jofwu

Members
  • Content Count

    164
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

63 Excellent

About jofwu

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Somebody on Discord told me the same thing DStaal. Turns out I didn't think to try that. Not sure if this is a bug, a mod conflict, or intended/normal behavior... Considering others are aware, I assume it's the latter. If that's not the case and pictures are helpful I can post some.
  2. Can drill separators be swapped out in the VAB? Either I'm blind or it wasn't giving me the option last night. Assuming my eyes work, I'm curious if this was a bug or just not an option built into the mod.
  3. There's certainly more potential for the game to improve from where it's at right now, and wiping the slate of mods we have completely clean would be a hard pill to swallow... But KSP 2.0, built from scratch with the wisdom of the current game in hindsight, could be *really* awesome.
  4. Got a bug and a feature request... Using KIS I placed an MKS nuclear generator (and a few other parts) and then docked it to my ship using a KAS pipe. For some reason the resources in the generator (enriched uranium and depleted fuel) didn't show up in ship manifest. I can do some more digging, but I'm not sure what would be helpful to report? Then an idea that's been bouncing around in my head. Perhaps a big request and/or outside the scope of this mod, but I figure I'll throw it out there... With big ships and bases I often have a hard time figuring out how my resources are being used (or how they could) be used. You can look up in the resource panel and find out that you're using X units of EC per second, but what parts are consuming that EC? What parts are producing it? This mod does a great job showing you where resource storage is at or available. I'd like to see the same thing for production/consumption. I imagine picking a resource from a list and seeing all of the parts which can store, produce, or consume that resource. Pick a part and it highlights to help you locate it. You see two values for each: (1) "capacity", which is the max amount that can be stored (for current configuration) or the max amount that can be consumed or generated (for current configuration, if part is turned on) and then (2) "usage", which is the current amount stored or the current amount being consumed/generated. I think this would be incredibly useful. Say your EC usage seems really high and you need to turn something off. This would make it much easier to locate what parts are using EC and decide what can be turned of. Or perhaps you will be adding more solar panels and want to know what kind of production the existing panels get at your current location. Maybe you're mining ore and producing fuel and you want to know if the ISRU can handle the production increase of another drill. With stock KSP you have to search every part one at a time to figure this kind of info out, so this kind of information would be a huge quality of life boost for me. Just an idea...
  5. Two feature requests that have been banging around in my head for a while now... I often have resources changing at a rate too small for ARP to depict. You get a change of (0.00) units per second, which isn't terribly helpful. Would be nice if non-zero values less than 0.01 displayed in scientific notation. Then a much bigger one... Also perhaps outside the scope of this mod, but I figure I'll throw it out there... With big ships and bases I often have a hard time figuring out how my resources are being used (or how they could) be used. You can look up in the resource panel and find out that you're using X units of EC per second, but what parts are consuming that EC? What parts are producing it? I imagine picking a resource from a list and seeing all of the parts which can store, produce, or consume that resource. Pick a part and it highlights to help you locate it. You see two values for each: (1) "capacity", which is the max amount that can be stored (for current configuration) or the max amount that can be consumed or generated (for current configuration, if part is turned on) and then (2) "usage", which is the current amount stored or the current amount being consumed/generated. I think this would be incredibly useful. Say your EC usage seems really high and you need to turn something off. This would make it much easier to locate what parts are using EC and decide what can be turned of. Or perhaps you will be adding more solar panels and want to know what kind of production the existing panels get at your current location. Maybe you're mining ore and producing fuel and you want to know if the ISRU can handle the production increase of another drill. With stock KSP you have to search every part one at a time to figure this kind of info out, so this kind of information would be a huge quality of life boost for me. Just an idea...
  6. Zeroroller, you posted a new topic rather than replying to whatever mod you were looking at.
  7. I was playing with a base design on the launchpad last night that had deployed Ranger warehouse parts. I had the Ship Manifest window open and noticed that the warehouses were listed as an option for sending a Kerbal to the part. I gave it a shot out of curiosity, and turns out it just destroyed the Kerbal. I'm assuming the fault is on the side of MKS for having the warehouses listed by Ship Manifest. Happy to create an issue report on github, but I wanted to make sure I'm not crazy in assuming Ship Manifest isn't to blame.
