Jump to content

tjsnh

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    942

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by tjsnh

  1. tjsnh
    Mostly meaning re-scale. Trying to get the proportions exactly RL accurate between the parts (different tank radii between booster and core, etc) would mean sacrificing a lot of the multi-use functionality your parts are great for etc etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdyTXBT5CQE
  2. tjsnh
    I still say a 1.875m R7/Soyuz stack would be pretty epic ...... just throwing the raw meat out on the table ..... ;-)
  3. tjsnh
    Are they still going to install into gamedata/tantares and gamedata/tantaresLV ? (rather than, for example, gamedata/tantares2 or something) If so, it's going to cause issues for folks trying to run some of the old parts (such as the R-7 / soyuz booster) that arent in the "new" one yet.
  4. tjsnh
    Re New N-1 beta: Parts functioning great! About a dozen or so test launches in different configurations, no issues. Rocket exhaust looks great. I know everyone loooooves the TantaresLV boosters being overpowered, but I have to play my role as "that guy" - I was able to boost a basic Soyuz almost directly into the sun using the N1 stack. OP achieved ;-) heh
  5. tjsnh
    I do, and I nerf (or in some cases, simply remove) the stock parts a bit.
  6. tjsnh
    I'll take "balanced against stock system" every time, but that's just me.
  7. tjsnh
    Played around with this a bit last night and this morning. The animations are working well, haven't found any big functionality issues yet. In terms of balance, the existing 2/3 N1 stack in the LV portion is itself enough to get the Soyuz/LK stack to the Mun with a little delta-v to spare, without even needing the to-be-completed first stage. What I might suggest as a balance consideration is to severely reduce the fuel efficiency of the N-1 stages. When I'm doing balance tweaks for my mods, my normal sequence is to construct the rocket in-game without even looking at the specs. Figuring out how far it "should" get the payload. Launch, and pay attention to how far it "actually" gets the payload, and adjust accordingly. Sometimes I increase weight, sometimes I nerf engine efficiency, sometimes I adjust fuel tank capacities. With the tantaresLV N-1 stack, my suggestion based on having used this tweaking method quite a bit would be to nerf the fuel efficiency by upwards of 50%. The fuel capacity is appropriate, and the weights seem to make decent T-W ratios. The _full_ N-1 stack should just barely get the Soyuz/LK/BlokD stack to the mun with almost no delta-v to spare before staging into blok-d. In terms of price, I try to balance the cost so that a full Mun landing costs about 100,000-150,000 funds in-game (before science parts added in, like goo containers, etc). This way it can still be "expensive" but can somewhat be mitigated with contract rewards.
  8. tjsnh
    It is pretty difficult to land. The best advice is super-shallow re-entry profiles so you have lots of time to slow down. Another thing to try - setup the re entry profile I described earlier, but don't detach the service module. Wait until you get to 68km , face retro and burn all remaining fuel, THEN ditch the service module and continue re-entry.
  9. tjsnh
    Well my concern is more that I don't want the galaxy to change on me. For example, if I send some long distance ion probe off to some other star, I don't want that star to cease to exist before the probe gets there. Does that make sense?
  10. tjsnh
    What is the correct notation to modify values in a part that has multiple modules of the same name? In this specific case I'm trying to tweak the afterburning turbojet (part turboJet ) which has multiple ModuleEnginesFX modules in it, one for "dry" one for "wet" My MM attempt: This ends up modding the "dry" mode twice. Not sure how to specify which patch goes to which module? For ref: the relevant part of the engine's stock CFG: Any insight/advice?
  11. tjsnh
    Perfect, thanks. I do a lot of contract pack development, and some of the stuff I'm working on (fly a course through some waypoints, etc) is way WAY too easy when a small fighter-sized jet without using drop-tanks or anything can get to the polar ice caps and back on a single load of fuel .....
  12. tjsnh
    So just chopping those values in half will nerf the jets same as it would for a "Regular" rocket?
  13. tjsnh
