Chocolat Oreos
-
Posts
98 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Chocolat Oreos
-
-
1 hour ago, mcwaffles2003 said:
I like this idea, I find it cool when making a rendezvous that having one ship as a reference frame really helps predict when the best time to maneuver the other ship is.
I agree, and for anyone wondering: Here is an example to what a target reference frame can do:
Here you see a kerbals position with respect to a lander (stock + principia). And its a bit more visually understandable to see what's going on here. The only downside is that you can't see if your spacecraft will crash into a body on its way towards the target. This reference frame is partially the reason I completely switched to principia a while ago.
edit: Note that here you can also easily see the ascending / descending node compared to the targets orbit, so it's nicer to adjust inclinations like this too.
Here is another example, like this you not only get to see the first closest approach, but one that is 2 days ahead. Here a simple prograde maneuver is planned to intercept an orbit from a satellite in a different orbital plane.
After that it's really easy to adjust a closest approach with a second maneuver.
-
13 hours ago, Incarnation of Chaos said:
Are reference frames even a thing in the conics approximation? You can't have a reference frame for a separate body when you are deciding a specific one is basically the center of your universe at a given point.
Well, that's partially lies. You have one reference frame, which is the body that you're within the SOI of.
That all said, there had to be a way. Otherwise manuever nodes and interplanetary transfer wouldn't even work.
So I'm kinda stumped on the details.
I think stock handles switching reference frames already (automatically) with encounters in map view (i.e. clicking on a planet when there's an incoming encounter and seeing how it will fly by based on that planets inertial). So I presume handling a surface reference frame should also be possible, although maybe a bit trickier to implement with a stock like conic system on rails.
-
Hello,
I would like to make a rough model of Arrokoth for a New-Horizons mission, but I'm not really sure how to add the shape in, because it's a bit peculiar. Is a shape like this even possible with Kopernicus? Otherwise I'll just stick with putting Dres into it's orbit for the mission
Thanks in advance.
-
Hello, things that I would really like to see in KSP 2 are surface fixed reference frames, let me elaborate:
There is this mod called principia, it models n-body gravitation and has an option to manually change reference frames, one of the options is a surface-fixed one. This one is really useful for analyzing how a satellite drifts in say a geostationary orbit, or even a Molniya orbit, and is really nice for fine tuning orbits like that. Here is an example how this would look in a RSS KSP 1 system in a geostationary orbit:
Here you see a satellites history as it moves into GEO (using RSS + principia). It is clearly visible that at the final trajectory, the satellite has very minimal movement with reference to the fixed surface of Earth (in map view).
In principia there is also this other reference frame, where you can select a target, and the target becomes the center of the reference frame (like the visual effect you'd get when you get an encounter with another body), this is way more intuitive to look at than 2 closest approach markers as we would have in stock KSP 1.
I would really enjoy these features in KSP 2, if possible.
-
On 5/26/2020 at 4:33 PM, Gilph said:
Hi, sorry for the late response...been playing No Man's Sky for the past few weeks.
Without some more data, I can try and give some general answers. I'm a long time user of TOT, although I'm not a huge expert in orbital mechanics.
Most things in TOT give approximations of a solution, and those should be input into Mission Architect (MA). There are several MA examples to help you with how to set it up including multi-flybys. MA is the thing that will take the approximate values and fine tune them based on your criteria to give a more solid answer. But, there is always some general tweaking to make it work once you import, and, once you start, there will always be tweaking based on how well you executed the prior step.
Some of the manouver utilities, which I use heavily, are amazingly accurate without the need for MA, but if you are needing to plan a multi manouver plan, MA is usually the final word.
I haven't been able to learn the multi flyby to find specific routes yet, but I sometimes will find one in game by playing around a bit. When I do, I start TOT and put the steps in MA to see if MA will calculate the same answer. Then I'll experiment with the different ways to run the optimizer in MA and see the result. That was a really good tutorial for me.
