Jump to content

MashAndBangers

Members
  • Posts

    506
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by MashAndBangers

  1. 2 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

    The J-2A-2 had to be made into a separate part. For those wondering - one of the things that prevent us from combining engines with B9 is deployable engine nozzles. That's why the RL-10 extending variants are separate too, for example. 

    Took me a minute to realize what you were saying.  So the only problem now is eventually getting the J-2 A2 added to the upperstage thrust buff patch, which isn't a big issue.

  2. 11 hours ago, Galileo chiu said:

    can you send me a link?

    Welcome to the internet!  OP can either stand for Original Poster (the person who started the thread) or Original Post (the first post of the thread).  What you're gonna want to do now is click the first page button, looks like <<.  You then wanna scroll down that first post created by tony48 and find DV Map.  Now there's 2 of them, one for normal KSP size, and one for 2.5x size.  Just click that bar that says "reveal hidden contents", and you should now be looking at a Delta V map of your choice.

  3. 55 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

    They were launched with an AARDV tug that did all the flight and control.

    In my experience, Mechjeb doesn't like it when the RCS thrusters are only on one side of the center of gravity.  I added thrusters to the FRM to make controlling easier for the old Mechanical Jeb.

    @bjornadri If by SLA you mean the fairings used for the Apollo missions, you do have other options if you have Simple Adjustable Fairings installed, which is included with BDB.  The FRM fits perfectly with one of the SAF fairings sized for the Saturn I type rockets.  Just add more segments and tada!  When I get home, I can add another FRM to my station (cause 2 is better, right?) and take some pics of my setup.

  4. 1 hour ago, Gotmachine said:

    "Locking" a robotic part doesn't prevent it from moving...
    Depending on how much mass is attached to it and how the joint is configured, it can move quite easily.
    From my recent tests with that part from BDB, I seem to recall the joint is quite weak.

    This being said, I wouldn't be surprised if there is some stock bug where the servo joint isn't correctly initialized when the servo is locked. In any case, I really doubt this has anything to do with KSPCF.
    I don't have the time to test that right now, but if you have some, can you un-lock, then re-lock, then quit the scene and return back, do you confirm the joint is clearly less strong than it was when you unlocked it ?
    (and ideally, test that with the RoboticsDrift setting option enabled and disabled, to rule out that KSPCF is involved ?)

    I was mistaken with my earlier report.  Looks like the hinge being loose only happens when I approach the station via another vehicle, normal rendezvous operation. 

    So I opened up KSP with the robotic drift fix on, and when I loaded into the station, the PAW was showing the target angle slider even though locked was on and motor was off.  Toggling lock causes the target angle to disappear.  Note:  The hinge was not loose, but I didn't try a rendezvous during this test as I had already seen this happen before anyway with the settings as they were.

    I then decided to close KSP, set the robotic drift fix to false, and start KSP.  Same thing as the first test, PAW shows the target angle even though locked was on and motor was off.  I then undocked the apollo, phased the orbit to force the station to derender, then rendezvoux again, and sure enough the hinge was loose. 

    So this is a bug where KSP will let loose the hinge when you rendezvous with the vessel/station in question.  Possibly mass related as I have quite a bit on the truss hinge.   Note, I haven't tried the stock robotics parts.

  5. Possible bug with the Hokulani (Skylab) truss section from BDB:  When I return to my space station, the truss is unlocked even though the PAW says it's locked.  I set mechjeb to orientate the station in Prograde, and thus the "unlocked" truss will move from momentum.

    Latest version of KSPCommunity Bug Fixes 1.13.2 and latest version of BDB from the dev branch.

  6. 7 hours ago, MashAndBangers said:

    Has anyone made an Infernal Robotics config for the Skylab Truss? 

    The issue I'm having is after putting the Truss into the up position, going to warp causes the stuff on the truss to appear on the opposite side, and coming out of warp then causes the stuff to go back onto the truss as normal, and then the truss violently swings from one position to the other till it loses momentum, like it's spring loaded or something.

    I want to try Infernal Robotics out, but if someone has already made configs for the truss, that can expedite the process.

    The Thrilling conclusion!  I think KSPCommunityFixes robot arm drift fix was causing this as I disabled it before starting up KSP.  Now I can warp with no issue (so far)

    Anyway, here's wonderwall:

    fwPR8Tj.png

    Spoiler

    MCf3fUk.png3rTVtsL.pngt8Xbtf3.png7q9ZVwv.pngeyw6Zhc.pngIRUyKOt.pngsiJPxiw.pngY1XFIy7.pngNbST1st.png

     

  7. Has anyone made an Infernal Robotics config for the Skylab Truss? 

    The issue I'm having is after putting the Truss into the up position, going to warp causes the stuff on the truss to appear on the opposite side, and coming out of warp then causes the stuff to go back onto the truss as normal, and then the truss violently swings from one position to the other till it loses momentum, like it's spring loaded or something.

    I want to try Infernal Robotics out, but if someone has already made configs for the truss, that can expedite the process.

  8. 6 hours ago, G&#x27;th said:

    Welp, I've had pretty much all motivation to do anything for this community completely killed.

    This may or may not continue idk. I can't deal with the toxicity and I can't motivate myself past it at this point.

    Sorry for wasting everyones time.. 

    Trust me, you did not waist our time.  I'm real sorry this community hasn't treated you well.  I hope you can share with us what happened, maybe in DMs. 

    For now, take a break from KSP.  We'll miss you.

  9. 4 hours ago, benjee10 said:

    So to clarify you are welcome to make a part that fits with SOCK & release it however you please, so long as that part doesn't make use of models or textures from SOCK itself. So if you wanted to make your own Buran aft section that works with SOCK that is no problem.

    However, you may want to hold fire:

    screenshot127.png

    There is still a lot to be done on Buran but I'm hoping to get back to it soon. The entire rest of the orbiter needs new textures to fit with the fully-tiled Buran look, and I need to make a new set of front landing gear & a variant of the cargo bay to fit it (Buran's landing gear are on the cargo bay rather than the nose). 

    I'm wondering if people's preference would be for me to release the parts as they are finished (e.g. release just the aft section) or to wait until the whole craft is done. 

    Due to your time constraints, releasing a part into Beta for us to break would be very appreciated.  Then we can give you a ton of compliments and boost your motivation! \o/

     

    Welcome to page 51!

  10. 1 hour ago, CobaltWolf said:

    Yeah I'm still unclear on whether RCS can just work as engines now or not.

    I don't think there's been a Mechjeb update to fix the burn offset.  RCS "can" work as engines, but Mechjeb doesn't calculate the burn start offset properly with just RCS active, thus messing up the whole maneuver and necessitating additional maneuvers to get closer to a target rendezvous.

×
×
  • Create New...