Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dawnstar

  1. This mod keeps going great guns and it's a delight to see all the new and upcoming features. This post, however, is about two balance issues with existing features: tanks containing cooled liquids, and tank wet/dry ratios. When I use TweakScale to change the size of any given tank containing liquid hydrogen, both the charge consumption and the boil-off rate scale with surface area. This is expected behavior and I agree that this is how things should work. Now, swap out your tank for one in the same series, scaled to the same diameter but having a different height. You will notice that your new tank's charge consumption is charge.original * (height.new / height.original). But that's not the ratio of the surface areas! Now, swap out your tank for one in a different series. Again, you will notice a new ratio between surface area and both charge consumption and boil-off. To re-cap: This ratio is constant as you tweak scale any given tank, and changes if you swap to a new tank. One of these two facts should change, and I propose that it is the latter that is more physically incorrect. Another issue: Tank dry to wet mass ratios. These differ radically between tank series in a way that makes it clear that this mod has not yet integrated the various sources of parts (and game balance choices) it draws on into a unified project. I am currently running this mod with a RealScale solar system. With this choice of map, wet/dry ratios for a lot of tanks need to rise dramatically to match real-world performances, especially with modern and projected technology. To take but one example, a pressurized gaseous Xenon tank built with 2017-level tech has a wet/dry ratio of roughly 20 (see example at http://www.cobham.com/mission-systems/composite-pressure-solutions/space-systems/xenon-propellant-tank-datasheet/docview/). However, if I were using this mod with a Kerbin-scale solar system, or even one x2 or x4 of Kerbin scale, wet/dry ratios need to rise by less, and for some tanks might even stand to be lowered.
  2. And, no doubt, any of these will work. But they yield very different games, due to the number of biomes to do science on, and the scale of the universe. They range from x1 to x10 stock, and that's a HUGE variance! Plus, they differ in quality of planet textures and atmospherics. What I need is advice. From players (including yourself if you like, most excellent FreeThinker). What sort of universe yields a fun KSPI-E game, and why? Any warning about memory usage that you'd like to share? Also, while I'm here: Would anyone think it impracticable to simply not use the Science Lab at all for processing science? I'm looking to get a proper KSPI-E boot-strap game going, not "get all the tech before I leave Kerbin orbit", or "endless slog to get even half the tech tree", but rather something challenging yet not too rough.
  3. I'm looking forward to giving this mod a whirl, but I cannot figure out what planet and/or intersteller pack to use, or what scaling to use, or what visual packs I can use. I used ckan to install KSPI-E, and only the mods it itself asked for, so I see the stock universe. I know that it's too small, and I see the options listed in the first post, but they differ radically in both scale and # of worlds. Which of these, or what other universe, would you recommend, and why? I'd like something that plays nice with EVE.
  4. First thing to do is make sure you have enough memory. The biggest cause of my getting exactly the symptom you describe is running out. I have 8 GB. Depending on number of optional mods installed and on whether I have a web browser up, that sometimes just isn't enough.
  5. Great mod and a real inspiration. I am, however, having real difficulty with heating (v11.0.0, all required and recommended mods installed including Deadly Reentry). Here's a Mk1 pod with max (200) ablator that got inserted into LEO, then had periapsis dropped to 80k - about the most gentle possible reentry. It's made only one reentry pass, lost ~500-600 m/s of speed, is at the lowest altitude it reached during reentry, and is about to lose the last of the ablator. It blew up due to overheating immediately after this image was taken.
  6. While the thread posted by nobodyhasthis2 is good, perhaps some more basic comments might be suitable. 90% of my crashes in KSP are due to running out of memory. Most of the rest are due to mods. I recommend checking these two possibilities first.