Hope this helps.
Great, I'll start digging into the MA part of the program, see if I can figure it out a little bit.
Thanks man, and also, sorry for the late replay
-
Can somebody make a tutorial video on how to import and execute a manouver using the multi flyby sequencer option? I can't get the manouver to work on something like kerbin-eve-moho without manually adjusting with correction burns and moving the main manouver nodes
It would be super helpfull!
-
When I open ksp tot application, I get a document inside the folder popping up and inside it says this:
document: ksptot
QuoteUndefined function or variable 'matlabrc'.
The weird thing is that it worked yesterday, where I opened it while installing mrc, but after the installation was complete, it never launched again. All that happens when I open it in task manager is that it opens as a background program, then it spikes to 10% cpu usage and after that it goes to 0% and closes itself again. Seems like someone else above me had the same problem too... Anyone knows what's going on?
Edit: I did this: https://nl.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/answers/98050-why-do-i-get-an-error-saying-undefined-function-or-variable-matlabrc-when-executing-a-program-th
And did the first workaround: http://prntscr.com/sbqjv1 And It opened now, just took a little while. I am not sure if I gotta do this every time I try to open but atleast it works!
-
On 5/4/2020 at 9:35 AM, Baptastro said:
Problem solved for me, now I just have to understand how to have efficient fly-by path
What exactly did you do? I seem to be having the exact same problem, I reinstalled mrc but it's only launching/closing in task manager...
-
So I was planning to go to Pluto in Real solar system, but that takes alot of deltaV, in order to save a little bit I'd like to plan a gravity assist but I don't know what mod I can use for that?
-
Hey,
Back in the days I was too young to have ever heard about steam, so I bought the direct download version. Now that steam workshop is a thing, I really want to have the steam version without paying money to get it, just for a steam workshop function.
Is there any way to make my hopes and dreames reality?
Thanks anyway
-
12 minutes ago, DrLicor said:
I don't play stock anymore, but thanks anyway
Oh, it's not a stock design, I used proceduralwings and tweakscale to make it somewhat work
-
Just now, DrLicor said:
In that case, you've the perfectish numbers.
Exact the right combo of lift, AoA, angle of the wing relative to the body. Does it also behave this way when going much faster or at other altitudes?
It works close to the ground, slowly lifts itself up to about 10km, then flies almost stable in a straight line. Want the ship file?
-
Just now, DrLicor said:
it has to do with the fact that the engine is 'pulling' the plane, instead of 'pushing' it.
Still, nice design though
it works with it pushing too.... trust me, I tried it
-
I think it has something to do with the wings on ground principle but I am not sure... As the speed of the plane goes up, the pitch goes up, as the speed goes down it pitches back down gaining more speed.
http://prntscr.com/ibh4gl <-- that is a building guide you can try in real life, you just need a really thin wooden plank that is 10cm thick and a long stick and some tape
http://prntscr.com/ibh5m9 here is how it would look, I made this at a university (TU delft), it has a little hook at the front to launch it using an elastic taped to the ground. sadly I didn't bother to film it, and I don't have it anymore.
here is a video of it in ksp
It flies without gimbal, control surfaces or SAS
-
Just now, Galileo said:
There is a GPP discord but its not public. I can make a channel for you if you like? That way you will also get feed back from the devs throughout the process?
That would be great! hook me up with an invitation!
-
22 minutes ago, Galileo said:
By the way, I just noticed this comment. Unfortunately, I will not package or support anything that requires you to remove original cfgs or overwrite anything. This will create confusion for users and will create bug reports that i really don't have patience for. I would highly recommend using Module Manager to accomplish this.
I have almost no experience modding and have a tiny bit of understanding of the program language used in the modding (I think it's python out of my head?) And these are just files, something you could call a PRE-PRE alpha. I need help from people to understand how to mod and I am willing to learn it!