    I took a look at the beta you posted on the first page. This is a great start. If you are able to get it working with planets around the stars (hopefully nothing too wacky - "regular" planets) this will be a must-have mod. Question about the galaxy generation : Is a new/random galaxy generated each time the game is loaded? Or will the randomly generated galaxy be persistent until the mod is re-installed? Does that question make sense?
  14. tjsnh
    Looking to make the stock jet engines less fuel efficient (double their fuel consumption). In the past i've only worked with modding rocket engines, and some of the data in the jets cfgs is odd. Inside the .cfg file for the turbojet engine (as the example im working with) : Anyone have any idea what to modify in here to tweak/cut the fuel efficiency?
  15. tjsnh
    The re-entry profile for the vostok is VERY tricky. Make your aps about 30K and make sure your peri is under 200k. You _should_ slow down enough to pop the 'chute around 3000m
  16. tjsnh
    It is, actually! And very easy. https://github.com/jrossignol/ContractConfigurator/wiki/Miscellaneous I use a disablenonsense.cfg file to turn off the default rescue missions, tourism, and part testing.
  17. tjsnh
    I'll play around with that idea, thanks. I'm trying to expand my packs to include more aircraft contract flights, and when going through the possible reasons/motivations a player would have to fly an aircraft over a long distance time consuming set of waypoints, I wanted to be able to reward something beyond the usual "extra funds they probably dont need" so the idea came to mind of having them be training flights of some kind.
  18. tjsnh
    Question, and possible feature request. With the "award experience" contract behavior is it possible to set a maximum? https://github.com/jrossignol/ContractConfigurator/wiki/AwardExperience-Behaviour For example, if I want to have a repeatable training mission for 1 star worth of experience, but have it reward no experience to Kerbals with 3 or more stars to prevent abuse, is that possible? (So it could be used to train a kerbal from zero to two stars, but not to three) If not, is it something that might be possible in a future update? Related question, is it possible for the "Kerbal = " argument to accept a crew member type? As in, it would only reward the experience to pilots but not scientists or engineers?
  19. tjsnh
    Beta of the N1 parts seems to work pretty good. Absolutely love the exhaust visuals with these parts and the exposed nozzles.
  20. tjsnh
    You'll have a bunch of extra parts in inventory that don't fit in with the rest of the mod. For example, you'll have the soviet space program with unexplained apollo capsules for some reason. Also, some of the comms parts may have issues. The guy who does contares posts an update every 10 seconds, and honestly I just can't keep up with his release cycle. I strongly suggest downloading 1.7.6 or older. The smaller mods mentioned, like Q , work correctly with this mod's patches. In essence I've done the update work for them and included it here.
  21. tjsnh
    Similar to the DA-profile mission I use for minmus, but I usually use the 1.875 cargo bay just below the capsule and put the science experiments inside, to give the whole thing a more clean look on top.
  22. tjsnh
    Contract Configurator has been updated for 1.2 , everything should be working now.
  23. tjsnh
    Contract Configurator has been updated for 1.2 , everything should be working now.
  24. tjsnh
    Ive been playing around with the 1.2 branch from github, only found one bug so far which you probably already know about - when clicking around in the "available" contracts tab, the height of individual contracts on the left side pane gets cut in half, causing some minor graphical oddities as the agency icon gets clipped into the box below, etc. Functionality is fine, just a minor graphical oddity. (It's the same thing viveleroi posted the screenshot of a few posts above me) Otherwise things are working good, I've completed a bunch of the anomoly surveyor contracts, as well as stuff from my own contract packs, without any issues. Also - HUGE kudos for having a checklist in the KSP settings menu for types of contracts to show/hide , I used to have to use a special config file to disable the annoying ones - this makes it far easier.
  25. tjsnh
    "Slow" progress he says, and then posts some amazing preview shots which look to be some of his best work to date.
×
×
  • Create New...