OtherBarry Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 I had a similar problem to tmikesecrist3, turns out it's just that the download file is named Gamedata/RealSolarSystem2, but the filepaths inside it are to Gamedata/RealSolarSystem so you just need to rename the folder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tmikesecrist3 Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 (edited) Trying your fix other Barry, but that dont look like the problem. it looks like the folder is named correctly... do I need both rss 5.5 and 6.1? barrys fix did not help Idid have to versions of madual manager but remiving the old one did not seem to help, how do I send my out put log? Edited February 19, 2014 by tmikesecrist3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brooklyn666 Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 I might be wrong here, but it seems like the rotational axes of the planets aren't actually tilted. I noticed this when planning a lunar intercept, and my launch azimuth was way off. When I launch from Kerbin (Earth) into a perfectly equatorial orbit, it's also perfectly aligned with the ecliptic, when it should be 23.44 degrees offset. This means that the axial tilt is actually zero. Following that logic, the Mun should only be offset from the ecliptic by 5.145 degrees, but instead, it's 23.44 +/- 5.145. The same happens for Phobos and Deimos (can't remember which KPS moons they are).Is this a limitation in the game, did I screw up the math somewhere, or am I using a messed up/old version? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndreyATGB Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 I might be wrong here, but it seems like the rotational axes of the planets aren't actually tilted. I noticed this when planning a lunar intercept, and my launch azimuth was way off. When I launch from Kerbin (Earth) into a perfectly equatorial orbit, it's also perfectly aligned with the ecliptic, when it should be 23.44 degrees offset. This means that the axial tilt is actually zero. Following that logic, the Mun should only be offset from the ecliptic by 5.145 degrees, but instead, it's 23.44 +/- 5.145. The same happens for Phobos and Deimos (can't remember which KPS moons they are).Is this a limitation in the game, did I screw up the math somewhere, or am I using a messed up/old version?Yeah so far nobody has gotten axial tilt to work in the game, so RSS put all moons with respect to the parent's body equator (you'll notice the moons of Uranus are orbiting close to 90 degrees). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brooklyn666 Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Yeah so far nobody has gotten axial tilt to work in the game, so RSS put all moons with respect to the parent's body equator (you'll notice the moons of Uranus are orbiting close to 90 degrees).In that case, Nathan, where in the configs can I remove the non-functional axial tilt, and go back to having the axes of rotation be perpendicular to the equator for all planets? Since it doesn't work anyway, I'd rather get rid of it for now, and have all the moons with correct inclinations with respect to the ecliptic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EuSouONumero345 Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 (edited) I tried playing the game with the "realistic mod-pack" and now when the game is loading, doesn't StretchySRB.Actually, the game itself doesn't load because of this mod, I still need to remove the mod to see if it's the real problem.EDIT: The game loaded without StretchySRB, but I think if I clicked the "start game" button, there would be no stock parts, WHY??? Because I was playing the game without any realism mods, and when I decided to "re-start" the game, I deleted EVERYTHING in the GameData folder, including the game's parts,flags,etc. Sorry about saying it was your mod, it was only me with my dumb way to delete all the mods Edited February 19, 2014 by EuSouONumero345 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metaphor Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 In that case, Nathan, where in the configs can I remove the non-functional axial tilt, and go back to having the axes of rotation be perpendicular to the equator for all planets? Since it doesn't work anyway, I'd rather get rid of it for now, and have all the moons with correct inclinations with respect to the ecliptic.All the planets have zero inclination with respect to the ecliptic in the stock game (not with respect to the parent body's equator). The "axial tilt" in the config file currently doesn't do anything, it's just a placeholder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brooklyn666 Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 All the planets have zero inclination with respect to the ecliptic in the stock game (not with respect to the parent body's equator). The "axial tilt" in the config file currently doesn't do anything, it's just a placeholder.But somewhere the numbers are doing something they shouldn't. The Moon currently has an inclination of 23.44 degrees with respect to the equator and the ecliptic, since they are the same thing. I just want to change it to what it should be, which is 5.145. