Daniel Prates

Oh too bad. Great effort though!

Hehe. What a cool thread. Are only stock vessels pertinent? Or is the thread accepting KAX/airplane plus too?

Question: how exactelly do I deactivate the 'pressurization' feature? The lines on the profile that relate to it are the following: // pressure settings PressureFactor = 10.0 // pressurized modifier value for vessels below the threshold PressureThreshold = 0.9 // level of atmosphere resource that determine pressurized status // Since there is no clearly discernible 'true' or 'false' setting I am left unsure as how to disable it. Do I add a "= false" right after pressure settings? Do I reduce all the values to zero? EDIT: reading the kerbalism manual, in the settings data, I take the impression that if I lower "pressure threshold" to zero, all vessels will count as pressurized, regardless of it being pressurized or not. I could even do away with the nitrogen alltogether. Is this correct? EDIT 2: Figured out myself, by fiddling with the numbers. if 'pressure factor' is set to one, it means that the current "maximum time period without going crazy' is multiplied by one, hence, it stays the same. when set to 10.0 it multiplies how quickly the kerbal goes crazy in a factor of ten - in other words, it with an atmosphere it would take 20 days, with a factor of 10 it becomes just two days when the atmosphere is gone. I'm sorry if I am being boorish, I am sure lots of people in the forum knows that already but perhaps not everybody does. ; )

Ok thanks I'll check it out!

Hum .... no, that's not it. In any airship I create, the CoL appears outside of the vessel (like, in the ground and far behind it), as with any other vehicle created without wings or control surfaces. Then, if I place control surfaces on the airship (for instance, elevators and rudder in it's stern) the CoL appears on them, reflecting that the blue visible CoL is pointing the LIFT parts, and only them.

Gentleman! A little help? I can't for the life of me understand how to spot the Center of Buoyancy. The old 'procedural airhips' mentions something as it appearing along the center of lift but that does not work.... help!

Great info!

A "heads up!" warning for all you Kerbalism + TAC profiles users out there! Maybe some of you don't know this yet so I thing I better post it. I use Kerbalism with 'TAC profile'. All the sudden my consumption rates stopped working properly. Water comsumption rate would be twice that of oxigen, and food quadruple the rate (supplies containers would usually be enough so that everything ended at the same time). Also the TAC monitor stopped giving reasonable information (there would be negative rates.. it was a mess). I was all 'what the what' since it was working fine just a day before. It turns out when you update kerbalism with CKAN, it restores the normal profile, deleting the "TAC profile". I re-installed it manually and things got back to working order. Phew!

Hum.... you are using some mod I don't know about... i do not recognize that wing there. What are you using? To be fair, I forgot to mention that I noticed no lift changes when deploying while using only KAX and AIRPLANE PLUS. Maybe you are using something else that tweaks lift. Some members reported above that FAR does that. That is correct, I have observed that too. But that is because of the changing vectors of the control surfaces (the deployed aileron remains being an aileron and generates the proper response, when angled differently). I can think of several uses for. For instance, in floatplanes. When you are landed on whater, the water attriction makes it more difficult to gef off the ground than it is on a runway (not to mention you needing more thrust because of the corresponding effect on speed). Having your deployed ailerons tilting upwards may help getting it off the water. I sure will try!

Yep, that I have verifyed also: a change in geometry. It figures that in some designs it may cause effects like keeping the nose higher in lower speeds, what is similar to some of the effects of deployed flaps (but for different reasons). In my designs it did that too. Its like a one-setting trim or "bias". But a poor substitute for the full fledged effect of a proper flap. I suppose though that this is indeed one of the few things to complain in ksp wings. Everything else is correctly there, even the different effects in pitch as the wing provides different lift with different speeds. Thanks i'll check it out!

So you think they DO provide more lift? Are you sure its just not an effect of the different configuration of control vectors, something we know the game mechanic indeed provide? I'm not sure this is true lift you're describing.

Hello everyone! So i read some old discussions about the "deploy" function of ailerons but they were all 1.1 so I am curious as to how the state of affairs is now on FLAPS and LIFT in general. As I am sure everyone knows, flaps in real life are a way to extend a wing's lift and thus provide lower stall speeds. Since it creates drag as a "byproduct", it is only used in low speed situations, but thats when you want it (takeoff and landing) so thats ok. Basically that is it. Is the game reflecting that, though? I made a plane with very large wings and control surfaces, with dedicated flaps, close (but not "on") to the CoG. I set the flaps to an action group and tested it in several takeoff and landing situations. Above all, i did several very slow acellerations on the ground with full stick backwards to effectivelly gauge the speed in which speed was enough to overcome weight. I did this with different takeoff weights, and with flaps on and off. What i have found is this: 1 - the "deployed" ailerons do function as an effective airbrake. Much more effectivelly than the airbrake part, if you have enough surface area on the "flap". It is worth considering abandoning the airbrake stock part alltogether if putting a "hand-made" airbrake fits your design; 2 - i saw absolutelly no discermible change in stall speed when flaps are deployed. Game mechanics indeed do not appear do mimic the lift effect provided by deploying ailerons. I'm not complaining though. Nowhere in the descriptions it is stated that it does. But indeed the apparent usefullness of deploying control surfaces as a group is limited to braking, and does not affect the lift rating (too bad!). This makes sense when you see how lift is treated by game mechanics. Parts have a "lift rating". More parts, more lift, thats basically it. Less lift and/or more weight, higher stall speeds. That is simple but not bad actually, since that's 95% how it works in real life (somethings like speed stalls do not appear to be contemplated but thats ok). What bugs me is that there is no way to calculate anything in the SPH regarding lift and stall speeds. What the hell is "lift rating = 1" supposed to mean? With this in mind, my two cents are: 1 - perhaps when you deploy ailerons, the lift rating could be doubled for the duration of the deployment. That would mimic the effect flaps have when deployed. Keep the drag, thats correct anywhays; 2 - since we are at lift rating, shouldn't lift be a proper cientific measurment like everytiing else in KSP? Even if a simplistic one, like for instance, "this surface generates 100kg of lift every 10 m/s of speed". This arbitrary lift rating concept is merely a stopgap and KSP deserves better; 3 - is anyone aware of a mod that properlu calculates lift? Likr kerbal engineer does for everything else? I would love to hear your thougts on that. Daniel

