The Pink Ranger

Hey if any of you are using stock sized parts with RSS I think I've got a little band aid for the ballistic coefficient problem: @PART [*] { @mass *= 0.33 } This will cut the masses of all parts in the game to 1/3rd of their original values but you can use any multiplier you want. If you're using real fuels and raptor's stockalike engine configs then the masses of the tanks and engines will get overwritten with the right values. I'm sure you could get fancy with it and get it to exclude parts with engine modules but I'm not sure how.

I wonder if there's a way to control the craft from an engine and have the navball line up with the direction of thrust.

Oh thanks.

à ¼¼ 㤠◕_â—• à ¼½ã¤ Give 7.4

Any chance you could make tanks cross feed through the pumps? I like using the radial tanks from NFP but it's kind of impractical to stick a fin on every individual tank, especially the smaller ones. A ship like this for example looks kind of funny when every tank has a fin sticking out of it and the part count increases quite a bit too.

Yea I thought about it a little and realized that you have a very small margin to get an encounter when you're doing a transfer. However when I play with the stock Kerbol system and I'm perfectly lined up with the ecliptic during my burn I notice that if I continue to burn after the initial "Hohmann encounter" I will get a couple of more encounters (at what I think are specific angles) sooner on the target's orbit. While I realize that you can transfer from any phase angle you want I think my original assumption that there are intercept points at specific angles from the initial burn point might still hold weight. So I guess the only way to confirm this is to take advantage of this wonderful tool squad has provided for me. Anyway the only reason I'm asking instead of just testing it out is because I play with RSS where all of the planets are slightly off the ecliptic so you almost never get encounters and you almost always have to do mid course correction burns to get on the target's plane. I guess I'll report back when I've figured it out.

Ah gotcha. So as long as you burn at the transfer window and the transfer orbit intersects the target's orbit you will always get an intercept.

I appreciate the info but KSP's main draw for me is that it's such a good conceptual tool and I'd rather be able to intuit and eye-ball things than rely on a calculator. Anyway look at page two of this PDF. There's a diagram that illustrates how the transfer orbit from Earth to Mars changes with greater expenditures of dV. I noticed the intercept points look pretty evenly spaced at about 45 degrees from each other and I was wondering if this is something that applies ALL of the time.

On a typical Hohmann transfer you intercept the target 180 degrees around the parent body from where you burned but I noticed that if you expend more dV you can intercept the target sooner on its orbit. Are there specific angles to shoot for which always hold true? For example if I expend a little more dV during the transfer burn I can intercept the target at about 90 degrees from the burn point. If I burn some more I can intercept the target at an even more acute angle. Hope you understand what I'm getting at.

This mod needs a little Trump: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75SEy1qu71I Seriously, how satisfying would it be to click the red X and hear "You're fired". If you implemented this all operations would cease because there'd be nobody left at KSC.

Oh yea sorry. I just figured if there were some floating around someone on this thread might know. But I guess Wave already settled that hehe. Anyway great job on the overlay. Have some rep! Edit: And yea your overlay works fine with RSS.

Anyone know if there are any custom resource maps (or whatever they're called) for real solar system? In the stock Kerbol system the resources tend to be concentrated around visible terrain features but these same patterns carry over to the Sol system and they don't match up with the terrain.

Man you guys are champs. I got through maybe a quarter of them and had to stop because it was SOOO tedious. Seriously, it felt like one of those repetitive and annoying problem sets.

All the b9 components that can carry fuel seem to have the "FSFuelSwitch" module. Haven't tried it yet but I think you could write a blanket patch to remove it from all parts and then you'd have to go through and add a Real Fuels module to every tank one by one with individual volumes. Anyway do stock units for liquid fuel and oxidizer = real fuels liters? Edit: Never mind that last part, going off the stock tanks it seems 1 stock unit of volume = 5 real fuels liters.

Seriously awesome job guys! All the little details are awesome, feels like I'm playing a different game! Anyway I was just wondering if ALL of the components that can carry fuel have the "FSFuelSwitch" module? I'm thinking I can write a blanket MM patch that removes that module from all parts and then adds a real fuels structural tank to all parts that had that module unless I'm missing something.

Are the consumption rates based on what a human would need per hour? Just wondering if any of you lower the consumption rates at all for real solar system which is 10 times the scale of the Kerbol system so transfers take a lot longer.

