Jump to content

Captain Sierra

Members
  • Posts

    4,177
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Captain Sierra

  1. The directory architecture is pretty simple IMO, you just have all your mod folders in the gamedata folder and you can manage from there. With the changes to SAS and ASAS, any mod that adds command pods or SAS or ASAS units to the game will likely need some reworking to be fully compatible. Everything else SHOULD be okay.
  2. Weighing down the front is not the answer. What is happening is somewhere something is not symmetrical. It looks like you built it in the space plane hangar, which means something could be on the top and not the bottom. Even this slight perturbation in the center of mass can cause it to not burn straight. I suggest going into your save folder and finding the ship, then transfer it to the VAB and redo all the struts and small things with the radial symmetry in the VAB. Save file: KSP\Saves\<your_save>\SPH move to KSP\Saves\<your_save>\VAB EDIT: I see what KSP X parts you used
  3. Back to the main question, can you actually get a rocket in KSP in orbit with just solids? I imagine the orbit won't be pretty but who cares. Can it be done (without exploding, breaking SoI, or aerobraking and as a result, lithobraking)? I know I can do it with a KW mega SRB and a liquid fuel circularization stage (as a probe launcher).
  4. problem is, you can't get it. There is an unofficial patch out on the forums but it requires the original documentation which has been taken off of spaceport. Subassembly loader, much as I'd like and recommend it, is out of the question.
  5. In most cases, multi-core is better and since KSP is not the only game I play, I'm not about to go optimizing my hardware specifically for it (money is also a problem). So far, space dock + 4 tugs = 5 FPS. NEW PLAN!!! I'm going to completely get rid of the space dock and tugs, waste of hardware allocation. I'll just send up the megatug, fuel it, send up the fuel module, fuel it, then send the RCS module, fuel it, and then send the rest.
  6. Sounds easy enough. Mechjeb ascent guidance has a launch into plane feature Anyways, now I am trying to assemble a giant spacecraft but I don't even have module one up yet and I can't even approach the space docks without getting lagtopia. 4 tugs + space dock = >10 FPS
  7. Pardon my noobish question. I have gotten to Minmus before but not directly. I couldn't get the lead angle on the transfer right from my parking orbit. What I ended up doing was going to the Mun and then using the fancy web calculator (this one: http://ksp.olex.biz/) to make the transfer to Minmus from there. That obviously is not the best way to go. Aside from matching planes while in parking orbit, what lead angle do I use to hit Minmus? I THINK it's about 90 degrees. Am I right? Or was that why I screwed it up?
  8. There are various mod manager softwares available. A quick lookthrough of the addon section of the forums and you'll find them. Then pick one you want, go to the forum thread. There is typically a link ot the spaceport page. Go there, download.
  9. What I would suggest is abandoning that lander and sending a backup that can hold your stranded kerbals. Also, 30m/s with parachutes means you don't have a great lander. If you build it perfectly, you should be able to land with a sum total of 0 dV from your engines. Docking on top of an object (especially with a fuel can, which is heavy and may crush it), it extremely difficult. Unless you are an awesome VTOL lander pilot and can land on a dime, I suggest trying something else.
  10. Don't start with a planet with an atmosphere, or with kerbin-like gravity. Minmus is a good next target. Then go to Ike. Don't forget to check out the mods, there are a lot of good ones. Just be sure you don't get too many or your game will bog down. For some additional parts that look like stock, KSP X. For resource mining, Kethane. Either way, have fun and good luck with your landings hint hint, try probe landers first. They don't have to return
  11. It does not improve with time. It remains persistent for the duration of the time physics is loaded on the ship. I am already getting an FPS of 15-20 and I only have 3 tugs up there. I have one more to launch, then a fuel/RCS stage before I even start bringing the big stuff up there. :facepalm: So to answer you, it does not improve after time. It remains persistently poor for as long as I am within physics loading range of the docks. EDIT: I have the CPU power to not get this, the problem comes from it being an 8 core processor. Each core by itself is not very powerful and without proper multi-threading support (which KSP does not have yet, though planned), My 'high performance' machine is no better than anyone elses because I can't utilize the full power of my CPU. That's what I think is going on here.
