ArkaelDren
-
Posts
286 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by ArkaelDren
-
-
@Nertea How would I turn all tanks that have boiloff into ZBO tanks? I like the idea of using the realistic effects of dealing with these fuels, but I don't like the tanks that have a constant boiloff with no way of controlling the rate. I just want to have all of these types of fuel tanks require electrical cooling. Several of the tanks I use boiloff and cant be used for long duration flights, except I really enjoy some of these tanks and need them for those long duration flights. I have read as much of the cfg files I can but only understand the basics. With in the CryoTanksFuelTankSwitcher and the CryoTanksModularFuelTanks I have read,
"Adds ModuleCryoTank to CryoTanks included built in ZBO tanks." with the module,
MODULE
{
name = ModuleCryoTank
// in Ec per 1000 units per second
CoolingEnabled = True
BOILOFFCONFIG
{
FuelName = LqdHydrogen
// in % per hr
BoiloffRate = 0.05
CoolingCost = 0.05
}
BOILOFFCONFIG
{
FuelName = LqdMethane
// in % per hr
BoiloffRate = 0.005
CoolingCost = 0.02
}
}
}and the other that includes the extra line "CoolingCost = 0.05"
MODULE
{
name = ModuleCryoTank
// in Ec per 1000 units per second
CoolingCost = 0.05
CoolingEnabled = True
BOILOFFCONFIG
{
FuelName = LqdHydrogen
// in % per hr
BoiloffRate = 0.05
CoolingCost = 0.09
}
BOILOFFCONFIG
{
FuelName = LqdMethane
// in % per hr
BoiloffRate = 0.005
CoolingCost = 0.045
}
}What do I have to change to make all tanks ZBO to give me control of all tanks that use evaporative fuels?
Thanks as always. Even though I have made it clear to many times, thank you for Keeping KSP fun for this community. At this point your name is synonymous with my KSP play times. I haven't started a playthrough with out your name being attached to it for 90% of my time.
-
Sorry about the Necro but I could not find a thread showing you had taken control of this mod, if you have? Linux I couldn't agree more to an update for this mod. These RCS sounds really are enjoyable to listen to instead of the stock ones which are indeed.... horrible. If you can spare the time in that already immense portfolio of Mods you maintain it would be appreciated.
-
Any one know if the license has been relaxed on this mod? If any one knows how to contact the owner, it would be great if some one picked this up and made it available to the community. Its a great little mod that deserves to stay alive and offering those of us that play stock size, relatively Arcadish versions of KSP. I say "Arcadish" lightly as KSP cant really be considered "Arcadish" at all. Linux if your out their, take a look at this one to see what you can do.
Thanks to all of you that have created these wonderful Mods. Most of us only still play due to your hard work and creativity.
So Thank You very much.
-
Hey Nert, its been a long time. Amazed and thankful your still here sticking with it and making our game so much better to play. Enough praise and sounding like a Kiss A$$ but KSP and Nertea go hand and hand. Could I get a link to the old capacitor skins please. The older versions were just better in my opinion. Again man, cant say it enough, thanks for the hard work you put in.
-
I have used the winch, with a high ejection force and length, to shoot the grappling hook to a mountain climb that my rover wasn't capable of ascending. I have also connected the grappling hook to the edge of a cliff and winched my rover down to the bottom. I have built major Rovers with trailers, cranes as well as all manor of winching needs. How ever without the grappling hook I would have to get out, climb the cliff, attach a pilon, attach the winch to pilon to get my rovers up the mountains. I NEED THE GRAPPLE HOOK good sir.
One last thing PLEASE, could you bring back the insitu struts. I always put them on my ships that have docking ports. 3-4 way placement with the same on the intended docking craft. EVA out and link them up. It gave me one more reason, thing to do while building and flying.
-
When watching some youtube channels, you get the guy saying things like, "Hey you gotta smash that like button" in the tone of a 5 year old with enough volume to jump your headphones off your ears. I was wishing I could smash the like button for this pack and its advertisement value. Nice job and thank you, hope it plays well. Been missing one since Bobcat days.
-
I was just coming to scan a bit of the thread and got a glimpse of the patience you must need @Kartoffelkuchen . Reminds me of having 8-10 kids that are five to six years old, at a birthday party, surrounding you. Sorry buddy, Thanks a ton for your hard work.
