Recon777
-
Posts
66 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Recon777
-
-
Hey all. I'm about fed up with the whole space plane thing. I love KSP, but I can't seem to fly even the most basic plane to save my life. The planes don't use anything close to real aerodynamic physics, it seems. I can fly a real flight simulator without any difficulty, but with this the plane gets a little bit up to speed and then goes completely out of control, pitching straight up or straight down and crashing.
A lot of the missions in KSP require the use of space planes to get to a specific part of the planet and perform some test. So, I concede that I need to figure this out, but I'm having no luck with it at all. Any videos posted online seem to be for old versions of the game, so I really need some up to date advice.
-
I tried switching through satellites. That DOES affect the contract, but none of them solved it.
Here's what it looked like for each. From left to right: 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4 in focus.
Here is the save, if you can figure out anything from that.
-
make it look like this:
SCENARIO
{
name = ContractVesselTracker
scene = 7, 8, 5
}Yep, found the spot in the save file. I'll clear out the vessel data and give it another shot when I get the chance.
SCENARIO {
name = ContractVesselTracker
scene = 7, 8, 5
VESSEL
{
key = CommSat III
id = 31ee1bc9-de6d-4527-8ff5-28643eb8f081
hash = 1749270657
}
VESSEL
{
key = CommSat I
id = 2001157e-94e6-4eb9-bba1-12685258cb60
hash = 3560171294
}
}make it look like this:Oh, and it really doesn't matter (if things are working properly) which commsat gets assigned to I/II/III/IV - and if you're in the middle of building it, it will be normal for stuff to turn on/off as you hook up the satellites and as they go in and out of range of KSC.
Yeah, I figured that was the case since the contracts usually are very intelligent about dynamically processing all the bits and figuring out what parts go to what. Although - I did have a slight bug today in that I was tasked to test the Mk16 parachute at a certain altitude and speed. I put a command pod on top of a Hammer booster and let it rip. Went up past the required altitude enough so it built up the proper speed on the way back down. ALL the conditions were green, so I popped the chute, but the contract did not succeed. No idea why.
[edit]
Actually I figured I might as well give it a quick test. It did change things but it's still broken. See below.
Now, ComSat II it identifies as 0.3 correctly. All green. However ComSat III it must be picking as 0.1 or something where it ought to be picking 0.2.
ComSat IV seems to be linking to 0.3 as well, which is strange. I definitely REMOVED all the vessel data like you said.
-
Yeah actually I did rename the satellites. They all launched with the exact same name (CommSat Launcher 5) and I renamed them to things like CommSat 0.1 and CommSat 0.2 so I could tell them apart in orbit.
Also I was wondering about the events in your contract program and how it related to them. I noticed that in the contract it seemed to decide for itself which one was CommSat I and which was II etc. At one point yesterday, I got all four up and in a connection ring around the planet. But the contract did not complete because it said that CommSat I did not have a direct connection to CommSat II. There was definitely a connection ring though. The contract seemed to believe that the satellite on the far side of Kerbin was number II rather than III like it visually appeared. At that point I figured maybe it had hard assigned identities to the satellites and I tried moving them around so that the contract would be happy. Shortly after that, the contract failed.
Today, I simply renamed the satellites as soon as they got into space. I'm actually very close to finishing setting up my network BEFORE accepting the contract to test whether it auto-completes or not. I should be done soon, then I will test your new update with my old save.
[edit]
Actually, I'm gonna test your new dll now. Will post when it's done.
[edit 2]
Ugh. If the game didn't crash at least once an hour, this would be a lot easier.
Well, I can report that the contract does NOT fail now due to changing the satellite names. However, I am still getting that problem where the contract is confused as to what satellite is what. Best to post a screenshot.
So, the first entry is for CommSat 0.4 and is green, presumably because all the requirements are met. Since it is first on the list, I assume the contract views this as "CommSat I". Also, CommSat 0.4 is the one directly connected to KSC, so that does make sense.
However, looking at the next entry, it is looking for CommSat II. It lists in white the requirement for a direct connection to CommSat 0.4. This is strange, since the only satellite NOT connected to 0.4 is CommSat 0.2 on the far side of Kerbin. But why does the contract consider THIS to be CommSat II? Shouldn't it be picking 0.1 or 0.3? Both of those are connected to 0.4. Is this because CommSat 0.2 was the SECOND satellite I put into orbit?
Next, we see the contract looking for CommSat III. Here, I am completely confused. In RED, it has the requirement "Not CommSat 0.4" Does this mean that the contract is somehow LOOKING at 0.4 (again) when assigning CommSat III? This makes no sense. In white, it has a requirement of being directly connected to CommSat II, which apparently is 0.2, so that would be consistent.
