Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by rsparkyc

  1. Just getting back into KSP, but I did some work on the J-2 engine in realism overhaul, might be worth taking a look. You could make the above curve using MM, but I find it interesting that your curve has ISP dropping below a 5:1 ratio. IRL, the reason your getting reduced thrust as your reduce oxidizer is that you're getting incomplete combustion, and have extra (unburnt) hydrogen leaving in the exhaust gasses. The extra (high velocity) hydrogen atoms are what wind up boosting ISP. While it is lower thrust, I think ISP would continue to rise. Another good chart is figure 5-8 on page 5-11 here: https://history.nasa.gov/afj/ap12fj/pdf/a12_sa507-flightmanual.pdf. There it shows ISP continuing to rise. You can see what I did for realism overhaul here: https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/blob/master/GameData/RealismOverhaul/RO_SuggestedMods/EMRController/J2.cfg
  2. Wow, sounds like you were busy! Sorry for my absence, but any chance you can submit a PR against this? Otherwise I can probably overlay your changes
  3. I'm not sure. I'm just trying to maintain this mod, and don't really have much experience with the texture aspect of it (I'm mainly just a code guy). I'd love it if you wanted to play around with that folder structure and offer up a PR to fix it Also, I can't seem to find the post where you asked about that. I was hoping to get a bit more context around the issue.
  4. When will this be updated for 1.5.0? Oh wait, just now
  5. @FreeThinker, I'm having a similar issue with doing a part filter. I'm trying to validate that my craft has a part that has a science experiment. This is my contract, however it's saying that I have a part which contains the experiment even when it doesn't. CONTRACT_TYPE { name = Test title = Test description = Blah synopsis = Blah completedMessage = Congratulations! You Blahed sortKey = 902 cancellable = true declinable = true autoAccept = false minExpiry = 0 maxExpiry = 0 maxCompletions = 0 maxSimultaneous = 1 deadline = 365 // 1 year targetBody = HomeWorld() prestige = Trivial advanceFunds = 20000 rewardScience = 1 rewardReputation = 5 rewardFunds = 10000 failureReputation = 5 failureFunds = 10000 PARAMETER { name = Test type = VesselParameterGroup title = Test Satellite PARAMETER { name = NewVessel type = NewVessel title = Launch a New Vessel hideChildren = true } PARAMETER { name = Crewmembers type = HasCrew minCrew = 0 maxCrew = 0 title = Uncrewed hideChildren = true } PARAMETER { name = Orbit type = Orbit minAltitude = 80000 title = Just get to orbit } PARAMETER { name = PartValidation type = PartValidation FILTER { MODULE { name = ModuleScinceExpirement experimentID = barometerScan } } minCount = 1 } } } I'm guessing this is just plain broken?
  6. I believe this is fixed by this PR: https://github.com/jrossignol/ContractConfigurator/pull/668 (though perhaps this is a different issue?) In addition, does anyone know if there's a way to escape parameters when defining contracts? An example is I have an experiment with a dash it it. When CC tries to parse it, it tried to subtract the two parts of the experiment name instead of just treating the whole thing as a string.
  7. Hello, I bought KSP many years ago, and bought it directly from Squad (and not through Steam). I was interested in getting the making history expansion pack, and actually have some steam credits, and so I thought I would buy it on steam. When I was about to purchase it, I saw it said "This content requires the base game Kerbal Space Program on Steam in order to play." Is there a way for me to by it on steam, but still have it work with the game I downloaded from kerbalspaceprogram.com directly?
  8. @linuxgurugamer Just released, which now has a .version file within it. Can you tell me if that looks better?
  9. Yes, a version format change came in from the work that @Phineas Freak did. I can work on adding a .version file and put that in the release
  10. I'm seeing similar issues with the PEG guidance not always working. One specific thing I noticed is that PEG fails to work if I have a mammoth as my first stage. It will throw exceptions in the logs, which I've documented here: https://github.com/MuMech/MechJeb2/issues/1029 EDIT: It looks like I actually just had my number of stages in the ascent guidance config set too high. In addition, I've also noticed that some craft will fail to achieve orbit using PEG guidance mode, and when doing so, also spams the logs with exceptions, as documented here: https://github.com/MuMech/MechJeb2/issues/1026 I'm assuming these issues are what you all are seeing as well, so hopefully having open issues will help get this some traction.
  11. I wonder if KER also things you're going to keep your fairings on the whole time. What happens if you stage your fairing deployment before upper stage engine ignition? Does Mechjeb give similar numbers?
  12. Perhaps the fairing base is adding weight? Care to post pictures of your rockets?
  13. @Gordon Dry, I was unaware that @Phineas Freak had done a lot of work to maintain this mod. Sounds like he's done a lot of work in my absence! @Phineas Freak, do you want to continue maintaining this, or should I merge your changes into my fork? EDIT: Apparently I'm an idiot, because I can see earlier in this thread where I talked with you about you taking it over... I'm going to at least work on getting your stuff merged over, should make future PRs be much cleaner. I can also tag this as a pre-release as well. Overall, it's looking much better than the project I inherited!
  14. Actually, that's my bad. I created a proper release, but forgot to tag in on the releases page. I'll do that now. EDIT: Updated, that should be better. Thanks for letting me know!
  15. Hey everyone. I'm trying to get back into the swing of things, and part that process is that I updated this for 1.4.3
  16. I'm not gone entirely, but was gone for a while. However, I'm more than happy to let @Phineas Freak take over this mod if he so desires. His fork is newer, but I haven't seen him cut any releases off of it yet.
  17. haha, no problem, it's tucked way down at the end, and I couldn't even remember how i got some of those values, so I had to look them up. One thing that needs to change is the ability to configure the battery in the part. that would change the empty weight and cost
  18. So this is in the readme: Create a part roughly the same size and shape of an existing avionics module unlocked in that tech node. Take note of its volume. Enter this in column G of the spreadsheet. (Note: the KSP UI normally shows liters, but in the spreadsheets it's kiloliters.) Slide the utilization slider down to 0, and take note of its empty weight and empty cost. Put those in columns H and I respectively.
  19. Yeah, everything was based off of the non-procedural versions, which don't always correlate well to a procedural counterpart. The version for 1.3 will have a re-worked tech tree, and with that, re-worked procedural avionics configs that hopefully make more sense.
  20. All the formulas I use should be in the RP-0 readme what version of remote tech are you using? There was a bug that dealt with that that I fixed a while ago: https://github.com/RemoteTechnologiesGroup/RemoteTech/pull/715
  21. The best way to get traction on things like that is to open up an issue in my repo here: https://github.com/rsparkyc/ProceduralFairings/issues Since I'm focused mainly on RO/RP-0 development, adding these features are kinda low on the priority list, but having them tracked there mean that anyone can work on them and submit PRs, and then I can handle getting the new versions out.
  22. One thing that the probe core has that the upper stage does not (at least in some configurations) is a sample return container. Still, it looks like it could use some balancing (perhaps raising the minimum tonnage of the upper stage?)
  23. Ok, so that shows that it's not that contracts are broken, but that they're just gone entirely. What's in your /GameData/RP-0/Contracts folder?
  • Create New...