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrHappyFace Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 But somewhere the numbers are doing something they shouldn't. The Moon currently has an inclination of 23.44 degrees with respect to the equator and the ecliptic, since they are the same thing. I just want to change it to what it should be, which is 5.145.Change the inclination in the config file to 5.145, which is correct relative to the equator without axial tilt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Actually, from the gameplay standpoint, it makes more sense to use the inclination to the equator. It's what matters more for historical missions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brooklyn666 Posted February 19, 2014 Share Posted February 19, 2014 Actually, from the gameplay standpoint, it makes more sense to use the inclination to the equator. It's what matters more for historical missions.I was trying to find a way to keep everything consistent, given that the game doesn't know how to do axial tilt, but if you change one thing, everything else cascades, so I just left it as-is.On another note, does anyone know of a good launch window calculator that works for this? I can always go by angles, but porkchop plots are more detailed, and provide more precise info on orbital elements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrHappyFace Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 I was trying to find a way to keep everything consistent, given that the game doesn't know how to do axial tilt, but if you change one thing, everything else cascades, so I just left it as-is.On another note, does anyone know of a good launch window calculator that works for this? I can always go by angles, but porkchop plots are more detailed, and provide more precise info on orbital elements.Porkchop plot generator, you can also add custom bodies to calculate the plots for RSShttp://alexmoon.github.io/ksp/Thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/33023-WEB-APP-Launch-Window-Planner?highlight=porkchop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbeS Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 But there's no way to modify Kerbol yet :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brooklyn666 Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 But there's no way to modify Kerbol yet :/Which makes custom bodies useless for the time being. Is anyone out there willing to take on the task of making a calculator for RSS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbeS Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 I made a fork of the porkchop plot generator with the correct RSS numbers. Don't know how to test it though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbeS Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Here it is, it works. The moons are probably funky because the LAN, Long of Peri and Mean Anomaly at Epoch aren't in the .cfgs. Should work for planetary transfers pretty well though.KSP Launch Window Planner for RSS all credits go to alexmun, of course Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scripto23 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Here it is, it works. The moons are probably funky because the LAN, Long of Peri and Mean Anomaly at Epoch aren't in the .cfgs. Should work for planetary transfers pretty well though.KSP Launch Window Planner for RSS all credits go to alexmun, of courseThis is awesome. Thanks for sharing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbeS Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 This is awesome. Thanks for sharing.Hope it is useful, waiting for Nathan to help me with the moons configs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted February 21, 2014 Author Share Posted February 21, 2014 (edited) AbeS: you get all the gold stars ever, that's awesome!If a value isn't in the cfg, that means it's still the KSP default. I didn't add moons' LANs etc because I couldn't find them on wikipedia; asmi suggested pulling them from Orbiter (which will have the J2000 values) but I forgot to do it until now.brooklyn666: the moons are, or supposed to be, inclined vs. the ecliptic *except* in the case of Luna, since there it matters more inclination vs equator (for launch purposes) than it does to have ecliptic-relative inclination (for interplanetary purposes) for the moon.Axial tilt basically requires Mu to make some changes. He said he'd ask around re: maybe doing it for .24, but I haven't talked with him since (this was a good month or two before .23 came out). Edited February 21, 2014 by NathanKell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferram4 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 I'd actually like some feedback from you guys here. I need a name for a rocket.Riddle me this: What do you name a rocket that fills the VAB with its boosters and first stage, creates 1.6 GN of thrust at launch, outweighs a Nimitz-class carrier, and lifts 5000 tonnes to orbit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbeS Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 AbeS: you get all the gold stars ever, that's awesome!If a value isn't in the cfg, that means it's still the KSP default. I didn't add moons' LANs etc because I couldn't find them on wikipedia; asmi suggested pulling them from Orbiter (which will have the J2000 values) but I forgot to do it until now.I left the stock values for those, so it is accurate I think. BTW, I had to take the mass of Kerbin and Mun from Wikipedia because those weren't in the cfg either, and couldn't find them on github (didn't search thoroughly ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vericon1 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 The Ferram Has Gone Crazy Mk l. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted February 21, 2014 Author Share Posted February 21, 2014 AbeS: yeah, you can either get acceleration-from-gravity-at-sea-level from mass, or get mass from g; the latter is what's done for Mun and Kerbin, since that number is more important (in gameplay terms) than mass.ferram4: ....jaw....floor.I think you're well past ROMBUS-level huge and into Convair Aldebaran-level size. Although you have it well beat; Aldebaran has a wet mass of ~50kt, though a payload fraction of .5 due to NTR.See also:http://up-ship.com/blog/?p=7229 for scale comparisons.As for names...Supernova?Runabout? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brooklyn666 Posted February 21, 2014 Share Posted February 21, 2014 Hey Nathan, did you happen to see my last pm? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted February 21, 2014 Author Share Posted February 21, 2014 Heh, you had a response to it in your inbox before you posted that message. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts