-
Posts
699 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Wyzard
-
I'm familiar with multi-mode engines, but was just surprised to see a mode that burns both fuels at the same time. But multi-mode engines in general require some tweaking to find the right combination of tanks, and I guess it doesn't really make things any more complicated if one of the modes needs that kind of tweaking all by itself. And thanks — I wasn't familiar with the RD-701/704. Pretty cool.
-
I'm curious about the LH2/LF/O mix — I've never seen multiple fuels used together like that before. Is it inspired by a real-world engine? The CryoTanks switcher doesn't have a setting for it; is there a recommended way to use multiple tanks? (When I first noticed that setting on the engines in the VAB, I assumed it was a mistake, and was halfway through writing a bug report on GitHub before I realized it's by design. Oops! Just hadn't read carefully enough when I installed the patch.)
-
Aha! And that explains why it didn't happen on my space station (I get the expected -1600 there). I was looking at the "Total Rejection" line in the SH toolbar panel, rather than the PAW. As a suggestion for making it more clear in the UI, maybe put a pair of indented lines below that one saying "Radiation -1600 kW" and "Convection -729 kW" — perhaps controlled by a checkbox in the lower part of that panel, hidden by default.
-
I'm trying this out for the first time today, and seeing a quirk that might be a bug, or might be that I'm misunderstanding something, but I'm not sure which: I have a test spacecraft with a Garnet reactor and four of the XR-500 high-temp radiators from Heat Control. When I extend the radiators, the SH summary shows a total rejection of -575 kW. Then when I start the reactor, total rejection immediately changes to zero while the reactor heats up. When the reactor reaches operating temperature (800 K), the total rejection jumps from zero to -2329 kW, and the reactor is stable at 800 K. Then, when I turn the reactor off, rejection goes to zero again — while the reactor is still producing heat. The reactor's flux steadily decreases, but its temperature goes up (above 800 K) since it's producing heat that's not being rejected. This causes it to overheat and take some core damage while shutting down. When reactor flux reaches zero, rejection jumps from zero to -3014 kW briefly, then quickly ramps down to -575 kW, and the overheated reactor cools down. Notably, while the reactor is "fluxing down" but heating up after I disable it, the System Heat section of its PAW shows "/ NaN K" as the end of the "System Temperature" line. My test craft is a stock RC-L01 probe core, a Garnet reactor on top of it, a B-12K battery (from NFE) below it, and four XR-500 radiators attached to the battery. I also get the same behavior on an actual space station that has the same reactor and radiators. (Also, I'm not sure where that -2329 kW number comes from. The XR-500 radiator's temperatureCurve says it radiates 500 kW at 1000 K, which interpolates to 400 kW at 800 K, and the SystemHeat panel in the VAB says -1600 kW, which looks like the correct number for the four radiators. But on the launchpad, it's -2329 kW instead.) I can provide a log if needed, but I don't see anything that looks like an error. No logs from SH at all while starting and stopping the reactor. (There are more than a hundred lines that say "[SystemHeat][SystemHeatVessel]: OnVesselRollout", though.)
-
[1.4.x] Contract Pack: Tourism Plus [v1.5.2] [2016-12-14]
Wyzard replied to nightingale's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
I noticed an oddity yesterday. I have a space hotel, and I completed a contract to bring some tourists to it, which generated the follow-on contract to bring the tourists back home. So I brought the tourists home, but after landing and recovering two of the three spacecraft they were in, I realized I'd forgotten to actually accept that second contract. The contract was still available, and when I accepted it, all its "recover kerbal" objectives showed as "incomplete" even though most of the tourists were sitting on Kerbin, available for another launch. I fixed the situation by putting those tourists in a pod on the launchpad and recovering it from there, at which point the contract showed their recovery objectives as "complete". (Then I brought home the last group from the hotel, to complete the recovery contract overall.) I know this might just be a limitation of Contract Configurator, but if possible, the "recover kerbal" objectives ought to be automatically marked "complete" if the kerbals are already on Kerbin when the contract is accepted. On a slightly different note: the thread's OP says "you'll also start receiving tourist contracts for 20-50 Kerbals to visit your attractions at a time", but the contracts I've gotten have only been for 10 to 12 kerbals to visit the space hotel, even though its capacity is more than 60. Was the number reduced at some point after the OP was written, or am I doing something wrong, or are bigger contracts just less common?- 699 replies
-
- career
- contract configurator
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
I wouldn't necessarily blame Arch, though; it's just as likely to be a Unity bug that a glibc upgrade has exposed. That sort of thing happens sometimes — I remember a prominent instance years ago where a glibc change broke a bunch of programs (notably, the Adobe Flash player) that were inadvertently relying on an implementation quirk in the "memcpy" function that wasn't guaranteed by the C standard. The change in glibc was entirely legitimate and not a bug, and the programs that broke had really been buggy all along; they just happened to work anyway until glibc changed the thing they'd been wrongly relying on. Might be something similar here with the "getaddrinfo" function. Anyway, not to derail the thread: AVC seems to be fine.
