SyzygyΣE

This is most strange. I had a look in the folder as you advised, under the path GameData > WarpPlugin > Parts > Microwave. However, no item had an undefined chargeRate. In fact, there is only one item that does have the parameter "chargeRate"—the MWTransmitterMk2. But that parameter is defined as having a chargeRate of 8. I really don't know what I'm doing wrong here. Am I looking in the wrong folder?

I'm not certain which file I should change though. I can seem to find where the transmitter is. Does the log say anything about its whereabouts?

Good day everyone. I have two issues to report on the mod in my RSS/RO career. I have a rather bizarre problem with the mechanics of decay over time. I launched a small satellite to LEO—about 250km altitude. However, while the Orbital Decay window seems to suggest that the orbit will decay, and indeed it does update over a period of time regarding time until decay, decay rate and other information, the orbit itself does not change at all. The Player.log doesn't show any exceptions or abnormality regarding the mod. And I have to say, everything but the actual changes in orbit height function pretty well. I get the feeling it may have to do with the tracking station not yet updated and hence patched conics not available, but I don't know. Would you like me to acquire the Player.log file regardless? The second issue is that when I click on "Toggle Decay Rate Breakdown," a window showing the following line appears: WARNING: Error detected, this is a MasCon issue. It also asks me to put down the vessel latitude/longitude on the forums and inform you. But quite frankly that window appears no matter what orbit I'm in. Any latitude or longitude will result in its appearance. What does it mean? I have attached a screenshot here of the Orbital Decay window.

@The Raging Sandwich A pretty action packed chapter 5 but I only have one pick at it. Shouldn't it be that sound cannot travel through a vacuum? I was wondering how the explosion from the moon managed to reach the surface of the planet the team is residing on, considering it was space in between the two objects and sound requires a medium to travel through. Either that or I have some kind of crazy misconception. Space. Violent yet silent.

Good day everyone. I have an issue to report. I have encountered a problem regarding ModuleManager and RO that seems to be related to Interstellar. During the loading of patches while starting the game, text that reads the following is shown: 1 error related to GameData/RealismOverhaul/RealismOverhaul_Global_Config.cfg I have already sought out @blowfish over at the RO development thread. What does this have to do with Interstellar? Well, he said that the KSP Interstellar part "Microwave Transmitter" has a solar panel module without a charge rate defined, and that is the cause of this error message. Is this how the transmitter is meant to be? I have attached my Player.log file below. Just a quick note, the file size of the log is big enough to split it into two parts. I tried to save them as a single file but I didn't know how. So instead now I have Player.log part 1 and Player.log part 2. The split is not perfect. There is some overlap. Regardless though, the information is all in there. If someone can inform me how I can combine them into one file and not let this overlap be a problem, that would be appreciated too. Links | Player.log part 1 | Player.log part 2 Thanks for your time.

@Agathorn Hello there. I've just noticed a minor issue. The latest version of Time Control seems to conflict with your mod. With Time Control installed, the date/time bar shows the default "Year X, Day X," and not the real time and date your mod is supposed to deliver. After removing Time Control and testing, your mod once again works. Anyway, reproduction steps is to just simply install this mod and Time Control. If the reproduction steps doesn't seem to work, leave me a message and I shall test again. Not really a big problem but it is nice to know exactly what "real" time I'm in during a RP-0 career. Hope you can take a look at it or consult with the developer of Time Control for a fix. Thanks you.

Just expanding on @PotentiallyHabitable578's reply there, Scatterer is indeed not scatterer without a breathtaking sunflare. I find Thomassino's Sunflares fantastic. I personally use Astroniki's Sunflare of the Thomassino pack, but see for yourself. All three have an intriguing appeal varying from player to player.

I would recommend Kerbalism. It certainly takes the game to a new level when realism is concerned, adding many different mechanics like radiation, solar storms and part malfunctions to bring a career closer to the difficulties of space travel in real life. If you don't mind the extra level of difficulty, I certainly would say "go for it." There is also a config file that allows support with USI greenhouses in USI Life Support too so compatibility shouldn't be an issue. DeepFreeze is a mod that is compatible with Kerbalism. It takes away concerns of keeping Kerbals alive for long journeys by freezing them. When you arrive at your destination, simply thaw them out. Although, I do have to say, the Stock system isn't exactly what you would call big. If you truly want a survival challenge or to utilise DeepFreeze to its maximum potential there are mods out there like 10x Kerbol System to increase the time it will take to reach a destination. Or, if you want to use the Alcubierre Drive to full effect, you can even install mods that add other star systems. There are a few out there. Can't think of one off the top of my head since I play with RO and RSS, not Stock, but they are pretty grand . . . literally—they will eat up a lot of memory space. My laptop couldn't handle expansion packs like that. Though I must say, I am due for a new device to cope with memory and FPS. There are a lot of mods that may be of interest to you. Have a look around on the forums or SpaceDock and you can probably find a few more that appeal to you. I have over 170 mods installed but some of their purposes might not exactly suit what you are trying to achieve. It's better to discover for yourself.

