Empiro
Members-
Posts
383 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Reputation
121 ExcellentProfile Information
-
About me
Sr. Spacecraft Engineer
Recent Profile Visitors
The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.
-
KSA | The KSP Replacement from RocketWerkz | Seamless Movement and Terrain
Empiro replied to Saturn1234's topic in The Lounge
I think the issue is that both Unreal and Unity make certain assumptions about the game: namely at its base it's a scene with some sort of geometry and entities that move and interact within the scene. This works great for 99% of all games but not KSP/KSA because of the scales involved. I think KSP's challenges with Unity wouldn't go away at all if you used Unreal. Somethings might work better, but the core incompatibility will still be there. At the same time, I think the nature of KSA is that you don't actually need an extremely complex engine. At its core, it's a physics simulation, and for the small stuff, its sounds like they're already using a dedicated physics library, while for the big stuff, it's all Newtonian mechanics. (That's not to say it's easy, but it's at least known, and it's not like any game engine supports Newtonian mechanics for celestial bodies out of the box anyway) For the default difficult, I don't think anyone would mind if the cats just came back after getting blown up. After all, they do have 9 lives. -
The gravity there is low enough that I'm surprised you can get any sort of traction at all. Most likely, all your issues are due to the gravity there. Your wheels don't grip the surface properly and all sorts of weird things can happen at 4x physics warp.
-
Try to get your approach PE as close to Kerbin as possible. If you're at 4000 m/s at 100 km, this kind of speed is actually quite reasonable and expected when returning from Jool via a direct transfer. When you left for Jool, you probably were moving just as fast when you finished your burn. This is the reverse of that. If you can't survive directly driving into the atmosphere, you don't need to slow all the way down. Just slow down so that you're not on an escape trajectory, which means spending about 1000 m/s to be slower than escape velocity, about 3000 m/s. You can then take your time, at AP lower your PE into the atmosphere and slowly aero brake until you're able to land safely. In either case, it's most efficient to perform this maneuver as close to Kerbin as you can.
-
In my game, I have unlock all nodes set to false, and have to buy the parts and unlocks, so maybe that's why. In either case, I'm glad there's already an open issue about it, and hopefully it'll become optional (and not have the extra +funds text) going forward.
-
In my save game, I was able to locate the following lines: SCENARIO { name = PartUpgradeManager scene = 6, 5, 7 UPGRADES { Unlocks { HDD-Upgrade1 = True Unmanned-Upgrade1 = True Goo-Storage-Upgrade = True HDD-Upgrade2 = True SampleCapacity-Upgrade1 = True Upgrade-Slots = True Crew-Upgrade1 = True Upgrade-TV = False SampleCapacity-Upgrade2 = True HDD-Upgrade3 = True } Enableds { } } } I changed Upgrade-TV to false as you see above and everything seems to work fine.
-
I just wanted to bring back this issue / bug that is present. Basically, if you unlock / purchase the TV upgrade in the Advanced Exploration tech node, you'll increase the cost of habitats like the Hitchhiker Can by 33,500 funds. It also adds the annoyance that for some reason, every part in the game now reads something like √37,500.00 + √33,500.00 cost, even parts like parachutes and engines. I haven't gotten the Radiation module yet, but it sounds like that will make things even more expensive. I was able to fix my game by undo-ing the TV upgrade by editing the save game and removing the upgrade. I suspect that these upgrades are powerful and are designed to make it so that they increase the cost of the parts if you use them. However, there doesn't seem to be a toggle that allows you to NOT use them, and they should probably by default be not enabled on a part.
-
I have OPM installed, and that might have modified with the maximum DSN range. I'm not 100% sure, however. I can look through my mod folders. Do you know what's the setting to look for that modifies the DSN?
-
I was able to figure it out. Yes, I was using the default config. Under the Kerbalism Settings.cfg, I found: //DampingExponentOverride = 14 // Kerbalism will calculate a damping exponent to achieve good data communication rates (see KSP.log, search for DataRateDampingExponent). If the calculated value is not good for you, you can set your own. In my KSP.log, I saw that the value had been computed as: [LOG 09:34:34.502] [Kerbalism] Sim.get_DataRateDampingExponent Calculated DataRateDampingExponent: 365.9167 (max. DSN range: 2000000000000, strength at 2 AU: 0.999) I'm not sure if it's a mod conflict or something else that made the damping value so high. I uncommented out the override and everything now works as expected.
-
Is there some sort of bug with the data transmission rates in the current version? In my early game, I was getting a transmission rate of 0.1 B/s from the Mun even though I was using the antenna and the signal strength was 96%. It should be pretty close to the rated speed of 5kb for the HG-5 High Gain Antenna.
-
Why aren't the Vectors HydroLox fueled?
