Jump to content

[KSP 1.12.1+] Galileo's Planet Pack [v1.6.6] [23 Sept 2021]


Galileo
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Galileo said:

Next update ALL bodies will have anomalies. 

And I may have jumped the gun earlier. Barring any major setbacks, we are going to release one more update before 1.3 comes out.

Like i said in other Place..

2017 is much better as 2016 (and we are only @1/4 Yay!) 

And "messed up" Balkobanur is really Funny look... all Alienblue... Flying Radarstations :confused:

There must be life somewhere:cool:

Great job, thank you very much and patiently wait for all that comes at us

Funny Kabooms 

Urses

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, eberkain said:

Ohh that's awesome news.  So many things I'm looking forward to in the next update.  

 

I may be oversimplifying things, but...  The blue line is an artifact of scaling some piece of artwork so large, presumably a horizon texture for scatterer.  Could an alternate version of that texture be used in rescale games that is of a larger base resolution?  

It's not a texture, but a shader limitation. I have no idea if fixing it is possible. That is something you are going to have to bring up with blackrack on the scatterer thread. He could give you a much better answer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a nice picture for you again. In the background are Catullus, Gauss and Loki. Tarsis is really a gem. If you have the opportunity, visit him in any case.

ny3kFA5.jpg

 

I was a bit cocky and almost lost my SSTO in a Methan lake.

3ZW0LNx.jpg

 

By the way - I'm glad you find my home country so beautiful. You can just believe me, the Germans can be funny - at night in the cellar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Galileo said:

Next update ALL bodies will have anomalies. 

And I may have jumped the gun earlier. Barring any major setbacks, we are going to release one more update before 1.3 comes out.

Nice nice nice nice! If you ever visit Germany again, and your stayin near to Hamburg i would love to show you around as a thank you for your great great work you've done and hopefully you will do in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, right now my clouds don't work. (Have EVE, scatterer, SVE installed...) Now because I post all necessary stuff or anything (like logs and Modslist) I first want to know if clouds are supposed to work atm. Just to make sure that I have done something wrong! ^^

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RavingCraze said:

Hey, right now my clouds don't work. (Have EVE, scatterer, SVE installed...) Now because I post all necessary stuff or anything (like logs and Modslist) I first want to know if clouds are supposed to work atm. Just to make sure that I have done something wrong! ^^

Yes clouds work. Did you use the SVE and scatterer bundled in this pack, or did you download them separately? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First simulated descent onto Augustus, anticipated ten kinds of explosions before getting the design right - but the darn bird landed perfectly and returned to orbit with gas to spare.

Naturally I forgot to press F1 except for this aero check :blush:

LM0n2vV.jpg

Turns out Kerbal Atomics' hydrogen engines work really well at just 0.1atm. These are kicking out over 500 isp each in ox-augmented mode, with a combined TWR of 2.2. Half the mk3-2 adapter worth of oxidiser was enough for a respectable 500m/s, after which it was down to the pure-hydrogen mode to escape the atmosphere.

Still haven't touched KRnD... @JadeOfMaar will be displeased :(   But since it's looking feasible to do without, imma turn on B9 part switch so's I can put hydrogen in regular mk3 parts, because that plane looks silly :P 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, metta said:

 

A little bit curious about the rescale configs: what's the reason behind 3.2x and 6.4x instead of simple integer scales like 3x, 5x or 6x, etc.?

 

This has an explanation for why 6.4 became a thing. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, metta said:

A little bit curious about the rescale configs: what's the reason behind 3.2x and 6.4x instead of simple integer scales like 3x, 5x or 6x, etc.?

There are very deep reasons for why the current and standardized scale options exist. For example I believe 6.4x is where Kerbin is real-scale relative to the height of a kerbal

Quote

This number was chosen as scaling the world 6.4 times larger would then match the scale of the parts in comparison of real world equipment.

whereas 10x is where Kerbin is absolute real-scale. The realism mods that re-balance stock parts to a raised system scale (because they are intentionally vastly overweight at stock-scale) are an immense labor to prepare and are immensely important to the practicality and fun of an upscaled solar system experience.

Thanks for pointing that out @eberkain 

I may be wrong so take my word with a grain of salt.

@eddiew I AM DISPLEEEEASED! :D But wow, I only briefly had anything to do with Kerbal Atomics and Cryogenic Engines. I'm amazed at how capable those engines are. The only thing I remember is that they indeed make excellent upper stage engines in Kerbin ascent. 

