DaveyJ576
-
Posts
481 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by DaveyJ576
-
-
@CobaltWolfand @Zorg,
Thanks for the reply on the Tweakscale configs. I just wanted to make sure it wasn’t an installation issue. It was kind of fun playing around with the C-series Saturns, but I found out that the C-2 was a dog going uphill and C-3 was redundant. I am having much more fun with the INT-20 and the MS series. Don’t spend any time putting the Tweakscale configs back in. Thanks for all you guys do.
-
Was it intentional to remove the scaling function for the revamp branch Saturn fuel tanks? It is still there for the engine mounts and interstages, but not for the fuel tanks themselves. I was trying to recreate the Saturn C series with the new stuff but couldn't scale the tanks.
-
So curiosity got the better of me, and I downloaded the revamp branch to my Stock 1.11.2 game. FWIW, I also ran into an issue with the detachable version of the SLA fairings. Once on orbit with the S-IVB/LM/CSM stack I initiated the T&D maneuver. As soon as I hit the decouple button all four panels exploded outward, but one of them dragged the CSM around hard to the left and it very nearly collided with the LM, still stowed in the S-IVB. It was like a mini Kraken attack. I reloaded from a save twice more but got the same result each time.
On the next mission I tried the hinged SLA and it worked perfectly. No LM on that mission. I dialed back on the detach force to 40% and perhaps that accounts for it. On the first mission the detach force was at 100%.
I will try again with the first scenario to see if it repeats.
-
8 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:
Yeah I think it's doable with a minimum amount of pain
Wow! That so violates the “rockets are not Lego’s” mantra on the NASASpaceflight.com forums. Let the tarring and feathering begin!! LOL
-
Really digging the new upgrades, but waiting on the full release. Any date on that?
BTW, I remember reading somewhere that one of the first upgrades planned for the IRL Saturn V was to ditch the fins on the 1st stage. It was shown that inflight stability met or exceeded expectations. The fins ended up being redundant and created more drag and weight than they were worth. The same source I read indicated that the 2nd production run of the Saturn V would have most likely deleted them, and would have continued the efforts at weight reduction for the entire vehicle. When combined with the new F-1A engines (already in development) you get a respectable performance upgrade for minimal development time, risk, and cost.
Sigh. What a missed opportunity.
-
15 hours ago, jefferyharrell said:
I'm running 1.12.2, and the decals are a little touchy. Sometimes they show the wrong flag (in the case of a flag decal) and sometimes text decals disappear when you edit them. I've found that saving your craft and reloading it in the VAB fixes most glitches. With flag decals, sometimes I have to reset the flag and select it again once or twice to get my choice to "stick." But I'm using decals in a fairly excessive way...
If you are attaching two decals on opposite sides of the rocket, once you are done editing just spin the rocket around and you will see your work on the other side. The first one will still be there, you just can’t see it until you use @jefferyharrell’s procedure or by just sending the rocket to the pad and returning it to the VAB.
-
AAP = Apollo Applications Program. It was a project that ran concurrent to Project Apollo “to develop science-based human spaceflight missions using hardware developed for the Apollo program.” There are some very interesting possibilities that were never implemented. It morphed into Skylab.
-
3 hours ago, Beccab said:
Wasn't that the original Skylab project before the apollo 20 Saturn V was designated to this mission instead?
Yes it was. It was the concept of choice as AAP was refined in the late 1960’s. Even though you had the massive LH2 and LOX tanks to live and work in, there was an obvious limitation on how much gear could be installed after getting it to orbit. The dry lab concept (aka Skylab) was the better option because everything could be installed on the ground and the internal volumes much more efficiently used. Once a Saturn V became available AAP immediately shifted focus to the dry lab concept. We got a much more capable station and lab for far less effort. If only we had followed through… sigh.
-
5 hours ago, goldenpsp said:
I would humbly ask that you re-read my previous reply, because you obviously missed its message.
@HebaruSan summed it up nicely. Now that you got this valuable new information What did you do with it? Did you ask if you could help by adding it to the existing documentation, thereby helping to become part of the solution?