-
My Dad was Chief of Flight Operations for a major airline. He used to be responsible for 1300 pilots. He told me once, that he would bring in certain pilots with a similar personality trait that I believe you have. He would fire them, then give no explanation or reason. Of course it was all in a brief for the pilot in question. So then I asked him why, he said, "Because they would attempt to argue with you". I think people that are inherently disagreeable make great lawyers, but not to much for an industry that needs people that can "make a decision, build the thing, test it all up, then iterate ". to quote Tater. Zoo buddy, I am going back to listening to Chris Cornell sing a few of my favorite songs, click the old close button, and forget your name.
Tater, hate to point you out as I am kinda a bad example to be associated with
but thanks for your attempts at some great subjectivity.
-
I can't believe someone would quote me on a misstep of sts launch numbers. I am not a politician or public figure that needs scrutinizing. The STS-51-L was the correct number and everyone can see or look it up.
I know I am a horrible representative. The point I don't think I'm relaying here, is the impact a company like SpaceX has had on the "Entire" Industry. Ask anyone off the street back in 2010 "Hey, ever heard of SpaceX", most would be clueless. Try it now. Wasn't one of the main reasons for the Space Program to provide support for itself? I suppose someone could twist words around well enough to say "No". If I have learned one thing about the internet, its that someone out their will take my words(Cause I suck at writing)and twist them for their own agenda. Tater can you explain to me, why its not cool to be a Fan Boy of a man like Elon musk? By no means am I asking you because I think your on SpaceX's side, I see you being objective. Guys I am not hear to be right, nor am I here to get people to like what I say. I am here to learn, to see good objective discussion. How can anyone compare SpaceX to NASA? You cant. They are entirely different beasts. But you can say, SpaceX has been one of the best ventures to come along, for the future of space travel, in a very very long time. Why would anyone argue that?
-
I know this is a thread primarily about the SLS program, but I couldn't help after reading many of ZooNamedGames comments.
After reading this entire thread, I am amazed at some of the "flame" sent Musks way as well as some super natural way of ignoring what SpaceX has achieved. I come no way near the understanding or knowledge base of the material at hand, but maybe someone with a bit more vision (Yep Vision) could define the achievements made by SpaceX over the last decade. What I have seen from Elon Musk, is a bit of an over zealous time schedule, but almost "EVERYTHING" that man has claimed they will do, they have. You can take every technical spec, data sheet, test results based on real time testing, or virtual, and what I see is people forgetting the Human factor. The desire to be inspirational exc. I love Nasa, and watched 2 shuttle launches, was sitting in my science teachers class during the loss of STS-41-D. I believed getting rid of the shuttle was a mistake, due to the fact, we at least had an incredible functioning flight system getting people to and from the ISS. Now I can easily profess to be a complete SpaceX/Tesla fan boy, and I don't think saying so is a bad thing. Maybe this is because, no one company has done as much to disrupt and place a positive outlook on its field as much as "Tesla" or "SpaceX". Just happens to be run by the same visionary..... yeah both companies. So maybe, the next time you think of slamming SpaceX, you might want to consider how much they have done for the advancement of the industry. Again, I love Nasa, but if you go by SpaceX's track record alone, for their pure speed and performance record, the simple Human drive to change the world, then my money is on SpaceX.
Just 2 cents given here. I really don't care what people think of my comments, because at the end of the day, my opinion means about as much as yours. Hell, in my case, yours probably has quite a bit more technical relevance. But it has been a complete Joy watching a good guy win again for a change. Side note, my favorite parts packs are with out a doubt, SLS variants. I used Bobcats for a couple years.
-
Why do these download links dump me into Addfly?
-
Tried and ran into the same issues most of you are facing. In the alt f12 log I am seeing a constant spam with a typical line of something invalid and not loading. Until this is fixed, our dreams of a clean outer planets mod is done for. PLEASE FIX, as this is a most important feature for some of us. Being able to be immersed into the higher fidelity of these beautiful planets and bodies are all that we can ignore.
Dren, from Beautiful Cascade Mountain Range in Oregon.
-
On 5/9/2018 at 1:50 PM, Nertea said:
Perhaps the better question is something along the lines of "why add LqdOxygen"? If the only answer is realism then that's insufficient. Time for a long blurb.
