Jump to content

Daniel Prates

Members
  • Posts

    1,261
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Daniel Prates

  1. True? Hehehe i didn't notice. Guess I read the OP too fast. Just as well: I use - and like - KK. Its just that the content for KK is (or was) kinda limited. It is good to know new content is being tailored for it!
  2. What a great way to improve ground facilities without appealing to kerbal konstructs! May I suggest another building? Hoe about a training grounds or race track for wheeled or tracked vehicles?
  3. They look very good indeed. And without departing from that "stock" feel, which is excellent! The aesthetics of tantares is doing magic, by looking its own thing at the same time it does not stray away from that generic stock looks that is so necesaary for a parts mod, not to feel too odd. A difficult balance!
  4. The main landing gear is inverted! Other than that ... what a wonderful silver look it has to it!
  5. Just to be clear, I dont think the actual docking port is the cause of the issue. When that happens to me, it doesnt necessarily happens in or close to the part showing issues. Could be any other part in the craft, anywhere!
  6. Aiming at coming in front or in the rear of the moving moon also affects the direction of your final moon orbit, depending on the speed you are coming in. Its a thing to keep in mind: if you are looking to dock with a clockwise-orbiting moon station, you cant end up in a counter-clockwise orbit! The speed and angle you inject may alter your plan of entering the target orbit in the right direction.
  7. Those golden-coated parts do look good. There are several mods I insist on using even if for their aestetic aspects alone.. But using abandoned or not updated mods can be nasty, specially giving the speed KSP is evolving.
  8. I can see in the image that some of those parts come from some mod (I can't tell which because I don't recognize it). Some modded parts will do that. I can't say why, maybe the colliders.... but in my experience there are those mods which, most as I like them, I know I just cant use because of issues like that. Maybe it isn't evem that mod's fault, but the way it interacts with other mods. Try this: build another purelly stock space station, or rather, avoid the specific parts shown in that picture, then launch the craft again. See if the problem persists. If it doesn't, maybe you just zeroed into the problem. Again, it's not that a given mod is bad. Two test-proven mods may not interact well with eachother. I play a heavilly modded game and issues like the one you reported are common.... it is a common thing for me to go about uninstalling mods one by one to find who is causing some issue. And then its all about deciding what is really indispensable.
  9. Agreed.... the usefulness would be for a manned craft to dialogue with, say, a lander probe on the surface of a distant body.... or one that does not face kerbin ever, like the mun. A strange situation, as the craft flying above could just as well be a large, hightech probe itself, by the time you reached the science nodes required for the first situation!
  10. I am not really sure about this since I've never done it, but it seems an unmanned rover or satellite does not have to backtrack its signal all the way to KSC, if it can track it down to a MANNED spacecraft, which works independently from a link to KSC, and thus would be reputed as being "controlling" said probe. I read that somewhere. Does anybody know if this is true?
  11. This is very true. But there are ways to diminish the effects of orbit imprecision, up to a point where the difference is so small, it becomes almost irrelevant. This is what I usually do: First, the problem with two objects not being in absolutelly identical orbital parameters is that one will be faster than the other. So the faster one will overtake the slower one, even if it takes a million years. The key is to... well, make it so as it _does_ take a million years. The higher the orbit, the slower is the orbital speed. So I always put my relay constellation as high as I can - certainly higher then Minmus. It minimizes the effects of speed differences between two different satellites, because not only they will be much, much slower, but also the distance between them is much greater. So whatever differences in their respective orbits, it may take decades or hundreds of game years for them to start disaligning in a relevant way. The second thing is, of course, to try to have their orbits be as similar as possiblr. Fine tuning is the thing here. First you need some mods. Kerbal Engineer, Basic Orbit.... mods that help you visualize orbit data more precisely. Then you also need your satellites to have fine RCS. By clicking on the rcs thrusters you can decrease the thrust power of the part. By doing that you can make cirurgicly precise inputs in your orbit, making the different satellites fall into a much more similar pattern (albeit, I agree, "identical" seems to be impossible). My "finely-tuned, higher-than-minmus" relay constellations always last a long time in an usefull patern.
  12. The picture is not very clear... post a daytime shot! Still, am I right to assume that all that cooling is just for one drill + one converter + one reactor? There could be something wrong with your install, it always takes me much less cooling to have all of that working. Unless... the reactor generates a variable ammount of EC. You can set it to produce less EC output in the part menu, and the resulting heat will be less too. Arent you just using the reactor at full power? Because that will deplete nuclear fuel much faster and generate surplus charge that you cant store (besides the heat).
  13. Yeah well... that may very well be but the proposed dilema was how to have way too much fuel in a minmus outpost... piling up things in a craft is the most sure way to fall short of acheiving the goal mentioned in the OP.
  14. Is that lab strictly necessary? It would seem its a waste of delta-v.
  15. By all means do! I'll use in in a fresh stand-alone install and give you as many notes I can.
  16. Which was my intention of course; playing and testing your mod to exaustion is way to honour it. It would be a shame if I felt I coldn't comment any perceived issues I found, be them real or not!
  17. That had not occured to me. Sorry for posting that.
  18. Is it an unmodded game? With KIS/KAS its a simple thing to connect different craft into one single bigger one, so several small landers connected together would eventually ammount to what you need. It would probably be cheaper and easier. Now, in a vanilla game, you still can dock them in the usual fashion to acheive the same effect. However a complicated way, it is doable. Still, all sub-craft would have to contain legs and wheels, so you can maneuver and dock them all ... besides the landing skycrane and the fuel stores you need... Altogether a cumbersome thing.
  19. DangIt! helped me find a bug on the elliptical wing, that is worth reporting. I have reported earlier in this thread that some of the latest parts need some checking ... engines working and not consuming any fuel etc. Here is another, perhaps elucidative, report on that. So I was in mid-flight with an aeroplane made of elliptical wings. All the sudden DangIt! gives me a warning: one of the batteries have failed. one of the wings was redded-out, so the fail was there. When I checked it .... the liquid fuel container was instantly drained. Not the battery, but the fuel tank. Is it possible that 'under the hood' there is some wire-crossing there, in the part config file? It would explain that weird relation.
  20. Hello all! This mod is appearing in CKAN as a 1.3.x mod. However I read no such compatibility here in the forum! Is it indeed updated up to KSP 1.3? Love the idea. We need more ... well, 'shapes'. The only structural panels in the game are not enough!
×
×
  • Create New...