Jump to content

kerbnub

Members
  • Content Count

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by kerbnub

  1. Hm ok. As an avid SSTO builder, I feel like there wouldn't be much room going the other way for a rapier with higher thrust but lower isp, as its isp is already pretty atrocious. At some point it becomes better to simply slap on a vector or rhino. Part of the point of ssto spaceplanes imo is that they don't need such high thrust to get to orbit anyway. Good to know, thanks!
  2. That section defines the engine's isp at various atmospheric pressures. The first value is atmospheres of pressure, second one the isp, and the game makes some curve between those defined values. So the below means you have 310 isp in vacuum (0 atms of pressure), 295 isp at 1 atm (kerbin sea level), and .001 isp at 20 atms. atmosphereCurve { key = 0 310 key = 1 295 key = 5 210 key = 10 170 -13.59091 -13.59091 key = 20 0.001 } The 3rd and 4th values in the 4th key have something to do with refining the c
  3. So if you don't want to think too hard about balancing the scimitar engine, I modified my scimitar engine configs for the closed cycle module as follows: Old: maxThrust = 200 atmosphereCurve { key = 0 310 key = 1 295 key = 5 210 key = 10 170 -13.59091 -13.59091 key = 20 0.001 } New: maxThrust = 160 atmosphereCurve { key = 0 330 key = 1 235 key = 5 130 key = 10 50 key = 20 0.001 } With these changes, the scimitar becomes the 1.25m version of the 2.5m Cutlass multimode engin
  4. What is the thinking behind the Scimitar engines in NFA? As far as I can see, they are just better versions of rapiers, replacing them entirely, and since they're unlocked at the same node, I have no reason to build rapiers. I think their rocket mode thrust should be nerfed and ISP buffed to have those 1.25 options similar to the two 2.5 multimode engines in NFA.
  5. I think that mode is called Kerbalism :p Experiments use power, but last I checked, stuff like deploying modules did not. @OP, if for whatever reason you want to expand the scope a bit, I imagine rocket engines would need some spark to get going?
  6. So I've updated to KSP 1.8.1 and tried just about every release of walkabout, but always had the same issue of no button showing up. I tried ctrl+W too, tried looking in options, launching a ship and coming back to space center, all to no avail. Here's a logfile using the latest walkabout on a pure stock 1.8.1 install: https://gofile.io/d/HZP6YO
  7. Was there ever a KIS working version for KSP 1.6.1?
  8. I was excited to find a round cargo bay, but their drag seems broken; they're far higher than comparable 2.5 parts and don't change when bays are opened or closed
  9. By the way, you can get a hatch on your crew cabins with
  10. I think adding that node would also add more drag to the part whenever used unconnected. What I typically do when I want a normal docking port attached to the shielded one is attach the normal docking point to something else and drag it to where it would be if properly docked. When launching the craft, I'd decouple that node, and it instantly docks to the shielded one.
  11. and @5thHorseman and @panarchist thanks for responding. I kinda figured, but nice to have confirmation from those who really know. Kerbin makes a funny shuffle back and forth on Mun's horizon now (with Toast), but I still prefer it to not having seasons Does RSS work the same way btw? so the Moon there isn't tidally locked? also on a totally different topic, does Minmus actually have a hidden ocean somewhere, somehow, or why am I getting this?
  12. Gotta say this is awesome! I included it in my new JNSQ save and it makes a huge difference to have to wait for windows to get the right orbit for injections into other bodies. I just realized though that it literally does tilt everything 23 degrees when I landed on the Mun and realized it's not tidally locked anymore. Is it possible to have differential axial tilts to make it and other moons tidally locked to their parent bodies?
  13. Agree that the low vacuum ISP makes no sense from a realism standpoint: they should be optimized for vacuum, as they're not meant for use at low altitudes. But for stock gameplay balance, they're in a good place, as SSTOs are already OP as far as mass fractions to orbit are concerned. While the low ISP really hurts at higher scales (2.5x and trying in JNSQ, which is 2.7x), I've found them to still result in overall fairly realistic feeling SSTOs. It compensates in a way for the fact that real concepts for SSTOs have to use rocket mode for most of their ascent. Skylon gets to 1550 m/s airb
  14. So I've been loving the mod, and was kind of low-key wondering how managed to make the moons so much more realistic looking than stock and still interesting on the ground when I possibly stumbled across the answer. When landing, I noticed that the textures used when farther away actually don't correspond that well to the actual terrain on the ground. This is particularly jarring if zoomed out and moving the camera, the transition between the layers is quite obvious. Here's what I mean (high terrain detail); I just needed to change the camera angle a tiny bit to make it clear:
  15. Not sure if this was a SCANSAT issue only, but Rational Resources had a problem where SCANSAT wouldn't show any resources, but this was fixed in the latest update (a version after the one bundled in JNSQ). Installing the latest RR from github fixed it for me.
  16. Sounds like a recent issue with interstellar extended. Was fixed in a later update, iirc
  17. Is there an easy explanation for greatly decreased fps after getting close to Minmus in particular? Getting within a few km of Minmus is a much bigger fps hit than usual while physics is running, and landing on a craft with many parts is a slideshow. When on rails, there's no performance decrease. It's only terrible when off rails, and that persists in the scene until I leave Minmus SOI. From a brief Hyperedit test, it doesn't seem to happen around any other bodies. I'm not seeing any error spam in the log. Running KSP 1.6.1 with JNSQ 0.7, Kopernicus 1.6.1-8, Scatterer and EVE
  18. Funnily, I'm actually a PC player and didn't see this was a question for console! No idea if the bugs on both are so different though. I can hardly imagine playing on console, just for the interface, and that's before even talking about mods. I'm sure you'll like it better
  19. This is a long standing issue with rescaled games. I don't think anyone's found a way to change the rescue contract orbital parameters yet. I actually like it, as it can make rescue contracts extra spicy. But with larger rescales, rescue contracts around rocket worlds can instafail when they spawn on suborbital trajectories.
  20. I don't think I've seen any tweakscale issues with the KSP 1.6.1 versions. I have had some weird stuff with attach nodes on procedural parts sometimes getting screwed up on reloaded crafts, but not sure what's causing that yet. Know what was wrong in the past?
  21. I like procedural parts and wings; you can make parts much bigger than most stock parts and shape wings as you like. Great for FAR too if you're using that.
  22. I've had similar issues and found out it was the cargo bays. I'm not sure it's fixed in later versions, but I've found that if a cargo bay was the root part, it would stop shielding the craft after saving and reloading. In other cases I've found non-working cargo bays to be fixed by opening and closing them again.
  23. Indeed; it's all working with Kronometer 1.7.1-1, Kopernicus 1.6.1-8, and KSP 1.6.1. Thanks!
  24. I'm still on KSP 1.6.1, so I'm using Kronometer 1.6.0-1.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

guest_terms_bar_text_value