-
I play KSP in Debian and I haven't had any problems with AVC. The stack trace in your log indicates that the crash occurred in glibc while trying to do a DNS lookup, which means it's not an AVC bug, and probably not even a KSP bug; it's either a glibc bug, or a Unity bug in how it calls glibc's getaddrinfo function. AVC is just the thing trying to make network connections that necessitate DNS lookups. I tried to reproduce your problem by running KSP (with AVC installed) with my computer disconnected from the network, and with it connected to the network but with an empty /etc/resolv.conf (so DNS lookups fail), but in both cases the game started without problems. So whatever's happening to you, it may be something specific to your system or the version of glibc you have installed.
-
[Minimum KSP version - 1.12] Kerbal Inventory System (KIS) v1.29
Wyzard replied to IgorZ's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
It looks like the stock feature will replicate what KIS does for small-ish parts, but it's less clear whether it'll be usable for large ones. KIS allows multiple kerbals to work together to lift heavy things, and I've assembled surface bases that way (using MKS Ranger parts). I'm hoping stock has the same capability. @IgorZ, weren't you already working on a rewrite that integrates better with the stock inventory system? I hope the 1.11 news doesn't mean you've wasted your time on that. -
[1.12.x] Near Future Technologies (September 6)
Wyzard replied to Nertea's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
No rush — I know it's very minor. Anyway, main point was that satellite bus parts are cool. Thanks for making those. :-) -
[1.12.x] Near Future Technologies (September 6)
Wyzard replied to Nertea's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
Have I mentioned that I like the NFEx bus parts? They make for nice-looking satellites: I noticed a small cosmetic thing, though: the material's ambient parameter seems to vary between parts. The CYL probecore is lighter than the other two parts, and although it's not as obvious, the ADPT bus is slightly lighter than the CYL bus. (Hardly counts as a bug since it doesn't really affect anything, but I noticed so I figured I might as well point it out.) -
I'm pretty sure I've discovered this in the past too, so I think you're right. All of Squad's deprecated parts have "entryCost = 0" (in addition to "TechHidden = True"), presumably for this reason. Deprecated mod parts ought to be doing the same thing. @Nertea, I checked and MH+ has "entryCost = 0" for the deprecated Mallet, Striker, and Anvil SRBs, but not for the 1.875m nosecone, mini claw, or MakingHistoryPartHiding patch. It's a pretty simple fix, so I'll submit a pull request.
-
What parts are you looking for? This mod doesn't add any parts by itself. It just adds more nodes to the tech tree, which other mods can put parts into.
-
It doesn't apply any limits to thrusters on its own, but it shows you the torque you'll get from unbalanced thrust, which helps you adjust the thrust sliders to eliminate it.
