Siege
-
Posts
34 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Siege
-
-
Looks like I need to update tonight myself, can't wait to tinker with the new parts!Edit: Derp... I was already up to date, it seems. Heh.
-
4 hours ago, akron said:
You made me realize that I re-used the NFPA tag I made for monopropellant without thinking about it.
Also, just to check. Does anyone have any thoughts about the new alternate textures?
Textures look great from here!
-
On 8/16/2016 at 3:14 AM, FreeThinker said:
Well, Beamed Power Transmission is currently in a high state of flux. I can tell you multiple will able able to transmit, some can relay while others only can receive. I will some create some documentation.
Well, I fixed some of the problems by editing the .cfg's for the parts that should be able to transmit and editing "canTransmit" to "= true", however, I'm still having a problem: all parts read "inputPower: offline", regardless of what reactor/generator combination I've tried, whether they're attached directly or not, or even if I have a MJ capacitor in the mix.
I know you say things are in a state of flux... is there a recent prior version somewhere I might downgrade to to get my stuff working and save my Duna mission? Or can you enlighten me how the "Input Power" thing works so that I might be able to make the fixes locally myself? I've been reading over the code as I have it for 1.9.11 in FNGenerator.cs, but I'm afraid I just don't understand what it's doing or how its interacting with the transmitter parts. -
Just now, CobaltWolf said:
that's the beef that some modders have with CKAN.
And I can see how that might come about. But then, you probably have no idea how much time I've spent listening to programmers poodle about having to use SVN, git, Mercurial CVS, or similar.
Then again, there's the beef *I* have with having to install and update mods manually, and AFAIK there aren't any other good mod managers out there right now, particularly not that support versioning and in-app downloading. -
In case no one was aware but might care, EVE isn't being listed in CKAN currently because the version available to the repository says it's only compatible with 1.1.2.
I found this out tracking down some other issues, and noticed EVE wasn't in my list. When I posted in the CKAN thread, the response got was:QuoteCoatl Aerospace ProbesPlus! and EVE are not showing up in the compatible list for 1.1.3 because neither have been released for 1.1.3.
-
Not sure how it got on CKAN if you didn't submit it... that's interesting.
AFAIK, it used to have something to do with a file containing a supported version number, but I have no idea if that's still true or not.
-
Hey @akron: is there anything in particular you know of that prevents P+ from being 1.1.3 compatible? If not, could you update your CKAN repo listing to 1.1.3? It seems it's currently showing as 1.1.2 max version, which is why it's not showing up.
-
9 hours ago, Diche Bach said:
Do antenna actually generate heat? I had a look at that article you linked to and . . . well, a fairly quick skim didn't reveal anything about "antenna heat generation." Can you refer to a specific point in the article?
Given the article is about a probe that is intended to go as close as possible to the sun, It makes sense that HEAT is a major consideration, but I didn't see where heat FROM the antennae was the issue
I am a social/biological scientist so my skepticism is merely a reflection of "innocence" on the topic, not of an informed counter position. I can understand how high amounts of radiation going into and coming out of a chunk of metal/plastic/fiberglass WOULD result in heat generation . . . but I'm impressed if that is ever enough to be of any significance.
I also don't know if this tweak the mod allows in the configs (the range stacking for omnis) is in anyway realistic or not, and would be interested to hear anyone who knows more comment on that point.
Actually, the more I look into it, it seems the larger concern (unless you have a great deal of impedance, or are trying to transmit huge wattages on a small antenna, or have a large dipole array or the like buried or semi-buried in the ground, which is a resistor) is less the heating of an antenna, but rather the antenna's emissions causing heating in dielectrics nearby them.
So it's not actually that they get hot themselves, but rather can induce heating in their nearby environment - depending on frequency, metals and liquids would be the prime targets. Dishes would be largely excluded (except for that note in the prior article about solar probes, and the dish reflecting heat at other parts of the spacecraft), but rather, omni-antennas radiating huge wattages and similar could heat up materials nearby.
