Jump to content

SymbolicFrank

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    60

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by SymbolicFrank

  1. SymbolicFrank
    Yes, that's the problem. Btw, engine fairings (over which you have no control) are problematic:
  2. SymbolicFrank
    The interesting part is, that most probes contain about a kilogram of Plutonium, to power their generator. Because even probes that operate close to the sun tend to have a trajectory with gravity slingshots. So they regularly pass the Earth at about 100 km. Which is a lot more toxic than the Uranium in a NERVA. Btw, I agree that we should switch to Thorium reactors and new models like Pebble Bed Reactors ASAP. But Breeder reactors, while they sound great, are tricky. Do use, but with caution.
  3. SymbolicFrank
    All the instruments fit into a single service bay, so that is cool: And it does look a lot better. But the center of gravity is probably still too high, even with the increased fuel at the bottom. I'll look into the Infernal Robotics. And a mod for better lights.
  4. SymbolicFrank
    Thanks, etheoma. I'll try to fit the instruments into some service bays. But that does make it higher and more top heavy. Of course I fit a fairing when I'm happy with it. The landing gear is a problem, because it has to be as much to the side as possible, to prevent the craft from tilting if the surface is a bit sloped.
  5. SymbolicFrank
    Thanks, Ferram. Would something like this work as well? I'm mostly worried about the scientific instruments and the radiators. I could remove the lights and find a better solution for the landing gear. The ladders are unavoidable.
  6. SymbolicFrank
    ferram, I'm all for as much realism as possible. A realistic atmospheric model is great. But that's only useful when we can also design and build realistic planes and rockets. Which we cannot. So, I would really like it when I could make mostly-realistic based stuff (according to what components I have available), that would behave as realistic as possible. Which almost certainly requires a drag model, especially supersonic, that is more lenient than what would be realistic. Make it configurable, if you like. I would prefer that the whole Kerbal solar system would be an exact copy of ours, and that all parts would be procedurally generated and realistic, with the required cross-sections. But until that's possible (and without the stupid joints between parts, give me a structural skeleton or make things rigid), we won't be able to build the realistic vehicles needed to enjoy you greatly appreciated mod as it requires. Because if it would be realistic, it would mostly severely limit the craft you could make that don't explosively disintegrate.
  7. SymbolicFrank
    You were right, it was a plugin. Sorry I bothered you.
  8. SymbolicFrank
    You have to be launched to see it. There was a mod for that, but that was depreciated because it's now default. Actually, there's even more context-sensitive temperature data in the right-click part menu depending on what is happening, which is interesting when you're on re-entry for example, but that is irrelevant. Like the external temperature, the temperature of the connected parts and such.
  9. SymbolicFrank
    Yes, that one, and the stock temperature as well. In space, the stock temperature goes down, while the waste heat / KSPI temperature goes up until thermal equilibrium. Edit: while the KSPI temperature can be the one of the cooling system and the stock temperature that of the part itself, that won't work for radiators. They should only have a single temperature.
  10. SymbolicFrank
    FreeThinker, if you right click on a radial radiator, you can see that it has two temperatures, that have nothing in common. After launch, one of them tends to go down, and the other goes up.
  11. SymbolicFrank
    Yes, but using radiators assumes that you have a cooling system (plumbing). Which spacecraft tend to have. I mean, the people aboard die from the heat long before the structural elements melt. And different components have different maximum temperatures. Btw, IRL, if you want a manned flight to the other side of the solar system, the best thing you can take with you is a large amount of water ice. It functions as a heat sink, a meteor shield, plants grow in it, you can use it for washing and drinking, and break it down into oxygen to breathe and fuel/reaction mass. You might even want to make your ship inside of that iceberg.
  12. SymbolicFrank
    I don't know what FreeThinker wants to do with it, but the difference is that KSPI assumes that you have a cooling system (plumbing), while stock assumes you don't. In stock it's just conduction heating between the structural elements, while in KSPI the heat is assumed to be collected by heat pipes and such.
  13. SymbolicFrank
    How/where is the current amount of heat stored? And how is the distribution calculated?
  14. SymbolicFrank
    I totally agree! That's the same as I do. I also like to use realistic near-future things in the mid-game. Like the hybrid pulse-detonation engine I made, where all performance parameters are taken from various research reports. I will release that as an add-on to KSPIE when everything is up and running. I even fixed the various stock jet engines, because they made an error in the ISP calculation (not counting the air as part of the fuel). But when I have done all the challenging stuff, I want the power to go places and build interesting stuff. Which requires serious power plants and engines - - - Updated - - - As it is, both forms of heat are waste heat, and interchangeable. The way KSPI handles it is quite realistic. If you want to make a distinction, you could make two different circuits: one for the living quarters (keep between 273 and 303 Kelvin) and one for the rest (keep below their individual melting points). But I would simply change the KSPI resource to the stock one. Edit: as the stock heat isn't a resource, it's probably easiest to get rid of the wasteheat resource, and use the stock way.
  15. SymbolicFrank