-
totm sep 2021 [1.12] Stockalike Station Parts Redux (August 14, 2024)
Wyzard replied to Nertea's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
A little show & tell: here's my 65-kerbal space hotel for the Tourism Plus contract pack, built mostly from SSPXR and Near Future parts. (Plus a few stock parts, and two Universal Storage octo-cores holding batteries and life-support recyclers.) The big 3.75m storage containers hold Supplies (the USI life-support resource), and the smaller containers attached to the greenhouses hold Fertilizer (used by greenhouses to make more Supplies). Greenhouses and recyclers draw a lot of power, so there's a nuclear reactor at the very bottom. This was built in orbit by launching segments from Kerbin and connecting them together using USI Konstruction ports. -
[1.12.x] Near Future Technologies (September 6)
Wyzard replied to Nertea's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
I'm a little puzzled by the positioning of two of the NFE reactors in the (community) tech tree: the 2.5m MX-2S "Prometheus" reactor is in "Improved Nuclear Power", and the 1.25m MX-1 "Garnet" reactor is one step above it in "High-Energy Nuclear Power", alongside the 2.5m MX-2L "Excalibur". It seems weird that the MX-2S is between the MX-0 and MX-1 in the tech progression, and also a little weird that the MX-2S is at a tech level below the MX-2L, when the 3.75m MX-3S and MX-3L are together in the same tech node. But on the other hand, the MX-3S reactor's description mentions refurbishing "old MX-2S cores", which would seem weird if the MX-2S wasn't a tech level below it. So, I can't tell whether there's a bug here, or if it's by design: maybe the idea is that a mediocre 2.5m reactor is the easiest thing to design first, and better tech allows for both smaller reactors (the MX-1) and more-efficient big reactors (the MX-2L)? (Edit with a followup observation: the MX-1's thermal efficiency (ratio of power output to required cooling) is between that of the MX-0 and MX-2S. Also, it's in the tech node called "High-Energy Nuclear Power", but its output is 20% of its tech predecessor the MX-2S.) -
IIRC, it's a known problem that non-English versions of the game can cause problems with USI stuff. The mod isn't localized, so it looks for English strings specifically.
- 5,673 replies
-
- 1
-
- usi
- life support
-
(and 1 more)
Tagged with:
-
[1.12.x] Near Future Technologies (September 6)
Wyzard replied to Nertea's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
Based on what you've said, I can't promise I'll come up with something better than the status quo, but I am interested in trying. Where can I find that spreadsheet? -
[1.12.x] Near Future Technologies (September 6)
Wyzard replied to Nertea's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
I'd be interested in a rebalancing patch to fix this, maybe as an optional "extras" thing. Similar to how NF Propulsion nerfs the stock Dawn to make the other ion engines more relevant. (Actually, I'd be willing to write such a patch myself — but I don't know enough about antenna physics or part balancing to figure out what the new numbers ought to be. If I had a good sense of that, though, writing the actual MM code should be pretty straightforward.) -
Universal Storage II [1.3.1 and 1.4.5 - 1.7.0]
Wyzard replied to Paul Kingtiger's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
Nice! I diffed the old & new files, and saw that you found and fixed a bunch of stuff beyond the places I'd reported — additional parts with commas instead of semicolons in the switcher, something else that was mistakenly patching the radial tank, more parts that were missing from ModuleKISPartMount, that sort of thing. Thanks for the thorough bugfix pass. On a separate note — are there any plans to add a 1.875m cylindrical fairing in a future update? It looks like the only thing that's currently compatible with the the 1.875m 6-bay core is the 1.875-to-2.5 tapered fairing, and that only fits the core's quad-height variant. (Or maybe I'm overlooking something?) I know the whole 1.875m diameter is still sort of a second-class citizen in KSP, so it's not really a big deal, but I figured I'd ask. (The reason I went looking for a 1.875m fairing is that I have a satellite design with a bunch of DMagic experiments on a 3-height 1.25m core, and I wanted to widen it to 1.875m to match the CYL satellite parts from Near Future Exploration, and shorten it to 2-height in the process. That quad-height 1.875-to-2.5 fairing seems too bulky for the satellite, since it's twice as tall as needed. Also, the petal doors get in the way of the DMagic RPWS wedge's long antenna arms — though there are a few places where it fits without clipping.)- 1,553 replies
-
- 3
-
- kis
- universal storage
-
(and 3 more)
Tagged with:
-
Universal Storage II [1.3.1 and 1.4.5 - 1.7.0]
Wyzard replied to Paul Kingtiger's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
Glad to see a release! US2 is one of my favorite mods so I'm glad to see its 1.9 update out of beta. I created Bitbucket issues for several bugs that are still present in the release. They're things I'd reported earlier in the forum thread, but probably "fell off the radar", so to speak, as the thread moved on. (I should've put them into Bitbucket earlier, but it gave me errors last time I tried to do that. It worked this time, though.)- 1,553 replies
-
- 1
-
- kis
- universal storage
-
(and 3 more)
Tagged with:
-
totm sep 2021 [1.12] Stockalike Station Parts Redux (August 14, 2024)
Wyzard replied to Nertea's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
Aha — I was looking for the shape of 1.25m docking ports, and forgetting that the bigger ones aren't as thick relative to the diameter, and they don't have the flange that the smaller ones have. Thanks, now I see.