Jump to content

Krafpy

Members
  • Posts

    53
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

61 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Sorry everyone for the terrible delay in my response ! It would be possible. At least, I don't see anything that could prevent me from implementing it in the current software. There is no way for now. I am well aware this should be a feature... I just didn't design the software initially to support that... but it is something I can try to add. I don't think it would actually be that hard for me to implement it, since the excel file contains all the required data to retrieve the full trajectory. For now, it is not possible, and I currently have no idea how to implement that. It doesn't mean that it won't be implemented in the future though. I'm currently pretty busy with my studies. I hope to get some time soon to finish things I promised almost a year ago now... (didn't forget about you @akyyy !) Once again, I apologize for the delay! I began experimenting a bit with a mod version of the software (for KSP1) last year. I put it on hold it during the summer as I failed to fix an issue with orbit calculation (if anyone has some knowledge in mod development and is interested, dm me!). But I believe most of the requested features regarding custom solar systems and game configurations (e.g. system scale) would be implemented much more easily and reliably with a mod version, so I'll probably postpone them for the mod. Though, I'll still try to work on the current web tool if the features don't require too much refactoring of the code base; I'll keep your requests in mind! I'll try to respond to this thread much more often.
  2. @Eddy119 I am not aware if such list exists. Maybe try creating it with KSPTOT ? It might be better at finding launch windows (if you are just looking for that). The best I got with my tool is 1500m/s for KEKKJ (without insertion burn).
  3. Hi @akyyy sorry to hear that Do you mean that if you follow step by step what is indicated by the tool you don't get immediatly the intersections/flybys ? If it's that then it's completely normal. The results (times, maneuvers...) are internally computed with some assumptions and simplifications. It is very unlikely that following the details of the trajectory will give you the exact same one in game. You need to fine tune manually the maneuvers in order to enforce flybys to happen more or less how the tool displays them. I tested with a Ke-Ev-Mo trajectory and when I entered the Ke-Ev maneuver as indicated it didn't even give me an intersections with Eve although the tool computed that it would. However, after I modified a bit the maneuver by hand (about 50~ m/s dV change and moved it later/earlier) I got the intersection. Remember that the tool gives more or less precise idea of what the trajectory would be and what maneuvers to do. I promise I'll do that video tutorial ! sorry for the wait
  4. Hello @Dartio! My tool doesn't support KSRSS for now, you can check @theAstrogoth's tool which has a KSRSS option : https://kerbal-transfer-illustrator.netlify.app/Flyby but it seems to be scale 1/10 Do you have by any chance a link to the Kopernicus config files of the 1/9 scale version ?
  5. Hi ! Thank you for all the information and work you did ! Yes my tool always suppose an equatorial departure orbit, which is pretty bad in terms of dV. I will see if I can make it consider the inclination, or maybe even add the inclination as a part of the optimization process. I want to point out that I have (almost) no control over what trajectory is produced by my tool. It tries to find a trajectory that minimizes the total dV with what is basically a "smart evolutionary trial and error" algorithm generalized for any planet sequence. So it has no idea that good human-found strategies for specific trajectories exist, and can fall in a local minimum.
  6. Hello and thank you for your message @Utkucan ! If you want to have some details on what the tool does internally you can see one of my previous posts : Note that this post describes how the tool worked when I released it. It has some mistakes and the current version has some differences. But this should give you a rough idea at least about "how it calculates an optimal trajectory" (keep in mind also that there is no guarantee that the result is the optimal trajectory). If you want the exact details on how it works now or have specific questions, don't hesitate to ask or even direct message me. I'm not sure if you are talking about the parameters you can change in the user interface (e.g. departure planet, departure date... etc.) or internal parameters in the optimization algorithm. For your second question : I'm not sure about what you mean by "interpret and export them to the game". The tool gives the information of each maneuvers you have to perform and when. You basically have to try to reproduce them in game. However, due to precision and simplification issues, following the steps in game exactly is unlikely to give you the exact same trajectory that the tool shows you. So manual fine tuning is required. This is something someone else already asked in a comment a few weeks ago ( @akyyy). I'm a bit busy and, mainly, don't have a PC that can run KSP decently right now. I'll try to make one as soon as I get the time for it. I hope this helps ! Don't hesitate if you have further questions.
