Jump to content

Jimbodiah

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,490

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Jimbodiah

  1. Jimbodiah
    Run out of nuclear fuel perhaps? They have a limited lifetime unless you replennish them.
  2. Jimbodiah
    Yes, that is an old version. Find a new version with the link ShadowMage included a few posts back.
  3. Jimbodiah
    Are you maintaining them for RO, Blowfish? I may want to use RO at some point, been thinking of RSS lately to up the challenge and use some better looking textures.
  4. Jimbodiah
    @Matuchkin I think José made an RO patch at some point but it working on updating it with the new engines? @Shadowmage Would that work with parts that have modules in them, or only dumb objects like tanks/cones?
  5. Jimbodiah
    Just brainstorming
  6. Jimbodiah
    Huh, say what??? You mean you can add another tank as the nosecone and/or mount? Gheghe, how did your mind go there? It's basically like making a weld of several parts then, copying textures and cfg into the single part?
  7. Jimbodiah
    Yeah, I noticed when i tried to change them I will need to keep adding another tank on top like before I tend to use long first stages and specifically on the smaller diameter they can stay a bit short. I thought it was a quick fix, but it wasn't.. hence I removed it, but you caught my quote
  8. Jimbodiah
    ... double post
  9. Jimbodiah
    Gheghe, last few I sent up to rendezvous with a departure stage already in orbit, had enough dV left to go to Duna on it's own. I tend to have 3 lifters and pick the one I need based on diameter Small 1.875m probe launcher, Ares I for crew and small shuttles, Delta IV heavy for everything larger. The cost saving is negligable, so fine tuning is not really needed. I play sandbox sometimes, then it's fun to try things out to optimize an orbit, and maybe import that into my career save. STS: Check out the Energia-Buran mod. It has a complete Buran shuttle the launches properly. they shifted the CoM, I got it to fly and land in my first attempt, not hard either. Yeah, stock versions are a laugh, typicsl Kerbal launches, straight into the buildings or ground. I have no clue why they made the engine and slanted engine mount as it will not fly properly no matter what you do.
  10. Jimbodiah
    What's the difference with an "SLS Launch"? Is there a special way the boosters are ejected? LOL, that was just a joke. The KSP aerodynamics are so forgiving that you can launch most stuff without any fairings at all, as long as the weight is balanced. Even in career mode I never look at exact required dV values, I sometimes have half a tank left when I reach LKO: fuel is cheap.
  11. Jimbodiah
    Why was the reaction wheel added to the decoupler, to keep the tank straight while ejecting? That would be cool idea to keep them from flipping around like a lunatic upon seperation Gridfins: I'm all for realistic detail, but didn't even notice they were missing. It's one of those parts that you just use for nostalgic parts rather than anything useful for game play (it only adds weight and cost in career mode effectively). I still use it on all the launches with the Orion capsule though
  12. Jimbodiah
    With the last update some parts were altered and basically broken (craft files still load without error though as the part name still exists). I noticed the SC-C-SM would fire all RCS blocks in the VAB (not o the pad), but once you activated it in orbit or focussed view on existing craft using that part, they would go completely bonkers. Removing it and replacing it with the new parts fixed that.KSP keeps the old parts specs on saved .crafts instead of reloading the part when loading the .craft file, so if a new update for that part comes it could be broken even though it shows up when you load the .craft. It's safest to rebuild ships that are using parts which were overhauled. Not sure this is your problem, but I know the radial booster decouplers were overhauled last update.
  13. Jimbodiah
    I changed the setting to 0.001 but I really can't see any difference in frame rate or physics time (yellow flashing). My timer is green about 95%+ of them time now with the removal of the Kerbal animations. And to be honest, I am not missing them one bit as you needed the Portrait Stats mod to know which kerbal did what anyway, it's one mod and 90% cpu load less.
  14. Jimbodiah