Lastly, we see the contract looking for CommSat IV. It shows a requirement for being directly connected to 0.4. I'm not sure what's happening here. It must be looking at 0.2 again because that's the only one not connected to 0.4.
-
you could always zip it first if its too big for you to upload. I had one that was nearly half a gig last week o.0
Well, no it's not too big. I just wasn't sure if I was meant to search through it for a certain thing - or if this was even the right file.
I did upload it anyway though. The log is here.
Also, I did save the game as a separate file just BEFORE accepting the contract, in case this happened again. So I can run it again if we can figure out how to make it work.
-
Grr... I sort of know what the problem is, but I don't understand why it's happening. I'll have to do some investigation on this.
- - - Updated - - -
Any chance you have the log from when this happened? I can't seem to reproduce.
Where might I find this log? I can go through the steps if you like.
I launched four satellites in separate rockets. My main stage ran out of fuel putting me at an Ap of about 120km. I burned horizontally until the far side Ap became 500km, then quickly set up a flight computer burn to circularize at 500km.
I launched the second rocket and it happened to put the 2nd satellite 90 degrees behind the first, which I thought was great because I could just do two more of these and be done. However, the 3rd was significantly behind the 2nd and didn't have a link to it. I figured I'd correct the orbit later, so I launched the 4th and it put the satellite between the 1st and 2nd, which of course also would need to be corrected. I then glanced at my contracts page. I'm using Contract Window +. I noticed that the contract was GONE, so I checked my save and sure enough it failed.
I did this yesterday as well and it failed there too, though I did spend much more time messing with orbits yesterday because I had no idea what I was doing. Today I figured it would work. I can give you the logs if you can tell me where to find them.
Also, I'm curious - if I set up my commsat network in advance and then accept this contract, will it just automatically fulfill when I go to space and the contract sees the network set up properly? I might try that. This is a very high paying contract, so I'm rather motivated to make sure it works, especially since I need the commsats up anyway.
[edit]
I did find KSP_Data\output_log.txt but it's 14.5MB. Do you want maybe a portion of this? that's a pretty massive text file.
-
I'm having some trouble with my CommSat (4 satellite) mission. I grab the mission and I proceed to put satellites in orbit. But before I can fix their orbits to go into the correct positions, the contract disappears. Looking at my save file, it shows up as FAILED!
Here is the PastBin from my save file if that helps.
-
Also, most of the time, you just need to copy the mod directory to KSP/GameData and maybe delete the old one if you're updating, which is not that hard.
Yes, that's true - however, keeping them up to date is another story. Even with 50-60 mods and CKAN, every couple days I find out that one or more mods have updated, and it's time to hit the checkbox and apply the updates. It's just a few seconds to do this, whereas keeping track of updates manually I can see being more trouble than it's worth. I suppose from a cost/benefit perspective, the real question is whether NOT using CKAN gives enough of a benefit to outweigh the inconvenience. I'm no stranger to the cumulative-mod scene. I've been a modded Minecraft player for several years. I prefer the Resonant Rise modpack which has 200+ mods in it. Tweaking it how I like it is a WHOLE lot of work, which usually means once I have it how I like it, I freeze the modpack and don't accept any updates for a good six months at least. With KSP, I've only really started playing it since 1.0 was released, and I'm still getting my feet wet in the mod scene. It's very similar to the Minecraft situation. Mods are made to improve the game experience and add stuff the vanilla game doesn't have, and they are typically focused on one specific improvement and coexist with other mods.
Seeing CKAN, I have to say it's quite impressive to get that many modders to even think about working together and making their mods available in a general repository like this. The fact that it exists at all is amazing. I can understand though, why some might not want to use it. Also, similar to Minecraft, KSP was created in a really crappy engine (because Reasons) that has frustrating limitations. With KSP it seems to be that Unity is 32 bit making gamers have to pick and choose which mods to add even though so many of us have high end gaming machines with more than enough memory and horsepower to handle whatever the game has to offer - and yet, the game up and crashes if you install too much content. I'd love to be able to use the EVE cloud / astronomer's visual pack, and it does look wonderful, but it seems to be either that or a bunch of other more useful mods. So, I'll have to sacrifice looks for function I guess. That's what KSP is all about anyway. If I wanted I beautiful space game, I'd play Elite: Dangerous or Star Citizen. So far, KSP has me more hooked than I expected, I'll say that much!
-
Don't use CKAN. It has a history of breaking FAR.
What?! I have 56 mods installed. If CKAN is messing things up, what's the alternative? I may be really new to the KSP modding scene, but from what I can tell, CKAN is the universally accepted mod managing tool. I only wish Minecraft had something that was able to link directly to official mod locations, detect, and install updates. Believe me, manually managing 50-200 mods is a royal pain. Especially when mods are constantly updating. What do you use?