  7. So! How much does a Kerbal breathe, by mass? Assume Kerbals = humans. Assume Kerbin day = Earth Day (divide the mass by four if Kerbin hours = Earth hours) Humans consume about 550 liters of oxygen per day (http://health.howstuffworks.com/human-body/systems/respiratory/question98.htm). Now add something for exercise and fudge factor, perhaps 25-30%, for a total of ~750 liters. Assuming this oxygen is breathed in at standard temperature and pressure (25 C, 1 atmosphere), each liter has a mass of 1.429 g (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen), for a mass of 1.073 kg of oxygen consumed/human person/earth day. Tank weight is additional, but this is already accounted for in the mass of parts. EDIT: Kerbin hours have to be equal to Earth hours, because they still contain 3600 seconds, and I assume that the meaning of a "second" or a "meter per second" hasn't changed. So divide my masses above and here by (24 Earth hours / 6 Kerbin hours = 4) for an estimated consumption of 0.6 kg of food and drink, and 0.26 kg of oxygen per (human-type) kerbal, per Kerbin day.
  8. Kerbals eat 50 kg of food per (Kerbin, six-hour) day. Even though "food" probably includes drinks, this seems a bit much. http://imgur.com/728joeY A more reasonable quantity depends on whether: - Kerbals are green human-equivalents, or green peeps that are substantially smaller, and - a day on Kerbin is equal in length to an Earth day, or whether it's hours that are equal. Let's go with the choices that lead to the highest estimated consumption: Human-sized Kerbals, days of equal length. A read of http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2010.01982.x/pdf gives us some very useful numbers for the carry-on mass required to sustain one human person for one Earth day. Assuming we provide reasonably tasty, hydrated, and varied meals, this is about 1.5 - 2 kg/person/day of food, accessories, and packaging, for a US astronaut. Drinks are additional, but liquid waste is recyclable. Values in the range of 0.25 - 1 kg/person/day of lost water seem reasonable, bringing our budget to 1.75 to 3 kg/person/day for food and drink. I've gone with a 2.5 kg/day value for now.
  9. There are no mods so crucial to me that I wouldn't play KSP without them. However, KER is super nice to have, and ScanSat, KAC, FAR, and EVE are also huge wins.
  10. My MK1 pods always keep falling when they touchdown in water. The pod, the instruments, and the parachute(s) just keep on going until they hit the bottom of the sea. A read of the forums indicates that a few other people have the same issue and that most people appear not to. What I haven't yet read is what might be causing this bug and how to fix it. Any thoughts?
  11. As do I. Too many people giving equations neglect to provide English translations of the terms. Most of us don't, in fact, read math natively ... and even those of us who do appreciate it when variables are defined.
  12. 20m. Fits in the shed, holds the juice, gets the payload lofted. Except when it doesn't, and then it's time for moar boosters. Which might or might not fit in the shed.
  13. Are you referring to standard KSP? It sounds instead like you're referring to some mod, but not giving us enough context to understand your post.
  14. Another happy, grateful user here. While I fully respect the desire of certain modders to not deal with the added instability of x64, they lack any standing to complain before I trouble them with a (very possibly erroneous) support request!
  15. When the piloting skill that means the most to mission success is recovering from rocket flippage during Kerbin ascent, and the most important part of design is adding more thrust and more deltaV to let you do this - sometimes several times - and still make orbit.
  16. Thanks! I took screenshots exclusively with Alt-F12. While I do have the full-screen, original images, I would be very sorry if the pictures above didn't give you a very full idea, especially for Laythe and Tylo. Just to double-down on the most difficult missions, here are full-screens for the first two landings on both. Laythe, first landing Click Image to Enlarge Image Hosting Laythe, reorbit Click Image to Enlarge Image Hosting Tylo, shortly after separation from Atrytone Click Image to Enlarge Image Hosting Tylo, landed, fuel status Click Image to Enlarge Image Hosting Tylo, about to re dock with the Atrytone Click Image to Enlarge Image Hosting If there are any other part of the sequence where doubt might be entertained, I'll provide the relevant images. However, I do not wish to dump everything into an imgur folder. I think that interface is crap for story-telling, and telling a story is why I participated in the challenge.
