Sandworm
-
Posts
1,009 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Sandworm
-
-
Having an issue with latest release (3.3.19.3 on linux). Button in editor is there non-functional. Shortcut keys also not working. Odd, because I have the button and similar mods are working (EER, transfer window planner etc). I'm fiddling around trying to work it out.
-
Thanks for the work and the great textures.
My only issue is that it doesn't resize well (using Kopernicus+SigmaDimensions). On a larger-scaled system some things just break, ie Jool's rings disappear as they do not scale. On the other hand, the aurora's do scale but not proportionately, leaving them a green halo far above the planet. The 'glow' does scale, but at a 10x solar system it becomes a thick fog around every body. I don't mean to criticize, rather just to post this info here for anyone else in the same boat. Scatterer also doesn't work well at larger scales.
Solutions I'm employing: No scatterer. Delete all the 'glow' objects from the KETO cfg. Manually reduce the altitudes of auroras and increase altitudes for Jool's rings.
-
Marketing / advertising / listing a game using "KSP" and such ==>> Clear trademark infringement.
But the game itself, even though very similar to KSP, is not any sort of copyright infringement. So-called "look and feel" is outside copyright protection. Without going into the copyright v. patent lecture, remember that KSP/Squad do not own the concept of flight sims, or even of building your own aircraft from parts. MS flight simulator was doing that sort of thing back in the 90s (customization of aircraft using stock parts). And nobody owns physics. The fact that an author states that they take inspiration from something doesn't mean that they have copied anything that is protected. The root issue with all simulations is that, as they get closer to reality, they all start looking the same.
That said, this guy seems to have a much more mature approach to the concept. I hope he runs with it and/or someone hires him. I'd pay for a more accurate/realworld version of the KSP concept.
-
Don't worry, none of this is classified info. All is available on public websites. Many civilian jobs (SAR people, airline pilots) take these courses:
Sea Survival(4 days):
The first two days are general "air crew" training for what to do when an aircraft ditches in water, group drills involving survival suits and 10-man rafts. Then come two days on post-ejection sea survival. This involves being dragged behind a boat to practice getting out of a parachute, then climbing into the one-man raft that inflates when a pilot ejects. In top gun you see tom cruise in one when goose dies. Count the SIX rafts and one boat in the pic. It was a cold rainy day in those things. For a closer (in a pool) view see: http://www.luke.af.mil/News/Photos/igphoto/2000842068/ Canada doesn't have the big bucks for fancy heated pools. We practiced in the ocean. Note the black rafts and inflated vests. Sometimes we don't want to be found. You won't see black survival gear outside the military.
Hypoxia Training (5 days):
This isn't what you think. This isn't like holding your breath. You don't feel/smell anything. It's like breathing helium. For most people it feels like getting drunk. This is about recognizing the symptoms and activating the emergency O2 equipment. In this pic the chamber is at 10,000-feet atmospheric pressure. The safety people in the chamber don't need to use masks. We pilots are being fed a mix of reduced oxygen to simulate 25,000. It is perfectly safe so long as you switch over to O2 once you realize what's happening. We also did some rapid decompression stuff which was fun but less safe.
Look closely at the pic. We are playing games on those iPads. The color stuff on the walls is for recognizing visual symptoms. The vertical yellow levers switch between the two gas sources. Beside each pilot is a panel (see link) that can switch on an emergency mode where the O2 is actually forces into your lungs. Imaging breathing in reverse.
http://www.cobham.com/media/1669312/OR0050 Oxygen Regulator.jpg
I have several rounds of actual flying school booked this year. That's where the real fun starts.
-
Another update for those who care:
My practical training has begun in earnest. I've just finished sea survival school (the post-ejection one-man raft stuff) and some work in pressure chambers playing around with hypoxia and rapid decompression. Phase one flight school starts next month, with phase two later in the year. It will be just over a year before they decide whether I am to fly helicopters (50%) transports (25%) or fighters (25%).
If anyone has questions about pilot training, being an officer, or about the military in general please do not hesitate to pm me.
-
1 minute ago, blowfish said:
For the fairing itself, you have an "Auto-Deploy Fairing" toggle, for the decoupler you have the "Decoupler: Disable Staging" action (again, you may have to turn on advanced tweakables, I don't remember).
I'm interested to know why the auto-deploy doesn't work for your purposes though. Could you explain that to me?
Because on long launches I often want to drop the fairing long before decoupling the payload. Or sometimes I just want to keep the fairing base attached.
-
2 hours ago, blowfish said:
Yes. The idea is that the fairings will auto-deploy (but not decouple the payload) at the correct altitude, then you will later stage to deploy the payload. But this is configurable - you can disable the auto-deploy if you want, and turn off decouple on stage (this might require advanced tweakables, not sure)
I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing the bases decoupling the payload simultaneously with the fairings.
