Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for '화성출장만남[KaKaoTalk:ZA31]200%보장 전지역 모두 출장가능서울출장안마,서울24출장,서울출장카톡,서울출장프로필,서울예약금출장'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • General
    • Announcements
    • The Daily Kerbal
  • Kerbal Space Program 2
    • KSP 2 Discussion
    • KSP 2 Dev Diaries
    • KSP 2 Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • Show and Tell
  • Kerbal Space Program
    • KSP Discussion
    • KSP Suggestions & Development Discussion
    • Challenges & Mission ideas
    • The Spacecraft Exchange
    • KSP Fan Works
  • Community
    • Welcome Aboard
    • Science & Spaceflight
    • Kerbal Network
    • The Lounge
  • Gameplay and Technical Support
    • Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
    • Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
    • Technical Support (PC, modded installs)
    • Technical Support (PlayStation 4, XBox One)
  • Add-ons
    • Add-on Discussions
    • Add-on Releases
    • Add-on Development
  • Making History Expansion
    • Making History Missions
    • Making History Discussion
    • Making History Support
  • Breaking Ground Expansion
    • Breaking Ground Discussion
    • Breaking Ground Support
  • International
    • International
  • KerbalEDU Forums
    • KerbalEDU
    • KerbalEDU Website

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Skype


Twitter


About me


Location


Interests

  1. Blender froze while rendering over 200 glasses of chocolate milk.

  2. Every time I switch to my rover it spawns some 200 m above ground. Any way I can fix this without adding boosters/parachutes?
  3. 200 REP!
    YEAH!

  4. almost 200 rep!

  5. i did some math (though with poor measurements and a lot of ballpark estimates, its really hard to call it such) to figure out how much mining it would take to be able to live on it alone. i would only need like an 8-10 x increase in available hardware to make minimum wage. im currently using about 200-300w (estimated, dont have any mains watt meters on hand). going up to 3kw. this would cost roughly a buck an hour at current electric rates. this is less than a one hour commute to work in a modest car. in fact i could make 2-3x minimum wage before my energy usage is more than the commute alone. ignoring the kind of wastages that companies tend to be known for. and a good portion of that money would go into keeping the hardware up to date. might be a stretch when you factor in the environmental cost of manufacturing and shipping the hardware, but i think its better for the environment that i stay home and mine.
  6. 20 years ago, the answer would have been yes. (the data doesnt include the last 5 years, but "https://xkcd.com/1732/" has some good historical data presentation for global temperatures) The problem is that there IS mechanisms to remove CO2, and we're overloading them by putting tens of thousands of years of carbon sequestered underground, and putting it all into the air in just the last 200 years. Several of those mechanisims are starting to break under the strain, such that they arnt even doing their normal CO2 removal anymore. Edit: CO2 may be "plant food", but it's starting to look more like the monty python "wafer thin mint" sketch.
  7. point to point transport on Earth ends up competing with subsonic airlines. Fuel economy wise, that's a losing battle. It's not as bad as some people seem to suggest but pretty much you'll struggle to get better fuel economy per passenger km than the Concorde (I'm not counting oxidizer either, but it is pretty cheap). Also I think there's a safety issue. A launcher with a life expectancy of 10000 flights and a 0.005% catastrophic failure rate would still be far behind commercial aviation in safety and cost, and the rigors of near-orbital flight are quite a bit more violent (>2.5 G vs <1.5 G) and inherently less safe than an airline flight (cabin depressurization on a spaceship is harder to deal with, you can't just pump pure oxygen into an unpressurized mask and call it good, and indeed, can't safely expose even the skin to the outside pressure, let alone the lungs, ballistic landing requires engine power and fuel while aerodynamic landing doesn't, rockets have a 20-50% margin of safety while airliner aircraft often have >100%, loss of attitude control during reentry is significantly more dangerous than in subsonic cruise flight over land with adequate fuel to recover). So even if we had a rocket with only a 1 in 20000 fatality rate, so 1 fatality per ~200,000,000 passenger km or so, that's a bit safer than car travel but only a bit. From the passenger point of view, we can think of there being three sources of "cost." 1. The time the flight and surrounding activities take, including getting through security, secondary transportation, boarding, booking the trip, launch delays, etc. There would be a novelty factor of incidental space tourism but this would likely wear off pretty fast. 2. The average quality adjusted life year of injuries or deaths from a flight. 3. The ticket price of the flight in time spent doing work at low quality of life, or opportunity cost of what they could spend that money on and get higher quality of life. So: 1. Fairly short flight times (less than an hour for sure) would come with considerable transit and security time. Especially if you don't live near a spaceport or are not going to one. Land requirements for a space port may be even higher than those of an airport because of noise pollution. I would say at least an hour of overall security, and depending on safety features, maybe even an hour of boarding and deboarding. Probably a couple hours of secondary transportation. We're probably talking 5 hours minimum trip time. 2. Even with our 2 order of magnitude hypothetical improvement in safety, losing on average 1/20000th of your remaining life is not an insignificant safety concern. If the average person has 40 years of remaining life expectancy, that's about 17.5 hours. Obviously if it's more in line with modern risk levels, the expectation would be closer to 1750 hours. 