Jump to content

rasta013

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    664

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by rasta013

  1. rasta013
    Yeah I'll be brushing off my old grep skills this weekend. I'll do all this work under linux since my data manipulation tools are so much better. I do agree about the parts though. Generally speaking I think most of them are sitting in about the right spot on the tree except for the very top end engines perhaps. Splitting them out under the CTT will allow me to spread it out somewhat so that a wide range of rocket bodies are not being opened or partially opened on single nodes.
  2. rasta013
    I was kind of guessing that was where this was all headed as a release point which was why I got my parts spreadsheet started. I don't suppose you already have a fully compiled spreadsheet/list (text file? post-it notes?) that is a full list of all parts along with their actual part names/file names. That's the list I'm compiling and I have to double check every single part config to make sure the part name is correct for the CTT patch. If you or anyone else happen to have a list that was mostly or all done it would vastly shorten the amount of time it'll take since all I'd have to do is place parts/patch write. The roadmap/blueprint/old craft files etc are also references for me to properly try and place everything on the CTT but those I have already. Otherwise I'll be doing some fancy grep work on a text dump of the whole BDB directory...
  3. rasta013
    That's an even better suggestion than my own. You're exactly right that it would cover more and also would probably eliminate a few that maybe shouldn't be in there (not sure how the extra HabTech experiment labs or something like Station Science would handle the ModuleLab).
  4. rasta013
    CTT is easy. If the part doesn't have a CTT config then the default node placements assigned in the config file will be used as it does nothing but add new nodes, not remove any. To build a proper CTT file for BDB is going to be...challenging...to say the very least. Each part will need to be assigned separately in a CTT config and placed on the tech tree appropriately. If no one else ends up doing this for BDB I will because I don't ever run without CTT and the part placement for me right now is crazy random seeming. CAVEAT: I will not start working on this until the team feels they are getting close to a full release version. Parts are getting added and changed on too regular a basis to contemplate writing it yet. I will say that I have already started my own spreadsheet of part info for this mod in preparation in case this is needed. @CobaltWolf If you think the mod is getting close to a full release as has been bantered about recently then I will start working on the CTT patch so you and the others could look it over and see if you agree with my tech assignments. With as many parts as there are it will take a while to write (a week or more) and it seems almost pointless to approach until the parts stop shifting around.
  5. rasta013
    It should be....interesting. Not to be sarcastic or anything, truly. Seriously though, they are finally putting some things in that needed to be there for a very long time so that's a good thing. Implementation is the question at this point...
  6. rasta013
    Perhaps Sarbian could go beat him about the head and neck profusely with the MM docs?
  7. rasta013
    @NecroBones Did something like this for two of his heavy duty RCS units in his SpaceY mod. They are RCS units with super strong output for controlling large craft but also have monoprop driven engines that basically serve as the aft ports for the RCS unit. Really a rather neat solution and that would be even better than one or the other.
  8. rasta013
    @ObiVanDamme Wouldn't it be a little better to change the MM patch for the Large Crewed Lab section to... @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleScienceLab]]:FOR[Workshop] ...to enable any science lab to produce science parts? Or were you intentionally trying to restrict it to the large MSL? Just curious mostly...
  9. rasta013
    My 2 cents thrown in here... Most x-ray experiments tend to be of the observational/imaging type because capturing x-rays is so damnably difficult. X-ray spectroscopy is generally not carried out in space because the material quantities needed to analyze something in an x-ray spectrometer just can't be easily accumulated. This is why you tend to find them in ground ops but space based is mostly observational only as experimental is just not really feasible. That said however...I did some digging for you because I got curious myself. Here's a selection of space based instruments that are/were being used for various forms of x-ray science including some spectroscopy. I personally like the idea of making them thrusters and not RCS also. While the tweakable does exist for RCS that's not throttle controlled propulsion as any other thruster would be.
  10. rasta013
    I'm using the 180/191 from the Soviet pack already in single engine form obviously and it works amazingly well just in that form, but if you wanted to bring this over into the cluster plug-in I think I might be willing to bear your children. Actually, I'd love to have the entire pack available in cluster form although the multi-nozzle formats like the RD-124 might not work as well clustered but still...
  11. rasta013
    Actually for something unique to add I'd consider taking a look at the A.C.E. mission. This would allow a few new science instruments dedicated for a use that few experiments are aimed at - working on the sun. The probe itself is not really all that sexy but the mission would be unique as most probes are destined for planets, not the sun itself. This also would serve as a kind of intermediate mission type probe that could be launched before planetary missions could be completed as just getting away from Kerbin is much easier. Advanced Composition Explorer (ACE) Mission Homepage To expand on this idea for a specialized solar probe, science packages from things like IBEX, HINODE-b and IRIS (among many others) could also be added in. Basically the idea is an ACE type mission but with experiment packages garnered from several other probes to expand this idea for KSP since we can't really do any kind of long term observational science but with the goal of building an early-intermediate probe with experiments meant to be run in solar orbit (high an low if possible).
  12. rasta013
    Log files will be needed to try and help some more. I'm running Ven's alongside Coatl with no problems at all on a mod load with 150+ others so it's not a conflict between those two.
  13. rasta013
    Don't know if this is the same one but this is the one that I use and point people towards. It's simple and never has been updated that I know of but keeps on ticking like a Timex apparently. @Enceos It would be really awesome to see something like this rounded out and improved.
  14. rasta013
    I'm not sure I understand how Kethane suddenly entered the equation? I'll take it either way I can get it to be perfectly honest. I wouldn't mind a few less bits of realism included to keep playability fun and not feeling like a chore though.
  15. rasta013
    Yah. Middle one is the winner of those three. I like the one on the left as an alternative to that one.
