Jump to content

OhioBob

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,934

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by OhioBob

  1. OhioBob
    I resisted mods for a long time because I wanted to experience the game the way the developers created it. But after calculating the delta-v of my spacecraft, or the delta-v of a maneuver, or the phase angle for a ejection burn, for about the 100th time, it got really old. OK, so I can do it, but I don't have to keep doing the same boring thing just because I can. I finally broke down and installed KER. Then after becoming frustrated with fine tuning my maneuver nodes, I installed Precise Node. And after reading about KAC, I installed it. I soon realized that this stuff really should be stock; it just make the game more of a pleasure to play. Eventually I started adding a few part packs, though I still find myself using the stock parts the vast majority of the time. But it's nice to have that extra engine when my requirement falls somewhere between what's available in stock. I don't think that makes the game easier, it's just filling in some gaps in the stock parts. One thing I hadn't been able to try was visual enhancements due to limitations in my computer, but recent upgrades to my RAM and graphics card has changed that. I'm now trying out things like EVE and Scatterer. There are also other nice effects that really enhance the game. So while I'm now using mods, I don't go overboard with it. I only like to install mods that I use frequently, or that significantly enhance the experience. My most heavily modded install is using about 40 mods.
  2. OhioBob
    That is the temperature difference between the planet's equator and its poles, measured during the coldest time of the night.
  3. OhioBob
    I don't know about Dres, but OPM makes Eeloo a moon of Sarnus. Have you looked for it there?
  4. OhioBob
    At the bottom of each of Galileo's post is a red button that reads "How to get support". If you click on that you'll be directed to a post that provides troubleshooting instructions. And if you can't fix the problem yourself, it instructs you on what information to provide so that the mod developers can properly diagnose the problem.
  5. OhioBob
    But fuel is cheap, engines are expensive. If we can use a smaller engine, we've usually saved more than enough money to buy the fuel needed to pick up the extra ~300 m/s. When using liquid fueled stages, it's typically cheaper to use low TWR.
  6. OhioBob
    Wilbur
  7. OhioBob
    @Starchaser, Kerbin's atmosphere is based on the U.S. Standard Atmosphere, with a 20% reduction in the height. So the pressure that you find at 43,000 feet in real life is found on Kerbin at a height of, 43000 ft * 0.8 * 0.3048 m/ft = 10,485 meters So Snark is right, the pressure at an altitude of 10,000 m on Kerbin is about 1/6 the sea level value. If you want to be even more specific, the exact pressures can be computed from Kerbin's pressure curve. At 10,000 m the pressure is 17.933 kPa, or about 17.7% of sea level. And the altitude at which the pressure is 1/6 of sea level is 10,306 meters. @Snark, that old constant scale height method gets you in the ballpark, but it can be in error by up to as much as about 19%. The problem is that scale height is a function of temperature, so it varies by altitude. It can change by as much as 2 km. I'm actually the guy who computed the 5.6 km scale height found in the Wiki. Knowing that is was no longer constant, I had to come up with something close. What I did was plot a curve of log(pressure) vs. altitude for Kerbin's actual atmospheric pressure (from pressureCurve). I then found the linear trendline that best matched the curve, from which I computed the scale height. (A constant scale height produces a straight line when plotting log(P) vs. Z.) It's as close as we can get for a constant scale height, but it's still not very accurate.
  8. OhioBob
    With an aerospike there shouldn't really be a need to change anything. The advantage of an aerospike is that the exhaust gas flows over the outside surface of the spike, therefore the exhaust stream can change its shape without having to alter the geometry of the engine. With a bell nozzle, the bell's shape must be contoured to the exhaust stream. Operating the aerospike at higher pressures just means that the exhaust gas won't expand as much and will be confined to a narrower stream. If the engine is going to operate only in the high pressure environment, then it could probably be made with a smaller, narrower spike. But that doesn't make sense because why would we use an aerospike in that scenario? Aerospikes are intended specifically for applications where there will be a wide range of ambient pressures. In that case we probably want to keep the geometry as is to accommodate both high and low pressures.
