Streetwind

Members
  • Content Count

    5,676
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4,622 Excellent

About Streetwind

  • Rank
    Talks To Boosters

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Oh, right, I just remembered something. @Chakkoty@juanml82 and everyone else who might have thought that "the thrust on these is too high/too low" or "they should be more/less fuel efficient", or even "they use too much/too little EC"... did you know that the mod has you covered out of the box? It's a little-known feature, but inside the Patches subdirectory in the NF Propulsion mod folder, there is a tweak patch that lets you change these things. And the best thing? You need to know nothing about how to write Module Manager patches, or how the custom engine modules of NFP work under the hood, or how utterly weird the interaction between Isp and fuel mixture becomes when one of the propellants is massless... and so on. All you need to do is adjust one (or more) of three provided multipliers, and save the file. Fully documented, completely reversible, arbitrarily combinable, breaks nothing if removed later-on, maintains the mod's pre-set balance between its engines. So if 0.6 TWR ain't enough? Crank up that thrust multiplier, and enjoy! Or halve the power draw, so you can mount two engines per reactor. Or whatever floats your space-boat. Note: the patch was written a while ago, Module Manager has changed a bit over time, and almost nobody knows the patch exists or uses it. It is possible (though not likely) that something may be broken. If you do use the file, I would greatly appreciate if you could report back here whether or not you get the expected ingame behavior. If it's broken, I'll fix it.
  2. 0.6 is huge for electric propulsion. You can land on Moho with that! Some of my chemical engine spacecraft have less. All of my LV-N spacecraft have less. ...Do we need to nerf the Colossus?
  3. If ResearchBodies supports modded star systems, you can go for that as well. If you play a star system you have never seen before, you won't even need to pretend you don't already know where Laythe is... because you genuinely won't know where the ideal place to settle will be - or if there even is one! A slight issue with that is that Kopernicus - the mod that enables modded star systems to exist - has yet to update to 1.8.x. That means you'd need to decide whether to wait for updates, or whether to go for a 1.7.3 instance. Since you're a new player, a word of advice: Modular Kolonization System is incredibly complex. You're looking for a challenge, and trust me, that mod will give you one. But as long as you don't let yourself get discouraged by things not working quite like you intended them to on the first try or three, it really is the most in-depth and complete off-world colonization experience that modding can give you.
  4. You can calculate ahead of time how to adjust your course in order to arrive at the precise required spot you need to be in one full orbit. Kerbin's sidereal day is 5 hours 59 minutes and 9.4 seconds. If you are in a proper geostationary orbit, this is the number you should see for your orbital period (without the decimal place for the seconds, which the game doesn't offer). Assuming the target is 1.5 degrees off: given a full orbit is 360 degrees, then (21549.4 / 360) * 1.5 = 59.859444... * 1.5 = 89.7891666... Or, in other words: you need to raise your orbital period by 90 seconds if your target is behind you, or lower it by 90 seconds if it is in front of you. If you then loop around once, and restore geostationary orbit, you should find yourself directly, smack-dab above your target. Assuming the 1.5 degrees astimate was precise, of course. Measure it as well as you can.
  5. The first thing I ever built in KSP, way back in version 0.21, was called "Poorly Disguised Deathtrap". The name turned out to be prophetic, for it immediately fell prey to the old "SRB and parachute in the same stage" issue. How was I supposed to know what a staging list is, anyway? Jeb, of course, survived the resulting crash. And promptly volunteered for the next test. You know, as one does.
  6. @Jestersage The public bug tracker is here: https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/ You need an account to view or do anything, and that's separate from your forum account. Very likely the behavior has already been reported, as I've seen it discussed on the forums before. Look around, and if you find nothing, look through closed issues as well. It might have been closed with a "unfixable" or similar kind of statement.
  7. Or, if you want to go directly to full-on cheating, the debug menu has a checkbox that will point out surface features with big markers.
  8. I know of one bug (or perhaps unavoidable occurrence) that causes parts to not be shielded: When the part that's supposed to do the shielding is the root part of the craft. For example, if you make a fairing base the root part of a rocket, the fairing will not shield the parts contained in it. The same is very likely true for a cargo bay.