Empiro replied to Tweeker's topic in Prelaunch KSP2 Discussion
For the same reason that there's no HydroLox or MethoLox in KSP 1 (or even RP-1 since "Liquid Fuel" doesn't exactly have a real-life analogue). It's basically not a area where the developers want to increase complexity in. I'm sure there will be plenty of mods that add fuel types for enthusiasts who want the most realistic and customizable experience. -
Looking forward to the improved UI!
-
Best way to get from Minmus back to the Mun??
Empiro replied to MadJock's topic in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
There's different ways to do things, but the simplest (though not cheapest or fastest) way to do things is: Eject from Minmus just barely so that you're orbiting around Kerbin. Target the Mun and see where the AN or DN are. Create a maneuver node and burn normal to reduce the relative inclination to 0. Execute the manuver so you're at 0 relative inclination with the Mun. Create a maneuver node to bring down your PE so that it's barely touching the Mun's orbit. Move your maneuver node so that it comes later or sooner, and get an intercept. The encounter markers can help you here -- if the Mun is behind you at the closest approach point, then burn later. If the Mun is ahead of you at the closest approach point, burn earlier. You can reduce the total fuel cost by basically combining the inclination change and transfer burn, and doing it all from low Minmus orbit. However, this requires waiting for just the right window and very careful maneuver tweaking. However, the Minmus - Mun transfer is cheap enough that it's not worth bothering with unless you're purposefully trying to practice timing transfer windows. Going interplanetary is when it's really going to make a huge difference, especially to somewhere like Moho. It's the difference between a round trip needing a big ship, versus needing an absolutely massive one. -
TWR different on launchpad than in VAB
Empiro replied to Klapaucius's topic in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
It's showing atmospheric versus vacuum TWR. In-flight, KER will always show the TWR in your current situation, while in the VAB, you need to toggle it by pressing the Atmospheric button. -
It's possible, but I've found that the orbit lines and rendevous can be a bit finicky. I suspect it's due to floating point inaccuracies, but you'll find it hard to tweak your encounter my small amounts. The orbit lines will always jump around. Nonetheless, you don't need a very close encounter in solar orbit. Anything within a few thousand km will do. As you approach, use target mode on the navball and try to push your velocity retrograde into the target retrograde marker.
-
Ideal size for Jool moon landers
Empiro replied to AlpacaMall's topic in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
I haven't used the Trajectories mod, but I think it works pretty well. There is still a bit of risk that you land on a slope, which is also bad if you have a top-heavy rocket, but I don't think Laythe has too many of those. Using jet engines would work well on Laythe, but if you go that route, I'd recommend going for a space plane instead. Since you're bringing somethine separate just for Laythe, space planes are just way more fun, and will help you find a good landing spot. Anything that works well for Kerbin will work well on Laythe (and give you some extra room for error). Just make sure that you're able to land with a full tank! The Jool 5 is both harder and easier than it looks. It's very easy to overplan and overestimate the delta-V requirements. It leads to a complicated launch and assembly since your craft is so large, but once you're at Jool, you'll find everything really easy since you have so much leeway. The other way is to go with a smaller craft, but use complicated and efficient planning. It's quite cheap to transfer between Jool's moons if you're patient and wait for the right times. There exist delta-V maps for Jool moon transfers (https://i.imgur.com/skAIz90.png). Though that's a bit outdated for Laythe, the other numbers are still basically correct. Note how cheap it is to go from a moon's escape to the transfer orbit of another moon. You can also bring mining equipment, but I'm a bit of a purist, and like to do it without ISRU. Some general advice for the planning: Use Laythe or Tylo to reverse-gravity assist to capture and lower your orbit at Jool. Avoid circularizing in low orbit around stuff as much as possible. Instead, leave your main ship in an eccentric orbit with a very high AP and very low PE. This way, if your burn at PE, you'll escape the moon with minimal delta-V. You will need to wait for the moon to be in the right position so that your escape trajectory will be pointing prograde or retrograde along the moon's orbit, however, which is why patience is important. Note that your lander will need more delta-V to land from an eccentric orbit. This may be a problem for somewhere like Tylo. However, even in this case, you could do something like this: have an extra tank of fuel attached to the Tylo lander when you detach from the mothership. Circularize in low orbit around Tylo. Top off your lander while still leaving a bit left in the tank you brought with you. Then, detach from the tank and land on Tylo, do your science, and take off. Rendevous with the fuel tank in low orbit, which has just enough to allow your lander to reach the mothership's eccentric orbit. Essentially your goal is to move as little mass as possible at all times leaving fuel in places you will backtrack to. It's kind of like folks who go on long hikes and drop full water bottles as they are going one way, and pick them back up to drink on their way back. When coming back, it's best to drop your PE down around Jool if you're currently around the tiny outer moons. Note that you will be entering Kerbin FAST. I'm not sure aerobraking is an option even if you have the inflatable heat shield (never tried it lately).