stevehead

Thanks, glad people are enjoying it! I'm going to focus on releasing the next version soon that contains a fix for the KSC runway orientation, gas giant mass increase, high space altitude scaling for science, and maybe some inclination adjustments to Dres and Eeloo (Plock if using OPM) to more real life levels. Next up will be a config for 64K that makes the same adjustments without affecting the original work of Paul Kingtiger, et al. I am definitely going to be adding a KSCswitcher config soon; I'd like to have equivalents for Baikonur and Guiana, and maybe a few others (Kodiak or Plesetsk), though adding the original KSC would suffice for Guiana. My only concern is that people will just end up using the equatorial site for everything, which takes out a major difficulty factor that I have worked to add.

Switched to dev build, and this was one of the first problems I noticed after playing with it for a number of hours. Checking out the repo shows a drastic change to the parachute drag values about a month ago. Link here. Edit: I removed the drag changes in that commit and issue still occurred. I wish I had stuck with the old release or just stock now. Hours into the current save and I just now noticed this issue. Edit 2: I've tried several things: removed the model, scale to force stock values, removed the drag changes, etc. Saw there was a duplicate "@PART[parachuteRadial]" in the file, removed that. Removed any mod that would potential change the chutes (TweakScale, Tweakable Everything, Stock Bug Fix Modules). Still nothing. Link to photo showing that all the parachutes but the Mk2-R is working: https://www.dropbox.com/s/pcdwpnw50ua0p65/screenshot3.png?dl=0

Scaled the high space science altitudes. Also, scaled the low/high flying altitude border for gas giant. Latest Github develop commit has these changes. Will do a proper release once I verify all new features are stable.

I don't know of any way that can achieve that. It's the same in Real Solar System. Unfortunately it's something I don't think is possible.

In the develop build on GitHub, I have increased the masses of the gas giants, fixed the runway orientation at the KSC, and increased the inclinations of Eeloo (non-OPM), Dres, and Plock (OPM) to be more like their real life counterparts. As a note, the mass increase does not affect the 1:2:4 resonance of Jool's inner moons. If anyone wants to, feel free to download the dev version and play around with the scale of your choosing.

I'll get back to you on that. I plan to put in the OP some info regarding deltaV and geosynchronous info. The rotation periods for Kerbin are 8, 10, and 12 hours for 2x, 3x, and 4x scales respectively, so if you have KER or MechJeb, that will help until I get the exact altitude for you. - - - Updated - - - Geostationary Orbit Altitudes 1x Scale 2868.741 km 2x Scale 5470.389 km 3x Scale 8342.662 km 4x Scale 11474.965 km Also (shameless promotion time), my Simple Orbit Calculator plugin can help calculate such things as this. It directly pulls the data from the game, so by default it works with any solar system provided (stock, my configs, 64k, RSS, OPM, etc.)

K. Thanks for the responses. I've still been using the old release. Think I may go with the dev version now.

Just curious to know if people are regularly using the latest commit off the master branch on GitHub or are sticking with the official latest release from May for their typical installs?

Images added of the stock size version.

Yeah, I'll try to throw some pics on here. It's tricky to notice any visual differences since the orbits are all oriented the same relative to each other as in stock, its just everything is rotated by ~23.4° along one axis in Cartesian space. The visual differences would be the orbits relative to the galaxy plane in the stock skybox, and the fact that Kerbin (actually all the planets/moons now) has seasons: at UT time 0, it is the vernal equinox (aka first day of Spring for the northern hemisphere). Actually it might be easier to showcase everything through a Youtube video, which I'll try to get around to soon.

Version 1.0.1 released Fixed a small scaling issue for a couple of RT ground stations. Also, prepared the distribution for CKAN. CKAN Support Pull request accepted. Should be available on CKAN soon. Future Ideas The goal of this series of configs is to provide an experience very close to stock, but with some additional challenges taken from real life (e.g., axial tilt and a space center not on the equator). One thing I have noticed is how Jool's gravity well is much weaker than Jupiter's, based on scaling. I was thinking of scaling the mass of Jool up to achieve a comparable experience. It would make leaving Jool's SOI more difficult. I could also apply a similar change to the OPM gas giants. Any thoughts let me know! Observations Honestly, I was hoping this set of configs would be a little more well received. I thought it would be fun to put a little "spin" on the stock solar system, pun intended . It's a little discouraging to put a good bit of time into researching how to properly rotate the 3D space of the solar system, writing a python script that generates all 4 configs with a press of a button, and making sure I have compatibility with OPM and RT, only to end up (so far) with a 1 star rating on the forums. If there is a legitimate issue with what I have released, please report it here or on the GitHub issues page--it's the only way I can know, and AFAIK there is nothing wrong with the configs from what I have tested and played. If this is just not for you, please respectfully move along and not low-rate this thread just because this doesn't fit your play style. I know the distribution isn't optimal at the time of this posting, but once CKAN gets the configs listed, it'll be easy to install. Edit: This thread is getting a little more love now. Thanks for the support! One bad apple can really make things look bad in the beginning.

