rottielover

Members
  • Content Count

    839
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

58 Excellent

About rottielover

  • Rank
    Rocket Scientist

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. That's cool, sorry I didn't have any idea that a re-write was in-progress. Thanks for taking over on this mod, this is one of my favorites and has been since it came out. If I may be so bold I have a suggestion - I'm an astrophotographer in RL and I know a thing or two about taking pictures thru a telescope My suggestion would be to add a contract (or multiple contracts), to take long duration exposure (if you need inspiration take a look at the Hubble Deep Field images). I have seen a few other contracts that include timers on the mission, I think you could probably setup a timer, the trick will be the target. One thing that I am not sure about is if you can programatically create a false target (ie just a random direction on the navball). One limitation of Cacteye was always that it's focused on the bodies in the system, then later when asteroids came out that functionality got added but the primary purpose of a space based telescope is going to be deep field photography (objects that exist outside the system). I'm not really sure if that was due to game limitations only or not. Since I'm giving suggestions here are a couple of more thoughts on things that could take the mod to the next level: Radio Telescope - You could have this part create false color images, or even have a ground based dish and the player's challenge is to get the dish to an appropriate site on Kerbin to set it up (I mean the mod already requires KAS/KIS so why not). Different optics - Infrared, Narrowband imaging for Hydrogen Alpha, ionized oxygen and sulfur (These are the standard "hubble pallet" for narrow band photos, if you need some links to look at let me know). Finally, I'll even "put my money where my mouth is", and here is a link to my work, if there is a way to include pictures inside the game for completed contracts then I would be happy to license any of my photos to you for that purpose. LINK: Rottie's Astrobin
  2. I'm using with 1.6, seems to work except that you cannot point anywhere even close to the sun, I'm talking like 30 degrees or so otherwise the optics explode and needs an eva repair. Either this is a change from prior versions (I haven't played in a while, but I know you used to be able to get Moho at least), or it's an issue between the mod and 1.6 where the mod thinks the sun is in a different place edit : oh and even if you have the aperture closed (cover on) it will still explode if you point near the sun
  3. Hi all, It's been a while since I played KSP but I recently got back into it again. I'm a bit of a "mod hog" so I have around 100 or so at the moment. Most importantly, I'm a TAC Life Support guy... I'm needing some help to make sure that I'm planning my manned (kerbaled) Duna mission correctly. I'm using http://alexmoon.github.io/ksp/ (KSP Launch window planner), to figure out depart, arrival etc. Since kerbal years are 426 days, am I correct in my calculation that a total mission time to duna and back (including the "stay" waiting for xfer window back), is 1,126 kerbal days or 2.6 kerbal years? (Depart Year 1 Day 236, arrival back at kerbin Year 4 Day 84). I've unlocked just about the whole tech tree, so the idea was to bring enough supplies for the mission, but I'm planning on having a small base setup with greenhouse just in case we end up stranded waiting on rescue. Planning on using Pathfinder for a lot of that stuff since it's a "packable" base. Either that or Planetary base systems, likely will be a combo. Thanks in advance!
  4. So just to wrap up my little issue, I added "undock-inator" and it did not recognise the ports as docking ports, that raised my suspicions a bit. I tried re-loading quicksaves, no effect, I tried launch the craft new, no effect. What worked was to remove the docking ports from the craft in the VAB "delete them", add "new" docking ports onto the craft, save it and launch it new. That seems to have worked. I still have no clue why this happened or what could have caused it, but at least I got it working.
  5. I've tried again a couple of times, how do I look into the configs to see if they are the same? EDIT: let me be more detailed.... I tried a test where I created a new TEST game in sandbox and I hacked grav with two pods Now the docking ports are working fine. I have no idea what's going on. Went back to my 'real" game, and they won't dock. I tried with several combos in the test, stock port to stock port, SDHI port to stock etc. all worked in sandbox. In my career save SDHI won't dock to stock. Is there some kind of bug or issue with the way you use docking ports in builds? Like am I not supposed to use them as decouplers if I want to use them as docking ports later?
  6. doesn't look like I have Ven's restock, but I am using CKAN and have noted that it's caused me a few conflicts in the past, so I wouldn't rule it out that something else mucked with the stock ports. I'm just not sure how to tell. I'll try some experiments and see , maybe it has to do with tweakable everything