Edited by JadeOfMaar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JadeOfMaar said:

@eddiew I AM DISPLEEEEASED! :D But wow, I only briefly had anything to do with Kerbal Atomics and Cryogenic Engines. I'm amazed at how capable those engines are. The only thing I remember is that they indeed make excellent upper stage engines in Kerbin ascent. 

I'm finding Atomics to be a really solid mod, actually. There's not a whole lot to it; I think 4 engines, and some tanks, plus the existence of liquid hydrogen, but the 1.25m models fill the gaps in the mid-range between Aerospikes and Nervas, both of them having oxidiser-augment modes so they'll work well on SSTOs where you need a brief burst of power at the top of the atmosphere. The smaller one is a mediocre 340 isp augmented, the big one is a very respectable 500, rising to 900 in pure hydrogen mode. The big ones come in a "workhorse" variety with 1625 isp, and a "one shot" which has even higher thrust and efficiency, but expends a limited supply of enriched uranium and once it's burnt out, it's burnt out.

...unless like me, you hacked the configs and made enriched uranium a pumpable resource. Alternatives for motherships might be to put the engines on docking ports, so that you can swap them out as their uranium runs low. Which I'm actually doing with the workhorses, because I may at some point KR&D an improved version, and using KAS to swap an 11 ton part is not a small matter! Why am I using the 2nd best? Because the other one rains radioactive death onto everything it goes near... 

There's also a mechanic whereby liquid hydrogen slowly boils off if you don't supply power to the tanks, but... I disabled that. If I need a 5kw reactor to power the ship, it's turned into Near Future, but I feel like Atomics is between stock and NF. I want to at least hit Otho with this crazy thing, before I change tech. Assuming I ever do, the latest revision is up to 17km/s without cargo, but since it weighs about 750 tons... that doesn't reduce much when you put a lander on it :)  

8QfhkYk.jpg

(Is it normal to spend literally days working on a big ship? I started this yesterday lunchtime, it's now nearly 8pm... I have done nothing else and only slept 5 hours :blush:)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@eddiew I tinkered with Kerbal Atomics when I was still super new to KSP; didn't know an Iota about writing MM configs yet and completely lost when every other engine started consuming LH2 against my will. To transfer EnrichedUranium you need to put a kerbal on EVA (Engineers only, perhaps) and use them to right-click the nuclear-carrying part then select the next nuclear-carrying part (which ideally should be a drum or other mass storage part). Transfers are as though you're shuffling crew. It goes until either part is completely emptied or filled. There's no pumping and stopping midway. I learned this from the nuclear engines in Mk2 and Mk3 Stockalike Expansion which cooperate with NF Electrical.

The idea of swapping 11 ton parts with KAS is scary indeed. I'm thinking about having to do the same with equally heavy OPT Dark Drives for engines even cheatier than them!

I'm not worried about my tanks leaking away. I love nuclear stuff, I can replenish LH2 from Karbonite alongside or without Ore, and I like that that little threat is there. I'm not going to make Kerbal Atomics easier for myself by deleting the boiloff feature or making EnrichedUranium flow like LFO but I had the idea to write modules to produce LH2 from Water and atmospheric Hydrogen or gases containing it. Kerbal Atomics is built not to need NFE right out the gate (example is if a ship never goes past Duna a few Gigantors will always be enough to keep the tanks charged), but Kerbal Atomics is built to fit right in with NFE because imo NFE sets the standard for nuclear parts and mechanics.

I've been a KSP user for 15 months... After all that time I'm still tinkering with the design for one officially un-launched mothership. :wink: But there are ones that are suddenly all there like the Stork with a baby in its bag.

This vanilla Mk3 ship (with no minor ship inside and 8 NERVs) has 8km/s dV. With the figurehead SSTO (4km/s by itself) nearly 9km/s dV. They came together in an hour or 2. Now I wonder what their range would be like with that mod.

faGuo9N.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@JadeOfMaar - ahhh, so that's how it's done legit! I guess I could put them on my mothership then, if the part above the engine was a big uranium container... but still, I don't want them to spit that out into Gael orbit! Would rather invest with KR&D to make the clean engines better. Which, I'll mention, costs me 1500 science for the first 5%, then 3000 for the next 5%, then 4500... basically it's 15k science for a 25% efficiency boost to any engine. Which will do nicely as a sink for all the points and I doubt I will KR&D any other component. It's impractical to improve hydrogen tanks because the cost scales with the number of units of fuel, and the weight - and there's a lot of both!