In my current gameplay paradigm (which has evolved over time, but is stabilizing), a new fuel type only brings value if has particular gameplay concepts that are different than other fuels'. A lot of my mods did not build on this, which is why it's a bit of a mess in NFP (fuels that shouldn't exist by this paradigm). The effective gameplay (in a non RO context) ways of differentiating fuels:
- Density: affects ship design significantly in terms of ship size
- ISRU factors: affects mission design if the production chain for the resource differs or if it is limited in presence
- Boiloff: affects mission deign and adds ship design-based mitigation strategies
- Transport factors: transferability and similar affect how the resource is actually used (eg solid fuel)
- Cost: a poor differentiator because a) KSP cost balance sucks and b) sandbox doesn't care
- Tank mass ratio: a poor differentiator as it is effectively a scalar on mass and Isp.
- Engine selection: a poor criteria but should be mentioned because it drives reasons to use the fuels. For example, Oxidizer is a bit more valid of a fuel because LiquidFuel can be used in some cases without Oxidizer.
Typically IMO a new fuel type should not be added unless it provides a new challenge when used. Ideally it should hit at least 2 of these factors. My current fuel lineup looks like this, and you can see why I am only partly happy with it based on the above:
- LH2: Fairly good differentiation with 2 strong and 2 weak factors (boiloff, density, engine selection, mass ratio)
- Argon: moderate differentiation, probably shouldn't exist - 1 strong, 2 weak (ISRU, cost, engine selection)
- Lithium: Poorly differentiated, should never have added it (ISRU, engine selection)
- Uranium: Decent (ISRU, Transport, cost, mass ratio, engine selection)
Now adding LqdOxygen and looking at it in these terms:
- Similar density to oxidizer so not great
- Presumably same ISRU properties as LH2/Oxidizer/LF. if different, would need more models/work
- Boiloff as LH2 - slightly different as presumably slower
- Same transport factors as any liquid fuel
- Cost not considerably different
- Mass ratio not significantly different to Oxidizer
- Engine selection limited to LH2 engines - already a gating factor to LH2 engines
The only real reason that works is engine selection - and to effectively use this, you would need to use this resource in other engines that are non-LH2, because said engines are already gated by LH2. It is my considered opinion that using LH2 in these engines is basically only a naming change and doesn't really affect gameplay. Hope that answers your question :D.
That being said, the boiloff code completely supports multiple types of fuels and is customizable to do whatever you like, as per one of the items in the FAQ specifically addressing LqdOxygen.
Sorry man, got to reply to this as a Thx. Its helpful to get good education in regards to realism as well as plain enjoyment due to correct gameplay information. My nose is not shading brown, I really do enjoy your info and great involvement in our community Nert.
-
16 hours ago, Gameslinx said:
You mean trees and rocks?
I don't put these in my configs yet as I don't use them myself, nor do that many people (as it heavily impacts performance). These may come some time later.
Oh man
I do so much rover exploration and base set ups that I just love ground clutter. It breaks up the long trips doing the "Megellan" routine. I guess I can scavenge some from other packs and try to figure out how to make it happen. I think I am going to try and record some missions in the bad A$$ vehicles I make, in an attempt to inspire you to make em. I really have tried to learn how to do this stuff over the last 6-7 years but I have only made it so far. I build LSA airplanes for the bored and wealthy with my Brother, its a "Hands on" kinda deal with intricate prints/fabrication. Computer stuff has come much harder, worse now that I'm damn old. My over sharing Quota for the month..... 
Thx Linx, loving the pack.
-
Real quick question Linx, I cant seem to find any ground clutter. Settings are all correct, every mod and function is working..... just no ground clutter?
-
5 hours ago, IgorZ said:
All new winches will use the new textures. And the old winches will be completely deprecated eventually (I don't plan to support the old KAS parts forever). I'd strongly suggest to simply switch to the new parts as soons as the 1.0 version is out of beta
Oh yeah, already using the beta. Got one problem though. I use the non powered robotics hinges to create "Trailer" hitches instead of KAS due to the fact they don't dock, so I cant power the trailer wheels/tracks. I need all the power I can get climbing mountains. Can you make the Tow Bar docking optional? Also the Cable stays(Mini Winches)don't offer much strength in comparison to a good strut. Is their a way to make them a bit less elastic? Sorry if its been asked.
Thx man, loving the direction.
-
Small request IgorZ, would love to see the winch cable texture from KAS beta 1.0 on all winches. I know its a minor detail but I love the winch cable textures you made. Really... they look very cool when I am building a recovery winch ground mount to turn one of my rovers back to upright.