I did not miss the message, I understood it perfectly and your point is well made. However, due to my extremely limited experience with coding and game design, I only barely understood the underlying issue at work and even though @tony48was able to help I did not understand the mechanics of the issue well enough to be able to explain it any better than he did. So with that said it would not be helpful for me to attempt to write documentation and run the risk of muddying the waters further.
Allow me to offer this perhaps somewhat imperfect metaphor. Many years ago at age 16, I was required to attend and pass a driver's education course as part of the requirements of getting my driver's license. Driving an automobile is a complicated act performed in a complex machine and thus it is understandable, indeed vital, for a new driver to receive the proper instruction. Imagine a situation where a driver's education course did not exist and after your first experience behind the wheel being asked by the car's manufacturer to write an instructional manual for future drivers. The resulting manual would probably be a hot mess. Now, at age 56, with 40 years of experience behind the wheel I could probably write that manual, but not back then.
Please believe me when I say that I appreciate the efforts that the Squad staff and all of the modders make when working on the game. I am able to set back and enjoy the fruits of their labor. I get how easy it is to sit up in the cheap seats and snipe away. I truly don't want to be that guy, and if I have come off that way I sincerely apologize. It just seems to me that providing some form of instructions that will lessen the learning curve of a complex simulation like KSP would be helpful for those of us way up in the cheap seats.
Thank you all for your input.
-
-
On 9/21/2021 at 4:44 PM, CobaltWolf said:
Ah, documentation. The most important part of any project... and everyone's least favorite to do!
8 hours ago, goldenpsp said:Here's a thought. Maybe players of such mods that do have the expertise can help modders with documentation?
Actually, in my experience, parts mods like @CobaltWolf’s BDB need the LEAST amount of documentation for a good player experience. Yet the dev team at Bluedog (especially @Friznit) have created one of the best Wiki’s in the game, one that is immensely helpful. Another is @IgorZ’s Kerbal Inventory System. There is an awesome guide for that mod. But the other day I was struggling with the brilliant Kronometer, a perfect add on mod for KSRSS, and one of the features wasn’t making sense to me. I had to ask the creator of KSRSS, the very helpful @tony48and he cleared it up, but not without a lot of head scratching on my part.
So I totally agree that these forums are amazing assets for players, but often getting the clarification needed requires a lot of back and forth that takes up a lot of time and tries the patience of all parties. I can imagine the frustrations of players where English is a second language.
So please provide at least some basic instructions. I understand that it is tedious, but often it is vital for the full enjoyment of the mod.
-
2 hours ago, Son of Man said:
They are not, tried the other way and it still causes the rocket to lose control very quickly. Did some more testing and it is only with SAS enabled. Flies straight up just fine without SAS but as soon as I turn SAS on it starts spinning and losing control. At first I thought maybe it is top heavy (which it is a bit) but it doesn't explain why it loses control as soon as I turn SAS on. Tried removing all control surfaces and fins just in case but still ended up with the same result. The only thing that worked was removing the whole top section past the fairing base and the fairing itself, then it would stop losing control when SAS is turned on. So I double checked everything in that section which was the Nose Cone, 4 battery packs, 2 antennas, 2 service bays, top filled with science instruments and Kerbal Engineering System part, bottom filled with more science instruments, Science Jr in the middle between the bays, followed by Thor X400 fuel tank and 48-7S Spark engine. Too my knowledge (which isn't much lol, new-ish at KSP) none of that would seem to mess with the guidance unit this much or at all? The guidance unit itself is clipped inside the Thor Upper Stage fuel tank, directly below the fairing base.