3. Ticket price. This one varies considerably by country and income level but you had to spend time to Earn money buy the ticket. Fuel alone would probably be like ~2000 liters per person per trip, each of which is around $1 or maybe $2-3 if it's expensive fuel. Right, that works out to 100 people burning ~200 tonnes of fuel or 600 people burning 1200 tonnes. I think you'd be hard-pressed to fit many more than that many people on a ship that size. We also mentioned that ships are retired after 10000 flights. So if each ship costs about $500000 per seat, in line with subsonic airliner costs which is probably very optimistic, that's $50 extra per ticket for the cost of the ship itself. If the ship is 10x the price, that would be $500 a seat. ROI is another factor to consider. If a ship can average 6 flights a day, that will be retired in about 5 years. If it can only make 8 flights a month, then that's gonna take about a century to retire meaning it's actually overly reuseable. If we assume the spaceline wants a 10 year ROI, then anything under 3 flights a day and we start having to add a very large markup to the ticket cost. If you can only do 1 flight a day, then you're only reusing it 3652 times in that 10 year period. So more like $150-1500 per flight. Finally, we have maintainance costs. These things operate with thin margins of safety so presumeably a lot of things will need to be maintained. Current estimates are 0.4-10% total relaunch costs for boosters. If we take the optimistic side of that, assume half is maintainance, then cut it by a factor of 10, that's still twice the cost of the vehicle in maintainance over it's lifetime. So that's around $100-1000 per ticket going to maintainance. Add in a healthy margin to further development, subsidize other projects, buy more and/or make the person owning this operation richer than god, and I think we can see a scenario where even an "ultra-reuseable" vehicle could have a $10000 price tag on one flight, but I could also see as low as $3000 if we're very optimistic. Either of those is hundreds of hours of first world median wage, suggesting that perhaps fuel costs would be the primary determinant of mass adoption. That being said, the same does not apply to weakly or moderately reuseable craft. If you have 500 launches per ship, 0.1% mortality, and 50 launches a year, and 0.4% maintainance costs, your fuel cost will still be $2000-6000/head, but your fixed capital cost will be $1000-10000/head, and your maintainance cost $2000-20000/head. Add in a few thousand for the company and you have maybe $8000-50000 ticket price. Reasonably economical space tourism but not competitive with any kind of airline. Overall, I think we're still kind of in the range where 50 flight reuseability, 20 flights a year, 0.5% maintainance costs per flight would be considered very good. And thus, spaceliners are not yet viable for mass market.
  8. I like the analogy to what happened to the smoking industry. I think the biggest distinction is between how we use smoking and say anything that affects the climate. Smoking is an individual pleasure that has gotten more and more expensive, making it at least a very expensive hobby that can effect others. On the flip side, climate change effects range from directly affecting it like driving gas guzzling cars, to something like the beef industry where a bunch of cow farts literally affect the planet. (insane right? XD) In both cases you can't really just "stop" doing it and "go cold turkey", as there isn't anywhere nearly enough energy infrastructure, and people like eating steak. Plus all the worse effects wont be dealt with by you, if you could smoke but magically never have any ill effects except 200 years from now. I'm sure more people wouldn't care and still smoke. Amazon, like other big box stores of cloud providers, which use a lot of juice to keep things running usually builds their data centers in locations that can support their energy needs with their own goals. Technically (and for once) Amazon is actually somewhat behind the game in terms of powering their infrastructure with renewables. Google says they have been running on 100% renewables for a few years now. Google provides more information on how they are doing it, and how they plan to even go further with it. Its also worth mentioning, these cloud providers are global, so they gather their energy needs all over the world. Amazon also has an entire sub-domain dedicated to their efforts here: https://sustainability.aboutamazon.com/ Here's Azure's (Microsoft's cloud) https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/global-infrastructure/sustainability/#overview And Google's https://sustainability.google/ Most of these numbers do hide the truth that there are situations where renewable infrastructure isn't available, so the companies usually "pay-back" using Renewable Energy Certs. external review of above efforts: https://www.wired.com/story/amazon-google-microsoft-green-clouds-and-hyperscale-data-centers/ Note: I believe Amazon is building solar farms in Kentucky rather than buying existing farms to build solar panels over. Land is cheap, there is no reason to buy existing farmland when you can just buy existing empty land and develop it for your needs yourself. Buying up farmland to build solar panels sounds more evil though ;D I think you and @RCgothic are comparing apples to oranges. Your using NASA data estimating what things will be like by 2100, which estimates 1 to 8 feet by then. Which in itself is bad, but not as bad as what gothic is referring to. RCGothic is referring to "worse-case endgame" where there are no more ice caps. Its also acknowledged this doesn't happened overnight, nor gives estimated timescales of when/how this happens. Immediate changes to temperature and social disruption will be the single most immediate disturbing factor. Namely increasing temperatures rising to a point where the wet bulb temperature will directly get people and animals killed. The last heat wave in Canada, which isn't exactly known to be a "hot place", already killed at least a dozen people and wildlife galore. (source: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57654133) Its all "future problems", until you die of a heat stroke in Canada. Sure humans can work around such environments using AC, but other animals can't and wont and have a real choice in the matter and will die off in the millions. Even with AC, power grid failures are vastly more common due to added stresses being added to the grid. All it would take is 1 bad blackout on a super hot day to get people killed at this point.