    That's because everything in KSP is scaled to about 10% of what it is in the real world. In reality, going to the other planets with manned missions is just about impossible using chemical rockets. The distances are vast, the dV required immense. And using Hohmann transfers, takes many years.
  16. SymbolicFrank
    That's the whole point of using atomics. Now think about the energy density of Anti-Matter...
  17. SymbolicFrank
    Yes, I understand that. I'm a software developer myself. So, I did all the things the developers would want to do after I gave them that information. And tod them what the problems were. Or, in other words: I already did the work for which they need that info. And told them the results in many different ways. But who am I, right? I'm probably making stuff up.
  18. SymbolicFrank
    Where is the form I have to fill out in triplicate? - - - Updated - - - Ok, edited.
  19. SymbolicFrank
    I have 16 GB of normal RAM, and an additional 4 GB of video RAM, on my GPU. I can run FAR or NEAR, but I can't run Realism Overhaul. Well, for a few minutes before it crashes. The problem is twofold: 1. PhysX acts on the bounds between individual components. This simulation is completely unrealistic. Adding aerodynamic loads breaks it badly. But you can reduce that, or even turn it off. 2. If you turn it off, you remove boundaries from the PhysX simulation, which will make it run out of control, resulting in extremely weird, oscillating movements.
  20. SymbolicFrank
    No, it is dedicated. I did all that, and more. I didn't report that in detail. There is no such thing as "a clean environment", least of all the environment of a developer. Anyway, this is how you average helpdesk handles the situation: they try to find out what the user did wrong. It never enters their mind, that the developer isn't omniscient and forgot to allow environments that differ. But, in this case you ask me what is different. And I told you. Which you ignored. What am I to do?
  21. SymbolicFrank
    Yes, that makes sense. I did try to explain to feram & co, but the only reactions were like your typical helpdesk ones: did you follow the procedures to the letter? So I experimented to find out what cause the problems, and posted those findings. I did not get any reactions from the team. As for my background: I'm an autodidact, very smart, and I mostly do project management, programming and R&D. I don't have a university degree, so most people proclaim that I only think I'm smart, but that they know better. But I tend to ask specialists interesting and difficult questions, which I generally have to answer and prove myself. So the easiest thing to do is just ignore me. EDIT: While I could fix it all myself, it would take me years to do so. I'm not that motivated. - - - Updated - - - I did post all this (except for the screenshots) in the respective threads. And how much video memory does NathanKell have? I hear this a lot from developers: "Well, it works for me!", and it irritates me a lot. It's one of the most useless things you can say. Because nobody cares if it works for you. They care if it works for them.
  22. SymbolicFrank
    The memory management is unified. It's all managed by Windows, in the same virtual memory space. Yes, you can do that better, in multiple ways, but they didn't.
  23. SymbolicFrank
    FAR is a cool concept. But let's talk about Realism Overhaul instead, as it's part of that. I really dig RO. I want it. But there are problems. For starters, I have a video card with 4GB of video memory. So, after installing RO, choosing the smallest DDS textures and using Active Texture Management, the game has 3.46 GB memory in use after startup. Which means, that each and every scene transition will crash the game. CTD. BAM. Further, if I install FAR and MechJeb, MechJeb is completely broken. But, fortunately, there is the compatibility mod. Only, after you install that, the camera tends to go on a wild goose chase most of the time. You won't see your rocket. It won't be on the screen. And you want Realistic Reentry as well, of course. But that totally screws up PhysX on powered landings in an atmosphere. Ok, so let's talk about FAR. FAR is NOT realistic. Even when you use Kerbal Joint Reinforcement, totally realistic designs tend to oscillate and disintegrate all the time. PhysX goes out of control again. Something happens, one parameter gets a positive feedback loop and everything gets completely out of control. - - - Updated - - - Really. I did post all of this to feram, who igmored it. - - - Updated - - - I can totally see that. The problem is, I know how it all should work. And it doesn't. And it won't get fixed, as long as it runs in Unity32. Although I do know about some things that could be fixed. Like the FP32 rounding errors: use a different coordinate system and change the scale instead of the distance. But whatever. - - - Updated - - - Thanks.
  24. SymbolicFrank
    I love the premises of KSP. But if you have even a rudimentary notion of how it all should work, it becomes very frustrating, fast. Fortunately, modders come to the rescue! Except, that most of the mods that fix important stuff are incompatible. FAR and MechJeb? Forget about it. Yes, I tried the compatibility plugin. And it's FAR from realistic in either case! I tried to make it all work, and played for 287 hours (according to Steam). But in the end, it's a completely broken mess. Yes, it could be salvaged, but it's unlikely that would happen while using Unity. So I won't hold my breath. Too bad.
  25. SymbolicFrank
    If Kerbals moved from each ladder onto any other and multiple retracting ladders would be automatically at the same radius as the others (extending exactly into one other), it would be no problem. But that only tends to work with a few of the pods and if there is only a single fuel tank underneath. Even placing the retractable ladders just beneath the pod is a problem, you really have to add multiple fixed ones around most transitions. If they would just transition from one ladder collider to the next, all would be well.
×
×
  • Create New...