Kowgan

Hey Kospy. Thank you once more for the endless effort put into this. I've got a bug report, and I don't know how can I make this more helpful. The game has crashed twice now, after updating to KIS 1.2.1. Both crashes happened while moving something in the Inventory window, and since "KSP.exe stopped working", no crash reports were created. Although I looked at the output_log, I didn't find any crash reports there, so I was dumb not to copy the file before relaunching the game. Maybe next time. Instead, here's a screenshot of the second crash. The first one happened while organizing items on an EVA kerbal inventory, in orbit. A.D.E.P.T. 1.0 AdvancedAnimator 1.1.1 Brake Toggle 1.0 Contract Configurator 1.5.4 Contract Pack - Kerbin Space Station 2.1.1 Crew Queue 2.0 Crowd Sourced Science 3.0.1 DMagic Orbital Science 1.0.7 Firespitter Plugin 7.1.4 HyperEdit 1.4 KAS Portable Science Container 1.3.0 KAS 0.5.4 Kerbin Shuttle Orbiter System 4.2 KIS 1.2.1 Klockheed Martian Gimbal 3.0.3.0 Klockheed Martian SSE 2.2.0 MechJeb 2.5.3.0 Mk2 Essentials 5 Module Manager 2.6.6 Muffler 1.0 NavBall Docking Alignment Indicator 7.0 OSE Workshop 0.9.6 Portrait Stats 3.0 Procedural Fairings 3.15 Protractor 2.5.1 RealChute 1.3.2.3 SCANsat 14.1 Smoke Screen 2.6.1.0 SpaceShuttle NoseCone 3.0 Stack Inline Lights 0.8 Station Science 1.5 Stock Bug Fix Modules 1.0.4b.2 SurveyTransponder 0.1.0 SXT for 1.0.4 - Master file Toolbar 1.7.9 USI Life Support 0.1.3 Waypoint Manager 2.4.0 ... Speaking of which, Is it a design choice not being able to fire the EVA propellant while grabbing parts on EVA? Sometimes my poor kerbals stumble on a part, while assembling something in orbit, and they find it pretty exhaustive to fly those parts back to their position. Thanks!

Thank you so much for this mod, Obi! It's really awesome, and your effort is much appreciated. @Sahadara: Nice! I've been looking into a larger container solution, and I've come up with the following idea: @Obi: Would it be too hard to implement a system that verifies if there's enough space on a KIS container, and use that container to store higher-than 2000L parts? Concept Thanks. --Edit-- Sorry, I didn't notice you actually need to have available space in a KIS container in order to finish a production. In that case, the MM code solves everything.

Jofwu: Good eye! I'll put the aerobraking arrows there on the next update. As for the "Kerbin SOI Edge" name, I left it like that due to space restrictions. I think both terms can be applied as they are, without generating confusion. The Elliptical orbit for planets without moons isn't as practical as the rest, and for that, I left it out of the design. The original design didn't even have these Elliptical nodes. I've added them to save some dV in some cases where the player's target is a moon, not its planet. For "Orbit Target Altitude" finetuning, I recommend Alexmoon's Launch Window Planner. For elliptical orbit data on every planet and moon, I highly recommend Metaphor's dV Maps.

This is beautiful. And all that without even leaving Kerbin SOI? You're awesome. For me, the most fun moments in KSP are the EVA operations (with KIS/KAS). I guess I gotta start focusing more on that... Thank you for sharing.

After testing even more, atmospheric values shown themselves unreliable, once none of the most popular mods who show dV calculations will show usable data, depending on body, altitude, and vessel configuration. I don't blame these mods. I blame physics. Here's two very distinct vessel examples that can reach Eve low orbit from sea level, and have a comfortable amount of fuel left: 5m Rocket Lander As you can see, both vessels show low or zero m/s for sea-level dV, and this deviates vastly from the practical results, as the vessels go up. Especially in bodies like Eve or Jool. For this reason, I'm gonna be a good son and follow the tradition: I'll abandon mix/atmo values, and convert all the map values into Vacuum. That should make everyone's lifes easier.

Thanks for the link. I'm personally not a fan of putting a range (especially big ones) of possible dV's on a chart. As explained previously, it can be confusing to the reader, and we're trying to simplify it at its best. That said, if there's no objections, I'll update the chart, getting rid of the "mix" stuff, and replacing it with Atmospheric dV for ascent nodes (surface <-> low orbit), for bodies with atmosphere.

Apologies for the delay in answering you, Tekhnkmaster. I'm not exactly sure what could be causing this. But to increase the chances of getting help, please post your full output_log.txt file here. Uploading your save file (persistent.sfs), craft file and/or screenshots might be of help a well.

You're wrong. I couldn't stop thinking about your beak when you wenk. Welcome back. Now, what do you have against polar bears?

@Warzouz: Thank you for the input. The problem is: The 3200m/s may be fine, as you said, but that's for Kerbin only. For other planets, like Eve, the difference between Vac/Atmo is huge.