  9. Do you have a link to the mod that adds these? I've been looking for things to add underwater, and to kerbin in general. All I ended up doing was adding BG surface features to kerbin: On another note, I revisited my reusable 2-stage Eve cargoplane, which got 18 tons to orbit in a medium cargobay and ramp. That darn cargobay combination has a mass of 7 tons (10 tons for the longer version). That bay is seriously restrictive anyway. I thought about it, and I wondered, why am I building these things anyway? My original impetus for building these was that I wanted to construct to mobile modular surface bases. My thoughts were: 1) I can use a fuel truck/depot module to expand fuel capacity of the shuttle, and use it as a fuel tanker in addition to the craft to bring modules down to the surface to construct the base. - But a dedicated tanker craft is more efficient (less tedious repeated tanker trips), and taking modules down 1 by 1 is tedious, particularly on atmospheric bodies. Now with engineers and 1 storage container, I can even remove and put away parachutes after landing to save part count. 2) I could lift all modules of a base back to orbit, and bring them down somewhere else. I have never used this capability. The most I've done is land an ISRU module at a spot that wasn't carefully selected, to fuel up the shuttle, and then go back to orbit to choose a spot for the base more carefully, or to carry the ISRU around to collect biome data. I don't need to go ot orbit for that. I can do fairings a a couple chutes on Eve. I don't need the down-mass capability. And what do I really need the up-mass capability for? lifting up fuel for something in low Eve orbit (would this eve be more convenient than taking fuel from Gilly?). Lifting a few kerbals up? So I ditched the idea of an Eve shuttle with a cargobay.. bye bye to this: To be replaced by 2 different orbiters. One would be the fuel tanker. In place of the 2.5-mk3 adapter, mk3 cargobay parts, and 1.875m side tanks was simply 2 in line orange tanks, with an engine plate at the back (now 3x wolfhounds instead of 2x skippers). 2.5m rxn wheels and batteries became 1.25m ones. 2x solare panels became 1x. 4x canard control surfaces went to 2x. Big-S wings became Swept structural wings. 4x elevons became 2x swept elevons. Mass went down, dV went up, TWR went up (all considering 1440LF/1760Ox as payload). Any even smaller crew carrying orbiter was easily made. Instead of swapping out modules in the cargobay, I'm swapping out orbiters for different functions. With my new orbiters, I got to work optimizing my 1st stage carrier: The orbiter joins with the carrier by just docking on the ground. Landing gear spring strength is adjusted in case of alignment problems. They join unfueled, and are fueled up by an ISRU base on the ground. EC was limiting the max altitude on props, so I tried a gigantor based solution, trying to fly below the speed they snap off... results are... not great so far. Anticipating that the gigantors would work, I ditched 24 2.5 meter batteries (keeping 2), and added some wings (trying to improve ceiling on props, and also keep flight speed down so as not to break the gigantors) Anticipating a higher ceiling on props, I also removed 2x Kerbodyne S3-14400 Tanks replaced 8 vectors with 2 mamoths, removed another 4 vectors (I had anticipated an orbiter using 2x vectors instead of 3x wolfhounds, and I may want to revist that, so I can use crossfeeding to use those vectors). I was able to reduce mass from just over 900 tons to just over 700, at the cost of only 200 m/s (anticipated to be made up for by lighting engines higher in Eve's atmosphere)... It seems like I'm close to a much more efficient and practical system, but I'm still having a problem with supplying the EC. I could try spamming Ox-stat XL panels, but that would eliminate by part count savings... I don't want performance to suffer too bad. I wonder if the Ox-stat panels would be even better for performance, since they have their "physics significance" set to zero in the config. I think I'm going to mod the Ox-Stat-XL to have the same physics significance = zero setting, since 1 of those is identical to 8 of the ox-stats, and I want to save part count
  10. The industrial revolution has seriously started just 200 years ago, just two butterfly wingflaps. They started mining coal in industrial amounts and produce carbon dioxide in industrial amounts, too. The plant pipe smoke was like a huge source of pride, and it was. A century later they developed the chemical production of pre-food, synthetic clothes and resins, synthetic petrol. And it became too expensive to just exhaust the exhaust. The deoxidization became common place, bringing the carbon dioxide back into the industrial cycle as a chemical resource. Now they tend to return into process as much carbon dioxide as they can, and what is more important, they need to force the people to buy new things when the old ones aren't spent. The only way to do so is to force the so-called "green tech" and conjure gretchens, and that's right. That cleans the way to the future fusion power, and thus that's right. But the whole phase of human history when the overevolved monkeys are parasiting on 300 million years old rotten algae (and on the black oil from beneath whatever it actually is), unlikely will last longer than a century more, than the third butterfly wingflap. As the global warming, carbon footprint, and so on, are a process of centuries, I believe that the human greed as always will win, and hi-tech corporations will force everyone to buy the green tech products and save every molecule of the precious carbon dioxide to turn it into goods. And this will happen regardless of anyone's efforts to slow or to accelerate this process, so all these greenpeaces and other ecovillagers are just an entourage, affecting really nothing. As well as active citizens separating food remains from paper plates sticky from food remains and thinking they are saving the nature. In greed we trust.