My thought process behind not scaling the atmospheres is that the stock atmosphere is already quite high relative to the size of the planets. Kerbin's atmosphere height is ~12% of its radius, but Earth's atmosphere in RSS is ~2%. That's one reason Earth looks so huge in RSS (and real life), not just from the simple fact that it is much larger than Kerbin, but also that you are orbiting very close to the surface, relatively. You would need about a 5x scale for a 70 km orbit to have Kerbin look as large as Earth from a 130 km orbit. I didn't release a 5x scale version because it's getting pretty close to 6.4x scale, which I may release a MM patch for sometime soon to accomplish the same thing I have done here. Also, another challenge is having to spend more time burning horizontally since you do not gain as much horizontal speed when getting out of the atmosphere since you do not have to go up as high. That is a big thing in RSS. Doing an efficient launch to get into a 80km orbit in 4x scale requires a lot of time burning towards the horizon, and it's easy to fall back to Kerbin before circularizing if your launch profile is off.

Just did a pull request to put these configs on CKAN. Hopefully it shouldn't be too long for them to be on there.

What is Harder Solar System? Harder Solar System is a step up in difficulty from the stock system. The main difference between this solar system and stock is that the entire solar system has been rotated to simulate an axial tilt for Kerbin, the same concept that gives Earth an axial tilt in Real Solar System. Also, the Kerbal Space Center has been relocated to a higher latitude. The combination of these two changes forces players to plan launch windows for things that did not typically require them, such as LKO rendezvous and going to the Mun. Other Changes The Mun now has an identical inclination to the real-life Moon, relative to the ecliptic. Minmus was changed so it would not have a similar inclination to the Mun. Jool's mass has been increased to be more comparable to Jupiter's, relatively. Dres and Eeloo's orbit inclination has been altered to be more like Ceres and Pluto, respectively. Everything else is stock. Outer Planets Mod Support (v1.8.x) There is compatibility with this awesome planet pack. Only thing is I retained the same orbits for the inner moons of Sarnus because of the rings. Sarnus, Urlum, and Neidon have had their masses increased similarly to Jool's. Instead of Eeloo, Plock has had its orbit inclination to more like Pluto's. Remote Tech Support Remote Tech is actually a little easier than stock, because I added a Deep Space Network on Kerbin! I personally find it tedious and non-challenging to have to setup a satellite network in Kerbin orbit to communicate with distant planets (if Kerbals can launch rockets to space, surely they can setup ground stations around the planet ). I also have two short range ground stations specifically for launches (one for eastward launches, and one for polar orbits); not sure how useful this will be since they quickly become redundant once a simple comms setup is achieved, but added just in case. Various Scales Not only is this config available in stock size, I have included 2x, 3x and even 4x scales for additional challenge! A few notes: planetary rotation periods have been adjusted, atmospheres do not scale, and potato moons (Gilly, Pol, Ovok from OPM, etc.) do not scale. Remote Tech distances scale properly. 64K Support There is a generic config that will add the axial tilt, make the inclination changes to Mun/Minmus/Dres/Eeloo, and increase Jool's mass. This config should also support most other stock-like solar systems. How is this Accomplished? Well, adding axial tilt to Kerbin isn't as simple as adding the intended tilt (~23.4° in this case) to every orbit's inclination in the solar system because of varying longitudes of the ascending nodes (LAN)--already confused? checkout this wikipedia article on orbital elements. If every planet and moon had the same LAN, then it would be as simple as adding 23.4 to each inclination. But that is not the case. It is, in a nutshell, a process of converting the given orbital elements into state vectors (which are vectors that describe the position and velocity of the planet/moon in 3D Cartesian space), rotating the vectors using a rotation matrix along the X axis, then converting those new state vectors back into the resulting orbital elements used in these configs. Ultimately, the only elements affected by this rotation are inclination, longitude of the ascending node, and argument of periapsis. To make things easy on me, I wrote a crude python script to compute all of these rotations for me, scale the solar system where applicable, and compile everything into the configs that I have released. Why Change the Mun's Inclination? For one, I wanted eclipses to be more rare. Two, it completes a specific purpose in addition to the KSC's relocation. Knowing why Kennedy Space Center is located where it is may clue you into an easy way to launch to the Mun in this form of KSP. Why the Name? Because it makes the solar system harder. Actually, I'm terrible with creative names, and this was the best I could come up with... you should see the names of my spacecraft and launchers: Alpha 1, Beta 2 Heavy, Duna Explorer 1, Jool Atmosphere Probe 2, etc. Thanks - Thanks to Paul Kingtiger for inspiration on several parts of this. Also, some compatibility came straight from KScale2. - Thanks to NathanKell's RSS for inspiring the axial tilt simulation. License This is public domain. Do whatever you wish with what I have released. Links Source - GitHub Manual Install Instructions 1) Install dependencies. 2) Download release from GitHub below, and choose the scale you want within the ZIP file for install. Known Issues - None ATM Dependencies (Install Separately) Kopernicus Module Manager Download Current Release Various Information for Each Scale Scale Geostationary Altitude ÃŽâ€V multiplier Kerbin Rotation Period Approx. ÃŽâ€V to LKO 1x 2868.741 km 1.0 6 hr 3500 m/s 2x 5470.389 km 1.4 8 hr 4500 m/s 3x 8342.662 km 1.7 10 hr ??? 4x 11474.965 km 2.0 12 hr 6000 m/s ÃŽâ€V multiplier is what you would multiply the ÃŽâ€V amounts from a ÃŽâ€V map such as this one to give you a rough approximation for that scale. Since atmospheres do not scale with my configs, the ÃŽâ€V for atmospheric bodies will be lower. These values will obviously not be accurate with any potential changes I may do in the future that affects the masses/orbits of the planetary bodies. How the Mass Changes Affect Jool Stock HSS-1x HSS-2x HSS-3x HSS-4x HSS-64K Jool Mass 4.233e24 kg 1.219e25 kg 4.877e25 kg 1.097e26 kg 1.951e26 kg 4.994e26 kg Jool Escape Velocity 9704 m/s 16469 m/s 23290 m/s 28525 m/s 32938 m/s 41664 m/s Jool SOI 2.455e9 m 3.749e9 m 7.499e9 m 1.125e10 m 1.500e10 m 1.910e10 m