  8. KSP Space Race The key feature is the introduction of AI competitors in Career Mode. There are an additional 4-6 space center locations on Kerbin's equator. There's a handful of great spots with sea to the East. When you start a new Career game (maybe also Sandbox and Science variants?) you select your starting KSC location and the number of AI competitors. You have to compete with the AI for Contracts, Funds, Science, and Reputation. There's lots of ways you could take this, but here are a few ideas: The basic World's First and Explore X contracts give most of their reward to the player who completes them first. You only get a little something for following in their shadow. Each Agency has a multiplier for every player based on former dealings. Each successful contract will give you a boost with that Agency, and the sooner you complete it the better. Failed contracts hurt your relationship (on top of the general Reputation penalty). Many contracts are offered to multiple players. You can see if another player has taken one that you have selected. The person to finish it first gets the bulk (or all) of the reward. If an Agency really likes you, they are more likely to offer you exclusive contracts Some contracts call for direct competition. It might ask for players to send up the most tourists in a single launch, and whoever gets the most wins. Or they may ask you to deliver some payload to the surface of the Mun, and whoever gets there first wins. Some contracts call for direct cooperation. For example, it may ask multiple players to contribute to a station together, or visit someone else's base, to get a shared reward. Science could be a point of competition as well. It would probably go too far to say that the first person to collect Science from a situation/biome steals it from anyone else. But you could give a bonus for the first person in each case, encouraging players to go somewhere new. Sabatoge of other players is punished so that the game doesn't devolve into an ICBM war. (perhaps that's open to be disabled by mods for people who want to build in combat) Add a "press center" building where you can check up on what other players are up to, how they stand with different agencies, insight on what tech they have, see what contracts they've taken, etc. Add Strategies that play into all of these new mechanics. You could go a few ways on how the AI works. I don't see a reason to make him actually process launches, burns, etc. that you aren't present for. From your perspective it's mostly just going to seem like they're spawning ships in orbit and sending them around to do contracts. He mostly just needs to be able to keep track of fuel usage so that he doesn't cheat. You'd have to limit how fast he can build/manage. The real trick is teaching him to design ships. It would obviously be best if he could procedurally generate ships for different purposes following some basic design rules. (rather than work with a set of predefined ships) Lastly: Multiplayer? Ideally, this would all be set up in such a way as to allow for playing with other humans rather than AI.
  9. Yes. I can't help with the details because I haven't played with RT since CommNet was introduced. But RemoteTech and CommNet have overlapping purposes. I'm fairly certain that RT essentially turns CommNet off, replacing it with it's own functionality. There's no point to having RemoteTech if you can connect your satellites using CommNet. My understanding is that the next version of RT will build on top of CommNet - changing/adjusting the stock functionality rather than just turning it off and replacing it. @TaxiService, thanks for checking on the ground stations for me. Just a clarification question... When defining a ground station in the config you provide the coordinates and an Omni range. Are you saying that all ground stations automatically work as both an Omni AND a Dish, both using the specified Omni range value? For exapmle, by default Mission Control has a 75 Mm Omni range value. Does it normally act as a 75 Mm Omni AND a 75Mm Dish? (presumably the cone angle is essentially 360 degrees, since it doesn't have to point at anything?) Thanks again!
  10. I haven't played with RT in a while because I wanted to give CommNet a shot. I'm thinking about installing again, but I don't want to give up my current career game. I've also got some USI mods installed, and I'm not sure how well RT plays with that. I would make a backup of my save of course, but I'm just curious what I can expect. Is it possible to install RT, try it out, and possibly uninstall? On an in-progress Career game? I'm aware that I might get a bunch of satellites with no control of course, but I'm more concerned about technical issues from installing/uninstalling on an existing save. Also, totally random side question, is it possible to use KIS to attach and active a RT antenna to fix a probe that has lost control? Edit: One more question. I've found MM configs to create additional ground stations, but they're only configured for Omnis. The help documentation suggests that's the only working option. Is it possible to set the ground stations (including mission control) to dish antennas? I feel like the ground stations should be as good as the best Dish part. I'd rather just build networks around the planets/moons I go to and not bother maintaining one around Kerbin.
  11. That's perfect, thank you! Looks like people are having some issues with it lately, but also seems like there's interest to keep it going. So I'll keep an eye on it.
