• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,630 Excellent

About allista

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

9,874 profile views
  1. Well, RCS are not engines, they are controlled differently, so, indeed, TCA cannot handle them as such. But there is a monopropellant-fueled engine (Vernier it's called, if I'm not mistaken) with the same Isp as conventual RCS thrusters.
  2. Ok, l didn't try this particular approach, but I should be able to reproduce it with the new settings I've already introduced into ToOrbit. Looking at the remaining dV I realize that the drag indeed eats much fuel. I wonder what would following prograde do for heavy and powerful rocket with respect to fuel efficiency... But there's one thing I didn't mention about the orbit I achieved: it has 5.1deg inclination, witch also costs some fuel, both as is and for continuous correction. Even more, inclination correction requires more than 2-3 deg deviation from prograde to be efficient.
  3. It was modified based on dynamic pressure down to about 5 deg in lower atmo, but then the limit was 10. Though the actual AoA was rarely larger 5. UPD I can upload the video of the whole thing. Hm... need to think about it. The whole framework of TCA configuration is based on the idea that it's part of the ship. To the extent, that docking/undocking preserves configuration and grouping of TCA instances. So it is possible to, say, attach a new core with newer TCA configuration to a station and get all the benefits.
  4. Ok, so with the help of @JonnyOThan I've managed to do at least this: don't look at the Max. Angle of Attack -- it was 10 deg all the way, but I changed it afterward by accident But for higher orbits in this case conventional autopilot's logic is still faulty and needs improvement...
  5. It should "happen" if you have enough resources and EC. It's "progress" should be displayed in KSC in main GC window (select the planet, then find the workshop in the list). It actually only happens when you switch back to the workshop, since there's no background processing of this level of detail in KSP, only the catch-up. This looks like an exception that happens during ship loading. Please, share the Player.log file (via a link to gdrive/Dropbox/etc) obtained after this happens.
  6. @Daveroski ok... After some trial and error I've managed to achieve a 306km LKO with 166m/s of dV remaining. But the target ApA was 71km Well, TCA managed, not me per se. The reason is, obviously, the acceleration that had to be continued far past initial ApA. I'll try to figure out how to do it without moving ApA past the target value...
  7. Ok, so the Luciole craft is not a problem; limiting AoA depending on dynamic pressure brings it safe and sound to orbit. But the Little Squawk gives me nightmares! Even on the steepest trajectory with thrust at 10 degrees to the prograde almost all the time it only manages to achieve 71km ApA ~40s ahead, then falls back, because the last stage has no thrust to circularize in the 80s span. Adding relative ISP to equation doesn't help that, even though it saves some more fuel. So I'm asking to make a video of your manually controlled ascent to learn from. I heard of incompatibility with 1.10.1 of some mods (mine including) to the extent that the game crashes on load screen. But I unfortunately haven't had much time to spent on KSP past few weeks due to the workload and family stuff, so I haven't even install 1.10.1 yet
  8. Use the latest version compiled for 1.9.1 from SpaceDock Controlled Avionics/download/3.7.0
  9. Correct, but this is more relevant for VTOL crafts than for spaceships, since in space the ship would turn using RCS or reaction wheels with engines off most of the time. So in general a conventional 1-engine+RW design works well. Nope. Visit the SpaceDock, ChangeLog section, to see all the versions and their compatibility info.
  10. Not yet, but I'm planning to make one. Yes, TCA works with MJ alright.
  11. It does if they have engineers and are set to work on the same kit.
  12. 1. You don't have to carry the resources: the stock drills can mine Ore, the stock ISRUs with GC patches can convert Ore to required resources, albeit not quickly. 2. Yes. And their level (starts) matters as well. 0-lvl engineer has 0.5 efficiency, 1-lvl => 1, 2-lvl => 2 and so on. A crew of 5 0-lvl is half as efficient as a single 5-lvl. 3. More like a single use launchpad. Container is fixed to the ground, ship is assembled inside, then the container is destroyed and the ship stays on the ground (don't forget launch clamps!). But no size/mass limits.
  13. Looked at Tantares+LV. I'll do the patches and include them in the next release.
  14. That is correct. There were some attempts to do so (you may look for patches in this thread), but there are two difficulties: First, there's no trivial way to patch "any part with arbitrary set of resources", because you need to figure it's equivalent volume in m3 using conversion rates as defined in TankTypes: I myself do it by means of a somewhat lengthy python script based an a config file parsing library; that is I parse part and tank configs perform some calculations and compile a patch: I don't know if this could be done by some MM kung-fu. Maybe. But in principle this may be done directly in KSP by moving these calculations into part modules and mass-patching parts that have resources. Actually, I'll consider this. But second, there's the issue of compatibility with the other resource switching mods. By manually curating patches I can avoid many game-breaking conflicts, where two parts are patched by two mods at once. I'll check what Tantares uses. Parts with plain resources could be easily converted. But I suspect they used B9PS as everyone else. In that case the patches would have to be written by hand, and by someone on their team, so as not to upset the TWR balance they maintain.