Jump to content

Tarrow

Members
  • Posts

    195
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tarrow

  1. Personally I use minmus for my kerbin-area refuelling station. It doesn't take much more delta v to get to minmus than it does mun, while getting from the surface of minmus to orbit is much easier on fuel than on mun. If you get lucky and have a good patch of resources on one of the perfectly flat areas of terrain it's about as perfect a site as you'll get
  2. Same issue I've been having, and I've also had no luck disabling ATM for USI via the config edit. It's weird how clearing the cache sorts it out for a short while though.
  3. I've had a look and that tank is not linked to any action groups that I can see - we've got elevons on groups one through three, winglet toggle on group four, and the expected parts in gear / lights / brakes groups. No action group linked to the solar panels either
  4. Looks like the Mk2 Monopropellant tank mounted at the rear of the ship is disabled in the stock ship save file for the Learstar A1. Caused a bit of a brown-trousers moment when the engines cut out after using 90 of the 390 units of RCS fuel it's carrying (relevant lines from the craft file, line 2046 seems to be the cause of the issue) { name = MonoPropellant amount = 300 maxAmount = 300 flowState = False <--- This bit here isTweakable = True hideFlow = False flowMode = Both }
  5. About 1.8gb on a completely fresh install from steam with the graphics turned up
  6. "Sorry, the server migration failed, and for some reason our supplier deleted the backups of the old servers - we've got to start again....." (insert the sounds of screams echoing across the globe) "Only kidding... HYPE!!"
  7. 3 yrs 16 days. And it's been worth every second <stuffs fingers in ears> Nyaa nyaa I can't hear you I can't hear you
  8. The programming team from Squad are not responsible for the devlopment of the game engine. That's down to the Unity developers, and so far despite years of effort they've yet to produce a stable 64 bit exe file for windows.
  9. A few weeks ago an end to x64 support was announced, and a few days later (for those who installed through steam) the x64 executable was removed from existing v0.90 installs. Texture management sounds like a jet engine the first time it's run on my system too. It converts the texture files using all your CPU cores, so it'll be one of the rare situations where the CPU is completely 100% loaded. Only happens during the first load though, on later loadings it uses the cached size-reduced textures How many mods are you running anyway? I stopped counting after the first 20-odd in the logfile. If many of those are particularly parts & texture heavy you might just have to cut back on a few.
  10. "DynamicHeapAllocator out of memory - Could not get memory for large allocationCould not allocate memory: System out of memory" from towards the bottom of your log file. You're also getting "d3d: failed to create 2D texture id=6373 w=1024 h=640 mips=1 d3dfmt=22 [out of memory]. No Texture memory available to upload" Sounds like you're running out of both main system memory (either not enough ram in system, or hitting the top memory limt of the 32bit game engine) and graphics memory (too many textures). Is that part of the report where it says you're using a Radeon 7500 accurate? Give the active texture mod and / or some low resolution texture packs a shot. I've had that cut a huge amount out of the memory consumption for the game. Otherwise you'll have to start removing unused parts or slimming down on the number of mods you're running.
  11. Clock Speeds: 1: 800.00 MHz 2: 2401.00 MHz 3: 800.00 MHz 4: 800.00 MHz 5: 800.00 MHz 6: 800.00 MHz 7: 800.00 MHz 8: 800.00 MHz Sensors: System Temperatures: cpu: 64.0C mobo: N/A gpu: 0.0:69C Fan Speeds (in rpm): cpu: N/A Personally I find these lines from your log more than a little concerning. Are those temps & frequencies what it puts out under full load, or is that what it's idling at?
  12. The wikipedia article on electrocommunication gives a couple of really good examples of species already functionally capable of communicating at range via am / fm / waveform shape modulation of electrical signals. Of all things electric eels seem to have it pretty well organised The world is an infinitely stranger place than we give it credit for. edit: and even weirder, some use it in an active transmit / recieve mode in much the same way that radar would work. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrocommunication http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroreception
  13. If it's version 4.5 that could well explain the issues with the AMD graphics cards...
  14. That link doesn't go to an error log I'm afraid, it takes you to an empty file (2 byte size) called "report.ini" that was uploaded to mediafire in November 2013.
  15. Somewhere like c:\games should work fine. Bob, did you drag the mechjeb2 folder into your gamedata folder, or the contents of the mechjeb2 folder into gamedata?
  16. Ahhh that does indeed simplify it. So that's a 25% propellant mass increase required when going from LH2/LOX to meth/LOX to maintain a given power output?