    Can you see what the total energy consumption is somehow? If you could then just limit energy production to that plus a small amount to keep it from draining, instead of the full value of the reactor's max ec production. Right now you force charging at the max reactor rate, but is that necessary as long as you charge just a tad faster than the load is taking away? In case of a high load (ie. 1000ec/s or more) you will be focussed on the craft anyway and not in high warp. Just have the reactor produce 1000 + x ammount (ie 100) so batteries will still charge. When in warp there will only be a low load for sas/boiloff etc, say 20ec/s so the reactor will only supply load + 100ec/s. In both cases you will keep the batteties charged and also supply the present ec load up to the reactor's max rating. This smaller charge rate will prevent the issue you describe, but the reactor has enough capacity to ramp up and meet an increased load when needed. Output = Load + x% with max output limited to reactors max value. Right now output = maxoutput all the time. You can check battery level to see if it is depleting faster than you are charging and just ramp the reactor's actual ec output up or down [edit] this is how it works in the real world too, your battery does not have zero impedance so you can't charge at unlimited (or super high) rate without increasing the voltage with the danger of charging so fast that you actually blow up the battery. All Ec sources in KSP seem to function like that however. For low Ec rated sources like solar panels or the NUKs this is not an issue to care about, but a reactor capable of delivering 2000-3000Ec/s it would be more realistic to charge the battery at a lower rate than the max Ec load possible, cq charging the batteries at 2000/s is not realistic. On an alternator the load gets it supply from the alternator (reactor in this case), not so much the battery.
  15. Jimbodiah
    In aerodynamics with the petal adapter.
  16. Jimbodiah
    Anxious to see what you come up with regarding the boosters FYI: Mechjeb already messes up dV values in the VAB with basically everything. Only on the launchpad, or even when already in orbit for upper stages, will it give the correct dV for the particular stage. I find it very unreliable as-is. I'll dig up some nose cone pictures.
  17. Jimbodiah
    1.) Length does not to be adjustable in really small steps like what you have in mind: the current LF tanks have a good selection in length adjustment. I just meant to maybe use smaller segment steps than the Shuttle SRBs segments (3 - 5.5 segments) which are quite big steps if you use these on smaller scaled boosters. There really is no need for 0.25m increments like with the Procedural parts booster. I did not mean to imply that, just something in the middle to allow smaller boosters down to 0.625m with some sort balanced length adjustments. I take it the problem with textures lies in the segment markings like on the current boosters, what I meant with the second part would be to have one with a smooth texture like: 2.) Cool, I thought they needed to still be used in combination with the radial decouplers. If the decoupler is intergrated, than yezzz, all for #1 !!!! 3.) Integrating the decouplers/ejectors into LRB would be awesome for asparagus-staging, this would mean you could basically run them without needing to do manual staging, wouldn't it? 4.) Such is life 5.) I like the Atlas V SRB noses, and ofcourse the more conventional ones like on the Ariane V (basically the current one but not so pointy). I can get some clear pics if you need. PS: Have you ever thought about a Modular Launch Tower?
  18. Jimbodiah
    J2-X is looking nice!!! I am really looking for smaller SRBs like with the Delta II type rockets. The current SRBs are too large for most uses other than SLS/Ares style ships. Maybe not use fixed segments lengths as the size factor? Or else maybe two models, one large one for Shuttle/SLS style large boosters and one for smaller non-segment (textures anyway) ones? ?) We already have the radial decouplers with built in seperation motors, what is the function of adding additional ones to the boosters? ?) We already have modular fuel tanks with integrated mount/nose, what would be the difference with separate LRB units, only the separator motors? Yay on the chutes This would be helpful for Stage Recovery mods for career mode, right now I need to stick on butt-ugly huge parachutes Yay on the additional slanted nose cones :)))) What models did you have in mind?
  19. Jimbodiah
    Mage, is there anything on the Soyuz series left to do in terms of aerodynamics? My rockets all wobble like a drunk sailor on their ascent
  20. Jimbodiah
    Ftt should also be in the umbria folder woth the other usi mods
  21. Jimbodiah
    Glad it works!
  22. Jimbodiah
    Are you sure, Sudragon? Mine is using 15:1, needed to redo the tanks on my craft files. Existing designs keep the old ratio until you change the tanks out with new ones (not sure if cycling through the fuels will reset it).
  23. Jimbodiah
    The minimum crew was zero, the tac patch needs 1 or more in order to add tac supplies. I made my own patch that is now included with the mod in question (SSTU) and also has adjusted amounts for more days. Let me know if you need an example.
  24. Jimbodiah
    Gives a clear size comparisson. Imagine there being 3 real people in that little soyuz DM capsule. I've seen real-life footage of that thing, just getting inside it is already a challenge, let alone be in there with two others. "ok, who farted?!"
  25. Jimbodiah
    Haha,cool. Just checking
×
×
  • Create New...