I feel your pain. I only have a laptop to play the game and with these 180 mods loaded, the framerate drops to 8 FPS. Not mentioning the fact that I run KSP alongside a memory cleaning application that tries to automatically free up space every 3 minutes. Without it, the game would crash less than 1 hour after booting it up. Mods are just too damn addictive. You start off with a few basic ones you think are necessities—for me the RO and RP-0 mods, find another interesting mod, download it, think "oh it's just one more mod it'll be totally fine." Next thing you know you have somehow installed over 100 "necessary" mods with the game and computer on the brink of collapse. "Oh wow this new one looks amazing. Please just one . . . more . . . mod. It'll be ok."

Meanwhile there's me with my Macbook laptop struggling to reach even 15 FPS with everything turned down to almost the lowest. Honestly I'm not even sure I can handle a station with as few as 50 parts. I'm probably going to need to use something better than just a laptop. I'm assuming you have an actual, high performance iMac? On the other hand this slow motion gameplay somewhat "helps" me with reacting to emergencies and allowing for more precise actions.

I really want nothing more than to get off this uneventful ground and just . . . escape. If I got my hands on a time machine I'd go forward a few hundred years or to the point where space tourism was as easy as boarding a train to another station and just feast my eyes on what wonders lie out there. I'll do a leap of faith off Miranda's cliffs. I'll watch the rings of Saturn fly by on a shepherd moon. I'll watch the geysers of Enceladus spewing several kilometres into the air. I'll experience the true "top of the world" on the summit of Olympus Mons. I'll hop on a balloon to sail Jupiter's cloud bands. Not really sure if I'm just being irrational here, but this day-to-day repetitive routine and not being able to see what lies beyond the horizon just makes me feel trapped. I'm not claustrophobic or anything, it's just that . . . all these images of space is nowhere near enough to sate my fascination and desire to actually be there.

And on this same day in 2016, our thoughts go out to the millions of Kerbonauts who have caused unintentional meteor showers and/or fireworks in their attempts to reach the Mun. Legends say that each time you see a meteor streak across the sky, an explosion was recorded around a far-off planet reminiscent to our own somewhere in the depths of the cosmos—a planet of little green creatures with lofty ambitions to go further and discover treasures mightier than their wildest dreams.

Yep, Orbital Decay is great. I'm also using that right now and can't wait to see how N-Body sim will affect things in the upcoming update.

Performance wise, I'm not completely sure because I've never had that much debris floating around. But I would assume a significant number would have some kind of impact. I don't terminate my debris because I'm very, very obsessed with realism. If there is any mod that can improve realism, I'll usually take it. If you also follow the rule to not terminate debris, there's not too much you can do about debris in a low orbit, but if you want to decommission a satellite in, say, a geostationary orbit, it is plausible to expend some fuel and push it up into a graveyard orbit, where it wouldn't interfere with future satellites operating in that area. A helpful mod I use is Orbital Decay. It makes it so that orbits will gradually degrade over time due to small amounts of atmospheric drag present in space as well as some other factors. That way my debris will fall back anyway after some time. Only setback is that you'll have to expend some fuel to allow your own satellites to stay in orbit. That is called station keeping. There's not a more realistic solution I know of except this. You make the choice whether to use it or not.

RO/RSS/RP-0 is one of the most intriguing and addictive mod collections I have ever found. I have had little experience with rocketry and aviation before downloading the trio, but after deciding I want to take on the challenge of realism and acquired them, I simply cannot stop thinking about how I could design my crafts in and out of the game. I still remember the first time I booted the game with their features and launched my first RO rocket in sandbox testing. And boy, did it catch the "used-to-stock-mechanics" me completely off guard. "Wait, these engines are not throttleable?" "Wait, why does it say 'feed pressure too low'?" "Wait, I've been doing gravity turns wrong this whole time?" And then it was three days of continually checking tutorials to familiarise myself. I was persistent because I love realism, and that was when I came across terms and methodologies like ullage, hot staging, a correct ascent profile and the best TWR at launch—things I would possibly never have known had I stuck with stock. Not saying it is bad, but I am so glad I chose realism and broadened by horizons. Even though everything is much more complicated compared to stock, I don't regret it one bit. RO/RSS/RP-0 has too inspired me to take on physics as a subject for next year and learn more about the mechanics of spaceflight. For me, as well, it has become something much more than just a hobby, and I intend to keep my passion of launching my little Kerbals towards the grandeur of the cosmos, hopefully without the presence of explosions.