  9. OhioBob
    The procedure for going to the planets is the same in GPP as it is in stock. A planet is a planet, there's nothing special about GPP in that regard. If you are just looking for some general information on how to travel to other planets, you should probably ask your question in the Gameplay forum.
  10. OhioBob
    Check out the KSPedia, it has much information about all the celestial bodies as well as a delta-v map. If what you need isn't there, what else specifically that you're looking for? I really don't know what you mean by "interplanetary guide."
  11. OhioBob
    We manually set Lili's SOI only because it's so close to the parent planet that the computed SOI is smaller than its own radius. That's an unusual situation; normally there's no need to manually set sphereOfInflunence. I recommend letting the game automatically compute SOI radius unless you have special circumstance that require overriding the computed value.
  12. OhioBob
    Gravity shouldn't be the issue. We've got a moon in GPP with only 0.006g and it works fine. Take a look at Lili.cfg in GPP to see if your can spot anything different between it and what you're doing.
  13. OhioBob
    I took several releases for Kopernicus to get it right. I wouldn't trust anything earlier than 1.3.1-2.
  14. OhioBob
    That's my issue with the larger scales, stuff just takes too long. A typical launch at 10x is, what, like three times longer than stock scale? I don't have the patience for that. I think 2.5x is a nice in between scale.
  15. OhioBob
    And if you want it more precise, 0 10^0 1.00 1 10^0.1 1.26 2 10^0.2 1.58 3 10^0.3 2.00 4 10^0.4 2.51 5 10^0.5 3.16 6 10^0.6 3.98 7 10^0.7 5.01 8 10^0.8 6.31 9 10^0.9 7.94 10 10^1 10.00 11 10^1.1 12.59 12 10^1.2 15.85 13 10^1.3 19.95 14 10^1.4 25.12 15 10^1.5 31.62 16 10^1.6 39.81 17 10^1.7 50.12 18 10^1.8 63.10 19 10^1.9 79.43 20 10^2 100.00
  16. OhioBob
    It's a part pack... If you do make the switch from 10.625x back to stock, the biggest problem you'll likely have with an existing save is the orbits of all your vessels. While the orbits of the celestial bodies rescale, those of your vessels do not. So if you have, for example, a comsat in geosynchronous orbit, it's going to be all messed up after removing the rescale config. Also anything on an interplanetary trajectory will probably be screwed up. You'll have to use the cheat menu or Hyperedit to put everything back into the correct orbits. I don't know about landers and outposts.
  17. OhioBob
    I don't think anything like that exists. Why not just have multiple installations on the same computer?
  18. OhioBob
    Install SCANsat and do a SAR altimeter scan, which will produce a topographic map.
  19. OhioBob
    I don't remember there being a blind spot there, but then again, I've never played at 10.625x (only 1x and 2.5x). At 10.625x you'd have to be 10.625x higher to have the same lines of sight to the tracking stations. I suspect that's the reason because I've never experienced the problem at smaller scales. It certainly wasn't done of purpose. In fact, I'm not sure there's even a way to modify the locations of the tracking stations (@Galileo?).
  20. OhioBob
    Yep, there's a button in the upper-right corner the expands to allow selection of any planet or moon.
  21. OhioBob
    Sorry, I forgot that you said that. My bad.
  22. OhioBob
    I don't know of a simple way to compute the number of revolutions. The period of the satellite changes non-linearly as it moves outward so, as Regex said, it will involve some sort of an integration to figure it out. However, the time it will take should be pretty straightforward. After you've figured out how much fuel you need to burn to produce the required delta-v (from Tsiolkovsky's equation), you then simply divide the fuel mass by the fuel mass flow rate and that will give you time. Fuel mass flow rate is compute it as follows: ṁ = F / (Isp * go) where ṁ is the mass flow rate (kg/s), F is the thrust (N), Isp is the specific impulse (s), and go is standard gravity (9.80665 m/s2).
  23. OhioBob
    That should work.
  24. OhioBob
    I just discovered that Kerbal Maps has moved to a new URL. I compared the old and current maps and it looks like the terrain is the same, but the sea level has changed. The current sea level is higher, therefore land is now submerged that was previously exposed. Other than that, I don't see a difference between them. Of course I have no idea what Eve looked like all the way back in 2012. There could have been an older version that predates the current topography.
  25. OhioBob
    With ground stations turned on there's no need for relay satellites inside the orbit of Mun. However, I like to put a ring of relay satellites out near Kerbin's SOI to provide communications to the far side of the moons.
×
×
  • Create New...