And what do you think about making a discord server for this discussion, I've already tried to make something simple, it's just if you are willing to join together with all the other chaps
-
@Gordon Fecyk Can you do that for me, I can't really do much with rotatations and excrements, and I've already sized down the //mapdecal radius as much as possible, at 4500 the runway would float above the air so I moved it to 4600, and school is being a poodle for me this week, you know what would make it hella easier, if we made a discord server for this? just tell me your discord name and I can make something, I believe...
-
I got it kindof working, but the flat piece of terrain doesn't blend in well. I hope one of you can make it less flat somehow? Here is the tellumo file I have at the moment: https://www.dropbox.com/s/mso0904bknvylng/Tellumo.cfg?dl=0
Here is a screenshot on how it looks right now: http://prntscr.com/h3z8p7
-
2 minutes ago, OhioBob said:
Looks like a good place to launch rockets from, but that mountain off the end of the runway looks treacherous.
Yeah sure, the end of the runway is glitching in the terrain a bit, I will try to move it to the other side of the mountain, but at this level; atleast the first srb can fly a capsule into the air! so career might be a lot more possible here
-
http://prntscr.com/h3y5dj @Gordon Fecyk
What do you think about this location for the KSC, it is 2 degrees of of the equator and at a height of 2064 (hereunder is the bit of code I changed)
//PQSCity latitude = 2.00 longitude = -101.04 lodvisibleRangeMult = 6 repositionToSphereSurface = true repositionToSphereSurfaceAddHeight = true //repositionRadiusOffset = 18 repositionRadiusOffset = -20 reorientToSphere = true reorientFinalAngle = 0 //reorientFinalAngle = 72 // MapDecal decalLatitude = 2.00 decalLongitude = -101.04 heightMapDeformity = 2230 absoluteOffset = 0 absolute = True radius = 2700 removeScatter = False groundColor = 0.261,0.238,0.13,0.1 groundTexture = GPP/terrain/grass00 -
8 hours ago, OhioBob said:
Introducing Tellumo Optimized Engines, design exclusively for use with @Gordon Fecyk's Tellumo Space Program.
Tellumo Optimized Engines modifies the game's LF Engines and SRBs to improve their performance in the high ambient pressure environment of the planet Tellumo. The engine modifications are based on real life engineering practices, it's not a cheat. The improvement in high pressure performance comes at the sacrifice of lower vacuum performance.
The only engines changed are those intended for use as a first stage booster. Those intended for vacuum or near vacuum environments are unchanged. Some engines have two versions, a HP (high pressure) version for use deep in Tellumo's atmosphere, and a LP (low pressure) version for use at higher elevation or in environments having atmospheric pressures similar to the planet Gael. The LP versions are the same engines found in the stock game. The Reliant has been transformed into a Tellumo booster with thrust vectoring, while the Swivel retains its stock specifications.
Solid rocket boosters have undergone a major overhaul. SRBs in the stock game have performances that fall well below those in real life. With such poor performance, SRBs would prove virtually worthless on Tellumo. To maintain the usefulness of SRBs, their specific impulses have been elevated to real life performance. Thrusts have also been increased to provide adequate thrust-to-weight ratio in Tellumo's high gravity. There have also been some rebalancing of dry mass and propellant load. To account for the improved performance and maintain cost balance, SRBs are now significantly more expensive than their stock counterparts.
Engine packs currently supported
- Stock KSP
-
Porkjet's Part Overhaul
The engines work wonderfully, I made a rocket and launched it to 'lill' (with the standard config from @Gordon Fecyk)(http://prntscr.com/h3vqqg). We should make a github page for tellumo space program, because it is actually really fun, we only need to tweak science and contract payouts! I am actually really excited, because if other mod makers like spaceY heavy lifters could make a config for tellumo optimized engines. And we could add some other stock engines to the configs, we would have a fully playable mod!
