Jump to content

[1.02] KW Rocketry v2.7 Available - 1.02 Compatibility! - 16/05/2015


Recommended Posts

oh dam, ive been running windowed, since at 1080p it just looks better. I will attempt fullscreen. so in full screen mode, having its virtual desktop, allocates more ram ?

Doesn't make a difference to the size of the address space or the size of the individual textures. Might make a difference in available video memory, which would affect how many textures can be offloaded to video memory if ATM is marking them not readable.

It sounds like the main reasons Windows users need to worry about borderless-window mode is to reduce crashes and visual glitches when using OpenGL on Windows, and the main difference in memory performance comes from how OpenGL and DirectX handle textures differently.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not happy with a lot of the KW engines in KSP v0.90 especially the 2.5M and larger engines. Thus I decided to do some tweaks to be more in line with stock KSP "balance". I've done my best to give each engine a role, or place, in the engine "hierarchy".

I wrote the config as a module manager patch. Therefore, if you decide you don't like the changes you can easily delete the patch and have "stock" KW engines.

I am open to opinions on these changes. I tried my best not to make any 1 engine the "best", though some engines are definitely better at certain things (such as the Griffon "series" engines being excellent launch engines).

Release v1.0

// Changed the Vesta VR-1 to be a lighter LV-T45 with less thrust

- thrust increased from 90 to 100

- ASL ISP reduced from 350 to 320

- Vac ISP reduced from 400 to 370

// Changed the Wildcat V to be a heavier LV-T30 with more thrust

- thrust increased from 230 to 260

- ASL ISP reduced from 325 to 320

// Changed the Vesta VR-9D to be a lighter "Skipper" with less thrust

- weight reduced from 5T to 2.5T

- thrust reduced from 600 to 540

// Changed the Maverick V to be a lighter "Mainsail" with less thrust

- weight reduced from 6T to 4T

- thrust reduced from 1400 to 1000

- ASL ISP increased from 285 to 320

- Vac ISP increased from 335 to 360

// Changed the Griffon G8D to be a launch pad lifter engine (A 2.5M reversed-role KR-2L)

- thrust increased from 1900 to 2000

- ASL ISP increased from 280 to 400

- Vac ISP reduced from 325 to 260

// Changed the Wildcat XR to be a heavier KR-2L with more thrust

- thrust increased from 1400 to 3800

- ASL ISP increased from 275 to 280

- Vac ISP increased from 370 to 380

// Changed the Titan T1 to be a heavier KS-25x4 with more thrust

//(also note Titan T1 is slightly less efficient due to massive gimbal)

- thrust increased from 3600 to 4600

- ASL ISP increased from 270 to 300

- Vac ISP increased from 325 to 340

// Changed the Griffon XX to be a launch pad lifter engine (A 3.5M version of the G8D)

- thrust increased from 5000 to 5900

- ASL ISP increased from 265 to 400

- Vac ISP reduced from 310 to 260

// Changed the Titan V to be a 5M variant of the Titan T1

- thrust increased from 5800 to 7300

- ASL ISP increased from 260 to 290

- Vac ISP increased from 335 to 340

// Changed the Griffon Century to be a launch pad lifter engine (A 5M version of the G8D)

- thrust decreased from 11000 to 10000

- ASL ISP increased from 257 to 400

- Vac ISP reduced from 300 to 260

Download the file here on dropbox

Link to post
Share on other sites
I was not happy with a lot of the KW engines in KSP v0.90 especially the 2.5M and larger engines. Thus I decided to do some tweaks to be more in line with stock KSP "balance". I've done my best to give each engine a role, or place, in the engine "hierarchy".

I wrote the config as a module manager patch. Therefore, if you decide you don't like the changes you can easily delete the patch and have "stock" KW engines.

I am open to opinions on these changes. I tried my best not to make any 1 engine the "best", though some engines are definitely better at certain things (such as the Griffon "series" engines being excellent launch engines).

Release v1.0

// Changed the Vesta VR-1 to be a lighter LV-T45 with less thrust

- thrust increased from 90 to 100

- ASL ISP reduced from 350 to 320

- Vac ISP reduced from 400 to 370

// Changed the Wildcat V to be a heavier LV-T30 with more thrust

- thrust increased from 230 to 260

- ASL ISP reduced from 325 to 320

// Changed the Vesta VR-9D to be a lighter "Skipper" with less thrust

- weight reduced from 5T to 2.5T

- thrust reduced from 600 to 540

// Changed the Maverick V to be a lighter "Mainsail" with less thrust

- weight reduced from 6T to 4T

- thrust reduced from 1400 to 1000

- ASL ISP increased from 285 to 320

- Vac ISP increased from 335 to 360

// Changed the Griffon G8D to be a launch pad lifter engine (A 2.5M reversed-role KR-2L)

- thrust increased from 1900 to 2000

- ASL ISP increased from 280 to 400

- Vac ISP reduced from 325 to 260

// Changed the Wildcat XR to be a heavier KR-2L with more thrust

- thrust increased from 1400 to 3800

- ASL ISP increased from 275 to 280

- Vac ISP increased from 370 to 380

// Changed the Titan T1 to be a heavier KS-25x4 with more thrust

//(also note Titan T1 is slightly less efficient due to massive gimbal)

- thrust increased from 3600 to 4600

- ASL ISP increased from 270 to 300

- Vac ISP increased from 325 to 340

// Changed the Griffon XX to be a launch pad lifter engine (A 3.5M version of the G8D)

- thrust increased from 5000 to 5900

- ASL ISP increased from 265 to 400

- Vac ISP reduced from 310 to 260

// Changed the Titan V to be a 5M variant of the Titan T1

- thrust increased from 5800 to 7300

- ASL ISP increased from 260 to 290

- Vac ISP increased from 335 to 340

// Changed the Griffon Century to be a launch pad lifter engine (A 5M version of the G8D)

- thrust decreased from 11000 to 10000

- ASL ISP increased from 257 to 400

- Vac ISP reduced from 300 to 260

Download the file here on dropbox

Funnily enough I do actually have a set of stock "balance" numbers hidden in the dark depths of a forbidden excel spreadsheet tab.