Here is the rocket in question:
I ran into a similar problem a while back while trying to fly a Lunar Orbiter on an Atlas Agena. I would launch and the rocket would promptly flip upside down and crash. I was stumped because I had just flown a Ranger mission on a very similar rocket with no problems. I finally asked for help here and a poster revealed that the Lunar Orbiter is essentially assembled upside down in the VAB and (correctly) mounted on the rocket that way. If it remains as the root part then the rocket will think it is inverted and will try to correct that immediately upon launch. The offered solution was to reset the "Control from Here" to the Agena guidance section (or make it the root part) prior to launch. Once that was pointed out to me it made immediate sense, but I will admit that it wasn't intuitive in the beginning. From your description above it sounds like you have covered all the bases, but I wrote this to point out that it may be something subtle and unintuitive that is causing your rocket to crash.
-
3 hours ago, Busmar said:
Is KSRSS compatible with KSP 1.12 yet?
Tried installing it, but whenever KSRSS is loaded my game keeps getting stuck or crash at "loading expansion complete".If not compatible for 1.12, is it compatible for 1.11?
Thanks in advance
I am running KSRSS on a 1.11.2 install and it works fine. It does, however, use up quite a bit of my computer’s processing power. I experience momentary stops as the processor and the RAM catch up. A planned upgrade to a more capable computer should solve that.
-
20 hours ago, tony48 said:
No, you can't change the year to be 365 days, and you can't change the day to be 24 hours because the solar system is ten times smaller and these values wouldn't make sense. What Kronometer and the "Use Earth Time" does is that it change the Day (or Year) definition of the KSP clock. The clock is the green/yellow/red thing in the top left corner. For example, if you enable the "Use Earth Time" settings in KSP, a day on the clock will be equal to 24 ingame hours but the Earth will still rotate every 6 hours. So in one clock "day" you will see 4 sunrises and 4 sunsets.
@tony48, thank you for your patient response to my questions. I think I have it now. I have to continually remind myself of the effect of scaling on the entire KSP experience. I have played Stock for the last two years so the move up to KSRSS changed a lot of how you relate to KSP and fly your missions. It was a good move and I like this mod a lot. But there is a learning curve to it that I wasn't prepared for. Thanks again!
-
1 hour ago, tony48 said:
Kronometer doesn't change the real duration of the day/year. It changes the clock definition so that it matches the real duration. It is recommended because in KSRSS the year is longer than in stock KSP, so without kronometer you'll get to Year 2 before the Earth has actually made a revolution around the sun.
It is highly recommended if you play with KSRSS x2.5 (planets 2.5 times larger) because the day duration is 7.5 hours so Kronometer will tell the clock to change the day definition to 7.5 hours.Now if you want clock days to be 24 hours you don't need Kronometer. Uninstall it, then go in the KSP settings and enable "Use Earth Time". You will have 4 "real" days for 1 "clock" days since the rotation period won't change.
57 minutes ago, Pehvbot said:Which KSP version are you running?
Oops. Sorry. I am running 1.11.2.
So If I understand you correctly, once I install Kronometer, I don't have to change any setting and the mod will automatically change Earth's orbit around the Sun to the correct 365 day cycle. But how do I change the day/night cycle on Earth to the correct 24 hour cycle? Right now in game, if I start at sunrise, the sun lit period (daytime) is only about 6 hours long. IRL in Florida even in the depths of winter you will get approximately 9-10 hours of sunlight.
I apologize for these seemingly stupid questions. I must be missing something very simple. I just don't understand how Kronometer is supposed to work with KSRSS.
Thanks again.
-
Perhaps I am the only dunce in the greater world of KSP players. If so then I humbly accept my ignorance. However, If I am not, then I would like to make a suggestion to anyone that, out of the goodness of their heart, creates a mod for the rest of us to use:
PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW TO USE YOUR MOD.
For someone with a computer coding background, how to use all the features of a particular mod may come as a natural thing. However, if my suspicions are correct, then a lot of players download a mod then struggle with how to use it. If you create a mod, please don't assume that its use will be as intuitive to everyone as you find it to be. A set of instructions or some type of Wiki would be extremely helpful to many of us who are less informed. I have several mods in my install where 60-70% of the settings functionality is a complete mystery to me.