I finally got around to adding Neidon's moons for OPM compatibility. Link to Release

My post from my other mod that I have worked on... When 1.1 comes, I'll look into more organic explosions using part heating than forcing the explosions, and implement some suggestions. I hate that I had left a number of people in the dark with the mod, but I had no time to work on it.

I'll get back to working on this plugin in the near future. My mother had been ill the past several months and just recently passed, so I've been dealing with all of that. I'm also waiting for the 1.1 update.

Awesome! I look forward to it. Keep up the good work! I try to use kOS because it's more "Kerbalish", but I end up going back to kRPC: I prefer to use a language that I actually know well (and is complete), plus I'm not restricted to just in-game resources and can use external libraries like any real program.

I was trying to write an auto-launch script for the Saturn V in RSS/RO with kOS, but the steering autopilot did not work since the rocket receives its control through engine gimbals instead of reaction wheels (see this post on the kOS forums). I re-wrote the launch script as a python script for kRPC and I was having the same issue. I saw that kRPC borrows from other mods such as kOS for the autopilot coding, so it seems kRPC has the same problem as kOS regarding steering control for rockets that do not use reaction wheels primarily for control.

I've been wanting to do the code overhaul I had mentioned that can easily add various types of launch failures, but I've had too much going on IRL to be able to sit down and write up this failure framework. So, currently, updates are on hold until I find some time. I don't want to spend time working on code that is going to be replaced or thrown out soon afterwards. It may be a week or so before I have extra free time. With the little bit of free time I'm getting right now, I'd honestly rather be playing KSP or some other game than be programming. Hate to admit, I haven't even tested this mod on KSP 1.0.3/1.0.4 yet to see if it is completely compatible. I will do a quick check and if so, change the version compatibility on KerbalStuff and CKAN. Sorry for the late response. Yes, currently you can change the config located at GameData/KerbalLaunchFailure/Plugins/PluginData/KLF_Settings.cfg. The setting you want to change is initialFailureProbability. In a future update, I'll add an in game GUI to change settings at the KSC scene.

