Jimbodiah
-
Posts
2,492 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Everything posted by Jimbodiah
-
Dude, I am happy I can make MM patches to replace stuff, let alone write plugins that actually do something It's just an intermediate, replaces MP outright. Mage will make the real deal at some point. -
If anyone wants a patch to convert the current RCS blocks (sstu and vanilla) and MUS into hypergolics: http://jimbodiah.com/ksp/sstu/MP_Hypergolics.cfg I can add it to the OptionalPatches folder if Mage likes, or otherwise to my own pack.
-
@CobaltWolf @Nertea @RoverDude @Angel-125 @Beale ^
-
Higher textures are always welcome.
-
@NotTheRealRMS RSS hasn't been supported since 1.2.2, but there is patch that makes it work 1.3.0/1.3.1 as it's just the Earth/kerbin naming that was causing issues. Maybe I'll try boiloff again sometime.
-
Ha, yeah, enough Ec, that should not be a problem (1000+ Ec storage and solar panels). I;ve never had any luck with boiloffs so have then disabled since forever. Same reason I hate LS mods as they tend to have the same issues. Especially in RSS with very long time warps, the game likes you to have enough storage for the whole trip instead of actually working any recyclers etc along the way. When I do LS plays I tend to send any station crews back to Earth and only have the current ship crew active, or preferably frozen with DeepFreeze to avoid them being gone/useless when the ship comes out of warp.
-
Does boil-off work at high-warps at all; i.e. empty tanks for no reason on zbo tanks?
-
My JPL patches? That's weird because I run that, along with a bunch of personal patches added alongside MKS + USL-LS with no issues. My patches don't remove any parts, at worst they can bork SSTU parts as I change a few things there, but nothing on MKS or USI-LS parts. If you have specifics, post them on my JPL topic.
-
Re the foundries landing legs, will they stay in foundries or be moved to SSTU? In that regard, do you want to keep them all in advancedMotors or do you want them spread out in the tree (rover and leg nodes)? Or better yet, want me to PR them into the tree? OMG, it's @RoverDude
-
Doc, do you have the CommunityCategoryKit folder installed in your GameData (required for USI parts to show up).
-
@White Owl I want everything to look like it's either chrome or gold plated, or black chrome, or blue... ah heck, I don't care for the color, as long as it is SHINY @Shadowmage Easy son, you'll pop an artery! Don't you know The Doctor is never wrong Only the SM/CMs and DOS parts have their RCS running on Hypergolics, but all have local fuel supplies. The seperate RCS parts are all MonoPropellant. And here I kept wishing they would be Hypergolic instead (which is why I patched some for myself).
-
The UI you mean... Yeah, but it's kind of lame to do a landing, see what thrust is best and then reload to do the landing over again. The problem is that the craft needs to be able to rotate rather quickly just before touch-down using it's reaction wheels, to turn feet down in time. Lowering thrust makes the final part of the landing slower, giving more time for the craft to turn feet down as the last few meters are not as abrubt, but setting this manually on every landing is not practical and not the intention of an automated landing routine I think Also on lower TWR landers the angle at which you approach the surface is ofen much steeper (45-60°), meaning the lander is already pointing feet-down for the most part. On high TWT landers, the angle is much shallower (30-45°) meaning the feet are pointed retrograde instead of toward the surface, and does not enough time to turn feet-down as there is not much elevation left to do it. Yeah you could add RCS or heavy reaction wheels, but this is a work-around as low TWR lands just fine without RCS or heavy reaction wheels (engine gimballing is all that is needed here mostly) I can provide videos of both landings to Sarbian if he deems it noteworthy of future consideration.
-
Future Feature Request for landing assist: Right now if you have a high TWR on your lander, the "land somewhere" is really agressive on it's descent; waiting until it can do the 95% throttle landing. If your ship does not have super powerfull reaction wheels or RCS, the craft is still at an angle when the landing assist is already trying to touch it down, the ship can not turn itself fast eough to get feet down at 90° and often times you have to manually take over or abort. Lowering the max thrust before starting the landing assist prevents this, but I would like to ask if it is possible to start the landing burn earlier so that it is not as agressive in the last part? Maybe set a slider to choose desired engine burn for descent (50-95% instead of the fixed 95%) detect the TWR and not calculate for a 95% final burn if the time of the landing burn is under x-seconds long, I dunno? Several versions ago there was a routine at the end of the landing that did a kill burn a few hundred meters above the surface and then did a straight down landing. The problem here was erratic behavior during this kill burn above the surface which is why it was removed I think? The current landing routine by itself is great I think, just maybe a little less agressive burn for high TWR ships?
-
Remove the Optional Patches folder. I run MKS and USI-LS and they show up just fine with a bare SSTU install, so I think you have the old optional patches still in your gamedata folder.
-
Yep, that's the one. Thanks! No rush, just wanted to check in if it was a known issue; the rest works just fine.
-
Hi, I'm running 1.3.1 and RSS with scansat and the % scan completion stays at 0% even when I have scanned Earth + Moon completely. Is this a known issue or should I post logs?
-
You'd be amazed how many people have high-end systems and do not know to disable core parking, only to end up with an i7 running at i5 specs because windows (7 at least) deems it necessary to block all the hyperthreading cores as a default. I'm turning into an old geezer now; quiet is the new oc
-
@Ourshinigami Don't worry, we are just teasing you, noboy means and harm I think; just having some fun.
-
I hope you disabled core parking on your PC, a nice standard feature of Windows that shuts down half your cpu cores to save energy?
-
There's no such thing as a free lunch.
-
@tater Try Kerbal Foundries, there are some scalable legs there. You might know the guy that picked up that mod @Shadowmage You make the rest of the parts look like the lego movie now, and might have spoiled us all for the future. And congratulations on the 100th release on GitHub, by the way
-
gheghe... you have to get into a 28.36 degree inclination when launching. To help out myself, I send up a probe first to 1000km and align that with the moon orbit. This gives a line in mapview in a LEO which is easier to line up when launching. When your launch site passes under the line, launch into either a +28.36 or -28.36 degrees and you can do an easy hohman transfer after getting a circular orbit. This is why I modified my launch site to be Alcantara (thanks to JoséEduardo) which is closest to the equator and gives you two nodes to launch into the Lunar orbit (stock Florida launch site barely touches one node). Moonshots are no issue in RSS, you can timewarp until you intersect the lunar orbit line, but waiting for Mars etc to line up can take forever. "Better Time Warp" is almost a requirement for RSS, but it is broken since 1.3.1. And as I tend to use LS, I hate time-warping 2-3 years as I need to send several resupply missions to not let every stattion die out.