-
Are all the fairing bases also meant to decouple on activation?
-
Callsign? No. that is a couple years away, once im qualified to fly something armed.
There are some very kerbal things here. in one hall there are boxes labeled "aircraft engine - DO NOT DROP". Our biulding is also very new and clean. The various perfect yellow lines on the grey floor looks much like the ksc.
-
Update: I graduated and am now a Second Lieutenant in the Royal Canadian Air Force. I have been attached to a helicopter squadron on Vancouver island. Ill be with them for a period of months while I wait for flight school. I'm not piloting anything yet but am here to learn about flight operations and air force procedures. It's not flight school but I do wear a flight suit to work. My desk is feet from giant helicopters and most everyone I work with is either a military pilot or aircrew.
-
Final update: Goodbye!
I fly east for basic training tomorrow morning, three months of running around in the woods doing pushups. But after that military flight school.
-
Some have asked me for more information. While I'm limited by various rules, there is lots of info online:
Job Requirements/Qualifications:
http://www.forces.ca/en/job/pilot-32The Big Test: (Where KSP helps, >90% failure rate)
http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/cf-aircrew-selection-centre/candidate-guide.pageBasic training*: (Where I go next, 50% wash-out rate)
http://www.forces.ca/en/page/training-90My path after basic: (Another 50% wash-out rate in first phase)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_Flying_Training_in_CanadaRecent grad video for "fast-jet" trainee pilots about to move on to jet trainers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKEqrVxdCmo
*Canadian forces are "combined". Army/Navy/AF all go to basic training together. This is strange for those more familiar with the US system of distinct branches of service. All pilots work in the AF and start at the same flight school. A helicopter on a ship is flown by an AF pilot. The upside is that all aircraft programs are open to all pilot candidates. If you have your heart set on a particular airframe you don't have to worry about enlisting in the wrong service.
-
6 hours ago, pap1723 said:
@Sandworm thanks for the updates! Does this include the most recent of the Tantares updates?
I think so ... I haven't check every part. I just started a new save and noticed that parts seemed scattered. I fixed the ones I noticed but cannot promise anything. I haven't looked at the TantaresLV parts.
-
Update: I have made it. I'm scheduled for fly east for officer training next month, followed by flight school in August.
Unlike the American system, application to the combined Canadian Armed Forces is a very long and involved process, with pilot being by far the most rigorous. I've been bounced across the country several times, done many interviews, passed numerous background and been subject to every medical check not involving knives. It took years. If anyone wants to ask any questions about the application process I'll answer if I can. In a few weeks I'll disappear for months and will likely not be able to speak about much of anything for a long while.
In a year or so, I might be doing this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKEqrVxdCmo
If I have any input on callsign "Jebediah" and "Kerbal" are on my list.
-Sandworm
-
Any chance of a patch to modify the high/low altitudes in space? As it is the stock heights remain. That's OK around kerbin. 250km can be worked with, but on Duna the low/high orbit line is inside the atmosphere.
-
Some small edits for Tantares parts. Some of this is my opinion, but things like primitive docking parts should imho come before the better stock parts, and parts meant to work together shouldn't be so far away in the tree.
