Tyko

Seems like the easiest way to do this would be to just use monopropellant. Others have gone down that path by adding larger higher ISP engines running MonoProp and it seems to work just fine. The other alternative is to add a new fuel type - for kerbal-like simplicity it could be called NTO. If we accept that MonoProp is actually Hydrazine(ish) then we could get a more efficient reaction by combining MonoProp with NTO. This isn't exactly accurate, but would be in line with how KSP takes artistic license with fuel now and would give a middle ground between 240 vacuum ISP MonoProp thrusters and 325-350 vacuum ISP LFO engines. I was thinking this would give us 275-325 vacuum ISP engines, a nice middle ground. The real advantage would be fuel density and an actual reason why the Oscar tank holds so much. Make the Oscar tank a MonoProp/NTO tank and bar it from being used for LFO. Then add some other tanks that had the same fuel density as the Oscar and you'd have great little tanks and engines for probes and landers. In fact the Oscar tanks and Ant engines are already exhibiting these performance characteristics. it would mostly be a matter of renaming the fuel type and keeping their stats the same, then looking for other parts that would also make sense to be converted

That could work, but what do players get when they explore and run experiments? I think the idea that you have to explore to advance your tech, at the most basic level, is a logical one. I'm just not sure how it gets from "I've explored the Mun" to "I have better engines".

Could be. Most of my testing is at about 31000m and when I go to 10x time acceleration it becomes easier to "map" what my brain is seeing to possible perspective errors and I'm pretty sure they're not aligned. Are there two different textures for ScaledVersion and PQS? If so, where are they referenced and how do they get mapped to the planetary surface? Maybe I could dig into it and see if one is getting twisted somehow.

Thanks that explains a lot. What still confuses me is why the two versions aren't aligned with each other. There will be a ghost mountain above a lunar plain. Seems like if they were just high-res and low-res versions they should line up with each other.

The discord server link is in their post: In case you need help with anything, feel free to join our Discord Server: https://discord.me/kopernicus It's right above the link for sending Thomas P money via PayPal. If this mod is considered a must-have for people they should be sending money too. Kopernicus is worth at least as much to me as the Making History Please consider supporting me and my mods on Paypal! I would greatly appreaciate it, since I don't get much money anyways.

It sounds like you had craft that were already made before you installed VSR. It may be worth trying to dock with newly created craft and new docking target just to see if that works. I'm thinking it may be a problem with the previously built craft because once it's launched much of the functionality of a part is locked and won't update when you add a part mod.

I'd like to see more types of experiments but more specialized as to what biomes they work in. A clearly different set of experiments on a lander versus and orbiter for example. I'd also like experiments to take time - orbital experiments could take time in certain altitude bands or require you to scan a certain amount of the planet - kind of like ScanSat. Lander experiments could take several days of measurements forcing you to actually land for more than 10 seconds. Sample returns should be significantly more valuable and crewed experiments should be as well - this would really drive more complex missions and delay collection of some science points until you had more tech making repeat missions more interesting. I don't really mind the science point = unlocking parts model. It's very Kerbal - it's simple to understand and allows for a progression from simple to complex rockets. Sure it could be tweaked, but the basic idea is easy. One could imagine many interim steps where the experiment findings are used to bolster financial support in Congress and industry, which is used to fund tech development, which drives advances in science, which results in better parts, but i'm okay with that being glossed over because I really don't want to have to deal with Congress or the military industrial complex.

I started playing right around 1.0 launch. I launched a couple of small rockets and started thinking about getting into orbit but had no idea how big of a rocket i needed. I decided to do some research. I learned about DV and TWR. Went back into the game and poked around in different screens looking for a way to find out the TWR and DV of my craft. Once I realized the game wasn't going to help me on these I read up on the forums, watched some YouTube videos and printed out a DV map (why this wasn't part of the game was beyond me). Next I found that to actually engineer a rocket versus the Moar Boosters! approach I'd have to break out a calculator. So I tried that. I ran a few calculations and learned how the formulas worked. THEN I realized that every time I made a minor change to any stage of the rocket I was going to have to recalculate for the entire rocket and said "the heck with this". Since I wasn't interested in the Moar Boosters! play style I put the game aside. A few weeks later a friend told me about Kerbal Engineer. I installed that and was like "why the !@@%# isn't this built into the game?" Now I've played thousands of hours over several years, but wouldn't be here if it wasn't for KER and the DV map.

You may want to read up on the SDHI forum. He's working on an update. Another Mod that has Orion parts is ReDirect which is also being worked on.