Did you use any performance metrics for the engines when you came up with your numbers or did you just use straight edit the stats?

Sorry for the sparse replies all around guys and gals. I'm still knee deep in various levels of work and pretty much have been over the entirety of the Christmas holiday.

Although I'm fairly sure I'll get a nice chunk of free time in a couple of weeks, so I'll use that to take a look over some things that have been needing to be touched.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Funnily enough I do actually have a set of stock "balance" numbers hidden in the dark depths of a forbidden excel spreadsheet tab.

Did you use any performance metrics for the engines when you came up with your numbers or did you just use straight edit the stats?

Sorry for the sparse replies all around guys and gals. I'm still knee deep in various levels of work and pretty much have been over the entirety of the Christmas holiday.

Although I'm fairly sure I'll get a nice chunk of free time in a couple of weeks, so I'll use that to take a look over some things that have been needing to be touched.

Since the stock 2.5m engines were rebalanced in 0.24, I've felt like the large KW engines were still on the old performance curve. For instance, I haven't really found a use case for a Vesta VR-9D over a Skipper any more except that the Vesta looks a lot better. (This career has been on standard funds yields with FAR for 3,200 m/s to orbit, so I've never been poor enough to worry about comparing costs. If the intended use case is "cheaper," I'm not complaining.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
ever thought of including a 3.75m stack probe core? KW seems to lend itself very well to large rockets, but the only thing really missing is a big probe core (for, say, a double-ended dockign ring-based >=3.75m tanker)

Here you go all you need is ModuleManager.*.*.* installed which if you have pretty much any mod installed you have it already and put the file anywhere in KSP/GameData. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72893034/probeStackXLarge.cfg.zip

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having a strange issue with this mod on 0.90.

Every part is duplicated in the parts list, as in there's two of every part. This fills the list up unnecessarily.

I've tried uninstalling and reinstalling the mod, and I've tried (as someone i found through google suggested) deleting the Squad and NASAmission folders and then verified game cache to re-download them.

It's still happening, and I've no idea what to do.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Funnily enough I do actually have a set of stock "balance" numbers hidden in the dark depths of a forbidden excel spreadsheet tab.

Did you use any performance metrics for the engines when you came up with your numbers or did you just use straight edit the stats?

Sorry for the sparse replies all around guys and gals. I'm still knee deep in various levels of work and pretty much have been over the entirety of the Christmas holiday.

Although I'm fairly sure I'll get a nice chunk of free time in a couple of weeks, so I'll use that to take a look over some things that have been needing to be touched.

When you do get around to looking at the balance can you have a look at the weight of the stack decouplers?

I'd like to use the KW Rocketry ones but it's hard to justify using them because they're 5 times heavier than the stock ones.

Link to post
Share on other sites

not sure if related to 0.90 but everytime i try a CS+LEM flight using the petal adapter, after docking the spacecraft to the LEM if i try to decouple the LEM it get stuck to the adapter, and if i time warp hoping to have the LEM removed from the rocket, after i return to 1x the whole craft "crashes" into something, breaking solar panels, RCS and what else it can

that does not happen if i decouple both prior docking

Link to post
Share on other sites

it's under the "structural" tab

i don't have pics of it in the VAB, but here's something that might help ya finding it

screenshot73.png

not sure if this one will help, but...

screenshot72.png

here's how it looks like in the VAB (closed) (it's under the Soyuz fairing btw)

screenshot74.png

screenshot75.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi,

Can anyone tell me (or point me to something describing) how to use the 'Interstage' parts? What are they for? I assume I can place cargo in them (like the petal adapter?) or are they more like inline fairings? I'm not sure how I should be placing them (they always want to overlap parts above above and below), how I should be attaching the payload or how it behave when working properly.

Any information would be great!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit: The problem I had seems to be something much more substantial, as there are also graphic glitches and all that. Bug doesn't seem to have much to do with KW Rocketry. Sorry for wasting your time :)

Edited by Flow
Link to post
Share on other sites

Void: Interstage decouplers are just a different way of having stage seperators. Think of them as a hybrid between seperators and fairings. Normally you would just hide the engine of the next stage within them, but you could hide payloads in them sure.

They are used in just the same manner as regular stage seperators, so make sure that they are placed on the most bottom node of the item that you are attaching it to, or the Kerbals will have an early firework night.

Edited by Lei07
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a suggestion. Perhaps a lite version of this mod could be given a download link. This version would not include any of the parts that are supplied by an unmodified game. (Ex. parts that just have different textures, inter-stages, ect) This could reduce memory usage and clutter for those who choose to use it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...