-
5 hours ago, Gameslinx said:
My bad, I forgot i removed the Spacedock download. Here you go:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/mp9z2qe462t8997/GPO Resources.zip?dl=0
Instructions: Extract contents of ZIP to GPO/Configs
No worries bud, thx again for helping.
-
On 4/22/2018 at 1:22 PM, Gameslinx said:
Download an older version of GPO, try version 2.0 (anything before 3 probably) and you can find the resources.cfg there.
I removed it because it caused kerbnet bugs, and the game generates them randomly anyway
Yeah I tried to play with the current version and it basically spammed a standard ratio of most resources over the entire planet. All those resources were exactly the same as far as complete planet coverage. To bad it has conflicts with Kerbnet. Thx man for answering, will download and older version for the resource files.
edit: Tried looking for an older version, github only took me to the previous versions of 3.0, don't suppose you have a link to the older versions?
-
On 4/19/2018 at 7:52 AM, Gameslinx said:
There are no resource configs as of yet because it stops Kerbnet from working. As far as I am aware, the resources still generate (just not confined to the boundaries of a config)
I fear that you are closer to the truth than you think
I really, I mean really needed to get a new planet pack. I'm not gonna say to much, but GPP has reached its end for me. Resources are critical for me, I need to be able to use ScanSat and hunt down resources so it gives me reason to make bases and outposts on different planets. Please bud, create them for your pack. I have tried but every time it becomes a complete failure, well not a complete one, but yeah. I know this is just another request from some random community member, but I think it would add a lot of value to your pack.
Thx again for your work.
-
On 4/18/2018 at 3:55 PM, Nertea said:
I've had no reports of this. Can you be more specific?
Kerbalism problems should be taken to the Kerbalism thread for sure, you'll get better support. I don't really provide such support for Kerbalism due to it being a beast with hundreds of tentacles and claws at the end of the tentacles.
Sorry, let me explain. If you use one of the vertical style landing platforms, the tank/pod exc will slowly move around on top of the platform like its not firmly attached. The older Aies landing legs did this for a long time, then someone patched them and now they again behave like intended. Bud I wish I had a vid, or even knew how to show you one once I made it.
-
Hey Gameslinx, love the pack and just grabbed it after searching for a pack other than GPP. I am concerned about the Resources though as I like using Scansat and MKS exc. Do the custom resources generate, or will we need to wait till you update them? I mean if your going to update them. Man if this has been asked recently or answered, I am sorry, the search function doesn't help much and I did read quite a few pages before deciding to ask.
Thx man, as I have said to this great modding community many many times, if it wasn't for you guys, KSP would be long dead by now.
-
Hey Nert, hope stuff is going well for you. I looked back about 6 pages and couldn't find a question or answer with regards to the landing platforms having that really loose node attached issue. Reminds of the way the Aies landing legs looked like they were attached with rubber bands. Any ideas from anyone? Or is this something I have installed that is creating the issue. None of the other landing legs I have installed are exhibiting the same problem, all very stable node connections.
Thx Nert, loving all the Near Future Packs buddy.
-
On 3/27/2018 at 1:15 PM, COL.R.Neville said:
there is a stock dimension of this as well if you guys didnt know
https://spacedock.info/mod/706/Space Launch System Stock Dimension
just have to take the ships apart and put them back together again.
Yep, only a couple problems. Missing a few parts like the drogue chutes, better Orion capsule exc. Even with the lower part count its 500+mb with the RSS version having better textures at 200+mb. I get it, OP designed and created the pack for RSS. Wont ever get the love for stock with this being the case. No big deal, lots of great launcher packs.
Thx for the Mod pack Sobol. Great work regardless.
One last thing PLEASE, could you bring back the insitu struts. I always put them on my ships that have docking ports. 3-4 way placement with the same on the intended docking craft. EVA out and link them up. It gave me one more reason, thing to do while building and flying.
but thanks for your attempts at some great subjectivity.
[1.2.X] Horizon Aeronautics - Zenit 3SLB Redux
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted · Edited by ArkaelDren
Necro again with another great old Mod. Anyone interested in the Zenit line, this is a mod that was done very well. Just thought I would bring it back out again to see if someone with the know-how could get it running again. It is very well done and one of the only dedicated mods for the Zenit 3 SLB.
Edit: Tested it out and other than a couple of minor details like the craft file needing an update and during launch, the fairings explode instead of separating, it appears to be working.