Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


16 Good

Profile Information

  • About me
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. What electrical propulsion is supported by RO? Some engines seem to give very unrealistic acceleration in mecjeb, despite being listed as having realistic thrusts. There also seems to be a lot of imbalance in thrust vs electrical power for engines with comparable specific impulse. Are non-RO compatible parts always marked as such? Its great having a 30 ton ship accelerate at 0.1G with only a megawatt and 6000 second ISP, but that seems a bit unlikely...
  2. Hope this hasn't been asked before but I can't find it. Are there any packages that provide large, high temperature landing gear for RO. (something like the legs on SpaceX boosters). I'm playing around with reusuable rockets, but its very difficult to get standard landing gear to retract behind a heat shield without doing something that looks dumb.
  3. Has anyone had success with space planes in RO? I can't find a reasonable design that the FAR stability analysis says is stable on all axes at hypersonic speeds. The worst problem is yaw stability (Ybeta). I'm using mark2 parts and B9 wings. I've tried a number of sane-looking configurations and none of them seem to work. I run the sim with empty tanks. I'm looking at a conventional 1st stage launch with about 5KM/sec delta-V in the space-plane fuel tanks. I'm imagining space-x like recovery of the 1st stage and a re-usable space plane for the 2nd orbiting stage. I haven't tried flying it yet -trying to figure out the best way to attach it to the side of a large booster, but that is a separate issue.
  4. I don't see it on Ckan, where is the easiest place to get it? thanks
  5. I really appreciate the work the modders have done on this, looks fantastic. One question (problem?). Some of the engines like the J2 /J2X don't seem to have lower attachment points. Are there mods with a few more engines like the RD-170? They were in earlier RO versions.
  6. I would love a realistic physics space game with the engineering flexibility of Kerbal. I would be happy to pay quite a lot for it ($/hour would still be very small ;-) ). A good stable realism add-on to kerbal would be great. A new game would be great. In an ideal world the new game (or add-on) would include somewhat further future technology. The existing realism overhaul is nice but quite accurately demonstrates that with the technology we have, going beyond the moon is really a lot of work and manned missions to the outer planets are just not practical. The near future stuff would be great but only if the game allowed on-rails physics while accelerating. If I have a realistic acceleration time of several months, the game isn't playable even if the ship would work in real life.
  7. Thanks, you are of course correct. I hadn't played RO since 0.9 and it looks like 1.05 uses a LOT more memory. I tried texture reducer but it doesn't help enough. Linux - not so easy. I have a linux box, but I use it as a server, no graphics card, and its a generation old. I guess I could dual boot my main desktop, but that's work too, Any word on when 64 bit kerbal (presumably unity5) is likely to be out? Maybe I can just wait. I think I still have a 0.9 install I could use.... I appreciate the work you guys put into this.
  8. I've been having crashes with RO every few minutes of play. I'm using parts from CKAN, just updated today .. Any suggestions on where to start looking? The program bombs on an access violation. This is on windows 8.1. error file starts with mono.dll caused an Access Violation (0xc0000005) in module mono.dll at 0023:1011940a. Error occurred at 2015-07-14_204922. C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\KSP.exe, run by frisch. 36% memory in use. 0 MB physical memory [0 MB free]. 0 MB paging file [0 MB free]. 0 MB user address space [204 MB free]. Write to location 00800000 caused an access violation. Context: EDI: 0x00400000 ESI: 0xf627dec8 EAX: 0x00010000 EBX: 0xd7c7bab0 ECX: 0x00800000 EDX: 0x00000000 EIP: 0x1011940a EBP: 0x00e1b1f8 SegCs: 0x00000023 EFlags: 0x00010206 ESP: 0x00e1b1d4 SegSs: 0x0000002b I know the supporters are putting a ton of time into this. , thank you ckan config: { "spec_version": "v1.6", "identifier": "installed-default", "version": "2015.", "license": "unknown", "name": "installed-default", "abstract": "A list of modules installed on the default KSP instance", "kind": "metapackage", "depends": [ { "name": "RealPlumeConfigs", "version": "provided by RealismOverhaul" }, { "name": "RealFuels-Engine-Configs", "version": "provided by RealismOverhaul" }, { "name": "RSSTextures", "version": "provided by RSSTextures4096" }, { "name": "AerodynamicModel", "version": "provided by FerramAerospaceResearch" }, { "name": "FAR", "version": "provided by FerramAerospaceResearch" }, { "name": "PFTextures", "version": "provided by ProceduralFairings-ForEverything" }, { "name": "TACLS-Config", "version": "provided by TACLS-Config-RealismOverhaul" }, { "name": "NearFuturePropulsionNTRConfigs", "version": "provided by NearFuturePropulsionExtras" }, { "name": "MechJeb2", "version": "2.5.3" }, { "name": "RealismOverhaul", "version": "v10.1.0" }, { "name": "RealSolarSystem", "version": "v10.1" }, { "name": "RSSTextures4096", "version": "v10.0" }, { "name": "AdvancedJetEngine",