One more question. Real fuels already modifies a certain module. Is there any way to write a separate MM patch that ADDS to the first patch without overriding it? (I don't want to touch the original file that came with the plugin) For example the RF patch says: @MFGSETTINGS[MFSSettings] { MFS_TECHLEVELS { blah blah blah } } Can I write something that says: [COLOR=#ff0000][B]@@[/B][/COLOR]MFGSETTINGS[MFSSettings] { MFS_TECHLEVELS { blah blah blah } } ?

Thanks K^2. Too bad we can't thrust on rails so we could make these engines 100% realistic.

Hey I'm trying to write an MM patch to give the VASIMR Real Fuels functionality. The part file has two modules (ModuleEnginesFX) with the same name for hydrogen and argon. Anyone know how to get module manager to recognize the difference?

Looks like the Thermal Fins are drawing too much power. I added 100+ EC/s generator modules to my nuclear engines and they sustain everything on my ships just fine except the thermal fins. Soon as I activate the fins they start draining power pretty quickly. Looked in the cfg and it says they're only supposed to draw 0.01666667 EC/s. Any idea what's going on? Edit: I've removed the EC requirement in the cfg but I can't find anything in there relating to the activate command in the right click menu. How can I make the thing always active? I'd like to just stickem on in the VAB and forget about them.

Trying to balance the ones in Near Future Propulsion for the Real Fuels plugin. Can't find any solid info online. The wiki says one was tested on the "Japanese Space Flyer Unit" as part of EPEX in 1995 but I can't find any straightforward stats on that engine either. Anyone know? If there isn't any data on that particular unit what about theoretical stats for one that could be used on a manned interplanetary transfer vehicle? Edit: Also I'm guessing the TWR probably depends on the amount of power available. Let's assume the MPD in question is designed to utilize a 1MW power source.

Looks like you could do it either way. I checked in the VAB and all parts retain their default mass with the mass of the tank contents on top of it. I think this is because I defined my own tanks instead of using the provided definitions. Anyway I added food & water to the hitch-hiker and gave the stock science lab the ability to recycle waste resources. Really streamlines the whole system and cuts down on part count. Right now it's balanced so that one science lab = one complete recyling "stack", which is capable of outputting enough oxygen for 9 kerbals. All of you have to do is load up on food and water just like real life. I put the cfg in my cig if you want to mess with it. Edit: removing the tank definitions for the sake of being streamlined and I'm gonna start tweaking the volume based on the base mass of the parts.

It works! Here's the end result if anyone wants it: TANK_DEFINITION { name = LifeSupportHabitat basemass = -1 * volume TANK { name = Food amount = full maxAmount = 7.733% } TANK { name = Water amount = full maxAmount = 14.874% //mass = 0.00001 } TANK { name = Oxygen amount = full maxAmount = 11.384% utilization = 221.135 //mass = 0.00001 note = (pressurized) } TANK { name = Waste amount = 0.0 maxAmount = 5.578% fillable = false } TANK { name = WasteWater amount = 0.0 maxAmount = 16.353% //mass = 0.00001 fillable = false } TANK { name = CarbonDioxide amount = 0.0 maxAmount = 44.077% utilization = 49.139 //mass = 0.00001 note = (pressurized) fillable = false } } @PART[centrifuge1] { MODULE { name = ModuleFuelTanks type = LifeSupportHabitat volume = 2332 } } @PART[inflato1] { MODULE { name = ModuleFuelTanks type = LifeSupportHabitat volume = 2332 } } @PART[inflato2] { MODULE { name = ModuleFuelTanks type = LifeSupportHabitat volume = 2332 } } @PART[inflatoFlat] { MODULE { name = ModuleFuelTanks type = LifeSupportHabitat volume = 2332 } } @PART[orbitalorb] { MODULE { name = ModuleFuelTanks type = LifeSupportHabitat volume = 2332 } }

I think the mass problem has something to do with the tank definitions in the thunder aerospace folder. I think the base mass of the tank definitions might be over riding the mass of the parts or something. I'm trying to make a new tank definition for each part with MM but it doesn't work. Here's what I wrote: @TANK_DEFINITION { name = xxx basemass = xxx * volume TANK { name = xxx amount = full maxAmount = x% } } Any ideas? Edit: There ya go, should be easier to read now.

Does anyone know how to add more tank definitions with module manager? I tried: @TANK_DEFINITION { name = xxx basemass = xxx * volume TANK { name = xxx amount = full maxAmount = x% } } But it doesn't work. I'm trying to add modular life support tanks to Porkjet's habitat pack but the mass of the life support tank seems to override the mass of the part itself. Trying to get around it by making a new tank definition for each part with a high base mass but if there's a more streamlined way I'm all ears. EDIT: Nevermind! Didn't realize you could plop down Tank Definition configs anywhere you want.