  12. There in lies the problem. This project involves a lot of docking and orbital construction. That is why I am asking this question. I need to reduce the lag that I know will incur when I come in for the docking maneuver as part of assembly. Launching I get great FPS. The only time the slightest bit of lag appears is when I am coming in on docking approach and the game starts physics calculations on the space docks and the tugs already docked there in preparation.
  13. Definitlely land using parachutes. The less fuel you burn on the way down, the more you have for your ascent. I suggest using a skipper engine or a bunch of LV-909 engines mounted on radial tanks. That oughta give you a good TWR and efficiency to give you the delta V required. I also recomend using kerbal engineer or mechjeb to check your lander's delta V status in the VAB (you should have most of it left for takeoff assuming you land with mostly parachutes, lots and lots of parachutes).
  14. Computer specs: Intel i7 (8 core) processor 8 Gb (12 sticks) of RAM 17.3 inch display 0.5 Tb hard drive Currently running KSP on default graphics at max res for windowed mode (before the frame disappears off the end of the screen). I uninstalled KW Rocketry (but thinking of reinstalling it for it's large tanks, tanker flights). I can use it for heavy struts. I have quantum struts. I have very few parts mods I run regularly. I'm not actively running any instruments on stuff. I'm trying to avoid cheaty things like fuel tanks that hold 5x more than they should. I'm doing the tanker stage the realistic way (orbital refueling). EDIT: I found said setting and reduced it to calculating 2x every second over 10. I also reduced the texturing and rendering graphics.
  15. We all get it. We all have problems docking to our huge space stations because of it. Until Squad gets proper multi-threading support running, we all get FPS destroying lag at some point. I am building a massive interplanetary ship up at my space docks. Right now, All I have is the docks (with two small adapter pieces) and two of my heavy tugs. Next up to launch is my interplanetary tugs. I'm already seeing traces of lag like slight framerate losses. Its noticable, but not interfering as of yet. It's only gonna get worse the more I pile on up there. Is there any good way to at least buy me more time before I'm running at 2 FPS? After the assembly tugs, I have to put up the megatug that propels the craft and the fuel module(s) (going up dry so I gotta run at least a dozen tanker missions). Anyone know of some ways to reduce the onset of the lagging?
  16. AOA is usually an aircraft term, Angle of Attack. Dunno how it's being used in that context.
  17. Then that makes the game too slow to ever play effectively. XP
  18. I could tell you exactly why they made the call they did on C&C4, it'd only make you hate them more. I can also give my interpretation of what EA will do with what used to be Generals 2. (**note, The second one is an opinion based of EA's greedy track record, bias likely)
  19. They have made a lot of choices that resonate very badly with their customers. THAT is why they earn so much hate.
  20. Modular fuel system should go up too. It lets you change around your fuel types, starting loads, etc.
  21. EA pretty well destroys the franchises it buys. I reference Command and Conquer. If Squad took over C&C, Oh thank Jesus! That'd be the best day for C&C fans since Tiberian Sun: Firestorm came out.
  22. Good God!!! That . . . . . . There are no words . . . Anyways, I am gonna be getting FPS destroying lag with my next project (a spaceship that will put the ISS to shame). I am gonna start launches tomorrow. I'll add pics. I won't actually be sending it off, but I will be doing some assembly in orbit (then backing up my save, I only have one craft on the munar surface so I will try to save everything after the update).
  23. Tell me if this is brilliant, overkill, or otherwise just plain insane. I am about to start launching a bunch of modules up to my space docks that will assemble a big roving base+station that will go first to the Mun, then maybe minmus, then possibly Ike or another moon. Half of it is modules that land and make an on-the-ground kethane mining op and refinery, while the station houses porbes, tugs, skycranes, some refining equipment of it's own, fuel, kethane, power, crew, etc. Am I overdoing it? P.S. I will edit this and add pics of the main fuel module (of which I may have two). To get it into orbit, I have rebuilt it with my own modded empty tanks to cut down on weight so it wasn't heavier than my standard heavy launcher. We shall see if I can get liftoff sometime tomorrow.
  24. I don't need to. I just need something that doesn't feel like I'm lifting tons of rocket fuel XD
  25. But that isn't nearly as satisfying as editing the config files yourself. At least I think so.
×
×
  • Create New...