However, at this level, while I suppose it wouldn't be all *that* hard to simulate, I suppose it would be probably too minor in the long run to be a consideration for the RT maintainers to want to bother with... that said, maybe I'll see about brewing it up for myself, and if I can figure that much out on my own, well, we'll see. -
10 hours ago, FreeThinker said:
Well, Beamed Power Transmission is currently in a high state of flux. I can tell you multiple will able able to transmit, some can relay while others only can receive. I will some create some documentation.
Update: it was late last night when I posted this and my 3 year old was driving me bonkers refusing to go to bed, so I accidentally posted the wrong gallery link. I've updated the link in my OP, but for reference, here it is again: http://imgur.com/a/vQQEf
-
MW Transmitters seem to be really broken... Only the spherical rectenna shows in the VAB as able to transmit - nothing else does, and my previously functioning MW network is no longer working: nothing is sending power anywhere.
Image gallery here:
http://imgur.com/a/iP6Tfhttp://imgur.com/a/vQQEf -
3 minutes ago, Stone Blue said:
And I agree with Siege, about the changed textures... One thing I can think of that might be an issue, would be if people have a bunch of science, or samples stored on/with a probe craft... THEN, it might not be a simple matter of swapping out with a new craft? \o/
At that point, I'd say HyperEdit and Alt+F12 FTW.
-
1 minute ago, akron said:
Well, I can't exactly do that because the textures have changed. I would literally have to include a renamed old version of most the mod to allow legacy support that way. I can try and name new or redone parts different so that they can run simultaneously, but it won't fix the texture issue.
TBH, I don't think most people would care *that* much about a few broken textures (as long as they actually have a texture) on craft already in orbit, as long as it prevents their craft/save from being broken/destroyed, and would just start phasing out the in-flight craft that are broken as time permitted.
If nothing else, it ensures the vehicle is still wherever you last left it, so you could then go open the craft in the VAB, replace the old parts with the new, and then use hyperedit to basically switch your craft out. -
7 minutes ago, akron said:
Update
All parts will be optimized and may be rotated or adjusted in Unity. Again, this next update WILL BREAK SAVES! I'll try to see if I can do something to help out current career users, myself included. I'll test and see if there is a way to exclude save-breaking parts, but don't hold me to it. This is a BETA after all
In my experience, most mod authors tend to either leave the old items in with a name change adding something like (LEGACY) or (DO NOT USE), often for a version or three, or they fork off a branch of the mod itself and call it a legacy parts pack.
-
45 minutes ago, Siege said:
Also, is it just me, or shouldn't antennas create heat? Particularly in the context of small, compact probes, at that? Based on my understanding of radio engineering, I'd think omni's would be more prone to creating notable heat, especially when they were actively transmitting, and particularly when in clusters. Not that I'm asking you to add this to this mod - I'd think that would instead likely be more either for RT, or maybe a stand-alone mod - but just putting it out there: it would seem to me that the longer-range the omni, the more heat it would produce whenever it has an active connection, that each active connection would increase the heat of the antenna, and that actively transmitting (ala, science data transmissions) would increase that by a notable factor (warning NP-hard Science: it looks like dishes aren't excluded, either, if for other reasons that what I was thinking). Maybe I should raise that discussion in its own thread...
Posted to RT thread.
-
So, in a discussion over in the Probes Plus thread, a few topics came up regarding that mods' RTG power output and antenna power cost, when something occurred to me:
Shouldn't antenna's generate heat, too?
Copying the salient points from my post in the (above-linked) thread:QuoteAlso, is it just me, or shouldn't antennas create heat? Particularly in the context of small, compact probes, at that? Based on my understanding of radio engineering, I'd think omni's would be more prone to creating notable heat, especially when they were actively transmitting, and particularly when in clusters. ... <snip> ... it would seem to me that the longer-range the omni, the more heat it would produce whenever it has an active connection, that each active connection would increase the heat of the antenna, and that actively transmitting (ala, science data transmissions) would increase that heat again by a notable factor for the transmission period (warning NP-hard Science: it looks like dishes aren't excluded, either, if for other reasons that what I was thinking).
