baldamundo

Roadmap looks fantastic. How much of it ever got finished? Are there any other up-to-date contract packs with a similar structure? Been struggling to find anything that feels adequate

These are gorgeous! And can't wait to try out the new Zenit. Minor bit of feedback: the Venera/Amethyst solar panels seem very delicate at the moment. I'm quite regularly having them stripped off completely when they just get brushed by staged fairings

I'm getting a repeated freeze with contract configurator-related logspam. Will try and do some testing see i fI can work out what's triggering it. EDIT: Seems to be being triggered by completing the orbit criteria for the Elektron 1 satellite contract in the History of Spaceflight contract pack. Can't see anything about it that's different to other criteria (and e.g. the Elektron 2 criteria in the same contract works fine)

Did anyone ever get to the bottom of this? Am having exactly the same issue with rockets based on the Tantares R-7. Will have a go experimenting with different variations of it to see if I can work out what it's having trouble with specifically. EDIT: Okay done some testing and it seems to be having an issue with the engines specifically. Using the same rocket with different engines & it flies smoothly. Same engines on a different rocket and the stability problems come back. Sticking loads of control surfaces on does seem to help it out a lot but in many cases doesn't come close to fixing the problem. My working theory is it must be to do with the way @Bealeset up the engines with the vernier thrusters integrated into the same part as the main engine. So far I've observed the same issues with the soyuz lower stage engine, both versions of the soyuz upper stage engine, as well as the kosmos & proton upper stages that are set up in the same way with integrated verniers. all the other autopilots i've used don't seem to have any issues with the engines in question (and I've been using Tantares for a long time) so i dunno why it's happening @Morphisordo the BDB engines you noticed the issue with have integrated verniers as well?

Very minor useability question/request: every time I return to the space center, the KCT window defaults to being closed and I have to manually open it again from the toolbar. Since using KCT is the main thing I do from the space center view besides visiting VAB or R&D, it gets a bit inconvenient. Is there any way to make it default to being open?

Can't believe I've only just found out about this - been looking for an autopilot that models it like this for ages. Integration with MechJeb's node execution for circularisation is really handy too, and so far seems much more reliably efficient than the Mechjeb ascent guidance.

Sorry there were two separate issues referenced above. There's: 1. the problem of accidentally dropping a folder inside another folder last time I looked into it, there was no way of rearranging this, but as you say - nuking the .dat file and starting over is a workaround in the worst-case. 2. the problem of folder icons resetting for those who don't know, when you create a folder in the toolbar, by default it has an icon of a folder, but if you right-click and hit "edit folder settings" you can change the icon (I think to any icon it can find in the game's data folders). however, these icons seem to regularly reset to the default icon - seems like it happens sometimes as often as every scene change. nuking the .dat file wouldn't help with this issue, and even making your changes and then setting the file to read-only doesn't seem to reliably solve it in my experience

Sorry to double-post, but it's been a few months now. Does anyone have any ideas why this happens or how to fix it? Issue seems to have been around for a couple of years at least (I'm guessing not that many people use the folder icon settings lol)

lovely! been waiting for this for so long!

Been getting some logspam in flights lately that just says "Look rotation viewing vector is zero". Not clear it's having any practical impact though. Anyone have any ideas what it means or what might be causing it?

Thanks for doing this! Seems like it's improved performance massively compared to when I last tested but I am still getting the flowgraph log errors

Seemed to be playable with just Scrapyard & Vanilla, but on my modded install the flowgraph errors completely completely kill performance for me. Which is really sad 'cos Oh Scrap (dependent on Scrapyard) is arguably my favourite mod - adds so much depth, and not sure i want to start a new game without it

Did you ever get thoes patches done?

Cheers, that's fixed it

How would I write a patch to add hydrogen fuel cells as an option in the Kerbalism life support pod configuration options? I tried to work it out from what was in the default.cfg, and came up with this: @PART[*]:HAS[#CrewCapacity[>0],!MODULE[KerbalSeat]] { MODULE { name = ProcessController resource = _FuelCell title = Fuel Cell capacity = #$/CrewCapacity$ running = false } @Module[Configure] { SETUP { name = Fuel Cell desc = An emergency fuel cell that burns <b>Hydrogen</b> and <b>Oxygen</b> gas, producing <b>Water</b>. tech = engineering101 mass = 0.1 cost = 1000 MODULE { type = ProcessController id_field = resource id_value = _FuelCell } } } } But it ends up adding the fuel cell to every pod in addition to the configurable life support slots, rather than being an option for one of those slots.