  17. The oxidiser / fuel masses for a shuttle external tank are directly taken from NASA's website, 692 tonnes liquid oxygen, 105 tonnes liquid hydrogen, empty container weight 26 1/2 tonnes (link here http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/63752main_ET_Overview_Wanda_print.pdf). I do see your point regarding the ISP taking the difference in fuel / oxidiers ratios into account though, that's purely a thrust-per-unit-mass-propellant calculation. I'd overlooked that, my apologies. The stoich ratios look spot on, but I've not factored in the difference in fuel MWs to adjust the fuel / oxygen masses correctly. Serves me right for posting before coffee I'll rework it properly now and correct it
  18. It's worth remembering that in something like the external fuel / oxidiser tank of the space shuttle the dry mass of the entire tank setup is a hair under 3.5% of the mass of the filled tank. You can make all the weight-saving designs you want for a fuel tank - it'll never achieve much more than a 3.5% weight saving. Why hydrogen over methane? Hydrogen burns at a ratio of 2:1 with oxygen (2H2 + O2 > H2O). Methane burns at a 1:2 ratio with oxygen (CH4 + 2O2 > 2H2O + CO2). So methane requires four times as much oxygen to burn as hydrogen, for roughly the same energy output per unit mass of fuel that undergoes combustion. Using a space shuttle external tank as an example (again), liquid oxygen already makes up the bulk of the mass (630 tonnes of the 760 tonne filled weight). The whole shuttle ready for launch weighs about 2,030 tonnes. You would need an additional 1,890 tonnes of oxidiser on board to fuel it on liquid methane. And lifting that is gonna be an issue (edit: completely messed up the maths on the weight change, reworking that out now - ignore this last bit)
  19. Lexus RX 450h (the rear brakes, to be specific). They're brake-by-wire, so there's no physical connection between the brake pedal and the brake calipers. Without the right manufacturer-specific tool plugged into the diagnostic port you cant wind or press back the brake pistons to fit the new, thicker pads - valves in the abs system block flow to & from the rear calipers when the vehicle is stationary or turned off. You can't bleed the brakes or change the brake fluid without it either - else the brake hydraulic controller interperets the opening of a bleed nipple with the car electronics active as "the pressure from my brake pump has just dropped, ALL POWER TO THE PUMPS!". Then the bleed nipple starts venting brake fluid at several hundred psi. It's fair to say that when it comes to hybrids & electric vehicles the only people fully informed and equipped to maintain them are the manufacturers own garages. Self-drive systems are going to be the same. The manufacturer can charge whatever they want for maintenance, beacuse only they can do the work. A company as large as Apple (with as much spare cash as they have) would have to be silly not to have looked into it at one point or another.
  20. As someone who spent many years in a lab working on proving or disproving peoples claims my view (shared in general amongst the scientific community) is this - from a scientific standpoint it's laughable to claim that you've achieved something that no-one else has without presenting some evidence.
  21. Quick answer? No. There's no evidence whatsoever that Lockheed Martin are any nearer achieving fusion than any of the research groups that've been attempting it for decades.
  22. Trust me, plenty of cars have issues that're only resolvable with specialist equipment only available to the manufacturer. You can't even change the brake pads on a current generation hybrid Lexus without scan tools that're restricted to Toyota & Lexus dealerships. Apple can't make a phone that doesn't crash on a regular basis. Would you really be willing to trust their software deveoplers with the lives of passengers & other road users? 'Cause you just know they'd do their best to wiggle out of any liability when their code outright kills someone.
  23. I'd have thought that the next logical step from solid rocket motors would be a hybrid rocket using solid propellant and a liquid / gaseous oxidiser (i.e. a big metal tube packed with high-density rubber as fuel, and a big bottle of nitrous as the oxidiser). They're technically much simpler than a pure liquid setup, requiring no turbopumps only a single solenoid-controlled actuator to handle oxidiser flow. Which country do you intend launching from out of interest? Because I've never heard of a goverment willing to allow a launch of a rocket system, or anything airbourne for that matter, that they haven't had full specification information on. Note that is isn't just local government that you'd need to get permission from either - you'd have to deal with the police (storage of explosive devices / rocket fuel mixtures), the national agencies handling air traffic control (on a per-launch basis) and a handfull of other groups. Here in the UK (as well as a significant part of the rest of Europe) what your proposing would far exceed the allowable weight classes for amateur rocketry and would land you in jail.
  24. the equation would be Where G is the gravitational constant (6.67x10-11), m1 is the mass of the planet and r is the radius of the planet. Use a value of 1 for m2 and that'll give you how many newtons of force act on a 1kg mass. Using the figures for earth (roughly) m1 would be 5.98x1024kg, r would be 6.38x106m. Thereforre F for an m2 value of 1 would be = (6.67x10-11 x 5.98x1024) / (6.38x106)2 F = 9.799 N (fairly accurate, depending on the quality of the planet mass / radius information you have)
×
×
  • Create New...