MR L A
-
Posts
574 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by MR L A
-
-
Regarding the fps drop you mention at the start - is this usually experienced as a drop in performance throughout engine use? e.g 10fps less whenever plume fx is applied? Or is it altitude specific like what I seem to be experiencing? which is a small drop in fps but nothing major up to around 25km where I then experience a drop to a constant 12.5 fps. This then jumps back up at around 50/60km.
I'll be dropping the particle count regardless, but I as just wondering if this was the "usual" experience
Thanks! -
I'm sure somebody has already said this but... THIS NEEDS TO BE STOCK.
Thank you for your time -
50 minutes ago, MR L A said:
Thanks! I'm not sure if it is a bug or not in fairness. A potential work around seems to be using a second node that does nothing. I'll do some more testing of my own for a start and, of course, turn it off an on again!
Turns out its already been reported here... http://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/11716
Funny though, I've been building spaceplanes and other launch systems for months without doing any actual missions... today I try a mission and it can't be done properly haha! -
Just now, Red Iron Crown said:
Here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/forum/84-12-pre-release-bug-tracker/
Be sure to read the bug reporting guide and check for duplicates first.
Thanks! I'm not sure if it is a bug or not in fairness. A potential work around seems to be using a second node that does nothing. I'll do some more testing of my own for a start and, of course, turn it off an on again!
-
Where do we report potential bugs and stuff? I seem to be having a frustrating time with manoeuvre nodes.. I'm very experienced with the game so it's not because I'm an idiot... but I just don't seem to be able to get trajectories to intersect with new SOIs. The closest approach arrows will appear as usual but when they get to where a SOI change should occur, they just vanish and the trajectory just shows a miss... I've never had this problem before while setting up transfers... no amount of middle mouse tweaking or manoeuvre node placement adjustment seems to be helping. Anyone else having an issue?
-
43 minutes ago, steuben said:
possible yes. recommended ... no.Editing the persistences file like that is difficult and black magic. you will need to find the port, adjust it's rotation. from there you will most likely need to adjust the position of every radially attached part, and so on down the tree.
my suggestions are:
1. undock and try again.
2. hyperedit up the assembled pair from the vba/sph
3. investigate some of the docking assist mods that will end up being suggested below.
Unfortunately undocking and trying again is out of the question (the rcs units tugs are gone). Is hyperedit-ing the use of save files? I cant seem to find how to do this without being referred to the mod...
-
Hi everyone!
I'm trying to work out how to adjust alignment/rotation of two modules currently docked together in space. I presume this must be possible to do within the save files.As you can see, the handle things are ever so slightly off, I don't think I could have got them more precisely aligned, given the circumstances (detachable rcs on orange tank - I've no idea why I chose to dock the orange tank to the command module rather than the other way round - also the orange tank is empty).
So, does anyone know what I'm looking for in the save files to adjust? Will it be a simple case of finding the docking port attached to the orange tank and rotating that or will I need to rotate the port, the tank and everything else with it? It needs to be aligned perfectly, for reasons..
Thanks everyone!P.S just in case the insert media link didn't work... http://imgur.com/kuQLH5j
-
8 minutes ago, steuben said:
it has less meaning the greater the difference in inclination of the two bodies. but yes.
As for the relative angle it would be 360 divided by the number of sats.
Assuming a circular orbit of 60 km, you would lower the Pe of sat #2 so that it will be at Pe when sat #1 is 90 degrees ahead, or behind, sat #2. When it hits Pe circularize to 60 km. Wash rinse repeat.
The greater the number of sats the less precise you need to be for orbit altitude, relative angle, and inclination.
Excellent! The method you described is exactly what I've been searching for, thank you!
-
51 minutes ago, steuben said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance
Basically the low value integer ratio of the two orbital periods... in musical terms the harmonious chord of the two notes of the orbits. the music of the spheres indeed.
in the case of a simple constellation of comm sats like you have descibed it will be 1:1
You may want to up it to 4 or 5. The digital mathamagic that is floating point math will cause the sats to bunch up and separate again. more sats will cushion against this bunching.