  11. What I lack in hard science knowledge, I believe I make up for in considering as many perspectives as possible. The meaning of "soon" here can vary in meaning on who you ask, about how "cataclysmic" something like climate change could be. "Soon" in the scale of the universe is millions of years. "Soon" in the scale of a human lifetime ranges from tomorrow, to next week, to possibly next year. So in many senses "soon" isn't really soon at all, it will take decades/centuries to really see incredibly obvious effects of climate change. Except its taken roughly 1.5 centuries to get here from 0. So yes, for people of today, most wont be impacted at all, a few will be impacted a little more due to more "wild changing weather", but it wont be "that bad". The fact its taken less than 200 years to end up in a situation where its very possible your grandkids will be dealing with it might not seem like "soon" to many, except in relation to just human civilization, "soon" is an incredible short time span. This is one of the reasons why its such a hard problem to tackle. Because it isn't "soon" at all in regards to the perspective the average human has and can easily be dismissed, but even in the history of human civilization (lets say the last 2000 years), we created this problem in the last sub-1% of that time. So its more of a "right now" problem when viewed from that angle. If the issue was visible, with sudden, dramatic consequences, like an asteroid impact, or an invading nation, or to a lesser extent some extensive virus outbreak (seems kinda relevant ;P), it usually is easier to recognize and mobilize a solution. If the issue is essentially invisible, slow, far reaching, and gradual it always appears to be less a risk, that's just human nature where the "me" and "now" takes over. So I can understand why there are those that run around screaming the sky is falling, because if the sky was falling, but so incredibly slowly you can hardly tell, and it wont even reach you in your lifetime, many would say "so what", or "yea right!" or even "it wont affect me!". With that, it would appear most are "alarmist" because everyone they are talking too, even if they believe them, wont directly be effected.
  12. The aim of this challenge is to get to your destination as cheaply as you can, using some of the worst parts the game has to offer. Craft restrictions: Liquid fuel engine allowed: LV-T45 Swivel: Yup. You get a gimballing LF engine. But it was that or give you access to the reliant which is basically better in every way other than having a gimbal. Vernor engine: this is the LF RCS thruster. Overweight and oversized but that's perfect. LV-1R Spider: A tiny, expensive, overweight engine that works poorly in vacuum and isn't aerodynamic? Yes please. Solid Fuel Boosters allowed: Flea: the first rocket you get in the game. Hammer: as Flea but slightly better. Separatron: This probably isn't meta. Launch Escape System: Fly Safe! Monoprop engine allowed: O-10 monoprop engine: Frankly this will probably not be meta even for this challenge. But hey it you think it's good, this is where it could shine. Note the absence of any normal RCS thrusters. Atmospheric engines allowed: Juno: It's tiny, inefficient, and expensive for it's size. Good luck. Goliath: Big, sorta expensive, and doesn't go very fast? It's perfect. Ion engines allowed: Dawn: It costs a fortune and even more to operate. I highly doubt It'll be meta. Breaking Ground Engines allowed: Both Turboshafts are allowed. Electric motors are not. Reaction Wheels allowed: Only command pod reaction wheels are allowed. No separate reaction wheels. Command Modules allowed: Mk2 drone core: expensive and awkward? yes please. RC-L01 remote Guidance Unit: Even more expensive. Cupola: very awkward. Mk1 cockpit (not inline): Heavy for a single seater. Mk3 cockpit: Oh? It's heat tolerant? It seats 4? Yeah I hope you like the cost, weight and size though. Passenger cabins are not allowed. All wings, control surfaces, structural parts, electrical, batteries, etc are allowed. Mission profiles: For all missions: Recovery is deducted from flight only if you land at the KSC or in view of it. No "recovering" mined resources or converted resources. Base score = 1 unless it's modified, and can't be negative. Final score = (cost - recovered) / base score. Lower final score is better. Stranded or killed Kerbals do not give you any base score, don't count towards mission completion requirements and reduce your base score by 1 per Kerbal stranded or killed. First orbit: put a command module in orbit. If crewed, bring it back from orbit safely. Keostationary satellite launch: Launch a probe core, a sufficient electrical power source, a stationkeeping system with at least 200 m/s of Delta V, and relay antenna sufficient to reach Kerbin's surface, to an approximate circular orbit with a sidereal orbital period of between 5:54 and 6:04. Mun sample return: Land on the Mun and return to Kerbin. +1 base score per additional landing and return from orbit. +1 base score per Kerbal landed. +1 base score if at least one Kerbal remains in Munar orbit throughout the mission. Duna rover landing: Launch a vehicle to Duna and reasonably prove that it could drive for at least 100 km after landing (you need not actually do so). +1 base score per additional rover. +1 per Kerbal who reaches low Duna orbit. +1 per Kerbal who reaches the ground. +1 per Kerbal who rides a rover. So sending one Kerbal to Duna to drive a car there and return gets you a base score of 4. Outer system exploration: Go to worlds beyond Duna's orbit.+1 for each additional flyby to a unique body closer than the radius of the object. +1 for each landing on a unique world. +1 for each Kerbal who witnesses at least one flyby. +1 for each Kerbal who lands at least once. +1 for each flyby and each landing with at least one Kerbal onboard. +1 for each Kerbal who is present for every single landing and flyby without exception.
