Jump to content

rasta013

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    664

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by rasta013

  1. rasta013
    As I haven't looked back into the thread - are these updates on the existing patches or add on to them?
  2. rasta013
    I've been busy so I'm late to the party but freaking great idea for a mod man. Definitely will be giving this a go as this has been a pet peeve of mine for a while.
  3. rasta013
    Yes it does make more sense to upgrade ground stations - of course it does since it's easier and simpler. That doesn't mean that having powerful deep space networks can be any less valuable especially during times of ecliptic blackout. I've just glanced over the configs on the GitHub and see the basics of what you're doing. I'm gonna throw it in game and play around with it some to see how it operates at scale to give you some feedback. I'll especially take a close look at the CBK stuff. I know it pretty well since I was like the 3rd, maybe 4th person to reply to Sarbian's original thread for it and haven't ever had a career install without it since then.
  4. rasta013
    I can dig it and can definitely get on board with some testing for it. I may also have some input on ranges, mass and CBK implementation once I dig into your methods. We're currently pretty much tied to JX2, DMOS or custom configurations right now. Please do provide a link if you decide to spin it off officially.
  5. rasta013
    Slave Nickname : Rasta Slave's desirability to being a slave : 7/11 Slave's softwares licenses : (None. Aren't slaves provided for?) Slave's Skills : I'm an excellent cook. I also roll a nice j**** and have been working on a degree in underwater basket weaving Slave's Portfolio : Didn't know what color you liked... http://www.officedepot.com/a/products/751031/Trapper-Keeper-Portfolio-Letter-Size-Assorted/ Slave's Contact Info : bangingmabags@gmail.com Misc : I look forward to any and all software licenses you can provide.
  6. rasta013
    I've tried the helix orbit you're referring too. In it I used two sats in each orbit setup like this: 45o N Orbit x2 / 45o N Retrograde x2 135o N Orbit x2 / 135o N Retrograde x2 90o N Orbit x2 / 90o S orbit x2 All orbits were at 95km. I made sure that I put each of the pairs on opposite sides as well so as to have to longest coverage above the horizon as possible. Additionally, I found the retrograde relay sat orbits worked just as nicely when they were passing the horizon ahead of you as you enter on high angle re-entries. The speed of the retrograde orbit allows it to come overhead just about as you hit the high pressure zone and start plasma build up. If you use really high power antennas as well this kind of coverage can also almost guarantee coverage from all but the worst ecliptic positioning luck.
  7. rasta013
    Try this out for a vastly different career play experience. Use Play Your Way, Strategia and State Funding Continued in Career Mode and using the GPP planet pack on 3.2x. This will eliminate all contracts, make you rely on a combination of strategies and funding from your chosen State Funding role (which can be added to very easily to customize something for yourself), science returns and still leave you with the challenge of having deal with increased scale. According to which role you choose you'll need to operate your program in a different way and your goals may quickly come into conflict with your needs. Set your science returns low enough in Play Your Way to balance against your chosen role - it's a very, very adaptable system to vastly change how you play your career.
  8. rasta013
    Glad that worked for you. I had to solve a re-entry problem with sample return probes from asteroids because I kept flipping when hitting the atmosphere at 4.8 km/s when I lost connection. I ended up with a 6 sat constellation in a 120km, 8.6o inclined orbit so I didn't have to work so hard to time up my re-entries with Trajectories on return. I later noticed it also worked to keep connection during a high altitude hypersonic test.
  9. rasta013
    True, true and that's considerably lighter...kind of why I'm wondering where it'll land at too engine wise. Regardless of whether it's the stock (would be nice and easy) or something new I do love the idea of the aerospike design for the propulsion though. It would give it capabilities for all bodies regardless of atmosphere.
  10. rasta013
    Looking really nice. Love the idea of the aerospike but that's gonna be a lot straight-up fuel mass for it to handle - may be the only concern in that doodle I see which looks like the same thing you're wondering about.
  11. rasta013
    If I'm understanding you correctly, you're having problem during ASCENT not descent correct? If I'm wrong on that then ignore this suggestion... As mentioned above, if you use several Direct antennas that combine you can get enough power to burn through the plasma blackout. Using a relay sat you deposit in orbit is a good idea, yes, but make sure that it has a significant amount of power. Not just the bit you need to get back to Kerbin, make it strong - 100G or better would be best but 50G might cut it if you're not rescaled. Then, when you're ready to lift off again time your ascent to when your relay sat will be coming over the horizon behind your craft as you ascend. This is particularly important when you start getting to blackout phase be sure it's behind you, not ahead. This combination will probably allow you to get back to orbit without comms blackout although you may have to experiment a bit with the number of Direct antennas you need on the landing craft. By the way, if you time your descent to the relay sat you can use this same technique for landing to avoid the comms blackout. In that case though, make sure you start your descent so that the relay sat is actually coming over the horizon behind your craft just as you're about to hit atmosphere and you will broadcast at near full strength out of the plasma stream nearly the whole way down.
  12. rasta013
    I fully understand the mindset of not wanting to mess with long process chains or simply the lightweight approach to accomplishing many of the fun things in the game like life support or off-planet construction. Myself, I go the other way. I've been heading more and more towards realism in many ways and the longer, more complicated resource chains for me are part of the fun. Having to both find a different resource and arrange for said resource to be chained together properly is all part of the fun for me. That's the beauty of KSP - we can all get what we want in many ways.
  13. rasta013
