stevehead

I'm starting to get back into Kerbal Space Program after a long hiatus. I did release an official recompile for 1.2.2. Thanks to Ser for the 1.2 recompile while I was away. Release: https://github.com/stevehead/ksp-SimpleOrbitCalculator/releases/tag/v1.5.0 I will look into CKAN support later.

Feel free to do whatever you want with the mod. I've had a lot of life changing experiences over the past months. Barely have time to play KSP, let alone maintain mods. Would love to see my work built on and continued.

Sorry, RL stuff has kept me very busy the past several weeks. I'll try to get to the update soon.

Glad you like it. Regarding the clock, if it's possible, it would require a plugin to achieve this. This is a config only modification of the game.

Alright thanks, that works with the links. I do have another complaint regarding the new forums. It hurts my eyes after about 5 minutes. There is not enough contrast between the posts, and it all just runs together. Again, an issue with the flat design. This is really bad on larger monitors such as the 27" I'm using.

As a former web developer, I do not understand everyone's obsession with flat design. The new forums look like a quickly put together website with Twitter Bootstrap, with some custom CSS; it looks terrible and does not do well with the busyness that is inherit of a forum website's UI. Not to mention the headache that it is giving us mod makers forcing us to fix the formatting for our mod threads. WYSIWYGs are for those that are computer illiterate, BBCodes are more flexible. I want the old forums back. I am a strong believer in "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Also, is there not a way to link new threads without the need for the thread's title in the URL? I want links like this: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/115990; not this: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/104465-105-soc-simple-orbit-calculator-v140-6232015/ I understand that the older thread links are probably using some sort of htaccess rewrite rule (or similar method) that redirects to the new URL.

[quote name='CatastrophicFailure']Patiently waiting (and subbing) till this great sounding mod gets moving again. Was there ever any word on 1.0.4 compatibility?[/QUOTE] I would really like to get back to this mod. Sooner rather than later I'd say. But the next couple of weeks are going to be insanely busy for me (working full time in a retail environment + black friday + going back to school + exam next week). I'll try to verify compatibility at the least today or tomorrow. [quote name='lextacy']Can this mod be used in a way to give certain engines more failure than others? I know testflgiht does this , but testflight does not offer launchpad explosions. What is [I]propagationChanceDecreases = False[/I] and [I]failurePropagateProbability = 0.7[/I] ??[/QUOTE] There is currently no way to increase or decrease failure rates for individual engines. I was thinking about for science/career modes to increase reliability the further you progress into the tech tree. The GitHub readme has details on what each setting does. Here's the link: [URL]https://github.com/stevehead/ksp-KerbalLaunchFailure#custom-settings[/URL]

[quote name='VenomousRequiem']This mod has become a must have to be completely honest. As well as Kerbal Launch failure. Keep up the good work, yo.[/QUOTE] Glad you enjoy it and thanks! I've been unfortunately neglecting Kerbal Launch Failure. My free time is really limited, and plugin mods require a little more work. ------------------------- Just a heads up to everyone, the new changes to heating with 1.0.5 may render my 4x scale config unplayable with out-of-the-box settings. I tried a reentry from LKO with the Mk1-2 pod and 2.5 heat shield and it burned through just about all the ablator, so Mun/interplanetary returns would kill the shield (and ultimately the vessel). I've never played around with the heat difficulty slider when starting a new game. Does that decrease how much ablator is burned off? If so, lowering that could be temporary solution. Same may apply for the 3x config, but I have not tested that one yet. Same deal with 64K but worse; that will need to be fixed by the 64K crew as my generic config has nothing to do with the heat settings and atmosphere density, etc.

[quote name='Errol']Would it be possible to make texture replacer images for a tilted galactic plane version of the sky box, to match the solar system's tilt?[/QUOTE] I'm not big into graphics and such, so I wouldn't be the one to do this. I'd say it is possible, but just remember that the point of these configs is to keep the stock feel but make some things a little more realistic: one being that the galactic plane and ecliptic are not the same plane. [quote name='.50calBMg']I got it to work with both 365 and OPM by using the generic one and then installing the X3 version over it and overwriting the parts from the generic file.[/QUOTE] Great! Glad you got it working with OPM too. I'll probably add OPM support for the generic config in the next release.