  13. Hmm... Apparently because of the small tower, it actually misses a lot if the carrier is moving. 22.3 m/s normal to the missile's attack vector was sufficient to cause a miss twice in a row from different angles and speeds. I doubt that applies to the slower more maneuverable missile but good to know that an aircraft carrier with the bridge sufficiently isolated can outright dodge a missile. I suspect the reason for this is the lack of an effective lead turn. So 3 seconds (2.4 km) out the missile is only turning 0.5 degrees a second. Not enough to compensate for the last 200 meters where it needs to then turn 4 degrees a second. The "correct" solution is to make it lead turn by having the angle of the missile lag even further behind the prograde vector, but this would reduce it's overall angular acceleration and possibly accuracy I think.
  14. How much does the part weigh? in KIS a single kerbal can only move 1 ton of mass. To move more you need more kerbals nearby (each can move 1 ton extra). The KIS attachment range is well under 200 meters. You need to be closer. See -> https://usermanual.wiki/Pdf/User20Guide.30709294.pdf
  15. Thank you VERY much. You were spot on, and although I couldn't figure out how to swap the KIS repair kits into stock while "docked" with the satellite, I did return to Kerbin, and refly the mission with the kit in my stock inventory. Now...would you like to go 2 for 2? I also have a mission to attach a "mite" rocket to a satellite. I have it in the KIS inventory, I can "pull" it out and get the pop up menu of "rotate, attach to node, drop" etc. However, I find no way to move it from my mother ship to the target some 200 meters away. I also can not add it to my stock inventory...too big. Any help would be great. There aren't any tutorials I can find on Youtube, and nothing really fits the bill in the forums.
  16. I'm doing my first career and have not had to do science scans before. I have a contract for a "complex scan". Is this something I can do with the small rover arm, or do I need the big one? For that matter, is there an actual gameplay difference between them? Same goes for probe cores. Once you have SAS and unmanned capability, what are you getting for the extra money? What does a 2700 fund drone core do that an OKTO does not? What makes the HECS 200 more than the OKTO? I cannot find any discernible difference.
  17. Here are the configs I worked out for my set up. They're a combination of the original JNSQ's atmo file, and G'th's. I took the tint way down, narrowed the experimentalatmosphere to a 1 to 1 ratio again, and dropped the clouds from the 10k, down to 4k, where a bulk of earth's stratus and cumulus hang out. The result from low orbit is that the planet appears as massive as it is, with clouds far beneath you, and the horizon is a thin band that seems far away. I would love to make the fade from orange to yellow even more blended and subtle, but the best I could do was knock the tint way down. Finally - Does anyone know the line of code here that adjusts at which point, and how fast, the stars fade in to view as you leave atmo? Currently the configs I have, the stars are not visible on the ground during the night, and they just suddenly fade in sometime around 20k, and I'd like it to be sooner. I just don't know what any of these lines mean without annotation, and what I've managed has been trial and error of changing, loading, observing. ALSO - My low-kerbin orbit kerbin textures are a pixelated mine-craft mess. Anyone know where the text. files are and any 128k files to replace them with? { name = Kerbin JNSQTag = True experimentalAtmoScale = 1 cloudColorMultiplier = 3 cloudScatteringMultiplier = 1 cloudSkyIrradianceMultiplier = 1 volumetricsColorMultiplier = 1 Rg = 1600000 Rt = 1622641 RL = 1623019 atmosphereGlobalScale = 1 EVEIntegration_pres1erveCloudColors = False HR = 10 HM = 1.20000005 BETA_MSca = 0.00400000019,0.00400000019,0.00400000019 m_betaR = 0.00579999993,0.0135000004,0.0331000015 m_mieG = 0.2 rimBlend = 20 rimpower = 600 specR = 0 specG = 0 specB = 0 shininess = 30 assetPath = JNSQ/JNSQ_Configs/Scatterer/Planets/Kerbin/Atmo configPoints { Item { altitude = 200 skyExposure = 0.25 skyAlpha = 1 skyExtinctionTint = 1 scatteringExposure = 0.08 extinctionThickness = 1 postProcessAlpha = 1 postProcessDepth = 0.0799999982 extinctionTint = 0.2 openglThreshold = 10 viewdirOffset = 0.0120000001 } Item { altitude = 1000 skyExposure = 0.2 skyAlpha = 1 skyExtinctionTint = 1 scatteringExposure = 0.08 extinctionThickness = 1 postProcessAlpha = 1 postProcessDepth = 0.100000001 extinctionTint = 0.2 openglThreshold = 10 viewdirOffset = 0 } Item { altitude = 250000 skyExposure = 0.1 skyAlpha = 1 skyExtinctionTint = 1 scatteringExposure = 0.08 extinctionThickness = 1 postProcessAlpha = 1 postProcessDepth = 0.100000001 extinctionTint = 0.2 openglThreshold = 10 viewdirOffset = 0 } } } }
  18. Some people are saying planes they would want to fly. So here: The Harvard is such a cool trainer. That engine gives off such a good sound! I would also enjoy playing the 737-200. I know the 737-800 pretty well so the 200 is the same just more analog.