  9. Kerbal Space Program is a physics simulator. Just because you can put parts together in a certain way in the editor doesn't mean the design is viable once gravity kicks in Your vessel twists and bends because attachments are not entirely rigid. There is no gravity in the editor, but on the launchpad, there is a full 9.80665 m/s² pulling on each individual part. And if a part is heavy, but attached from the side, then it will sag a bit as that attachment point flexes. The strength of joints is proportional to the part's size. Their "bulkheadProfile" in the config file specifically, if I remember things right (but don't quote me on this, it's been quite a while since I last looked into it). Small parts with small profiles have very weak joints. You happen to have used very small parts on a very long lever arm to attach wheels to a heavy rover. The result is that the mass of the rover easily bends the weak joints of the small parts used to attach the wheels. Now, depending on the destination of your rover, it may still be fine. Minmus for example has incredibly low gravity - just 5% that of Kerbin. To test this, hit Alt+F12, go to the Cheats section, and find the "hack gravity" slider. Activate the checkbox and set the slider to 5%. You are now simulating Minmus' gravity. Look at your rover on the launchpad, and see if it still bends out of shape. If not, you'll probably be fine. I say "probably" because gravity isn't the only enemy of flimsy construction. Inertia is, too. If you drive at a high speed on a flat surface that suddenly begins to slope upwards steeply, then your rover's front wheels are pushed upwards hard. The inertia of your rover's center section, however, will resist that upwards motion for a split second, because the wheel joints will flex first. This can result in your center section impacting the slope your are trying to drive on, damaging or destroying your rover. So, better test driving around the KSC, too, and hitting some of those slopes at the side of the runway, or the ramp up to the launchpad, at full speed.
  10. No, there is in fact a truss graphic. You enable it in the fairing base's right-click menu, as I mentioned above. When the option is active, then a truss will form automatically once one of the interstage nodes is used to attach something. It's not the most sturdy-looking of things, but it's better than nothing... and, well, the Soyuz rockets are held together with an arrangement of thin steel rods in between stages, so it's not strictly speaking unrealistic
  11. Have you considered using a fairing base for the purpose? The only reason that engine plates exist is that they allow you to mount a downsized engine in a stack without turning your rocket into a drag-happy wet noodle. For example, mounting a Spark or an Ant in the middle of a 1.25m stack. Also, clustering of non-surface-attachable engines. But the interstage fairing/cargo bay, that was possible long before engine plates became a thing. You just use a fairing base. Just stick it onto the craft somewhere, rightclick it, and make sure that the options for truss structure and interstage nodes are both enabled. Now grab and attach the fairing base to the bottom of your previous stage (which should be a decoupler, since fairing bases don't decouple themselves), and voila - you not only have an interstage cargo bay, but one with a physical structure holding the rocket together to boot, rather than just an empty space between two sections of tanks. Additionally, the fairing base will actually shield all the parts inside the interstage area. The engine plate on the other hand will only obfuscate the drag cube of what's directly attached to the engine plate. Finally, the fairing can be ejected from the base once you are out of the atmosphere, allowing access to the contents of the interstage cargo bay even before stages separate. Or, you know, you can use this to build a shielded cargo bay inside stages, where no separation is meant to occur at all. Oh, yeah, and incidentally it also allows crossfeed.
  12. ...oh. ......OH. I am... honestly impressed that the game actually manages to go all the way until the "Expansion Loading Complete" stage. It should be committing honorable sepukku to end its suffering well before that. This logfile contains 110,000 lines - just from a failed startup process. No gameplay at all. And in the mere first 200 of those lines, we see this: That is, count 'em, seventeen different Module Manager versions. Some of which are dated early 2016. For, what was it at the time... KSP version 1.1.x? Now, since KSP does not spontaneously and violently self-destruct the moment you click the start button, that tells me that Module Manager is actually pretty good about having outdated versions of itself lying around. Far better than I thought it would be, mad props to sarbian (as usual). But, if this is indicative of the state of your GameData folder in general? How long have you been carrying woefully outdated mods and configurations forward, and mixing multiple versions of identical mods in the same install? I'm afraid to tell you, and I can't put this into any nicer words: there's no point to even read this log. Your installation is beyond saving. Back up your savegame, nuke your entire KSP directory from orbit, and start fresh. With only mods that are meant for 1.8.1, please. Fresh downloads. No carrying over stuff. Pay particular attenton to AT_Utils and WildBlueIndustries. I skimmed only maybe 10% of the log, but there were already several hundred critical exceptions from those two alone. From Near Future mods, I saw none. EDIT: Hah, sniped by Nertea a second before I pressed submit. Glad we agree on that, in any case
  13. @Snark I have no hard proof to show you that my interpretation is right; so who knows, I might have gotten it wrong. Thing is, he's not playing entirely stock; and he reported that adding a set of fins made no difference to the spacecraft's behavior during reentry. Considering that a set of the same basic fins can also take a 1.25m launch vehicle from "always flips at max-Q" to "holding prograde without SAS", it seems pretty hard to believe that the fins weren't somehow being kept from performing their function. The reentry vehicle isn't even flipping, it's just listing a bit to the side. Fins absolutely should make a visible difference if they are generating drag. But yeah. Maybe I'm wrong. It has happened before...