[quote name='.50calBMg']will this work with the kerbin 365 mod?[/QUOTE] Just tested with Kerbin 365 and it looks like it works fine with it. The generic config does not work with OPM at the moment, however. [quote name='abowl']The devs should consider adopting this because honestly alot of thought has been put into it and the axial tilt has very interesting side effects. Rarer eclipses which is nice. They become more epic when they happen. The 24h daylight, during summer at the pole. Thats just too good. These small little details is what makes a good game great. The difficulty will be slightly higher, but it shouldnt be an issue once you become affiliated with rocket building and space faring.[/QUOTE] I remember reading not too long ago a post that said that the devs could have implemented real axial tilt per planetary body, but decided not to because it was very complicated to get working with Unity 4. I'm hoping Unity 5 could possibly make it easier to implement. The problems with the method used by me and RSS are that [B]1)[/B] I can only specify axial tilt for one body (Kerbin in this case) while all others get a random tilt based on their orbital elements, and [B]2) [/B]the reference plane is the original ecliptic used in stock, so any mod that gives orbital readouts (MechJeb, KER) will have these exaggerated values (instead of Kerbin having an inclination of 0, it is [COLOR=#333333]23.4).[/COLOR]

I just released a new version of my Harder Solar System configs that adds 64K support if anyone is interested. The config simulates axial tilt on Kerbin by rotating the entire solar system (like how RSS does it for Earth), increases the inclinations of Dres and Eeloo relative to the ecliptic to be more like Ceres and Pluto, changes the inclinations of Mun to about 5° to be like the Moon's and Minmus to 0.5[COLOR=#333333][FONT=Helvetica Neue]°[/FONT][/COLOR], and increases Jool's mass to be more realistic relative to the scale. [URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/137931"]Link to Thread[/URL] I should add that I tested on 1.0.5, and my specific changes are verified to work with the 1.0.4 version of 64K. This does not mean 64K is playable with the latest Kopernicus/KSP.

I need the poll removed from the following thread: [URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/137931"]Harder Solar System[/URL] Thanks!

[B]Version 1.2.0 Released - 64K Support! [/B]- Generic config added that supports 64K and should support most other stock-like solar systems by default. - For OPM users, Urlum's inner moons now aligned with rings like Sarnus's inner moons and fixes for science altitude errors and rings. [URL="https://github.com/SteveheadSpaceAgency/HarderSolarSystem/releases/tag/v1.2.0"]Link to Release[/URL] [I]The generic config has not been CKAN indexed yet. Will do a pull request for them this evening.[/I]

If anyone uses my Outer Planets Mod compatibility config, as a heads up with the latest version of Kopernicus, the rings are not scaling properly.

A few things I found regarding my configs and Outer Planets Mod: For one, I goofed and made a tiny mistake with how the science altitude threshold was being rendered by MM in the configs for Outer Planets Mod compatibility. Was throwing errors on load, which I should have caught, but I probably was AFK as I usually am when loading KSP. This has been fixed in my develop branch. Second thing is the rings in Outer Planets Mod. Some change in Kopernicus no longer requires me to scale the rings for 2x, 3x, and 4x scales; doing so as before shrinks the rings instead. This has also been fixed in the develop branch. This will unfortunately force me to bump the minimum KSP version to 1.0.5 in the AVC version file, therefore rendering any future release incompatible with KSP versions older than 1.0.5. Third, I am going to remove the tilt for Urlum's inner moons so that they are more aligned with the rings, as they are in unmodified OPM. This will be in the next release.

[quote name='_Augustus_']Sarnus' rings aren't moved out further...[/QUOTE] A new version of Kopernicus came out today after my release. That might have affected how the rings are scaled. I cannot take a look at it until Thursday.

[quote name='damerell']do the gas giant masses change in 1x scale?[/QUOTE] Yes they do. Jool's mass is increased by a factor of 2.88, which results in an escape velocity 1.69 times stock, and a sphere of influence increase of 1.53 times stock. See the OP for comparisons I just added.