  19. Final Frontier kerbal individual merits current version: 1.10.0-3485 Sometimes it's hard to choose a kerbal for a mission because they are all the same... well, they differ in courage and stupidity but they have no history, no personal merits they have achieved. Do you remember who was the first kerbal in space? No? Ok, who was the first kerbal on Mun? Still no idea? The Final Frontier plugin will handle this for you. Each kerbal will get ribbons for extraordinary merits. And the number of missions flown (i.e. vessel recovered), total mission time and total EVA time is recorded, too. Download: Spacedock Spacedock direct link for KSP 1.1.3 Mirror: Curse For modders: Version 0.8.12 and later includes an api to reward ribbons from an external plugin. You will find an adapter class and an example here: FinalFrontierAdapter Planet Packs (for use in 0.6.0 or later): PFCE: Download Kerbol Expanded: Download (WIP, last update 02.01.2015) Ribbon Packs (for use in 0.9.1 or later): RANKS and MILITARY RANKS FOR KERBALS (Base ID 1000) by Araym Expedition/Rank Ribbon Packs (Base ID 8000) bySmarterThanMe Armed Forces Ranks (Base ID 3000) by Shadriss If you want to create your own ribbon pack feel free to do so. But you should use IDs other than in the ribbon packs above. Just set the BASE in the config file to some other number and keep in mind that every ribbon must get an unique ID. (Screenshot of my development copy and not from a real game) To open the Final Frontier Hall of Fame window just click on the button labeled "FF" in the toolbar or press LEFTALT-F (hardcoded at the moment, so it's not assignable to another key). If you are using the stock toolbar you will find some kind of award icon. To browse all available ribbons just press the "Ribbons" button on the right of the hall of fame. Currently the following ribbons are awarded to kerbals: Orbit around a celestial body (including Kerbin) Landing on a celestial body (including Kerbin – kerbals do reward even simple tasks, because most of the time they fail...) EVA in around a celestial body without a stable orbit (including Kerbin) EVA in an orbit around a celestial body (including Kerbin) EVA on a celestial body (including Kerbin – let's hope they will survive...) Docking around a celestial body (including Kerbin) Collision in a vessel Dangerous EVA while not on ground and not in a stable orbit Get into a Kerbin orbit in less than 200, 150 or 120 seconds Accumulated mission time of at least 5, 20, 50, 100, 500, 2000 or 5000 days (20, 80, 200, 400, 2000 or 20000 kerbin days) A return from single mission that lasted for at least 20, 50, 125, 500 oe 2000 days (80, 200, 500, 2000, or 8000 kerbin days) At least 5, 20 or 50 missions flown (i.e. vessel recovered) Done a splashdown landing First kerbal in space A ribbon for entering the sphere of influence of a celestial body (new in 0.2.2) Planting flags on celestial bodies Launching with solid fuel boosters of 10%, 20%, or 30% ship mass Achieved gee-force of 3, 4, 5, 6,..., 17 or 18 g Entering the deep athmosphere of Jool Orbiting the Sun at half or less the distance of Moho Moving a vehicle (hopefully a rover) on the surface of a celestial body Crew member of a heavy vehicle of at least 250, 500, 750, 1000, 1500, 2000 or 4000 tons Launching a heavy vehicle of at least 250, 500, 750, 1000, 1500, 2000 or 4000 (!) tons Landing a heavy vehicle of at least 250, 500, 750, 1000, 1500, 2000 or 4000 (puh!) tons Ribbons for 1h, 2h, 6h, 12h, 24h, 48h, 96h and 192h in EVA Ribbons for flying a vessel at Mach 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 15 below 20,000m in Kerbin atmosphere (0.4.1 and later) Ribbons for EVA Endurance, i.e. a single EVA of at least 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 90, 120, 180, 240 or 300 minutes. Ribbons for entering atmosphere of Eve, Duna, Jool,... A Ribbon for entering the sphere of influence of all celestial bodies (Grant Tour ribbon) A Ribbon for entering the sphere of influence of all moons of Jool (Jool Tour ribbon) Ribbons for completing contracts Ribbons achieving research (while in a mission) Ribbons for first completed mission as an engineer, pilot or scientist Ribbons for altitude, distance, speed and depth records A Ribbon for entering deep space beyond Eeloo (or whatever outermost planet may exist) Ribbons for landing in polar regions Ribbons for landing at high elevations on kerbin Ribbons for landing with less than 5% or 1% liquid fuel More than 500 ribbons in total! If a kerbal is the first one rewarded with a celestial ribbon, he will get the "First kerbal" ribbon of that kind (for example "First kerbal in orbit around Kerbin "). Some ribbons replace some others when earned. For example: The ribbon for EVA in an orbit around a celestial body replaces the ribbon for EVA around the same body without a stable orbit. The ribbon for 20 