Ah, so the 1:1 ratio is the mathematical way of describing the amount of time take to complete an orbit by two objects around a given body? So, for example, an equatorial orbit that around body X take 1 hour and any other orbit, regardless of inclination etc. that also takes one hour?
I believe using 4/5 satellites may be the way forwards, as you have suggested. Would this mean 4/5 satellites at the same orbit height as previously stated (of 60km) separated by 90/72 degrees? A lower minimum orbit would be possible but would negate the use of 4/5 over 3?I believe I have understood correctly thus far, however I am still confused about when to deploy my other satellites..
Should I wait until the first satellite is 90/72 degrees in front of the second satellite AND the second satellite is at apoapsis (60km)?
Thanks for your help so far!
-
Hi guys,
I've read a few posts regarding this subject, however I've failed to understand them. First. I'll explain what I am trying to do and why.
I am using antenna range in lieu of the 1.2 KSP update which is alleged to add something similar. I currently have a probe landed on Minmus that loses connection when it cannot "see' Kerbin. I wish to place three satellites in an equilateral triangle formation which should be able to provide a constant connection. I have worked out that the minimum altitude required for this is 60km with 120 degrees of separation. I plan to put the satellites into a higher orbit than this to provide additional clearance for the signal from the surface of Minmus, I believe a higher altitude also provides longevity in terms of resonance between the three satellites.The three satellites are currently attached to a single vessel which is in an orbit of (or about to be in an orbit of) 60km x 20km. I understand the first satellite can deploy and burn prograde to 60 x 60 at any time.
My questions are; What is "resonance" anyway? How do I work it out/alter resonance characteristics? And how do I work out when to deploy the second and third satellites from their given orbit into the desired orbit?I hope this all makes sense and my objectives are clear. I'm not an uneducated individual, however my maths skills are pretty poor, so terminology may need to be explained - though I did manage to workout the height of the orbit by simply constructing an equilateral triangle within a circle/orbit which is twice the radius of the given body (Minmus R = 60km. 2R = 120km. Altitude = 60km). Though please correct me if I have misunderstood this method.
Thanks everyone! -
Love the work!
I've been using scatterer for a while now, stuck with it when the ocean was a Z-fighting (no not the Goku kind) mess too.
Latest release is simply beautiful too. I haven't noticed any bugs additional to the ones already reported.. though I was wondering, if it is possible for you to tell, what the release of 1.1 will have on the mod? Are you expecting a million new bugs/unplayable until you update scatterer or will the shift between Unity variants not impact your graphical work so much? -
Firstly, sorry if this thread is a repost however, in my defence I could not find an answer after a fair bit of forum trawling.
Anyway, currently don't have access to the game to experiment for myself plus I'm playing career mode and don't want to waste resources. Im also quite new to the game but I'm doing okay.
The question (and context). I'm planning on landing on the mun with a kerbal scientist (first manned landing) however, to keep the weight of the lander down and therefore make for an easier return to the mun orbiter, I am wondering if sending a second lander packed with science parts (which will not return) may be useful? By this I mean land both landers, have the scientist eva to the science lander, gather the data from the science parts, return to other lander, return home. Is this possible without a loss of science points? Can scientists 'harvest' data in this fashion?
Thanks!
P.s I realise having a single lander would probably be more economical and efficient however, I do not have adequate parts unlocked to do this with a high chance of success.
[1.6.1] RealPlume - Stock [v1.3.1 - 1/14/19] - Better Late than Never Update
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted
huh, interesting.
How does real plume interact with the stock heating effects? I'll run some experiments to test, but my hypothesis is that the fps drop may be induced by simultaneous use of plume fx and re-entry particle fx. I'll let you know either way. Not expecting you to fix this btw, I guess its an issue with smokescreen? I'll get back to you anyway
Thanks for the mod btw. I absolutely love it