Been really enjoying playing through the Soviet missions on here. I wonder if it's worth changing the Vostok 3/4 & Soyuz 3/4 missions to each be single-contract orbital rendezvous missions. It's a bit odd how at the moment they're two separate regular launches. It also seems like it's bugged with the current implementation - and possible to fulfill both contracts with a single launch. I even tried to do a proper rendezvous, but had both contracts auto-complete as soon as I brought Vostok 4 out onto the launchpad, because it misinterpreted it as Vostok 3 (and 4) having landed. I also wonder if it's worth cutting out some of the Kosmos missions in the pocket edition - they do end up getting extremely repetetive. (and maybe add in the first unmanned Soyuz test flights?) Would you ever include any of the planned but ultimately cancelled missions like the 7K-L1 and 7K-LOK lunar soyuz missions? And do you have any plans to add any of the later missions?

Did anyone ever find a solution to the folder toolbar icon resetting issue? https://github.com/linuxgurugamer/ksp_toolbar/issues/18 Also how do you move a folder back from inside another folder? Can't for the life of me work out how. Even editing the settings file doesn't seem to make a difference - just seems to get reset.

Have tried both of these, and it's still not working. And the .cfg extension is definitely right. I can even see the patch being applied in the logs, but they still come out in-game with the original prices.

turns out it's in system/reliability.cfg // this calculates ignitions from thrust, and vac/atm ISP ratio: // - the lower the thrust, the higher the ignition count. // - the higher the difference between vacuum and atmosphere ISP, the higher the ignition count. // thrust 0-350 gives 64-1 ignitions (custom exponential-ish scale). // vac/atm ratio gives no bonus if below 150%, and then a linear bonus of +1 ignitions for every extra 20%. // some specific engine types will receive further bonus. @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]:HAS[#maxThrust,@atmosphereCurve]]:NEEDS[FeatureReliability]:FOR[KerbalismDefault] { @MODULE[Reliability] { // Parse and store atmosphere ISP as a temporary value __tmp_isp_atm = #$../MODULE[ModuleEngines*]/atmosphereCurve/key,1$ @__tmp_isp_atm ^= :^[\d\.]* (\d+) *.*$:$1: // Parse and store vacuum ISP as a temporary value __tmp_isp_vac = #$../MODULE[ModuleEngines*]/atmosphereCurve/key,0$ @__tmp_isp_vac ^= :^[\d\.]* (\d+) *.*$:$1: // Give ignitions based on the ratio between vacum and atmosphere ISP // ---- // Example results for typical stock engines: // Spider => 1 // Ant => 13 // Twitch => 1 // Terrier => 13 // Thud => 1 // LV-T30 => 1 // Poodle => 12 // Mainsail => 1 @rated_ignitions = #$__tmp_isp_vac$ @rated_ignitions /= #$__tmp_isp_atm$ // Get the ratio between vacum and atmosphere ISP @rated_ignitions -= 1.5 // Zero the curve to a ratio of 1.5 @rated_ignitions ^= :^-.*$:0: // If negative, set to zero @rated_ignitions *= 5 // Give a power of 5 to the curve @rated_ignitions += 1 // Set a minimum value of 1 // Give extra ignitions the smaller the engine is // ---- // Example results for typical stock engines: // Spider => +64 // Ant => +64 // Twitch => +32 // Terrier => +10 // Thud => +8 // LV-T30 => +4 // Poodle => +2 // Mainsail => +0 __tmp_thrust_factor = #$../MODULE[ModuleEngines*]/maxThrust$ @__tmp_thrust_factor ^= :^[0-9]$:_64: // if thrust between 0 and 9, give +64 ignitions @__tmp_thrust_factor ^= :^1[0-9]$:_32: // if thrust between 10 and 19, give +32 ignitions @__tmp_thrust_factor ^= :^[2-4][0-9]$:_16: // if thrust between 20 and 49, give +16 ignitions @__tmp_thrust_factor ^= :^[5-9][0-9]$:_10: // if thrust between 50 and 99, give +10 ignitions @__tmp_thrust_factor ^= :^1[0-4][0-9]$:_8: // if thrust between 100 and 149, give +8 ignitions @__tmp_thrust_factor ^= :^1[5-9][0-9]$:_6: // if thrust between 150 and 199, give +6 ignitions @__tmp_thrust_factor ^= :^2[0-4][0-9]$:_4: // if thrust between 200 and 249, give +4 ignitions @__tmp_thrust_factor ^= :^2[5-9][0-9]$:_2: // if thrust between 250 and 299, give +2 ignitions @__tmp_thrust_factor ^= :^3[0-9][0-9]$:_1: // if thrust between 300 and 349, give +1 ignitions @__tmp_thrust_factor ^= :^[^_].*$:_0: // if thrust is 350 or more, give +0 ignitions @__tmp_thrust_factor ^= :_:: // remove the "_" prefix // Combine the two ignitions values // ---- // Final sum for the previous examples: // Spider => 65 // Ant => 77 // Twitch => 33 // Terrier => 23 // Thud => 9 // LV-T30 => 5 // Poodle => 14 // Mainsail => 1 @rated_ignitions += #$__tmp_thrust_factor$ @rated_ignitions ^= :\.\d+:: // Floor value to get an integer // Remove all temporary variables !__tmp_* = dummy } } What's got me confused is that the 'Vorona' engine from Coatl ProbesPlus (analogue of the Soviet 4MV/Venera/Mars probes) comes out only rated for one ignition. Its ISP is 200-315, thrust 11-17. If the comments in the config are accurate, it ought to have a minimum of at least 32 ignitions, surely ("if thrust between 10 and 19, give +32 ignitions"

