for the lost fuel, so I'll test that out first).
  21. So I recently sent a Mining rig to Dres, to act as a refueling gateway between Kerbin and Jool. It's a pretty simple thing; just a lander with a big fuel tank, RCS stuff, various ore containers, etc. Here's a pic if your interested. I successfully landed it on Dres, and it was able to mine and fill up it's Liquid Fuel, Oxidizer, Mono-propellant and Ore tanks without much issue. To make use of it, I built a really heavy probe to explore Jools various moons. It's the largest payload I've ever gotten off Kerbin before, so I'm pretty proud of it :3 It has four detachable landers that can individually deorbit and do science, and it's composed out of lots of different kinds of tank to attach the NERV rocket to the Kerbodyne tanks without making it look ugly. While the redundancy added by the landers is helpful at times (functioning as emergency boosters if I need to do quick maneuvers that the NERV can't pull off in time), it also makes the probe rather complicated. It has lots of individual tanks, some of which accept liquid fuel and oxidizer, and some of which only take liquid fuel (as I limited them for use with the NERV). After getting the heavy Jool probe in orbit around Dres and rendezvousing with the lander, I docked them successfully. Afterwards, I reopened the Mining landers Solar Panels and thermal gear (turned off during the rendezvous to avoid accidental damage) and turned on the ISRU, to finish processing the leftover ore (which at the time was nearly full, over 1000 units of it). The ISRU reached it's optimal temperature and stayed there, and the ore started to get depleted. The overall stats in the corner said that ore was getting used up, and that Liquid Fuel and Oxidizer was being added to the ship... But none of the tanks showed any signs of gaining any fuel! I checked all of them, and they all seemed to stay at the same levels. I used time warp up to ten times (I couldn't do any more due to my orbit being very close to the surface), and while the overall counter said more fuel was being added, none of the tanks showed it. So I left the ISRU on, went to the tracking station, and time warped at full blast for a couple of seconds to let the ISRU do it's thing. When I went back after that, the ore tanks were completely empty, and none of the fuel tanks had gained any fuel at all Is this some sort of bug? Is it possible for generated fuel to simply be banished to the void? Or am I missing something here? Thankfully it's not the end of the world for me, I can simply land the mining rig and get more, but it'd be really obnoxious to have to process the ore only when undocked... EDIT: Neither craft has fuel cells installed. They're both powered solely by Solar Panels and engine alternators.
  22. After having the beginnings of my first space station wobble into my own personal Kessler Syndrome, I've decided to look at other options to keep my creations stable. I previously only used EAS-4 Strut connectors, and they did just fine for keeping rockets and landers together. But my space station, having been composed entirely of Sr. docking ports and pieces which are entirely stable on their own, did not have this option. My searches suggest that Autostrutting may be the answer to my problem, but I'm having trouble getting clear info on it; Does Autostrutting dynamically change what an object is "attached" too depending on circumstance (docking/undocking, decoupling, explosive spontaneous deconstruction, etc.)? If not, what happens when the object strutted to is disconnected or destroyed? What do the various options do, and when are they best used? "disabled" is obvious of course, but the rest confuse me, especially since I'm not sure about the above two questions... Should Autostrutting be used to replace EAS-4 Strut connectors or supplement them? How effective is it at keeping space stations and other large docked up structures from destabilizing and damaging or destroying themselves? I've heard people sing it's praises, and I'd like to know why, but I'm just not sure how to make use of the feature, or even where to get good info on it. Also, I'm trying to go vanilla for now, so I'm avoiding mods; I've only just started, so simple things like bringing one-way payloads to planets and moons are still a real struggle to me. I'd like to really get to know the game before I mod it...
  23. That could easily be worked around by having it only target debris, so potential bases and other vehicles would be left untouched. I think debris should be subject to more special cases, actually; I once had to sit and watch a shard of antenna slowly sink to the bottom of the ocean, with no way to save, switch off, recover it, or go back to the KSC because it was "moving on the surface". I understand the limit there for vehicles and whatnot, but having physics protections for debris seems silly...
  24. You have to RCS carefully; never use it when your already going down, only when you bounce up. You use it to kill the springs energy, if you RCS while the springs are already going down, it will make things worse. It takes careful observation and quick timing, and it is somewhat easy to mess up a bit. A bit of a hassle for some maybe, but I like doing it.