I've had a lot going on IRL, so I haven't had much time for supporting configs and mods of mine. Let me know if anyone is having any issues with the compatibility config for OPM. I'll also try adding compatibility to other popular planet packs if they do not have a double-scale config included. I'm hoping today I can find some time to get it added to CKAN.

Thanks for the response. If others feel that the aerodynamics are fine, then I guess I need to learn to fly the thing . If anyone out there has had success regularly landing the shuttle, I could use some suggestions on a good descent profile. I've tried several approaches: 1) From a 100km orbit, lower my periapsis to 45 km to be to the east of KSC. During descent, I maintained a pitch angle of 30 degrees to bleed off speed. Once I get near about Mach 4, I start pitching the nose down more towards the horizon to stop horizontal speed bleed off (usually near the mountains west of KSC) to hopefully glide in the rest of the way, but once I get about Mach 1.5-2, is when the shuttle rapidly loses horizontal speed and I start dropping out of the sky. Also, using TAC fuel balancer, I tried dumping my remaining monoprop to various amounts to see if that helped any, but I noticed no change in reentry. 2) I found this video on Youtube: (warning, audio is loud). Not conventional compared to the real thing, but it worked for that person so I figured I'd try it. Well, since the reentry is steep, my shuttle just goes *poof* due to heating. Tried mimicking it exactly, but it doesn't work for me (person may be using lower heating setting). Edit: watching again, they are using an older version of CSS since their shuttle isn't one part.By the way, my physics settings are all stock settings, except I lowered the conduction factor per Starwaster to alleviate random part overheating, so my aero should be working as expected. No DRE and no FAR installed. Anyways, any suggestion would be appreciated!

I've personally have been a rocket person myself, never really done anything with shuttles/spaceplanes despite playing the game for about two years, so pardon me if I'm doing something wrong. The shuttle looks great and launches well (use Mech Jeb's Smart A.S.S. for the roll program, then fly it manually the rest of the way). However, I had some difficulty with boarding the shuttle through the payload bay hatch during EVA. But my biggest problem is reentry and landing: at some point, the shuttle just does not glide at all. It more or less runs out of horizontal speed and drops out of the sky like a brick. I'm using stock game with stock aerodynamics. I'm aware of the differences in how the shuttle flew compared to a normal aircraft/glider: a low L/D ratio means it's going to be constantly slowing down, but I've observed others on Twitch (such as Shimmy) do shuttle missions (albeit their own designs, but trying to mimic the real shuttle) and they had decent gliding capability. Was wondering if this is a common issue or is it me? Any pointers are appreciated.

I get the same error: [LOG 23:01:44.322] [ModuleManager] Error - Skipping a patch with unbalanced square brackets or a space (replace them with a '?') : +PART[solarPanels5]] I checked the github repo, and here's the commit that causes the issue: https://github.com/VenVen/Stock-Revamp/commit/418fcce04bc4cba48dd2827b6e0d386db447bd84 It seems the MM copy operators (+ and $) for the solarPanels5 part on line 175 is causing the issue... I even tried replacing the '+' with a '$'. I tried removing everything in between the brackets, and it still caused the error. Removed the entire node, no error on load. Unless my eyes are playing tricks on me this late, I cannot see anything wrong with the config.

I've been stuck in a rut too with the game for some time, although mine is more a combination of frustration and real life. Pre-1.0, I could play the game hours at a time and enjoy every bit of it, despite having an occasional bug to deal with. But now it seems that no matter what combination of mods (even going for almost pure-stock setup a few times), I always get hit by some game breaking/limiting bug 30 min. to an hour into playing and I have to spend time troubleshooting and narrowing down the problem to which mod (often, it turns out to be a stock bug like randomly overheating parts or the launch clamp bug). I get frustrated, run out of time, and shelve the game for a few days and come back to experience the same problem, and the routine has become quite old for me. It's been a good number of days or so since I've fired up KSP, but I keep getting that itch to play it. I've tried playing other games lately, but I get bored with them quickly and wish to be playing KSP instead... but I hold off because of the frustrations I've had recently. Sadly, I need something like KSP to keep my mind off of real life. My mother was diagnosed with a very rare form of cancer back in May, and I'm afraid to say that the situation will not have a happy ending. I spend a lot of time caring for her, and a lot of time just being with her, along with other day-to-day things and obligations I have. But I do need the occasional "me time" to ease off my mind for an hour or two, and KSP had been my go to thing for just that. I guess the stress of real life has been too much for me to handle additional stress from a video game, yet I have not found anything else to fill that "me time" void without wanting to be playing KSP.