@ferram4: Oh, also looking at my mod list, I can think of a few others which may be interacting badly with FAR. Is your mod potentially conflicting with any of the following?
Deadly Reentry Continued
Modular Flight Integrator
Stock Bug Fix Modules
Kerbal Joint Reinforcement
All of these seem like mods which could affect rocket integrity in some way.
-
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=802006553168923
LOL! I am legitimately surprised. Someone tell me they don't all believe this! I suppose this explains the lack of satellites launched by Arab nations. Though, with the phenomenal engineering on display in Dubai, one would think that such laughable ignorance given in this video is the exception rather than the rule.
-
@Recon777: It's breaking because you're not actually deleting the right file. I've checked this, it works fine. And given that it's apparently such a problem to have the debug menu that lets you edit the aero stress configs in-game, I'm just going to remove them and solve the problem quickly. I can't exactly get rid of the "remove template" button without making it impossible to remove templates; just don't delete the selected template if it's the first one in the list, that's what breaks it. So since the very existence of this section of the debug menu is a problem, I'll just remove it entirely. As for your continued issues, considering that it seems completely erratic for no apparent reason, I suspect that either something else is messing with the FAR files or that you're continuing to mess with it even though you already know that it'll cause issues. If you insist on reinstalling FAR, actually reinstall it by uninstalling then installing again, don't just overwrite.
Now, your rocket coming apart isn't FAR, because I can't reproduce it with an identical design. Full thrust, staying on prograde, hits Mach 0.95 at 3 km or so and doesn't want to accelerate past there, but it certainly doesn't come apart. So if it requires FAR to cause the issue, then something else is interfering. Given the extreme issues you're having, perhaps you'd be well-served by posting your output_log.txt and full reproduction steps.
I deleted ALL the files. As in, I removed the entire mod. I'm using CKAN and the way I uninstalled it was the usual way of unchecking the mod and going to the Changeset tab in CKAN and clicking Apply. It left behind the "FerramAerospaceResearch" folder with three custom config files, so I deleted those manually. After doing this, I launched KSP just to make sure it knew that FAR was 100% gone (although that was not likely necessary I am just being thorough). Then I reinstalled FAR and immediately it had the menu problems. What's frustrating is that there seems to be an intermittent error. The worst kind in any IT situation because it makes troubleshooting impossible. So my latest attempt actually did work and I disabled aero-structural failures. The rocket still came apart, so I have no idea what's going on there.
Regarding the rocket coming apart (quite) early in the launch, I can't comment on what else might be causing it because I don't know the internal workings of your mod or other people's mods. What I do know is that the mods I'm using are listed in my above post. I'm not using anything at all other than those, and the video I posted is precisely how it goes every time. FAR status window even reported "nominal" through the whole thing right up until it came apart. I also know that removing FAR fixes the problem, which is rather strange if FAR is not the problem. If there is a compatibility issue with other mods, it may be worth hunting it down.
In my latest attempt, the rocket actually did survive past booster separation, but then fell apart at about 7200m in the usual way. I really wish I knew what was causing that.
-
Are you exploding at around 6km altitude?
Nope. If you look at the video I put in my post up above, it blows up around 2400m right about the time I separate the spent Hammers. Though, on occasion I did make it a bit farther with the liquid fuel engine before it blew.
-
I just checked with a stock + FAR (aero failures enabled) with that rocket and had no issues (even without throttling back, which given the first and third stage TWR's I normally would have). Your problem is coming from somewhere else
If that's the case, then why do they launch just fine if I uninstall FAR?
Here's the mods I have installed. I do think there's some which I'll need to remove since I'm getting occasional random crashes now and I hear that KSP is notorious for memory problems. Not sure what the main culprit is. Thinking "outer planets" probably.
-
@Recon777: Unfortunately, I didn't plan for someone deleting the very first entry in the menu. What you want to do to bring things back is to go into your FAR folder, find CustomFARAeroStress.cfg and delete it. And then don't mess with debug options unless you know what you're doing. Ah, who am I kidding, I'll probably just remove the aerostress and atm composition tabs from the debug menu and call it a day. Anyone who actually wants to change configs can go into the configs themselves and it'll keep everyone else safe from screwing things up when they think they're perfectly safe (hint: when you mess with debug options, you never are).
@Ferram4: Well, you could just remove the [-] button which breaks the window, maybe. Why are they even there? Also, I did try deleting everything. I even uninstalled the entire mod, removed the FAR folder, restarted KSP, loaded up a save, quit, reinstalled FAR, started KSP again and loaded my save. The window was still bugged. I did this several times yesterday with no success, but now I did the exact same thing today and for some reason it worked. Now that the window is working again, I will uncheck "Allow Aero-structural failures".