-
2 minutes ago, OhioBob said:
Changing the atmosphere defeats the purpose, I think, of making Tellumo the home world. In my mind the reason for making the switch is exactly because Tellumo has a thick atmosphere and high gravity. It provides a much greater challenge not found on Gael. I wouldn't want to make Tellumo the home world just for a change of scenery.
That's why I planned to modify all the engines for a Tellumo home world edition. We shouldn't go and change the planet to make it easier, we should reengineer the parts so they work better on the planet we call home. The changes would have to be similar to what I did in the mod Eve Optimized Engines. All I did for EOE was to change the engine ISP curves and thrusts to what they would be if the nozzles were adapted for the high ambient pressure on Eve. The engines of EOE also work pretty well on Tellumo, so I would recommend it as a stop gap measure.
In the meantime, I'll revisit the engine modifications that I made way back in January when we first talked about a Tellumo option. Maybe I can pull that information together and come up with some sort of Tellumo Optimized Engines package. I know I had a plan for what I wanted to do, I just have to try to remember what it was. Of course at that time we talked about placing KSC at an elevation of about 2000 m as I recall. Gordon has KSC closer to sea level, so that may changes things.
@Gordon Fecyk, if I'm able to put together this engine package, do you think we could bundle it into your Tellumo download? I'm not sure how much sense it makes to release it separately because it doesn't serve much purpose without Tellumo being the home world.
Dear @OhioBob and @Gordon Fecyk,
Only an engine modification wouldn't cut it right, because people will try to add some mods just to realise that their engines wouldn't work properly or at all. That means you would have to make a config that changes ALL the engines in the game including engines that would be added by mod makers, another option would be to move the KSC to an elevation, I tried it and moved the ksc up to 8km by changing a little settings, even though it didn't look so pretty (http://prntscr.com/h3iabk) It does make it more possible, considering that most of the terrain on Tellumo is rather high, you could move the KSC to a different location. But this would still make it rather awkward to do a career in.
-
@Gordon Fecyk The problem we have here, is that lot's of people like to mod the game in a fun and interesting way, and if they are stuck with 5 different engines for their launchers that actually work (referring to the EVE engine mod) they won't like the mod, the only people who would like such a dense atmosphere and gravity, is the people who build spaceplanes, because through my testing with your mod, it is easier to build ssto's because of the rediculous amount of lift you get, but normal rockets are almost impossible, something that would potentially work is a stratolauncher, but they get bulky and really advanced really quickly, I made one, but it tipped out of control after losing a bit of fuel.
So what I suggest, is that we have 2 versions; a nerd version and an easier version (with a normal atmosphere and maybe a bit harder gravity) to make people play the planet pack in a more fun and interesting way. Because the thing with Gael is, it plays just like a reskinned kerbin in my opinion, the planet is almost the same size, the escape velocity is close to the same. So by playing on a completely different body with comepletely different characteristics, would refresh players to come back and play career once again but in a different and a bit more challenging way. It doesn't have to be completely reaslistic, because that would be really difficult to balance. The nerd version is the normal unchanged tellumo
-
@Gordon FecykBut the problem is, when launching a rocket with the previous settings, A whole lot of rockets have 0 ISP and 0KN thrust at the level the ksc is. Is there a way to make the ISP counters more normal, because otherwise it would be completely impossible to do career? And how do you change contract rewards? Because the gains you get now are OP...
Surface fixed and rendezvous reference frames
in Prelaunch KSP2 Discussion
Posted
Note that the N-body system wouldn't make much of a difference compared to a stock system for that picture, as the difference for Hohmann transfers isn't much (in this scenario) and the orbits are elliptical just like in stock on an Earth centered inertial. But I do agree to the time button, or maybe even have a button that would increment the time based on orbital periods, but that's hard if the rendezvous is on an hyperbolic intersection, so maybe just a time slider.
I also doubt that this feature will ever exist, but it would be really useful to have.