Regarding the first problem, the values in the chart are already set for optimal conditions. This includes aerodynamic-friendly rockets. I understand the 50/50 point of view, and I agree with it when thinking logically. But for some reason, in practical experiences, the values seem to just fit the 95%-5% results, when comparing initial dV amounts with final dV amounts. Maybe those are just two different ways to measure it, and we're getting confused as such. By the 95% thing, what I'm trying to say is, if you fill your ascent stage with given value into Atmospheric dV (and considering proper rocket and conditions), you should have just a bit more than enough dV to circularize a low orbit. In any case, this is some problem. I'm afraid the great disparity between rockets and results post V1.0 won't be softened by changing the current "mix" value to "vacuum". If the current value isn't enough to make someone's non-aerodynamic rocket reach space, switching values to Vacuum won't help much. Either way, I'd like to read more inputs. Based on the statement above, would you prefer the values as vacuum anyway, or should we keep it as mix/atmo?

I see the problem. TL;DR: "Mix" is 95% atmospheric, 5% vacuum. During typical ascents, we usually burn almost the entire ascent maneuver while in the atmosphere, and then a small burn comes at the apoapsis to circularize, am I right? That's what the mix can be translated into. To develop further more, "4-5k" was an erroneous guess, up there. My bad. I should have written "5700" atmospheric. If you fill up a vessel with exact 6000m/s of atmospheric delta-V for Eve (and have a reasonable TWR), and reach orbit there, you will, most likely, end up in a low circular orbit with a few hundreds of m/s left. I understand that people want more precise values, and want to exclude as much of estimative as they can. If you see fit, I can rephrase that on the map, so "Atmospheric maneuvers use atmospheric Delta-V. Vaccum maneuvers use vacuum Delta-V.", and adjust the values for that. Although those values would only decrease from their current.

I wish I could read Wizardrish. But I see you've replaced a chunk of the code for a single line. Or a few lines.

You can't do these experiments while on atmosphere. So I guess it's just a definition problem, either in Station Science or xScience.

@Doslidnyk: I -guess- the Base Vacation Rate is about how much each kerbal stays in vacation. If 10% is the value set, then your kerbals will stay 10% of the total mission duration. I also guess this would be measured in seconds.

@Nookos: Logs may be of help as well. They're usually found at Kerbal Space Program\KSP_Data\Output_log.txt.

As explained in the chart itself, the values shown there are a mix of atmospheric and vacuum delta-V. If there's a demand for following the tradition, I'll gladly change all the values for vacuum dV only. For all other personal preferences, anyone can download and edit the master file available in the OP, and have their own custom chart.

@RocketBlam: Your ship has 6500m/s of vacuum Delta-V, not atmospheric. The problem with taking off from Eve is having a vessel with enough fuel to carry about 4000~5000m/s of atmospheric delta-V, and at the same time, having enough TWR. This vessel will most likely be huuuge.

Just passing by again to say thank you once more for this update. The map rendering is really lightning-fast, now! I wonder what sorcery did you do! So, thank you!

Numbers between checkpoints are the needed dV to move from Checkpoint A to Checkpoint B. Or from Checkpoint B to Checkpoint A. No matter what way. 6000m/s is the required value to lift off from Eve sea level up to a circular Low Eve Orbit at 100km, just like the map shows you. The same value is needed to land on Eve from Low Eve Orbit, if you don't use aerobraking/parachutes. Since Eve has an atmosphere, aerobraking is compulsory. Of course, all my tests are made with aerodynamic-friendly vessels, so, ALL the values on the map are designed for optimistic scenarios. If you're trying to fly a brick, you should count for that on the dV usage. I'm really trying to make the "how-to-use this map" as clear as possible. The OP have more detailed instructions for closer understanding, but either I'm failing hard to express myself, or people are simply not reading it. @jjansen: Thank you. As I explained above, the return values are usually the same as the original trip itself. Values to move from A to B are the same to move from B to A, unless you use aerobraking. Porkchop plots are available on Alexmoon's github, and the values on the map expect you to use a proper transfer window to transfer burn. I don't know how would I put a porkchop view directly on the map. As for the Jool icon, do you mean Galahir's version? Or the Space Walrus sitting there, vigilant?

That's also why you're awesome, RoverDude. I second yardpup01. USI LS fits just right in. Simple enough, complex enough. Nice (Nice!) parts and GUI. And the ability to choose how hardcore you want to play with it is the best. Here's some love, Rover.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to DMagic again." Thank you so much for the update, DMagic! Now, let's try this increased performance rendering.

If you have death activated, the tourist should die, right?

Gotcha. Thanks for the answer.

@Anglave: After reading your thread, I think you just lack of enough TWR to make it to orbit without spending too much near sea-level. Can you fill your lander up to 3200dV and make it to orbit in Kerbin?

If you'd like a personal opinion, I love the current MEM models. I think we're lacking a good 2-seat Mun lander (Stock Mk1 Lander Can doesn't seem just right), and the MEM parts fill that gap just perfectly. To me, they'd just need to have their values updated. Whether if you're going or not to continue them, I'll leave my thanks here for the effort put into them.