  12. In stock KSP, your parts are either 100% functional or 100% exploded and gone. There are a few notable and interesting exceptions to this: things like wheels, landing gears, and parachutes. I think the prospect of parts becoming damaged due to misuse is a fun game mechanic. We have to protect those parts, and when things go wrong we have to send out an Engineer to fix them. I'm not talking about "random part failures", as some mods have set out to do. I don't particularly like the idea of uncontrollable failures that require tedious repairs. But I do like the idea of paying for my own mistakes. And I like the idea of adding a small margin of error where a mistake doesn't result in total failure, but rather something which can be fixed. I don't fully understand how part destruction works, but I know that the part files come with various impact tolerances and the like. Hit below the limit and you're okay. Hit above the limit and you're toast. So here's what I would propose: 1. Introduce new "damage tolerance" values to every part. You can use Module Manager to add these, based on some percentage of the tolerances related to destruction. (Say 80%?) 2. Just adding the extra possibility of damage would make things hard. So to balance this let's also use Module Manager to increase destruction-causing impact tolerances by some percentage. (Say 10%) This gives a nice window of room between 100% functional and 100% destroyed. 3. When a part falls into this "damage window" it becomes Damaged. The part (and everything attached to it) is still attached to your ship. You receive a warning at the top of the screen: "Part X has been damaged!" 4. Damaged parts no longer function properly. Some examples of what this implies: Engines are locked in a deactivated state. Tanks containing resources cannot be accessed. Reaction Wheels lose all torque. Decouplers cannot decouple. Antennas cannot deploy. Science Labs cannot perform research. Crossfeed is disabled on any part. You get the idea! 5. To be fully realized, such a mod would change the model and texture to appear damaged, but that's incredibly ambitious. More realistic perhaps is a simple adjustment to the texture to indicate that it has been damaged. And in lieu of anything else it would be nice to just have an overlay that highlights any damaged parts. Of course there would also be a "Damaged!" line on the right-click context menu. 6. Damaged parts can be fixed. There are a few ways to approach this. Perhaps the setting is configurable, or perhaps you'd just need to pick one and run with it. My opinion is that an Engineer is required to fix the Damaged part. Just hop out on EVA, right click the part, and choose "Repair". It may also be desirable to include some kind of "Repair Parts" resource. (whatever the random failure mods are using, I figure) In this case, the ship with the Damaged part would have to have this resource available, and the repair would use up some amount of these. Another possibility is to include KIS integration, and require a particular tool in order to repair Damaged parts. So that's it! Would anybody else find this as awesome as I do? Does something like this exist and I just don't know about it? Thoughts?
  13. Updates to spreadsheet. You can now choose a minimum apoapsis (higher than optimal). The second focus falls on a hyperbola with launch/landing sites as the foci (or for same launch/landing altitudes it falls on a line). I wrote a user-defined function that takes the geometry and tries out different options for focus 2 until it narrows down one that gives the desired apoapsis. Seems to work correctly except for a bug that sometimes pops up when starting and final altitudes are the same. Also something's wrong with the pitch/flight path angle at the landing site. Can't figure out why, because it looks perfect at launch and it's the same equation either way. But I don't see that number as useful anyways. When you want to land you're just going to burn retrograde. Next step I'd like to take it to try out rotation, using the approach described above. But doing that essentially requires performing all of the operations on the spreadsheet repeatedly. That means I either have to pick a set number of iterations or I have to ditch the spreadsheet and program the entire thing. I have the skills to work out the guts of the program, but not to make an executable, build an interface, etc. So I think I'll cast out a net and see if anyone wants to help with that.
  14. @Aethon Not sure I understand what you're trying to say. You need those equations to calculate the time between two points along an elliptical orbit.
  15. Thanks for taking a look at that! I think I had a slightly different equation for e, but regardless I've changed it now to the much simpler c/a. Tried theta for 0, 90, 180, and a few in between and it looks correct now if it wasn't before. I was hoping that would fix my new pitch angle equation, but no. Turns out I should have been using ATAN rather than ATAN2. That change gives good answers. Undefined for 0 theta, limit of 45 as approaching 0 theta, 22.5 for 90 theta, 0 for 180 theta. I need to look more closely at how that plays out in my new sheet though... The old equation is giving different results between 0 and 180. I think the new equation is right on those now that I've made the tangent fix. And I like how the new one approaches 45 at 0 but is undefined at that exact angle.