Got it. Thanks a million once more. CKAN is a little new for me, I used to install everything manually under the assumption that it would resuld less of a mod-soup. Turns out I was wrong, CKAN is a wonderful tool, everybody should use it.

Well in any case what I did was to downoad the folder and install it manually, which I do not recommend. Doing the CKAN installation reveals many more parts. Now that I can fully appreciate how tantares looks today, many kudos to the developer! It looks increasingly better each time.

Got acquainted with CKAN, which I never used before. It was a life changer. MANY THANKS YAAR! I read you use 90 mods with Ckan. Does it not cause 'memory leak' crash problems? How do you deal with that? Merely reducing graphics? Interesting: HULLCAM conflicts with KERBALISM (or so Ckan says). I wonder if KURS DOCKING CAM also conflicts. I am about to install it manually (it is not available in Ckan). Anyone knows if this is unadvisable?

Thanks this is the kind of starter advice i was looking for. I will check this out and then come back here if necessary.

The github version has only soyuz and LK, right? Older versions had parts for vostok, stations etc. Or did I screw something up?

Very handsome!

Are there any known compatibility issues? When I install kerbalism + TAC over a clean install, it works fine, but when I procede to copy all my favorite mods (and there are like 30 of them) to the gamedata folder, kerbalism stops working properly. Its difficult to know what exactelly creates the conflict.

Got it! Thanks!

I am a little lost... please forgive me if this is due to not paying attention, but... well its just that in all posts there is alwasy a mention to "old versions" of tantares... when I click the 'tantares' button it directs me to what is described as an initial version ... and in space dock the mod is claimed to be 1.1.3... so my question is: a) is tantares uptated to be 1.2.2 compatible? or b) old version still works all the same; and c) if not, where can i be sure I am downloading the current version?

is there a way to configure the speed in which the 'ugly camera' rotates (not in follow mode. When you intentionally rotate it)? It is so damn slow as it is!

Just wonderful. My two cents: we really need more WING options. The stock modules look ... well not awful but less than good, and we only get a few options of wings. Maybe a next step, instead of tons of different (but similar) cockpits, could be an attempt to diversify a litte bit more our wing and control surfaces options!

Ninja, many thanks, but it turns out it was my bad all along. In the 'kerbalism' folder there is a 'profile' file, right? Then there is a sub-folder "profiles", and inside it, the profile options (TAC, default, classic etc.). It turns out that in my "i know what I am doing" anxiety, i was mixing things up: i was pasting the 'tac' new profile inside the 'profiles' folder and replacing what was there, instead of placing it in the main folder root. The result, obviously, was a mess, but since 'some' of the funcionalities of kerbalism would indeed work, my first impetous was to think there was something wrong elsewhere - when in fact I was putting the right thing in the wrong place. For shame! Anyway thanks for trying to help. Maybe in the kerbalism wiki or in the 'TAC+Kerbalism' mod there should be a more complete explanation of how profiling should be meddled with - not because it is not clear enough as it is now, but ... you know, to make it idiot-proof! Thanks. Your mod is great. The people who create mods to make KSP more true-to-life should get a medal. Daniel

Maybe someone here can help me. I've been having issues with kerbalism latelly. After many attempts I think I am zeroing in the problem, which is, maybe I am not configuring correctly my defautl profile. Lets see if that is it. This is what I have done last: downloaded a brand new clean vanilla, and patched up with nothing but TAClifesupport, kerbalism, and the kerbavlism+tac profile. Then I took the TAC profile, renamed it 'default inside the 'profiles' folder. Nothing more. I should be ready to go, right? Except.... the 'confort' funcionts (is that how it is called? The one that makes your kerbal go insane if space and entertainment is not enough) do not appear to be activated, since in the vessel planner the corresponding kerbalism helper, the corresponding data do not show. Also, the gravity ring part is missing from the build options. I was thinking that possibly it was disabled in the profile. But no, all commands in the TAC profile (which I renamed 'default') seem to indicate nothing is turned off - everything reads 'true'. Unless I am not interpreting correctly the default profile. What am I doing wrong?