[B]Version 1.1.1 Released [/B][I]No need to upgrade if you do not use AVC version checks (plugin not included). This version does not change the configs. [/I] - The .version files are fixed. Thanks to Olympic1 for finding and fixing the issue. This should help CKAN grab this mod again. [URL="https://github.com/SteveheadSpaceAgency/HarderSolarSystem/releases/tag/v1.1.1"]Link to Download[/URL] [COLOR=silver][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] [quote name='Xuixien']Is there a way to install ONLY the scaling, and not the tilting..?[/QUOTE] I do not have a set of configs generating without the tilt. For this set of configs, I consider the tilt a core feature. If you do not care for the other changes (gas giant mass increase, dwarf planet inclination changes, etc.), check out [URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/125357"]KScale2[/URL] by Paul Kingtiger. It is a double scale solar system. I also contributed an Outer Planets Mod config for KScale2, found [URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/125357?p=2031390&viewfull=1#post2031390"]here[/URL]. As far as 3 or 4 scale solar systems, I don't know of anyone formally releasing a strictly stock version of those scales similar to KScale2. If you wish to use my configs without the tilt, feel free to modify them however you please. You just need to remove inclination, argument of periapsis, and longitude of the ascending node from all the planets/moons; this will force the original values. This will, however, reset the Mun and Minmus inclinations, which I recommend setting to 5.145 and 0.5 respectively (see below for my double scale config): [code] @Body[Mun] { %cacheFile = HarderSolarSystem-2x/Cache/Stock/Mun.bin @Orbit { semiMajorAxis = 24000000 inclination = 5.145 } @Properties { radius = 400000 @ScienceValues { spaceAltitudeThreshold = 120000 } } } @Body[Minmus] { %cacheFile = HarderSolarSystem-2x/Cache/Stock/Minmus.bin @Orbit { semiMajorAxis = 94000000 inclination = 0.5 } @Properties { radius = 120000 rotationPeriod = 57134.22792 @ScienceValues { spaceAltitudeThreshold = 60000 } } } [/code] Also, you will need to change Dres's inclination to 10.5, and Eeloo/Plock to 17 (Eeloo if stock, Plock if using OPM). [quote name='frozenbacon']Hey, a while ago I simulated a realistically sized kerbol system that was stable with n-body physics. I abandoned it because a lot of stuff was happening in my life at the time, but I can dig up the data gain if you wanna use it for this mod. It does make the game harder because kerbol is A LOT bigger (the current sized sun cannot sustain fusion), which pushes out the orbits quite a bit. I tried to respect the orbital periods in stock with the new sun, but I did have to space things out a little to make sure the orbits remained stabled. It is harder to get into orbit as well because with realistic densities, the planets had to be bigger as well.[/QUOTE] Hey that's awesome, I may consider using such data. It may be more suitable for a completely realistic solar system config, separate from this set of configs which aims to only provide additional challenge but retain as much stock values as possible. I'll PM you if I decide to do so. I will very busy going into the holidays, so my time is going to be very limited.

Version 1.1.0 Released (potentially save-breaking if upgrading! see notes at bottom) Increased gas giant masses. Increased inclinations for the "dwarf planets". High space science altitude threshold scales based on selected scale. Fixed runway orientation to be due East/West. Fixed Eeloo not scaling in OPM. Link to Download Note: You may have some problems if you are upgrading and have any of the following situations: - Vessels at the KSC. Reason: KSC was rotated, vessels may respawn in buildings. - Vessels headed to Dres, Eeloo (stock), or Plock (OPM). Reason: orbital inclinations changed, so therefore original encounters will not exist. - Any vessels in or headed to Jool, Sarnus, Urlum and Neidon systems. Reason: gas giant mass increases will change delta-V requirements, moon encounters may change, etc.

Thanks for the suggestions on the names, but it's a little too late now since I've already "branded" this plugin with the current name. Overall, it is a harder solar system, so I have no problem with what I chose originally. --------------------------------------- By the way, update incoming soon.

I might add support for a couple more popular packs that add planets, but I doubt I will for any packs that make significant changes to the stock planets (or in some cases, straight up replaces the entire solar system). Planet packs have been trending lately and there are a good number of them out there; if people have suggestions for a certain popular pack, let me know--and I stress popular because I don't have a lot of free time to add/maintain support for something only a couple of people may use. I've used Trans-Keptunian in the past, so that is one I may potentially do. Kerbol Plus is popular too, so that would be a potential candidate.

I've set it to be 1.0.5 compatible earlier today. Sometimes it take a while for CKAN to pickup the change. It should be available on there soon.

Was about to release the new version when I realized my Python script has not been allowing Eeloo to scale in Outer Planets Mod; Eeloo receives special treatment since OPM modifies it. Will resolve that issue before releasing the new version.

Sorry for not promptly answering this question. If you have Blizzy's Toolbar installed, it will be under that initially. Else it will be in the stock toolbar. If it cannot be found in either, it sounds like an install issue. Make sure the SimpleOrbitCalculator directory is under GameData. This mod is CKAN indexed, so it's easy to install from that. Easiest way to do this is to check Eccentricity and Orbital Period. Click the S button next to the Orbital Period input to auto-fill it with the synchronous period. Fill in 0 for eccentricity (assuming you want a circular orbit), then click calculate. Below is an example. Thanks, glad you find this plugin useful! I'm not sure what you mean exactly. The transfer delta-V is currently assuming a Hohmann Transfer, but I may provide bi-elliptic transfer info if it is less delta-V as a future feature. Regarding 1.0.5 I verified functionality with 1.0.5. Please post here if there are any issues. Regarding 1.1 I've been waiting for 1.1 to be released before making any updates to this plugin, outside of any potential bugfixes that require immediate attention. Of course, I made that statement before they announced 1.0.5 and the 1.1 delay, so if I find time in the near future, I may work a little on this mod.

Don't worry, I wasn't planning to not include it. I agree most people would probably stick with the higher latitude launch sites for most things.