missions flown replaces the ribbon for 5 missions, etc. A tooltip gives a short description for each awarded ribbon. The ribbon graphics are inspired by the ribbons created by Unistrut (view this thread). But unfortunately I still do not have his permission to include his ribbon graphics into Final Frontier so I have created my own set of ribbons. They are using the same color and sometimes similar graphics (so they will look similar). If Unistrut will give his permission to use his ribbons, I will include them in a modified form with better graphics than mine. Some of the custom ribbons are created by SmarterThanMe and nothke and are used with their permission. Update: I finally got the permission to use the ribbons from Unistrut. But why is it called "Final Frontier"? Well, I'm quite surprised that nobody is asking, but I will try to explain it anyway. I was thinking about this plugin since the personal achievement mod by blizzy78. I liked the idea in general but in a sandbox game achievements for the player doesn't mean to much to me (but this is a personal opinion of course). Unfortunately I'm a Java/C++ programmer and C# is quite new for me, so time and missing skills/experience delayed the implementation until the first days of 2014. Then I decided to give it a try and created a small C# project for testing/learning the basics. The first decision to made was the name of the project. I do not exactly remember how I get the idea for the name, but I searched a bit in Youtube, Google and well, perhaps there was a replay of Star Trek in TV. I really don't know how I got the name, but I created a project "Final Frontier" and so it begun. And I don't like to change the name of a project afterwards without a specific reason. Installation: Important! Please read if you have trouble with Final Frontier. Just unzip the archive into the KSP folder. Don't move the FinalFrontier folder, it should be nested in the folder GameData/Nereid. If you are already using the toolbar you don't have to extract the toolbar folder. Do not change the installation path! Final Frontier must reside under GameData/Nereid Compatibility: Final Frontier should be compatible with most mods. There is one important exclusion from this rule: Mods that are changing names of celestial bodies or add new celestial bodies will cause trouble. All releases from 0.6.0 and later can handle the altering of celestial bodies. There is still one exclusion: All celestial bodies must have unique names. To get ribbons for new celestial bodies, you must install a planet pack (see above). Changelog: 0.7.15-1047: Fix for missing button in blizzys toolbar 0.8.1-1282: Fix for lost ribbons bug 0.8.2-1285: minor bugs fixed 0.8.6-1370: fix for Contract Configurator compatibiliy 0.8.8-1410: Update for KSP 1.0.5 0.8.9-1414: new custom ribbons from SmarterThanMe 0.8.13-1728: 7 new ribbons (includung deep space ribbon) support for external plugins that may award ribbons minor fixes 0.9.1-1749 support for user defined custom ribbons 0.9.3-1792 fix for not properly removed kerbals in hall of fame that were spawned by CC+ new ribbons: Lost And Found (untestet), Significant Contract, Exceptional Contract, Passenger Transport removed some uneccessary log spamming added optional logging of ribbons/achievements (to analyze incorrectly awarded ribbons; see last checkbox in config window) 0.9.4-1798 fix for Lost And Found ribbon and Passenger Transport ribbons (NREs in log) 0.9.5-1819 Minor fixes (if you do not enable the logging of ribbon awards you should be fine) Lost And Found ribbon disabled Reasearch ribbons tuned down a bit 0.9.6-1826 Fix for mission summary window 0.9.8-1882First North Polar Lander ribbon North Polar Lander ribbon First South Polar Lander ribbon South Polar Lander ribbon 5% Fuel Landing ribbon (only liquid fuel ist taken into account!) 1% Fuel Landing ribbon (only liquid fuel ist taken into account!) 1500m Mountain Lander ribbon 2000m Mountain Lander ribbon 2500m Mountain Lander ribbon 3000m Mountain Lander ribbon 3500m Mountain Lander ribbon 4000m Mountain Lander ribbon 1.0.2-2131 Update for KSP 1.1.0 1.0.3-2181 Update for KSP 1.1.2 Minor fixes (e.g. windows stay open in main menu) 1.0.4-2216 New First-Kerbal-In-Space and First-EVA-In-Space ribbons graphics by SmarfterThanMe Configurable hotkey 1.0.5-2223 correct URL for KSP-AVC no other changes 1.0.6-2301 Fix for Closer Solar Orbit ribbon and OPM 1.0.7-2319 Hotkey fixed (hopefully) 1.0.8-2443 no more 0%/5% Fuel Landing ribbons if a vessel is landing with deployed (or cut) parachutes logging of some keypresses to analyze the still not solved hotkey issue 1.0.9-2459 timestamps in log now in kerbin time, if enabled in KSP settings fix for FinalFrontierAdapter (kerbal type applicant now eligible for ribbon awards) hall of fame is now refreshed, if an applicant joins the crew roster 1.0.10-2467 