    Basically yeah. Density of stock ore = 0.010 and Density of MetalOre = 0.0275 making it 175% denser. So not exactly impossibly large but definitely dealing with considerably higher quantities if you want to keep the same conversion rates of ore->RocketParts instead of MetalOre->RocketParts.
  14. rasta013
    Jeez...who in their right mind would volunteer for this?
  15. rasta013
    R'OKAY GEORGE! My wife and I are going to volunteer to take on the development effort to fill out the stock experiment definitions for all GPP bodies, situations and biomes. I think this will help make the effort a bit easier to coordinate since it is so huge and we don't want to duplicate efforts. Furthermore, I've got extensive experience writing full definition files so understand the process intimately. This will mean I can answer questions regarding the definitions, their operation or any problems we may run into with getting them to work properly. Toying with the science system has been my pet project in KSP from the start. If you'd rather I didn't do this please let me know, otherwise I'll start getting the pieces pulled together and get you an updated spreadsheet to work with going forward.
  16. rasta013
    Cool. I'll decide whether I'll take it on myself but at the very least want to make sure that all the definitions we request are the ones we need as well. If we continue down the path we're on we're adding a bunch for several experiments that will almost assuredly never be seen and as such, becomes wasted effort.
  17. rasta013
    Can we discuss the science definitions a little bit? @Galileo was asking about definitions and I wanted to try and upload some of what I had started writing so he'd at least have part of it for the release he mentioned in the main thread earlier today. However, when I went back over to the spreadsheet (had only looked at it briefly before) I noticed there are some problems right off the bat. Let's talk about the Crew Report first. In the stock game, without using something like Science Revisted Revisted, the crew report does not act the definition we've requested to be written. It has situationMask = 63 and biomeMask = 7. This translates into: InSpaceHigh, InSpaceLow, FlyingHigh and then FlyingLow and SrfLanded by biome type (e.g. GaelFlyingLowMountains or GaelSrfLandedMountains). Nothing else that is written will get recognized. It will use the very first InSpaceLow definition on the list every single time no matter how many are written and the same goes for SpaceHigh and FlyingHigh. The only biome definitions that will get used are the ones for FlyingLow or SrfLanded situations. EDIT: Plus, once the experiment is run once, it is never run again and cannot be run again for additional science so any other definition that is there is wasted as well for this reason - Crew Report is a single shot experiment for the above listed situation/biome masks. Rather than go into all the different experiments we've requested definitions for I'll just say that the above is indicative of many of the other issues I've seen. We need to have each one of the requested definitions laid out according to the stock definition as defined by biomeType and situationMask. Otherwise we are asking for a lot definitions that will never be seen. Also, are we intending on expanding this to all bodies and biomes for GPP? Right now, only homeworld bodies are being covered by the spreadsheet albeit with the aforementioned problems. Last but not least, if not solved before this weekend I'll have my own spreadsheet generated with the existing GPP definitions imported and all GPP bodies laid out by biomeType and situationMask for each stock experiment. It's really not hard just time consuming to get the initial large biome/situation template made...
  18. rasta013
    Now, MM patched for compatibility to keep the duplication process you currently have (in a way) would actually be a good way to get both worlds. It'd allow those of us who relentlessly use DMOS to keep it and not worry about science duplication (or really, any behavioral change) and others who don't want to run it to still have experiments and not need another dependency. I can see a lot of benefit to this actually.
  19. rasta013
    Personally, I hardly ever use the 2.5m tanks themselves but do use any of the several 2.5m up/down conversion pieces be it tanks, decouplers, trusses - whatever - from all your various mods. Any of those that are in MOLE would be pieces that I use but not the regular circular tanks. I know...embarrassing I don't remember which pieces from which mod...I never use them separately.
  20. rasta013
    Ok cool. Honestly, the difference in time between the two is why I've never stopped to add up the numbers to get a comparison.
  21. rasta013
    It's been...well...slow. Since almost no asteroids ever come that close it tends to take a while...
  22. rasta013
    Just an idea...try installing the Asteroid Day infrared antenna on a probe and get it orbiting and detecting asteroids. Once it finds them it starts the track itself automatically and maybe this will get you past whatever weirdness RB is doing atm. (uhmmm...nevermind. ) I will be getting some time to work on that finally in the next day or two myself. I've got several written for the stock experiments but have to move them and move them into the right spots on the spreadsheet and I've just not had the time yet. I'll update the other GPP tracking thread as soon as I get mine inserted since I've filled in a few.
  23. rasta013
    YAY CONFIRM BUTTON! As for the EL question - yeah, I'd remove it if EL is installed. It's either that or make it just as worthwhile and valuable as the EL method.
  24. rasta013
    Well I've been using your mod over a year now and my vote is a resounding NO. For those of you who may think initially that this is a good idea.... PP+ parts look far better than DMOS parts Since it is things like Magnetometers and RPWS what experiments are they going to become? Would we then have Magnetometer for DMOS and Magnetometer for PP+ as well as dual RPWS experiments (and all the others)? This would be an overabundance of science or non-installation of one or the other if you don't want that...which means... If it is decoupled and you choose not to install DMOS then you'll be losing at least a few experiments since PP+ doesn't have all the same ones covered and also, if you use the Universal Storage form factor version of these experiments you'll lose those as well if you don't have DMOS... I could go on and on about why it would be a bad idea to decouple PP+ from DMOS but these were the things that came to mind just in the course of writing this post (and I could've added a few more still even now)...
  25. rasta013
    Yup exactly. You could MM patch the Ore definition in Resources.cfg to change it's density.
×
×
  • Create New...