  7. Unless you find a perfect configuration of Kerbin and Eve, it's pretty hard to find a good trajectory that doesn't requires Jool to get in a good position first. I tried with a departure at the beginning of year 6 (Kerbin/Jool opposition) and forced the departure date to be not later than year 10. I get a deltaV of about 2500m/s (without circularization around Jool) with a departure between year 7 and 9. I get about 3000m/s deltaV with a simpler Ke-Ev-Mo trajectory. I think this kind of maneuver is not very well handled by my tool, so it's not very surprising that a good KEKKJ trajectory is hard to find.
  8. I'm excited about absolutely everything. What I love is the sense of exploration and discovery, and I believe that KSP2 with its new graphics, planet details and colony system will bring the exploration experience to a whole new level !
  9. @ducceeh I still can't see the picture, the link isn't working. OPM is an extension to the Stock system, so the settings for the stock planets should remain the same. In the Kopernicus files of OPM ( see here: https://github.com/Poodmund/Outer-Planets-Mod/tree/master/GameData/OPM/KopernicusConfigs ) I can't find any file that would modify stock bodies' data. If you compare the positions of the stock planets between the stock setting and the OPM setting on my tool they are the same at any date. I also checked @theAstrogoth's tool which supports OPM as well ( https://kerbal-transfer-illustrator.netlify.app/ ) and the position of the stock bodies at Y1 D241 seem to be the same as in my tool and as in your first screenshot. Do you use a custom mod by any chance ? or a combination of mods ?
  10. @ducceeh I don't see the in game picture, so I can't really evaluate how large the difference is. One possible reason is that there is an issue in OPM's configuration file, which should have been generated from OPM's Kopernicus files. I'll check that. Can you give the date to which these screenshots correspond to and which planets seem to have the largest difference ? Thanks !
  11. Ah ! Sorry it was a misunderstanding then. My bad ! I would be interested in knowing what's your approach to compute powered swing bys.
  12. @ArrowstarI remember on the screenshots you sent a while ago I only saw Lambert arcs connecting the different encountered bodies, considering flybys as instantaneous events (calculating powered swingbys analytically if I remember correctly), that's what I meant by "doesn't compute the details of in-SOI parts to be displayed". Did you add SOI intersection points and in-SOI trajectories when you display the whole trajectory ? Sorry if my phrasing is bad...
  13. Custom sequence: Ke-Ev-Ke-Ke-Jo Earliest departure: Year 10 Latest departure: Year 20 Departure and destination altitudes: 100km No insertion burn I don't think this input is really useful. You probably just need to run the search several times. It gave me 1350m/s on the third run. A 10 years departure window seems small enough, but I would recommend reducing it down around the dates it gives on the first runs. Keep in mind that you will still have to fine tune the maneuvers in game. The ones the tool give aren't prefectly accurate. Well no tool is perfect. We both use some approximations and use the same evolutionary algorithm (only the settings are different I think).
  14. Yeah it is totally possible to find a better trajectory manually. I just ran my tool again for KEKKJ and I got a 1350m/s delta V this time. Not as good as the 1100m/s of the video, but better than my previous try. From what I know, KSPTOT uses a similar search algorithm (a type of evolutionary algorithm), but I think it doesn't compute the details of in-SOI parts to be displayed, so it has less work to do and has probably more chances of finding good trajectories. You can also try theAstrogoth's tool : https://kerbal-transfer-illustrator.netlify.app/ It has a flyby calculator similar to mine, but uses a different approach at calculating the trajectories. Maybe it could give better results.
×
×
  • Create New...