Jump to content

Entropian

Members
  • Posts

    806
  • Joined

Everything posted by Entropian

  1. Not for me, I extract it properly. Try installing RSS, your version of EVE, RVE64k, and Scatterer. The issue should appear on any planet with an atmosphere except for Earth.
  2. Ok, I'm reporting the same white atmosphere bug in 1.9.1. I'm using @R-T-B's 1.9.1 version of EVE and Scatterer 0.0621b and I get this: https://www.dropbox.com/s/0qudtoe55f5q1tl/Buggy atmosphere.PNG?dl=0 Log files: https://www.dropbox.com/s/setczljb69wtv8y/Player.log?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/0hx0sr1tkc6vsu0/output_log.txt?dl=0 I'm using EVE, Scatterer, RVE64k, and RSS. Just go to any planet (except Earth) with an atmosphere and the bug will appear.
  3. Ok, I fired up RSS in 1.9.1 and I got this. Relevent (probably) mods: RVE64k, EVE, Scatterer. I don't know if this is EVE or Scatterer so I'm posting this here and in the Scatterer thread.
  4. Log file? A video of the phenomenon perhaps?
  5. Totally not on the moon. Go to the gas giants if you want He3. Lunar mining is really inefficient. Even if you only produced a few dozen crystals a year, you would still be rolling in cash. Single crystal yttrium barium copper oxide is a good example. You can get insane current density with single crystals, which would be groundbreaking for superconducting magnetic confinement fusion devices. Scientists have produced something like a 1cm single crystal for YBCO, but when stacked the crystal joints cause a huge current density loss.
  6. Woah, you really think so? What about asteroid mining, He3 scooping, and 0g crystal growth? (seriously, 0g crystal growth would be extremely profitable)
  7. Looks like they installed Textures Unlimited on SN8!
  8. Nice! Does this fix the white/transparent atmosphere bug in 1.9.1?
  9. No. It would violate the license and rule 2.2a, as far as I know. Many, many threads have been made about this mod and its unavailability.
  10. Is this while timewarping? If so, it's been around for ages and it doesn't seem likely that it will get fixed.
  11. It's the bug where the track value can be set to absurdly high values using the slope modulator thing. Take a look at my videos farther up for a better idea.
  12. Yeah, I have a heavily modded version on 1.9.1 that is running just fine.
  13. It really depends. Small ion thrusters, yes. Really big ones, no way. I expect they will use a gridded ion thruster for the extra ISP, but they may choose a more advanced design like the Dual-Stage 4-Grid. Magnetoplasmadynamic engines are really really high power, but high thrust. Hall effect thrusters are average in everything except fuel ionization efficiency, which they excel at. Gridded ion thrusters are higher power, but they are pretty good for their size. The Dual-Stage 4-Grid got an ISP of 21,400 seconds, but it was left behind due to budget problems and the lead designer's death. EDIT: The radioisotope generator's size also plays a big part in the electrical consumption of the engines. Until we have more detail on this, I think the most likely choice will be a NASA NEXTish design.
  14. No. I just tried it with it included, and it still yielded the same results... I ran it 2 times with no luck using the multi-run feature. Thanks for trying to help though. I'll just use the Neptune flyby and adjust it ingame.
  15. Aaaand another question. (sorry) I plotted a multi-flyby maneuver: Earth Venus Jupiter Neptune, and the delta-V was 4.1018 km/s, but when I plotted a Earth Venus Jupiter flyby, the delta-V was 8.19 km/s!? What is the cause of this? The transfer window was the same, as well as the starting orbit and transfer time. The only thing I changed was the destinations.
  16. Ok, thanks. I already know the ins and outs of gravitational assists; I just wanted to check if KSPTOT can test combinations of flybys, e.g. Venus Earth Earth, or Earth Venus Earth, or Earth Earth Venus.
  17. Well, I'm back with another question. Is there a way to calculate which planets to fly by to get to a destination for the lowest delta-V, or will I have to continue entering them manually?
  18. That's a great idea. It allows a lower part count, better aerodynamics, and overall better-looking wings without the problems of going procedural.
×
×
  • Create New...