@PART[Tantares_Habitation_2|Tantares_Orbital_2]:NEEDS[Tantares]:AFTER[Tantares]:FOR[zzzzHPTechTree] { @TechRequired = advancedMotors } @PART[Tantares_Habitation_1|Tantares_Orbital_1]:NEEDS[Tantares]:AFTER[Tantares]:FOR[zzzzHPTechTree] { @TechRequired = advConstruction } @PART[Tantares_Parachute_1]:NEEDS[Tantares]:AFTER[Tantares]:FOR[zzzzHPTechTree] { @TechRequired = specializedConstruction } @PART[Tantares_Crew_1]:NEEDS[Tantares]:AFTER[Tantares]:FOR[zzzzHPTechTree] { @TechRequired = commandModules } @PART[Libra_LFO_1]:NEEDS[Tantares]:AFTER[Tantares]:FOR[zzzzHPTechTree] { @TechRequired = advFuelSystems } @PART[Libra_Crew_1]:NEEDS[Tantares]:AFTER[Tantares]:FOR[zzzzHPTechTree] { @TechRequired = advLanding } @PART[Tantares_DockingMechanism_2|Tantares_Port_2]:NEEDS[Tantares]:AFTER[Tantares]:FOR[zzzzHPTechTree] { @TechRequired = specializedConstruction } @PART[Tantares_DockingMechanism_1|Tantares_Port_1]:NEEDS[Tantares]:AFTER[Tantares]:FOR[zzzzHPTechTree] { @TechRequired = precisionEngineering } @PART[Tantares_Decoupler_1]:NEEDS[Tantares]:AFTER[Tantares]:FOR[zzzzHPTechTree] { @TechRequired = advConstruction } @PART[Libra_Antenna_1|Libra_Antenna_2]:NEEDS[Tantares]:AFTER[Tantares]:FOR[zzzzHPTechTree] { @TechRequired = electronics } @PART[Tantares_Engine_1|Tantares_Engine_2]:NEEDS[Tantares]:AFTER[Tantares]:FOR[zzzzHPTechTree] { @TechRequired = heavierRocketry } @PART[Libra_RCS_1]:NEEDS[Tantares]:AFTER[Tantares]:FOR[zzzzHPTechTree] { @TechRequired = miniaturization } @PART[Libra_Ladder_1|Libra_Leg_1]:NEEDS[Tantares]:AFTER[Tantares]:FOR[zzzzHPTechTree] { @TechRequired = precisionEngineering } @PART[Libra_Engine_1|Libra_Nesting_1]:NEEDS[Tantares]:AFTER[Tantares]:FOR[zzzzHPTechTree] { @TechRequired = propulsionSystems } @PART[Tantares_Antenna_1|Tantares_SolarBasic_1_L|Tantares_SolarBasic_1_R|Tantares_SolarBasic_2_L|Tantares_SolarBasic_2_R|Tantares_SolarStandard_1|Tantares_SolarStandard_2]:NEEDS[Tantares]:AFTER[Tantares]:FOR[zzzzHPTechTree] { @TechRequired = specializedElectrics } @PART[Tantares_RCS_1|Tantares_RCS_2|Tantares_RCS_3|Tantares_RCS_4]:NEEDS[Tantares]:AFTER[Tantares]:FOR[zzzzHPTechTree] { @TechRequired = unmannedTech }Also, new listing for nearfuture's largest command pod:
@PART[mk4-1pod]:NEEDS[NearFutureSpacecraft]:AFTER[NearFutureSpacecraft]:FOR[zzzzHPTechTree] { @TechRequired = advancedMotors } -
2 minutes ago, Starman4308 said:
By comparison, I think the Space Shuttle main tank had a ratio of 1/50, so pressurized gas tanks are still significantly behind conventional liquid propellant tanks. Plus, I'm pretty sure the ratios get worse for lighter gases*, as each mol of gas inside your tank has less overall mass.
*Xenon is expensive.
Well, the link was to a xenon tank. So the ratio won't be any worse than 1/20, and certainly nowhere near KSP's 1/2 ratio. Xenon is a heavy gas. As for cost, it's roughly 1$ per gram, or 1000$ per kilo. That isn't cheap, but the tank will still likely cost more to build and install than the gas it carries. The extended service life permitted by Xenon means that sat owners realy couldn't care less about its cost per kilo.
-
"... carbon composite pressure vessel was qualified to launch with 992 lbs of xenon at 1,250 psig. The full assembly weight of the tank and skirt is under 49 pounds."
Call that 1000lbs of xenon in a 50lb tank. That's a ratio of 1/20 for a flown tank on a real spacecraft.
-
17 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:
I need to fix one bug, will then release a beta.
Rather busy with all the mods I deal with
I've got some time tonight/tomorrow for testing on linux64.
-
Not a necro!
I actually just updated this to 1.2.1. Eighteen months between updates is probably a record.
-
22 hours ago, Sigma88 said:
I'm not sure which errors you are having.
were you using the "newDimensions" branch? or one of the releases?
because I've just loaded the newDimensions branch and it works out of the box
nevermind, I see that the atmosphere is not rescaling, but that's not my fault. it's module manager that isn't doing what it should
I'll try to put together a workaround for the time being, untill I get an answer on whether the feature I was using has been removed from MM or if it's just a bug
It's the same with newDimensions and all the latest releases.
My problem, and I suspect other Linux/Mac users are in the same boat, isn't with SigmaDimensions directly. Kopernicus has a bug. It doesn't properly create a Kerbin.bin file when it builds the cache directory. That can be rectified by inserting a dummy file, a copy-rename of one of the other planets. Kopernicus can then edit this file all it wants and everything runs perfectly without exceptions.. The issue is in its creation ... which is why I think this is a simple typo. As windows users seem unaffected, I suspect a capitalization error (Windows file structures generally are not case-sensitive). I saw this sort of problem before with the 64k mod. At that time it was all the .bin files in the cache and the solution was to pull an old cache directory from a previous install.