What is it that determines the number of ignitions an engine has in Kerbalism? Most of the engines I have available have like 20+, but some have less than 5 or even just 1. It seems like it tends to be roughly correlated with atmospheric vs upper stage vs vacuum engines, but not always consistently - and it seems to be done automatically for unpatched modded engines, so I'm curious how it's determined.

What engine is the Soyuz service module intended to be used with?

okay, who can tell me what obvious rookie mistake I've made that means this engine patch isn't working

When I try to install Kerbalism via CKAN, although it displays each as compatible, when I try to install the main mod it says "Kerbalism 3.11 depends on Kerbalism-Config, which is not compatible with the currently installed version of KSP", and when I try to install the config it says "Kerbalism-Config-Default 3.11 depends on Kerbalism, which is not compatible with the currently installed version of KSP"

If anyone's interested, I made some patches for personal use - one for compatibility with RealAntennas, and one to try to balance some of the engine costs. Mainly the Proton 1st & 2nd stage engines looked significantly too expensive compared to Stock, but also made the Zenit first stage a bit pricier, and the RD-0120 a bit cheaper. Didn't touch the N1 engines in the end because they're so unlike anything in Stock it's hard to know how to compare. Are the NK-33 stats historically accurate? Because they're pretty insane - no wonder the Americans brought them back and are still in use today! //Tantares-RealAntennas compatibility patch @PART[lepus_low_gain_antenna_srf_2]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter]] { @cost = 350 @mass = 0.005 !MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter],* {} MODULE { name = ModuleRealAntenna referenceGain = 3.0 } } @PART[lepus_low_gain_antenna_srf_1]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter]] { @cost = 315 @mass = 0.005 !MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter],* {} MODULE { name = ModuleRealAntenna referenceGain = 2.0 } } @PART[Andromeda_Antenna_1]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter]] { @cost = 350 @mass = 0.001 !MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter],* {} MODULE { name = ModuleRealAntenna referenceGain = 2.0 } } @PART[Andromeda_Antenna_2]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter]] { @cost = 350 @mass = 0.001 !MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter],* {} MODULE { name = ModuleRealAntenna referenceGain = 2.0 } } @PART[atria_antenna_srf_1_1]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter]] { !MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter],* {} MODULE { name = ModuleRealAntenna antennaDiameter = 0.3 } } @PART[atria_antenna_srf_1_2]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter]] { !MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter],* {} MODULE { name = ModuleRealAntenna antennaDiameter = 0.3 } } @PART[atria_antenna_srf_1_3]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter]] { !MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter],* {} MODULE { name = ModuleRealAntenna antennaDiameter = 0.3 } } @PART[atria_antenna_srf_2_1]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter]] { @cost = 200 !MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter],* {} MODULE { name = ModuleRealAntenna referenceGain = 3.0 } } @PART[atria_antenna_srf_2_2]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter]] { @cost = 200 !MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter],* {} MODULE { name = ModuleRealAntenna referenceGain = 3.0 } } @PART[atria_antenna_srf_2_3]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter]] { @cost = 200 !MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter],* {} MODULE { name = ModuleRealAntenna referenceGain = 3.0 } } @PART[octans_whip_antenna_srf_1]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter]] { @mass = 0.005 !MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter],* {} MODULE { name = ModuleRealAntenna referenceGain = 2.0 } } @PART[octans_whip_antenna_srf_2]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter]] { @mass = 0.005 @cost = 415 !MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter],* {} MODULE { name = ModuleRealAntenna referenceGain = 3.8 } } @PART[vela_high_gain_antenna_srf_1]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter]] { @mass = 0.03 @cost = 1000 !MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter],* {} MODULE { name = ModuleRealAntenna antennaDiameter = 0.6 } } @PART[lepus_high_gain_antenna_srf_1]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter]] { @mass = 0.018 @cost = 800 !MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter],* {} MODULE { name = ModuleRealAntenna antennaDiameter = 0.4 } } @PART[lepus_high_gain_antenna_srf_2]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter]] { @mass = 0.02 !MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter],* {} MODULE { name = ModuleRealAntenna antennaDiameter = 0.4 } } @PART[octans_high_gain_antenna_srf_1]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter]] { !MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter],* {} MODULE { name = ModuleRealAntenna antennaDiameter = 0.3 } } @PART[octans_high_gain_antenna_srf_2]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter]] { @cost = 300 !MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter],* {} MODULE { name = ModuleRealAntenna antennaDiameter = 0.3 } } @PART[octans_basic_high_gain_antenna_srf_2]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter]] { @cost = 150 !MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter],* {} MODULE { name = ModuleRealAntenna antennaDiameter = 0.3 } } @PART[eridani_low_gain_antenna_srf_1]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter]] { @cost = 350 @mass = 0.001 !MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter],* {} MODULE { name = ModuleRealAntenna referenceGain = 2.0 } } @PART[eridani_low_gain_antenna_srf_2]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter]] { @cost = 200 @mass = 0.001 !MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter],* {} MODULE { name = ModuleRealAntenna referenceGain = 2.0 } } @PART[Ara_Antenna_1]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter]] { @cost = 1200 @mass = 0.035 !MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter],* {} MODULE { name = ModuleRealAntenna antennaDiameter = 0.9 } } @PART[eridani_high_gain_antenna_srf_1]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter]] { @cost = 900 @mass = 0.04 !MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter],* {} MODULE { name = ModuleRealAntenna antennaDiameter = 0.7 } }} @PART[1mv_high_gain_antenna_srf_1]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter]] { @cost = 2000 !MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter],* {} MODULE { name = ModuleRealAntenna antennaDiameter = 1.3 } } //Tantares engine balance patch //Proton first stage. compared to twin-boar (17k): 1.3x thrust, slightly better ISP, 2x fuel, much better gimbal. compared to mammoth (39k): 0.7x thrust, same ISP, much more fuel, much better gimbal @Part[ALV_1_Engine_1] { @cost = 40000 } //Proton first stage, light. compared to twin-boar (17k): slightly weaker thrust, slightly better ISP, more fuel, much better gimbal @Part[ALV_1_Engine_2] { @cost = 25000 } //proton second stage. part-way between mainsail (13k) and skipper (5.3k), but with higher gimbal. @Part[ALV_2_Engine_1] { @cost = 10000 } //proton third stage. already roughly in line with poodle //@Part[ALV_3_Engine_1] //zenit first stage. compared to mainsal (13k): 1.33x thrust, lower mass, significantly higher ISP, higher gimbal @Part[HLV_1_Engine_1] { @cost = 20000 } //zenit second stage. already roughly in line with poodle //@Part[HLV_2_Engine_1] //N1 first stage. compared to Mammoth (39k) 3x thrust, 2x mass, higher ISP, lower gimbal. kind of impossible to balance because no stock engine is comparable. //@Part[libra_lv_engine_s7p5_1] //R-0120. near-identical stats to the vector (18k), but with lower gimbal @Part[RLV_1_Engine_2] { @cost = 16000 } //R-0122. near-identical stats to the vector (18k), but with significantly lower gimbal, 1.5x thrust, lower ISP //@Part[RLV_1_Engine_2]

Ohhhh. That figures - now that I think about it, all the failures were on my launches where I had to timewarp to a specific launch window. On an unrelated note, does anyone know what the current state of compatibility is with RealAntennas?