It wouldn't be a HUGE amount of heat, in most cases, necessarily (unless you're prone to going overboard with your antennas, like I am - in which case, having your antenna heat increase as a root of the number of antennas in a group might not be a bad balance measure to prevent people from spamming omnis in concert with the range-bonus-from-multiple-antennas feature), but it would probably be worth considering, anyway, particularly in the context of RTG-powered probes that are already as minimalist as possible and likely carrying only what they need - especially in terms of thermal management - and little else.
-
Sure thing. Assuming I get some time-in-game tonight, I'll work up a comparative spreadsheet based on my game as-modded with RT, PP and AmpYear, and see what we get.
-
7 hours ago, akron said:
Thank you. All added to my to-do. Which is hopefully soon as I think I am wrapping up the model/texture work I need to do. It's tough for me to balance stuff like RT because I do not play it. I'll have to get more familiar with it and the common config options for other mods and stock so I can find a good balance for those. Pioneer does have two RTGs in its launch configuration so it actually produces 0.4. It comes off a little bit better off than Voyager(Torekka)'s 0.39
Definitely can confirm. I was looking to do a modified Voyager design just last night, and found that the Voyager RTG wasn't producing near enough power. I added two more of the little silver/ & gold extensible RTG's AND solar power and still wasn't producing a sufficient amount of power just for the main dish alone without adding scads more batteries: according to the AmpYear calcs, with basically everything excluded/turned off but the probe control, the AmpYear power manager, RCS, and the main dish, my power draw was 1.62 - and with the one main articulated RTG (which according to research was actually 3 RTG's) AND the two smaller RTG's, I was generating .72.
I play RT extensively, and find AmpYear's power manager very helpful. If you want me to run some numbers comparisons with stock & RT on RTG weight vs. EC/s & heat, and/or weight vs. range vs. power draw for the antennas, or something similar, let me know.
Also, is it just me, or shouldn't antennas create heat? Particularly in the context of small, compact probes, at that? Based on my understanding of radio engineering, I'd think omni's would be more prone to creating notable heat, especially when they were actively transmitting, and particularly when in clusters. Not that I'm asking you to add this to this mod - I'd think that would instead likely be more either for RT, or maybe a stand-alone mod - but just putting it out there: it would seem to me that the longer-range the omni, the more heat it would produce whenever it has an active connection, that each active connection would increase the heat of the antenna, and that actively transmitting (ala, science data transmissions) would increase that by a notable factor (warning NP-hard Science: it looks like dishes aren't excluded, either, if for other reasons that what I was thinking). Maybe I should raise that discussion in its own thread...
-
59 minutes ago, VenomousRequiem said:
I've always just used the rotate tool and it works just fine.
Ah, never really used it, thought I knew just what you meant by that - worked like a champ, thanks!
-
Just as a note... I can't seem to the the Dmagic magnetometer to attach to the RTG boom in such a way that it lines up with the struts that appear when I get it right on the attachment node: the only way I can get the struts to appear is by allowing the part to mount at a 90 deg. angle.
Nothing I do will get it to rotate to match the point while remaining connected (or connectable) to the actual node, for some reason...
-
NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICE
-
3 hours ago, akron said:
I like the gold foil too, hehe. Almost all reference picture of space-grade mylar/foil has it very colorful and orange. Anyone remember this?
These parts were too low poly though, and the base for them (where they attach to other stuff) was too big. I am trying to use the original foil with huge moderation just so that parts can be more neutral to other mods. I have no intention of removing it altogether either. It will still be the default for many things. I am also leaving it on the science experiment parts. As far as the materials, you're right. The yellow metal texture I made is probably too yellow, but the desaturated look helps it fit better with stock, I think. The primary reference for my reaction wheels came from Kepler, such as this:
EDIT: Yes, I am using a specular map via Alpha channel
Yeah, see, I think all the stuff on Apollo was Kapton. The thing about gold is it's a weird color to replicate well as it actually has some brown in it, though (iirc) little to no orange.