The problem is that SigmaDimensions creates new directories for each rescale and terrain resize, requiring a new Kerbin.bin be inserted manually for each. It isn't a big deal and my solution works for me.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/hv4y6bk97q9bzra/KSP.log
Relevant portions imho
[EXC 14:32:18.704] Exception: "Kerbin" not found. Kopernicus.Configuration.Loader.Kopernicus.Configuration.IParserEventSubscriber.PostApply (.ConfigNode node) Kopernicus.Configuration.Parser.LoadObjectFromConfigurationNode (System.Object o, .ConfigNode node, Boolean getChilds) Kopernicus.Configuration.Parser.CreateObjectFromConfigNode[Loader] (.ConfigNode node, Boolean getChilds) Kopernicus.Injector.Awake () UnityEngine.GameObject:AddComponent(Type) AddonLoader:StartAddon(LoadedAssembly, Type, KSPAddon, Startup) AddonLoader:StartAddons(Startup) AddonLoader:OnLevelLoaded(Int32) AddonLoader:OnSceneLoaded(Scene, LoadSceneMode) UnityEngine.SceneManagement.SceneManager:Internal_SceneLoaded(Scene, LoadSceneMode) [...] [EXC 14:33:09.802] NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object Kopernicus.Components.KopernicusStar.LateUpdate () [EXC 14:33:09.816] InvalidOperationException: Operation is not valid due to the current state of the object System.Linq.Enumerable.First[StarComponent] (IEnumerable`1 source) Kopernicus.StarLightSwitcher.Update () [EXC 14:33:09.816] NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object GalaxyCubeControl.Update () [EXC 14:33:09.822] NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object Kopernicus.Components.KopernicusStar.LateUpdate ()
I don't like saying it, but as the linux builds of 1.1.x were horrible and remained so for so many months, there aren't nearly as many people playing KSP on linux/mac these days. I doubt more than a handful are reading this.
-
2 hours ago, DJ Reonic said:
@Sandworm did you do anything special other than just putting in the values in the settings file? I'm having issues on my testing game with atmosphere rescale.
In the end I settled for the stock atmo. It isn't great, but on a 6.4x kerbin you still need around ~8000dv for a low orbit. The best profile is SpaceX-style, more up than sideways until over 40km. Frankly, I'm waiting for FAR to update before putting too much effort into atmospheres.
-
On 10/30/2016 at 7:12 AM, 1990eam said:
I can't decide between this and Engineer Tech Tree. Can anyone give me their personal opinion and explain why?
ETT is tricky. I agree with its logic but not its layout. Some parts are moved deeper into more expensive nodes. Getting all the gear together for 2.5m launchers take a while, a problem on larger-sized kerbins. I'm also not a big spaceplane fan. I'm OK with unmanned before manned, but not cockpits before pods. (I delete most all of the aero parts clutter.) CTT is very playable without any aircraft. ETT not so much.
ETT's higher science requirements are also geared towards career players who will earn most of their science points from contracts. I hate KSP's contract system and so play science-only. I don't get science points for testing mainsails on Minmus. I find therefore find CTT's lower hurdles better for my style of play.
I also tend to dig deep into old mods such as HRG and NovaPunch. CTT's use of more standard nodes means a greater number of older mods slot into expected places without rewriting cfgs.
-
7 hours ago, DStaal said:
I would argue that if you can rely on your parent ship for power, why are you getting into an escape pod? Though realistically they'd probably have some sort of specialized power solution for this: capacitors come to mind, but I'm thinking more likely is some sort of one-off fuel cell that can supply just enough for the freezing process. Then yeah, an RTG to maintain power to the freeze systems and to run the beeper.
I guess it depends on what we think of as an escape pod. I'm of the camp that they should be rather austere things. Getting in one shouldn't be casual. I'm thinking of something that can keep you alive until rescue but not much else. There is no room for a space suit. You aren't getting out until you land or help arrives. So the freezer pod doesn't thaw until after rescue (a la Aliens). Another camp would see them as small craft capable of navigation, capable of perhaps getting somewhere safe on their own (a la star trek).
The problem is that KSP has no need of austere escape pods. KSP ships do not self destruct, nor do orbits decay. The only time one would every abandon a ship in KSP is if it is about to crash into something. In that scenario you want a pod with some DeltaV to get you out of the situation, into a survivable orbit/reentry.
[1.8.1-1] [PLEASE FORK ME] Kopernicus & KittopiaTech
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted · Edited by Sandworm
For those, like me looking for any and all news, there has been some kopernicus activity in the last couple days on github.
https://github.com/Kopernicus/Kopernicus/commit/a510d469853cee17ae210f5e1a9d3f85aa10af15
"Compile against 1.4.4" ... which I take to mean that a 1.4.4 release is in the works. That's big news for me as I feared we might have to wait for 1.5.