Here's the situation for me. I'm trying to launch my first commsats into orbit because I have RT installed and need to do that before any unmanned missions will work at all. I built a very simple satellite launcher. Just the OKTO core with 8 solar panels on it, four disk shaped batteries below the core, then a T400 fuel tank with more solar panels and a couple antennas, then the LV909 and stack separator, four more T400 fuel tanks, the Swivel engine, four AVT1 winglets, and two Hammer boosters with radial decouplers. I even put a Mk16 parachute on top of the probe core in case that helped aerodynamics.
Boosters burn for 15 seconds and get the craft up to 5km or so, then I very gradually ease up the speed. No matter how gentle I am, even without doing any turning at all, the rocket disintegrates due to aero stress by about 45 seconds into launch. If the mod is going to tear apart probe launches like this, maybe the mod needs to allow fairings to be unlocked much sooner. Nobody really launches probes to space with exposed antennas an solar panels clinging to the sides, right? I'm not even sure if that's the reason the rocket came apart. Is there any sort of log that the mod produces which explains what the failure was from? Is there any way to predict failures prior to launch? Sorry, I'm fairly new to the game and even newer to mods, so I'm just looking for basic understanding here.
[edit]
Wow, actually even with "Allow Aero-structural Failures" unchecked, my rocket still disintegrates. What's going on?
[edit 2]
Whoa! Now my menu window is bugged again! I didn't even touch any settings, but it's back to being a blank window. I deleted the .cfg specifically like you said and that doesn't fix it.
Uninstalled the mod and removed the whole folder entirely. Reinstalled the mod and it is STILL bugged! This is what my debug menu window looks like:
-
your engines may be too powerful for the body of your craft, try reducing the thrust manually on the engines.
Thanks! That solved the problem. Anything under 50% for the LV909 seems to work pretty well.
-
There's a bug (ironically) in the Debug Options window.
If you go to the Aerodynamic Failure tab, there are large mode buttons on the left side of the window. Next to each of these buttons is a smaller [-] button.
If you press the [-] button next to the selected mode button, the entire debug menu becomes irrecoverably broken for that savegame.
[edit]
After a whole lot of frustrating reloading and reinstalling and restoring, trying to get the debug window to come back, I just about gave up on it. Then, I found this in a file called FerramAerospaceResearch\Plugins\PluginData\FerramAerospaceResearch\config.xml
Yikes, that doesn't look good.
So, the question is: Why are there "break the mod" buttons in the debug window?
[edit 2]
*sigh* Okay, that doesn't actually fix anything. I'm actually stuck!! I can't get my debug window back now no matter what I do. Help.
-
I love the idea of the mod, but after reading tutorials and starting a fresh game with it, something hit me like a hyperspace bypass operation.
Why does everyone talk about all the trouble of putting up satellites and stuff, when I can just stick a manned pod on the craft and all problems is solved.
...
I think the mod simulate real world sat systems well (Not a Sat Scientist, so I could be wrong), but you seem to have forgotten the difference between Kerbals and the real world and you just created all the problems with sats, but none of the reasons we use them over manned probes.
Are you asking why not attach a manned pod when you first deploy your commsat network? That would require a bit more dV to get off the ground I imagine. I did try it this way for my first go, but the ship was very unstable for some reason. Probably because I stuck the satellite on the nose of the command pod. The advantage of having someone there so you don't lose contact is nice, but really, as long as the flight computer is working, you can just set up all your maneuvers when the satellite is above KSC. And yes, I did have to manually cut my LV909's thrust down to about 50% so that the flight computer wouldn't overshoot the burn and spin out of control.
-
Hi all. I'm having trouble with this mod. When I use the Flight Computer to set up a maneuver node burn on the far side of Kerbin, it executes on time, but the node marker drifts at the very end of the burn, causing the probe to try to reorient itself to face the marker WHILE burning, which of course sends it into an irrecoverable spin until it runs out of fuel. Why is the flight computer not smart enough to either cut the engines while reorienting OR just cut the engines when the node goes green and is "close enough"?
Also very suspicious is the fact that when the flight computer is doing a burn, the whole probe wobbles in a tight circle as it tries to keep pointing at the node. This wobbling is probably causing the inaccuracies that make the node shift to the other side once the timer has run out.
Any ideas? Am I doing something wrong?
Space planes: How to fly??
in KSP1 Gameplay Questions and Tutorials
Posted · Edited by Recon777
This is the plane I'm trying to fly. I always crash at takeoff because it pitches WAY up without me telling it to.
How close does the center of mass and center of lift have to be?
[edit] I moved the wings slightly back to line those up perfectly and I was able to get it into stable forward flight, however it's still VERY touchy and apt to crash when I try to maneuver.