However, you've got Aluminum Bronze pretty spot on:
Apparently the nice thing about aluminum bronze is that it is highly resistant to galling, ala the seizing or "cold welding" of two metal parts sliding against each other, and that's probably just what that is in the reaction wheel reference photo above. So really, I'd say you got it right, regardless.
-
I do like the new models, but I also have to admit I liked the gold foil... not enough to volunteer to create a whole stock-texture-conversion to include it... but still
Anyway, very nice work, and the extra polys do make a difference. I even just learned something: that brass, as I suspected from memory, is no good in space, but aluminum bronze IS good for high-vacuum environments, and your texture there seems a pretty fair approximation, which does lead me to one further question I didn't think to ask last night: are you using an alpha-channel to create a specular map for your shiny bits?
-
Oh, I absolutely understand that, I've done exactly the same, for example, with those Delta-V map re-colorings, so I don't have to do that much work when updates change the △v values, and much the same in many other ways - I simply seemed to recall having seen you post once something about texturing (I had start to volunteer once in the past but realized I had no free time), and now that I had some of said free time, thought I'd throw it out there, but it would make sense that, especially if you're focused on other aspects of the mod, as far along as you are now, that you'd be working from some pretty solid templates and not really need much assistance.
As for high-polys, most people I know don't care for making them if they can get away with it. But then, there's always that roughly 1 in 5 modelers, it seems like, who love going utterly insane on them, so I always think to ask.
-
Lol, and here I thought you might have been from Akron, Ohio (where I have family).
I hear you on the disorganized texturing: I'm almost entirely self-taught (learned on the fly working for MW:LL, with a little help from the previous texture art lead, who vanished a month or two after I started learning it) and as a result, my methods too are a little... unorthodox - my .PSD's are a positive mess by some standards, but I manage to get it done anyway. Unfortunately, a lot of what I've done lately (aside from recoloring some maps for KSP) has been work on contract which, as a result, I don't own the rights to any longer, so I don't really have much recent to show for myself, but I think that "fun-grenade" on my ModDB profile does a decent job of showing where I'm at with it these days. Have also been considering picking up a copy of either the Quixel Suite or Substance Painter to use.Anyway, if it gets to the point where you feel you could use some help, don't worry about methods and organization, just throw me what you have, tell me what you need, and I'll see what I can do to help. I prefer to have High- and Low-poly models in .OBJ or .MAX form, as well as an unwrap, though I can do without the highs and fake a normal map if I have to (KSP doesn't seem terribly reliant on normals anyway), and I can do the unwrapping if needed (it's not my favorite thing, but a necessary evil and one I'm used to doing). Everything else is a matter of taste and keeping the flavor with existing assets, I'd imagine, so if you have source material for things like the gold foil or whatever, or a specific color palette, just toss a .PSD or w/e for an already-extant similar asset, and I'll see what I can do to help.
ETA: I do have some ulterior motives for volunteering thus, namely to enable you to do more modding/modelingAnd yes, very cool to find out you're a fellow ATLien
[WIP] Coatl Aerospace ProbesPlus Dev Thread [Beta] 10/19/2020 (1.8-1.10)
in KSP1 Mod Development
Posted
Just wanted to pop in and comment that, while I haven't been playing KSP much in a while and I've been gone from these forums for the better part of 2+ years or so (children have a way of eating up free time), whenever I DO come back to KSP (as I have again lately, inspired by the latest Mars probe mission), I still consider this mod to be absolutely fundamental to my enjoyment of KSP, and I am exceedingly pleased to find it still under active development.
Thank you, @akron, and keep up the
goodgreatamazing work!