I did some experimentation modifying the actual cfg. I can definitely change the altitude where the effect starts by moving ScaledVersion FadeEnd higher and adjusting PQS to match. If I change both of them to 50000 then the effect starts at 50000. It's still there though, I'm just moving the ghosting affect visibility altitudes. Can I write it as a MM config? Here's my proposed syntax. if this works I can write them up for all the bodies. @Kopernicus:AFTER[GPP] { @Body[Iota] { @ScaledVersion[Vacuum] { @fadeStart = 30000 @fadeEnd = 35000 } @PQS { @fadeStart = 35000 @fadeEnd = 120000 // deactivateAltitude = 140000 } } }

That does change it. I had to move it up to about 1.75 (from 1.1) to get rid of most of it. There were still a couple of places where a ghosted mountain peak would rise up. The ghosted textures aren't lined up with the the solid textures. There'll be a ghosted mountain rising out of a solid plain. It's like there are two competing textures and they're not aligned

Yep, I just was doing the normal scale test to be thorough. There is no landscape multiplier for Iota which is my test body. Only Kerbin and Tellumo have landscape multipliers and there doesn't appear to be a global multiplier. Unless @landscape = 0.76 is what your referring to? I thought playing at 2.5x was fairly common. Surprised others haven't brought this up.

Okay, I just did a completely fresh install. I created a new copy of 1.4.5. I ran it once. I downloaded and installed: Kopernicus 1.4.5-4 ModularFlightIntegrator (packaged with Kopernicus) ModuleManager 3.0.7 (packaged with Kopernicus) GPP 1.6.3.1 GPP Textures 4.2.1 I ran it and tested a craft at Iota at 30Km...no freaky ghost terrain Installed: SD 0.10.0 RESCALE 2.5 1.0.2.8 I put a craft in orbit around Iota at 30Km and the ghost terrain is back. The pic below clearly shows the floating ghost terrain along the horizon. All were downloaded from GitHub and installed manually, no CKAN. This is the simplest test I can do with all fresh components. Suggest trying this yourself. I really appreciate all the help I'm getting

Yep, your assumptions are correct about 25K and 120K. I've done completely new installs of 1.4.5 and of 1.5.0 installing only core GPP mods and ReScale + SD and still saw this issue. I installed using CKAN which recommended SD 0.9.8, but I've also tried with 0.10.0

I looked up Iota, which is has a really noticeable "ghosting" affect. The ReScale2.5x doesn't make any changes to those variables. So it's pulling off the defaults from the GPP mod. In the defaults they meet at 30000. I'm definitely seeing the bug starting at 25K <SNIP> ScaledVersion { type = Vacuum fadeStart = 25000 fadeEnd = 30000 sphericalModel = False deferMesh = False Material { texture = GPP/GPP_Textures/PluginData/Iota00.dds normals = GPP/GPP_Textures/PluginData/Iota01.dds opacity = 1 specColor = 0.09,0.09,0.09,1 shininess = 0.09 } } PQS { minLevel = 2 maxLevel = 8 minDetailDistance = 6 maxQuadLengthsPerFrame = 0.03 fadeStart = 30000 fadeEnd = 120000 deactivateAltitude = 140000 materialType = AtmosphericOptimized allowFootprints = True <SNIP>

First...I'm not trying to get in an argument here...second...I didn't assume anything. I specifically stated that my opposition was when someone tells a newbie something is too hard and they should just load MJ instead of trying. [snip] MJ doesn't design vehicles, if you don't have enough D/V or a t/w greater than unity... MJ won't make up that lack. MJ doesn't design missions. It's up to you to choose LOR or EOR (for example), design the appropriate vehicles, and make the decision what to tell MJ to do and when. Etc... etc... MJ is a tool, and no different than any other tool it depends on the player's hand to make use of it. Please note that I specifically said "Load an arrow" meaning I understand the MJ doesn't "make the arrow" please read more carefully before randomly attacking others. I also didn't say that you could put the target a 100 miles away. I said "point it in the general direction of the target" [snip]

quick work! Thanks so much

which landing legs are those?

The sad part is that the overly tall big grey rim at the top of the capsule is so tall that if you actually slide the docking port down that grey ring pokes through the edge of the docking port...

I think the only thing that bothers me is when I see a new player post a question about how to launch / rendezvous / dock and an MJ proponent responds "it's really, really hard. Just install MJ" or some variation of that. It's a great tool for those who want to use it, but it's not really fair to a new player who actually wants to learn something. Comparing MJ to a compound bow isn't quite a fair comparison. Whether you're using a yew bow or a modern one there's a huge amount of skill required to hit a target. I'd say MJ is more like an automatic arrow launcher that only requires you to load an arrow and point it in the general direction of the target.

Here: @PART[fairingSize1] { @TechRequired = start } If it were my game I'd actually move the pod and the fairing to simple rockets, but the change above is the simplest option

If you'd like to recreate it, you should. The Onion and the others aren't supposed to be Soyuz parts. They're based more on Vostok parts. Just so you know there are several mods that do Russian/Soviet parts really well: Tantares has lots of great parts

@Galileo, have you seen this behavior? I've been troubleshooting with @Sigma88 about it on GitHub and he doesn't think it's SD. I've also established that it's not scatterer or EVE Here's a link to the dialog I'm having with Sigma on GitHub. Lots of detail there. I'm happy to upload any logs that would help. This has been tried now on 1.4.x and 1.5 with completely new bare-minimum installs https://github.com/Sigma88/Sigma-Dimensions/issues/77

Thanks for updating! Does this work with other science parts mods like DMagic?

Yea, I was going to play around with that as a backup option. I thought that it was worth suggesting it because others might want to. At least the 1.875 should be added because that's a stock diameter now.