I think that many modders philosophy is to have the player simply tinker with the settings to see what the effect on the game is. On the surface, that is not a bad idea. However, many mods require you to back out of the game, reboot, and start again after changing a setting. When you have a modded game that takes 10 minutes or more to start up that results in an overhead in time that quickly becomes onerous and tedious.
I fully appreciate how much work modders put into their creations. Spending all those hours on something that you do not get paid for is something that amazes me. But, it seems to me that if you are going to put that much work into a mod, then it would make sense to insure that ALL players, not just those with a coding background, will be able to fully appreciate your genius and hard work.
Thank you.
-
Can anyone please provide some tips on how to use Kronometer with KSRSS? Once installed does it automatically update the clock to a 24 hour day? My game seems to still be on a 6 hour day. Gamedata screen shot below:
I checked the button in settings to use Earth time. Still doesn't work. Do I have to change the setting.cfg file?
Thanks
-
33 minutes ago, MashAndBangers said:
No.
Also totally not a stolen design:
There were no clipping issues, not at all. Also the MLEM did not almost tip over. All is good Comrade.
Nice! We shall call you “Mini Rover”.
-
@CobaltWolf, ask and you shall receive.
Spoiler
However, once I went back and took a look at my design, I realized what you meant when you said "one that fits". This is what it looks like when it is "stowed".
I wasn't taking into account scale differences. Yes, this is the older LM descent stage. I haven't downloaded the new one yet. Perhaps you can make it work anyway. Thanks for asking!
-
1 hour ago, CobaltWolf said:
Some improvements and additions to the LM...
MESA experiment
Mystery Goo
Some much better images than I can take, courtesy of @Pioneer_Steve
Love it! Is there any chance you could do a part switch config for the other front quadrant so that a collapsed LRV could be carried? No need to actually do a rover, there are plenty of those already. The robotics parts in 1.11.2 allow you to create a deployment mechanism for a LRV, but the current descent stage config makes that a little awkward when the LRV is stowed.
Thanks!
-
11 hours ago, akron said:
It has been a while since I've had to make new cfgs and MM patches, but I "think" this would work:
@PART[ca_landv_srm]:FOR[CoatlAerospace] { RESOURCE { name = SolidFuel amount = 51 maxAmount = 51 } }3x the Solid Fuel cap
After considering what @OrbitalManeuverssaid above, that is exactly what I did! I set the amounts to 50, but adjusted it down to 42 in the VAB. Worked like a charm after a couple of tries to figure the proper altitude to begin the retro fire. 52k worked pretty good.
-
9 hours ago, akron said:
I think maybe with a MM patch to increase the total propellant capacity.
@OrbitalManeuvers is correct in that the Mod is balanced-ish for stock KSP on a stock scale. I never play with scale mods and don't know how to configure parts for those. My apologies!
No sweat @akron. This is still a great mod. I enjoy flying the Surveyor and had several cool missions with it in my Stock game. I will get it figured out for x2.5.
-
2 hours ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:
Interesting. How does one increase the amount of fuel in the SRM? It’s already at the highest amount. Tweakables?
-
I am running 1.11.2 and recently upgraded to KSRSS (x2.5 scale). I can't seem to find the right parameters to land the Surveyor on the moon. When should I start the solid motor retro fire? If I start above 55K I run out of fuel on the verniers too high above the surface. If I start below 40K the craft won't slow down fast enough and it crashes. My starting velocity is about 1150 m/s. It seems as if I don't have enough delta V to slow down. Using MechJeb.
Any suggestions? I know it has to be possible somehow.
[1.12.5] Bluedog Design Bureau - Stockalike Saturn, Apollo, and more! (v1.13.0 "Забытый" 13/Aug/2023)
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted
Is it possible write a config to add a third kerbalnaut position to the LM, possibly via a B9 part switch? If you used an ETS CM to fly to the moon you could have extra kerbals to send to the surface. You could maximize the surface engineering tasks and the science return while still having a pilot to fly it downhill. Some advanced LM versions should be able to support three ‘nauts.
Just a thought.