  17. Please find another candidate for the Jool-5 Challenge at http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/115558-Five-motes-in-God-s-eye-An-attempt-at-the-Jool-5-challenge-Jebediah-level Highlights - for the list of completed missions "Dawnstar (Did it for the snacks, mostly. And the jetpacking. There was a bit of science that happened along the way, but mostly it's just lots of docking. Read it to find out what got named after Valentina.)" Satisfaction of the general rules: 1. No cheating was employed. No Alt-F12, no savefile editing, no getting out and pushing, no kraken drives - you get the idea. 2. Almost no parts clipping. I think there's a reaction wheel in the lifter, and two radial attachment points in the main cabin that got lost, but the clipping adds no capability or efficiency. All of the landers are clean. 3. (OK) 4. One launch was made. 5. One ship was sent to Jool. 6. No seats are used for interplanetary travel 7. No refueling mission was sent. 8. All landings include a spacewalk. The heavy-world lander had a decorative flag (see #10, below) that blocked the ladder. A fully-illustrated demonstration of the in-game solution to the problem is provided for reader enjoyment. Shifting the flag inboard also immediately resolves matters. 9. The kerbals are back on Kerbin alive. Yeah, they're happy. I'm also missing five jetpacks. 10. No parts mods that added any capacity other than pretty (flags) or informational (e.g. Kerbal Engineer Redux) were used. Satisfaction of the Jebediah level requirements: 1. All listed science instruments were used on all moons on which they could be used. 2. All science was brought back to the surface of Kerbin in a Mobile Science Lab (rule version 2), and only science gathered in the Jool system was counted. 3. Each of the five Jool moons had a different crew member assigned, who made or accompaned all landings on that body. 4.All kerbals returned home safely. Mods included in the game are: Chatterer, Distant Objects Enhancement, Environmental Visual Enhancements, Flag Decals, Kerbal Alarm Clock, Kerbal Engineer Redux (information enhancement; no ship control), SCANsat (no science gains allowed), and Transfer Window Planner. No piloting mods were used: I did every takeoff, landing, transfer, and docking myself. Science gained: We earned 46,685.4 science within in the Jool system by conducting 275 experiments, measurements or reports. Of this, 120 was given for a vessel returned from the surface of Bop 16.4 were due to accidently filing a second copy of a gravity experiment. So our net Jool-system research in unduplicated experiments, and exclusive of crew reports, all brought home in the Science Lab rather than being transmitted, is 46,549. Additional personal science rules: - No duplication of experiments . - No crew reports, because they're clearly intended for transmission only, even though the game lets you store them sometimes.
  18. I also mostly agree with the OP, despite the success reported by others. A lot of this game works according to the sound rule that difficulty ought to start out approachable, and ramp up as players unlock more of the game and try more ambitious things. I am also presented with a line of gravel that calls itself a runway, something you need real skill or good luck - or rockets - to get something off of. At game start, if you build something that looks like a rocket and keep it simple, it will probably fly. Mostly straight up too, fulfilling simple contracts on the way. Fun! At the same time, if you build something that looks like a simple plane, it probably won't even get off the ground if you haven't upgraded the runway. It'll veer off to one side and blow up starting with a wing. It will deconstruct if you try and go fast enough to launch many perfectly good designs. It is likely, in fact, to blow up over and over again, despite the overpowered landing gear and soupy lower atmosphere KSP provides to you, in ways that have turned a number of players, including me, off that portion of the game. So, what changes do I suggest? 1. Make the runway asphalt-smooth from the start, and have the primary effect of level be to lengthen the track. A T1 runway can be about 1/2 to 2/3rds of the current length (check with new aero), and a max level runway should be quite a bit longer, especially with the more realistic aero. 2. Give the player more real-world takeoff and landing support, starting with a simple version of FAR's SPH/VAB aerodynamics calculator.
  19. You might instead try starting up a V1.0 game, making a copy of the savefile, adding your little green dudes and asteroids, and seeing if the result works. This is likely to be easier to debug.
  20. When you save a little too much precious rocket juice by lithobraking, smash off the ruggedized rover wheels, flush away the supersized landing legs, ablate the entire backup set of landing gear you added in a moment of paranoia, and come down hard on your bare fat ass ... ... but your ass is a MK3 fuel tank (short) and your engines are radially mounted on shock-absorbing hardpoints. STUCK THE LANDING. JUST LIKE EVERY LANDING.
  • Create New...