  9. KSP is a great game concept - the best I've seen in years. But - I think they have made some very poor choices recently: The biggest was releasing an alpha release as 1.0. By alpha I mean a release with entirely new features and many bugs. Much much better to have done bug-fixes only on 0.9 until it became 1.0, while in parallel releasing a series of alpha then beta versions. No only do the bugs ruin play, but the updates destroy saved games - and some players put a huge amount of time on their games. It also makes it difficult for the modders to keep up. RO has been useless for weeks now. Stock kerbal simply does not meet expectations for the stability of a released product. The other mistake is not knowing where to aim the "realism" in the game. Stock 0.9 was a fun silly game - understandable physics the let you build silly rockets. Adding RO made it a remarkably good simulator. So - they have a game for both styles of play. If they had embraced the mods, players could have been given the option of silly kerbal (stock), or realistic kerbal (with RO). Instead various bits of realism (aerodynamics, heat) were hastily and poorly implemented in the game resulting in a buggy, and still non-realistic mess. This is sad - I think a fantastic game is going to die.
  10. KSP is a fantastic idea for a game. Its a unique game that makes the player do actual engineering on complex systems. It was a great game around 0.24. But then we had the "final" release. 1.0. Unfortunately someone missed Software 101 where "beta" is a feature complete release, and after final bug fixes it gets released as 1.0. Meanwhile (as in at the same time), you can have an alpha release with new features, that then turns beta, and after testing becomes 2.0 . (with out without backwards compatibility as you wish). Instead Squad has released a series of what are reallyalpha releases (new features) in their main line. This is frustrating for long term players, but much worse for Squad it will rapidly discourage any new players - the ones you were hoping would pay real money for the game and let you stay in business. This is not typical for games in production release- don't fool yourselves. I get the distinct feeling that a layer of pointy-haired management has been put in place on top of the good creative programmers at Squad. Whoever you are, its YOUR fault not theirs so stop shouting at them to fix the bugs. If you aren't careful this is going to be a disaster for the company - which would be a shame - its one of the most creative games I've ever seen. My suggestion - back off. Go to 0.9, fix the bugs and release it as 2.0. Then work on an alpha -> beta version with better aerodynamics, heat etc. Wait for modes to be compatible with that version, then in a year release 3.0 with the new features. Make arrangements with the modders to sell bundles of mods (like RO) as game add-ons through steam. Look - people make fun of me at work for how much time I used to spend on Kerbal, but I haven't played significantly since 1.0. I just dabble a bit with 0.9 RO because that is more stable than your main release.
  11. I'm just waiting for the game to stabilize enough to make playing it worthwhile again. Could you maybe consider long term support (eg a month or tow), and incremental releases or something. Yes, I can make rockets to go everywhere (except eve return), but with things constantly changing its not really worth the effort for long games. I mostly use RO and its been unusable since 1.0. 0.25 was a good game. 0.9 was a good game. Both were fantastic with RO. 1.0, 1.01, 1.02, 1.03, 1.04 might be OK, if they ever lasted long enough to be played..... Beta releases are supposed to be function complete. Releasing new atmospheric models after beta sort of defeats the concept.
  12. Is KSP likely to be more stable in the sense that RO mods will continue to work for a longer time? One frustration (NOT the fault of the RO guys) is that with new releases old saves are no longer valuable. It takes a LONG time to develop an interplanetary space program under full RO. I can run old versions, but they seem to rot. Right now Tantares (ckan version) no longer works for me in 0.90, some update (for 0.9) causes kerbal to crash. The developers are presumably concentrating on 1.0. Will mods for 1.0, likely work on 1.02, and the inevitable 1.03, 1.04 etc? Of course I guess when unity 5 is used, everything will need to be redone again. This is in no way a complaint about the fantastic RO stuff. Kerbal just seems to be a constantly moving target. Their declaring a alpha version as 1.0 is a bit frustrating. - - - Updated - - - Throttle-able engines: There are not a lot of throttleable and restartable engines in RO (needed fop landers) presumably because there a not a lot in real life - there hasn't been much application. There are the old lunar module engines but they are not well optimized for a larger lander. The space-X hypergolic engines feel like cheating because they have an ISP that only makes sense with a huge nozzle extension that is not included in the part. There used to be a set of realistic parameter, but not actually real engines that worked in RO, is that still supported?
  13. Is there a way to set MechJeb to not throttle down rockets? It is mostly fine for launches with full realism, but unless you have pre-adjusted the ascent profile correctly, it will sometimes shut down your non-restartable engines as it tries to get on trajectory. Very sad for the Kerbals living down range of a 500T to LEO launch..... I can hand fly, but its really dull for large rockets that don't simulate at full frame rate during the launch.
  • Create New...