And I agree that the mod forcibly swapping nervas to LH2 is a pita. It should be a mode toggle that you can do during a mission, not a forced change. I had several flights en-route when I found out what had happened, and spent about an hour figuring out how to undo it. I've probably leaned enough since to add a mode toggle myself... can certainly snoop through the dual-mode engines and see how its done. Might give it a go later, let them have 850 isp on hydrogen or something token like that. Technically I've still got a Hox probe on the way though, so I don't want to nerf LF performance for the next 18 years or it'll turn into a flyby :P  

Take your point about carrying karbonite and converting on demand... You don't really need to do a water tweak because it comes with an ISRU patch to get liquid hydrogen from ore. But one of my personal mods is to make the ISRU a heavy 5m part, because I think the tiny stock ones are immersion breaking, so the current mothership won't be carrying one. Which is why I need 16km/s where you build for 8. Guess we all pick our challenges :) 

(That said, my ISRU is "only" 17 tons. I'm speccing this ship for up to 100t of cargo to 12km/s, but it's going to need 4-500 tons of ore to refuel! My current hydrogen miner is 55t empty, carries 120 of ore, and won't handle more than ~0.07g, which won't leave a lot of room on the mission for a vessel that is the actual science lander. And will need 4 trips to ground :o  Although I could leave the ISRU and miner when I'm done, so I only really need the transfer-to range... That might be worth it. If I farm out the Otho system, I might just get my 15k science for 1 engine improvement :P )

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@eddiew No need to worry about spraying nuclear waste in space. The gamma rays and Kerbalism's Van Allen belts are already going to kill everyone anyway.

I don't mind that you can't switch between LF and LH2 on the fly. Plan accordingly. :/ But I guess I'd be grateful if Nertea made dual-mode a thing in that regard...? I rather like your idea of having a giant inline Convert-O-Tron and exiling the classic ones. My ISRU philosophy is rejection of omnipotent Ore (evident in GPP itself). The stock ISRUs for me are stripped of their Ore-consuming and fuel-making modules and reserved for smelter work: converting MetallicOre for RocketParts and into Lithium (NF Propulsion) and the drills will take up Ore (in case I decide to switch my installed LS mod to Snacks! or it's necessary for something else not associated with fuel) and MetallicOre. The Karbonite ISRUs will fill all my classic fuel needs.

 

 

 

Edited by JadeOfMaar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, metta said:

A little bit curious about the rescale configs: what's the reason behind 3.2x and 6.4x instead of simple integer scales like 3x, 5x or 6x, etc.?

As explained in the link provide by eberkain...  "This number was chosen as scaling the world 6.4 times larger would then match the scale of the parts in comparison of real world equipment."  This is the same reason why some players of 10x systems scale up the their parts by 1.6.  That is, 1.6 to 10 is approximately the same ratio as 1 to 6.4.

I've never heard anyone give a good reason for 3.2x.  I assume it's used just because it's half of 6.4x.  Personally, I have serious doubts about 3.2x.  At the larger sizes (6.4x and 10x) it is really essential that the parts be modded to improve their mass ratios.  At 3.2x I think we're on the line between having to mod the parts, versus really struggling to get by with stock parts.  Straddling that line doesn't make sense to me.  What makes sense is to either go with a larger scale where we have to definitively mod the parts, or use a scale that increases the difficulty but can still be played with unmodded stock parts.  I think 2x or 2.5x would be a lot better than a 3.2x.  At those sizes the Δv requirements would definitely go up and add a challenge to the game, but I don't think it would be out of the reach of stock parts.

In fact, in terms of multiples, 2.5x is very close to halfway between 1x and 6.4x.  That is, 1*2.5*2.5 = 6.25.  (Another reason why 2.5x makes more sense than 3.2x.)

(edit)
We chose to use 3.2x and 6.4x scales for GPP simply because those scales were already in use by other mods.
 

Edited by OhioBob
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, OhioBob said:

I've never heard anyone give a good reason for 3.2x.  I assume it's used just because it's half of 6.4x.