Apart from what @KSK said about mentioning Thallium contamination control, everything seems to be in order. I feel like you could have contributed to the atmosphere to a greater extent by having the crew run some system checks in the lander. They probably had the indication that everything was in order at the system boot, but even a few lines like "fuel pressurised" or "gimbaling test ok" to use as filler is fine to shows that they have the all clear. But that's all I have to say about your writing. It's a pleasing start. As for the illustrations, some of those moons look awfully close to their parents. You might have used a not-to-scale version so we can see the objects clearer, but it's good to be mindful of where you place these things due to Roche limit fragmentation. I'm not sure how big these planets are but below a certain point, objects that wander too close will be broken apart by their parent's gravity and form rings.

@Van Disaster Understood. I'll keep that in mind. So, while I was designing this plane I sought to utilise the flaps and spoilers, but, for some reason activating either seemed to create a huge amount of instability. With spoilers, they would just suddenly pitch my nose up by over 20 degrees, often sending me into a stall, and for flaps, they would just push my nose down by over 20 degrees, sending me into an unrecoverable dive. Aren't flaps meant to increase lift? So why are they pushing my nose down? Lift = nose up? I think I have a misconception of some kind. On another note, is it possible to use slats in FAR? I think I best try to understand how flaps and spoilers work before attempting that, though. I think I know how the two of them work but when actually trying to use them and put theory into practice, I end up confused.

Haha, thanks for taking your time to write this. I'll try and do some research. If there is still something I don't understand, I'll leave you another message. So, if wing thickness doesn't have much of an effect except on fuel capacity and joint strength, does the same apply for control surface length? With a longer trailing edge on control surfaces I'd expect them to simply provide mode force—so say, if you want to pitch, the longer the control surface, the greater the effect on pitching?

Oh right, I see. So it's about being stable but not being stable to the point where the plane doesn't even want to move from prograde. While you're here, there is something else about wing design that leaves me confused. So, in B9 Procedural Wings, which I am using to create a wide variety of wing shapes, you can set the thickness of the wing at a particular cross section, as well as the length and thickness of the leading and trailing edges. I always turn the length of the edges down a little and make my wings thick at the root and thin at the tip. Given your expertise in this subject, what does modifying these parameters affect? It only seems to ever so slightly shift the CoL as I tweak them and makes no significant difference when flying so I'm not too sure what principles I should follow when deciding on these characteristics of a wing. There is an image on the mod thread that illustrates what I'm suggesting at.

With the RP-0 install I have, I can actually create the real Bell X-1. There are components to do so. But the parts designed for it isn't as efficient, cheap or light as procedural parts, so I too decided against it. It never hurts to innovate a design that differs from real life counterparts. By multiple tanks, do you mean several fuselages on the body of the plane or the fuel distributed in the wings? I actually don't put fuel on the body of the plane; I use a procedural structure that doesn't actually hold fuel. The fuel I store in the wings. Is that how its supposed to be done? I wonder how you can judge if the deflection is not enough or too much from just scanning over the derivatives. Is it just experience? I wish I knew what each of those values meant. Mousing over it gives some explanation but I'm not sure I understand it. For me, it's just the old "green = good, red = bad." And also, the CoL moves? I never knew that. I always thought the CoM and Dry CoM were the ones to pay attention to. As a result I have always abided by the rule "CoL slightly behind the CoM for stability." So that means it's ok to have it on the CoM or slightly ahead of it if I'm aiming for supersonic speeds?

@Van Disaster Wow those graphics are beautiful. I wish my laptop could run that without crashing instantly. Anyway, I actually don't have the J85. It's true I use AJE but I think playing with RP-0 modifies it a bit. The engines on my plane is Rolls-Royce Nene Mk.102. That's the best one I have for the amount I've progressed in the tech tree. So, with the Mass-Strength Multiplier, does it vary based on the purpose of the plane? I'm assuming for slow flying, subsonic planes, there's no need to turn it up high, but for supersonic planes were you may need to make a sharp turn or something of that nature, it's better to turn it up for greater joint strength? On another note, I started over and tried to apply what you and @Empress Neptune said in order to design a smaller and not-so-complex plane. I'm still pretty much a beginner at FAR but at least I understand the general principles better with your explanations. And, good news: after tweaking the new plane for hours finally I can reach 350m/s in level flight. Since it is a new plane, I've created a new thread for it. You are welcome to have a look and see if there are some factors I haven't performed the best in. The two of you have been incredibly helpful.