  7. Has anyone else had issues with the docking port not wanting to dock to the stock port? I'm not really sure what's going on other than I'm perfectly aligned and was doing 0.2 m/s and they just bounced off each other.
  8. Actually I just started the process of re-installing. I'm going to bare bones this back down to just having GT and MechJeb and go from there. I must have something in there messing it up.
  9. Sorry just saw the update when you posted. I'm doing about 4 to 5 launches as you say, hitting the "improve guess" button between. But for the testing I did above with the NRAP I started with the first launch new and each subsequent line of data was with the new "improved guess". I'm not sure how many times you are "supposed" to do the launches to be completely optimized but it sure seems as though I have something going on with my implementation... I do tend to be a mod hog, there are so many good ones that it's very hard for me not to "install them all"...
  10. I'm not getting anywere near that good. I'm getting 3600 to 3800 dV needed to LKO (80x80). So I suppose the question becomes which mod is doing something that it should not be doing, and /or should I just say screw it and get realistic atmosphere's and FAR installed and call it a day? ...
  11. Well I suppose the NRAP thing could possibly be considered not aerodynamic by the game, I'm not sure how to tell but I could try to repeat these tests and put a fairing on it... My original comsat rocket had fairings and was fairly basic and used the SQUAD 1.85m sized parts for the main lifter. The 2nd test with the NRAP I tried to go back to the typical 1.25 and 2.5m sized parts. It could very well be Gravity Turn for all I know. I will try using MechJeb's ascent tool and see if I get different results. EDIT: Used MechJeb2's ascent module auto pilot and it left the NRAP test rocket in orbit with 977 dv left. Basically right between the Grav Turn tests. Next I will test a fairing. Edit 2 - fairing didn't change anything with the NRAP tester. So this leaves me at the conclusion that it's costing me somewhere between 100-300 more m/s to reach LKO than the map states. I'm not sure about the other destinations yet.
  12. So I downloaded NRAP and started a sandbox save. I created the following rocket to make things easy to reproduce: NRAP payload set to 5 tons. Directly attached is a FL-T400 Tank and LV-T15 Engine as the 2nd stage. The first stage is FL-A151S Adapter, FL-A215S adapter, Rokomax Jumbo-64 and a Skipper engine. This actually ended up being slightly overkill as it can hit 80x80 orbit on the first stage. 931 dv remaining from 4585 that KER is reporting in the VAB I assume that means it took 3654 to reach 80km x 80km unless I'm reading something wrong with KER? Maybe there is some other factor I'm not accounting for? I repeated this test 3 more times here are the results: Used "improve guess" button on Grav Turn - 1037 dv remaining - improved by 106 over first test, 3654 - so 3548 to make orbit? 1039 dv remaining - improved by 108 over first test - so 3546 to make orbit? 1040 dv remaining - improved by 109 over first test ... I do have quite a few mods, however I don't believe that there are any that impact ISP, engines, atmospheres, etc. Vast majority of the mods I'm running are UI type stuff like Action Groups Extended and RCS Build Aid. I have a few Parts mods like Missing History, Universal Storage, SDHI Service Module, Feline Rovers, and DMagic Science parts. Again, nothing that I think would / should be altering the atmospheres or engine settings.
  13. Hey thanks for the quick reply @Kowgan , I have read a lot of debate on what "optimal" TWR is, so I have been subscribing to the 1.3 ish model... not sure if that's considered to be optimal anymore? For this sample rocket KER is reporting the following (I am reporting the MAX TWR number here): 1st stage at 1.99 TWR, 2nd stage as 1.34 and 3rd stage at 1.21 (the satellite has a small tank and engine for tweeking orbit so I'm just counting that as part of the payload and thus is not included here). For the payload, I took off the rocket and KSP stock is reporting it to be 4.7 tons (including fairings etc). ... So I was thinking, maybe what I should do is get Kerbal NRAP (I think thats what its called) so that I can create a dummy payload and do testing that way with a 5 ton payload Using Grav Turn+Mechjeb to an 80kmx80km orbit - KER is reporting 1,034 dv remaining I assume that means that grav turn and mechjeb spent 3,551 dv to achieve that orbit? I also noticed that KER is showing me vacuum dv numbers in the VAB (which it should) but is showing a lesser Dv value on the launchpad. Now the DV map says that those numbers are vacuum, so I assume if I have KER set for vacuum it should be fine? I am going to re-do this test to make it much more repeatable, I'm going to get that test weight mod and report back in a bit.