Fix for hotkey issue (maybe) minor fix to prevent NRE 1.0.12-2505 Build for KSP 1.1.3 RSS compatibility 1.0.13-2539 Mountain Lander Ribbon for 4000m now superseedes 3500m fixed a typo in the description of the polar landing ribbons 1.2.1-2650 Build for KSP 1.2 1.2.3-2675 fix for the incorrect data in the mission summary window "show summary window" checkbox in config 1.2.4-2772 mission summary window only shown if crew recovered 1.2.5-2906 Fix for conflict with Contract Configurator 1.2.7-3080 KSP 1.2.2 (no significant changes) 1.3.1-3103 KSP 1.3.0 (no significant changes) 1.3.2-3155 no more science records for no science points earned low gravity landing ribbons 1.3.3-3172 KSP 1.3.1 logbook pages 1.3.5-3175 Rover ribbon no longer supersedes EVA ground ribbon 1.3.6-3189 Option to permanently disable ribbons in the Ribbon-Browser without tampering with the ribbon png files 1.4.0-3325 KSP 1.4.0 1.4.1-3335 KSP 1.4.1 1.4.2-3375 KSP 1.4.2 Fix for blurred ribbons in low quality settings 1.5.0-3380 KSP 1.5.1 1.5.1-3415 KSP 1.6.0 Squeezing of science points in hall of fame history (reduces data stored in save file) 1.5.3-3465 KSP 1.6.1 If a flight is reverted to EDITOR all ribbons are reverted too 1.8.0-3475 KSP 1.8.1 1.8.1-3479 Minor fix: sorting/statistics for ribbon count in hall of fame fixed 1.10.0-3485 KSP 1.10.0 The plugin is currently in some kind of alpha beta gamma stage. It works or at least I think it will work. But bugs may occur and don't try this plugin in a current game without a backup. And it its my first project in C#, so don't expect to much from the code . Kerbals are identified by their names. So don't add kerbals with the same name or Final Frontier will get confused. The plugin takes use of System.IO to store its data in the corresponding persistent.sfs of a game and its settings in GameData/FinalFrontier.dat. Release 0.8.x will do a scan for old save games in the saves folder and converts them upon permission by the user. There are no other write operations anywhere on the system. License: http://opensource.org/licenses/BSD-2-Clause Source is included in the zip archive. Final Frontier uses the toolbar created by blizzy78, see http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/60863-0-23-0-Toolbar-1-4-3-Common-API-for-draggable-resizable-buttons-toolbar. If you don't like the toolbar or just want to use the stock toolbar for Final Frontier disable the use of blizzys toolbar in the configuration dialog of Final Frontier. Bugs: Ike and dres ribbons are the same. (fixed in 0.4.20) Decoupling in orbit, leaving orbit and immediatly returning into orbit give Fast Orbit Ribbon (fixed in 0.5.4) A splashdown landing in water give Mach 10 Ribbon (fixed in 0.5.4) Typo" Grant Tour" instead of "Grand Tour" (fixed in 0.5.4) SOI ribbons (and maybe others too) are not awarded when in time acceleration (fixed in 0.5.6) Gee force ribbons don't work as intended if crew is changed in flight (still suspicious) Closer solar orbit ribbons don't work (fixed in 0.6.0) quickload may cause loss of ribbons (fixed in 0.6.3) Ribbons may get lost, after installing new mods (fixed in 0.8.1-1282) Kerbals may get cloned (fixed in 0.8.3-1361) mission summary incorrect in some cases (fixed in 0.9.6-1826)
  20. Hmm, in my "high altitude" pics above, between 10,200 and 10,900, and nearly 140 m/s, dynamic pressure was exceeding 26 kPa. Looks like I will need a lower wingloading, or to see how it handles at a higher AoA. (I think I can drop some fuel and an engine pair if I have the power to climb higher) Angle to the relative wind seems to matter too though, so I wonder how much AoA they can take before breaking
  21. I'll give it a try and let you know, but but both ports have their acquire force set to 200%, and when I put them together originally the game changed camera angle to center of mass like it always does when two ships come together. <add'l> Undocking and redocking the ports appears to fix the appearance. It's just that there's several of them that I'll have to try to redock, and I'm hoping this won't recur. Thanks for the suggestion!
  22. Hey llok I have 200 rep good for me

    :)

    1. Starhelperdude

      Starhelperdude

      not only good for you, good for the whole megathread people/unity/nation/whatever :)

  23. Thanks for the response. I think we can get a better payload as an expendable considering the high average Isp of the SSME’s, approx. 4,400 m/s. This page takes the delta-v to orbit as only 9,000 m/s , about right for a base 200 km orbit and launching eastward to take advantage of the Earths 400+ m/s rotation speed near the equator: Towards Reusable Launchers - A Widening Perspective. https://www.esa.int/esapub/bulletin/bullet87/pfeffe87.htm Then using your numbers: 4400Ln(1 +306/(36 + 9.4)) = 9,000 m/s, for a 9.4 ton payload as expendable. Robert Clark
×
×
  • Create New...