I agree with that statement and also pondered whether that's indeed all the reason there is for that scale existing. I'm sure Eddie would've been just fine --not eventually getting frustrated to heck holding back with his upgrade mod if 2.5x was a standard option instead of 3.2x and I wonder whether many other players feel the same way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

I agree with that statement and also pondered whether that's indeed all the reason there is for that scale existing. I'm sure Eddie would've been just fine --not eventually getting frustrated to heck holding back with his upgrade mod if 2.5x was a standard option instead of 3.2x and I wonder whether many other players feel the same way.

I'm really enjoying the combination of 3.2x scale and Kerbal R&D. I actually played 3x for a career before finding out that 3.2x was a thing, so I switched over. No particular reason for the jump. Personally, I find 3.2x to be the sweet spot in terms of grandeur, challenge, and tedium. 6.4x is also good, but 10x is just too tedious for my taste.

3.2x with stock parts works fine so long as you have some experience and you limit yourself to operations in the Kerbin/Gael SOI. Going interplanetary is not fun without R&D- if I hadn't upgraded my LV-Ns, Poodles, and Terriers, I wouldn't have gotten nearly so far in my current career.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Norcalplanner said:

... but 10x is just too tedious for my taste.

I tried 10x RSS for a little while and I had the same experience.  I just didn't find it fun.

2 hours ago, Norcalplanner said:

3.2x with stock parts works fine so long as you have some experience and you limit yourself to operations in the Kerbin/Gael SOI. Going interplanetary is not fun without R&D- if I hadn't upgraded my LV-Ns, Poodles, and Terriers, I wouldn't have gotten nearly so far in my current career.

For now we're keeping 3.2, 6.4 and 10x verisons, but we're also adding a 2.5x for the next release.  There's not a huge difference between 3.2x and 2.5x, but it should be enough to make 2.5x noticeably easier.  Delta-v requirements in 2.5x should be about 12% less than in 3.2x.  The goal it to allow people to play entirely with unmodded stock parts, but still be able to go interplanetary.  We want to make interplanetary difficult, but not impossible.

At this point there is really no experience with a 2.5x system.  We'll just have to have people try it out and give us their feedback.  If 2.5x is well received, we'll stick with it.  If more tweaking is required, I suppose we can try a 2x system.  There's no reason we have to limit ourselves to what people have done in the past (3.2, 6.4 and 10x).  There has to be a sweet spot out there somewhere that most people will be happy with, we just have to find it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, eddiew said:

 (Is it normal to spend literally days working on a big ship? I started this yesterday lunchtime, it's now nearly 8pm... I have done nothing else and only slept 5 hours :blush:)

I don't know if it's normal… but it happens to me too. For example, my gigantic Tellumo rover, the rocket to transport it and the package it will land in, took 4 days to design and test, playing about 3 to 4 hours a day. For me, the design phase is one of the most enjoyable things in the game.

When I was a kid, I used to design submarines and planes and even cities etc. for fun with pencil and paper. Now I can do similar things and even see if my designs work! :)

I'd imagine this forum is full of people who used to play with Legoes for hours and hours, like I did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Luovahulluus It's perfectly normal to take very long on a design of any sort and in any subject. Any well-crafted and well-purposed thing is deep and is time-consuming to bring forward. Galileo's Planet Pack arrived in only 3 months since its conception but is as complex and polished as any giant mod or any stock KSP feature that took a year or more to develop.

When i was younger I designed fantasy world characters and my own Pokemon-derived monsters and even a magic arts tree like KSP has tech trees. Now I design alien species and tech and starships for them.

Spoiler

Lego blocks and transformer figures. :( Golden days they were.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know, the 3.2x scale was designed to increase the delta-v to orbit requirement from ~3500m/s to the ~4500m/s which existed during the pre-1.04? "soup-o-sphere" days. Basically, the new aerodynamics made orbit easier by reducing low and mid-atmosphere drag. 

I am still messing around with 10x scale - the one thing I notice is that the parts are definitely the wrong size, even with SMURFF. All rocket stacks are ludicrously tall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love 3.2x

In my experience my rockets all have realistic-ish fuel mass fractions and all look more like real rockets than in any other re-scale with parts balanced for stock. Now I don't use stock parts, in fact I remove pretty much all of the stock rocket parts, only keeping plane parts and some probe engines and use SSTU for all my lifter needs, I do make some adjustments to it, mostly just making the minimum diameter on all the procedural parts .3125m and moving things around the tech tree so that I can start off with small sounding rockets that can't even get out of the atmosphere and basic planes.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...