  16. rasta013
    Thank you so much for resurrecting this. I had really hoped to see this part come back around as I've used it way too many times to count for so many little things.
  17. rasta013
    The CONTARES antenna patch was being built by the maintainer of that mod. I don't know if he ever completed work on that bit of his project or gave up. If he gave up, I will gladly write something for it. There's some really cool looking antennas in that pack. Thanks for the update on the AIES patch. I'll get that fixed momentarily As for ranges...yes, that's actually in meters. The nomenclature in use is m (meters), Mm (million meters), Gm (billion meters). So when you see a max range of 72.3 Mm you are seeing a range of 72,300,000. For reference, Minmus is 47 Mm (47,000,000m). And as you've seen, RT ranges have absolutely no comparison to AR ranges. The systems naturally work differently. I would recommend reading the details on the math behind how AR works. This will help immensely in building AR relay networks since the numbers are not exposed in game anywhere. The numbers in game only represent antenna-to-KSC communication distances and the ranges between two antennas will be very, very different. If you read it and it still isn't making good sense just ask again and I'll write up a detailed how-to for determining the specifics of how all these numbers work together with examples.
  18. rasta013
    @Ruedii, @Calvin_Maclure, @CobaltWolf, @DStaal As a side note if you're looking to add more extended research times into your science game, besides HabTech, MOLE and sort of SCANSat, you've also got Station Science (massive lab modules extremely long duration experiments) and Nehemiah's Orbital Science (beginning Gemini type science to extended, long term multi-lab based research) both of which have been revived for 1.1.2. This will add a great deal of depth to the game in terms of time based research. If you're interested in developing further plug-ins to support this type of game play both of these may also be very good places to start. It's a matter of the physics engine detecting the pieces of the parts and where they are situated. When attached directly to the ground, the engine frequently detects the SEP modules as violating physics by clipping through the ground and it explodes them. When attached to the base (which doesn't ever seem to violate anything) they aren't clipping so...no boomy explodey blowing uppie kinds of things happening. EDIT: You know, when I re-read your question I realized I think you were asking the difference between the conical 4/8 sided ground base and the concrete slab. Weight and geometry. The ground base is slightly heavier (iirc) and has those 4 extra kind of 1/2 sized side panels on a 45o angle.
  19. rasta013
    I regularly send missions one way using a beacon but bring it back under regular propulsion. This is especially true for missions with lightweight science recovery vessels that can be moved cheaply and at extremely high speeds under regular propulsion.
  20. rasta013
    Nertea pulled off a pretty nice mostly round floor ramp for the MKIV Spaceplane. Looked and worked very similar to the rear ramp of a C5A Galaxy...
  21. rasta013
    I don't see a need for K+ on the receiving end for one major reason...if it's needed then that means before you can start building any piece of your network you have to already have your K+ infrastructure setup otherwise you're sending a useless beacon. Those years of travel time from launch to insertion can be used instead to build the infrastructure. If the use of this system is designed to only save time putting in a time restricting feature on the front end seems...I don't know...wrong?
  22. rasta013
    Just as a note and don't know if this is related or not but Scatterer, with my gigantic mod list, does occasionally give birth to a small purple cow and causes the lighting/water to start acting funky (like displaying the ocean in orbit or losing all detail at KSC) and a simple rebuild of the oceans on Scatterer's alt+f10 page removes the image defects. I'm pretty sure this is caused by some sort of weird cross conflict I have going on and it's rare that it happens but it's information that seems similar to what you describe so make of it what you will.
  23. rasta013
    He already did a long time ago - it's called the Alcubiere Warp Drive and it generates it's own resource (Exotic Matter) directly from EC and combines with a small amount of Xenon to provide it's fuel. Add on enough power generation and you have a portable, single endpoint, cheap and repetitive version of ESLD especially when you have NFT installed and get the Xenon as part of reactor generation. It's what I have installed right now and it's so damnably simple to use I've been aching for ESLD to come back to life. Thanks Boots! Thanks so much!
  24. rasta013
    #1 - The nominal range listed in the patch file is the base number used for computation of ranges within the game based on distance of the link and the PF of the antenna. Also, there can't really be any kind of support made for AR or RT either one with both of them installed. They have different ranges for antennas, operate differently and change things about how the antennas work that will make them incompatible. #2 - I had to completely restructure the directory structure to solve some problems with the purely RT version of the ORIGAMI release. The dev has the updated files/patches but never released them. If you notice, on the wiki I state that my link is to an updated version that has a different directory structure. You have to remove the old version and install the new. I will update the wiki page to state this, thanks!
  25. rasta013
    I think this is a very, very good idea. Without doing so it leaves so many broken ways to exploit your beautiful system. EDIT: On a different note, a request if I may. Would it be possible to setup the pods/landers to have the ability to disable the antenna? I ask this because of a quirk of how KSP appears to handle antennas. If a command pod or probe has an integrated antenna, no matter what you do, KSP always seems to favor this antenna over anything else you have installed. This is problematic for those of us who use Antenna Range and run varieties of antennas to suit a craft's need. As an example... The last lander I built was destined for Minmus as a reusable craft to land, harvest and bring data back to the orbiting science lab. The science lab has a high speed antenna that requires monster amount of EC to use but transmits at extremely high data rates under Antenna Range. However, when the lander is docked to the station and a transmission is initiated of the researched science it bypasses the high gain antenna on the station and goes directly to the pod. Now I've written AR configs for all the command pods for AR (still testing/balancing hence why I haven't sent them to you yet) but I've got them all setup as fairly short range, low-mid data rate antennas designed to link to either an orbiter, station or relay sat. This works just fine so long as I'm not docked but once docked (see above). So, would it be possible to have the option, even if only in the editor to shut it off entirely for that craft, to have the antenna be disabled?
×
×
  • Create New...