xZise

Click on it Fabian

I love that feature I can now have interstage adapter which are as long as I need them to be. The KW Rocketry one's are usually way tooo long. Fabian

Problem is, that the rotational velocity of Minmus at the equator (where it is highest) is only 9 m/s. Fabian

That looks cool and is very helpful. When I try to land on Minmus yesterday I had to check how often I could restart that engine in external view. Can you maybe add that number? Maybe you can shorten each line. Instead of "NOT_IGNITED", "IGNITED" and "HEAT" (or what every that first was) something like N, I and H. And instead of "Very Stable" (etc.), S+, S, R, R+, U and U+. S means stable, R is risky and U is unstable. A plus adds "very". It is not that intuitive but could save some space. Maybe you could even display everything in one line. Fabian

Hi, on what do you base your volume? For example the KW Rocketry SA-4 LFT's volumes is only 12 % larger than the FL-T800 Fuel Tank's volume although it has the same diameter and is 25 % higher. So using one FL-T800 Fuel Tank and FL-T200 Fuel Tank has about the same height but contain 11 % more fuel. Fabian

I manage to land some planes from IVA (but with stock, haven't flown with FAR yet). Unfortunately I don't really understand how the API works. As I understand it you can only do text stuff and for everything fancier you either need to write a plugin or it is already supported by RPM. I guess the orbital view and navball are for example two things that are implemented in RPM (after updating RPM and not MFD I got for example approach markers). I would love to see at some time real support for a "ILS like" system. It doesn't need to be the real one, you only need to see how your angle relative to the runway is (okay you can use a compass for that one), your distance and your offset. I think there was an instrument on real planes, but I can't remember it's name (or if it is even related to ILS). Fabian

Hmmm that is a weird implementation. So you basically have to guess to make it streamlined with the rest of the craft. Now this works actually fine (so I need to develop it) if I deactivate auto-struts otherwise the fairing are still attached to both parts. Is that the intended behaviour or did I miss anything? And I found the explanation in the right click menu. I thought you meant the manufacturer's description. Although in the AGE there is "Decouple Node" (and Undock Node) nothing happens. I also bound a light to that action group to verify that I was activating that action group. Fabian

Hi, with your amazing mod I was thinking, it is possible to add some sort of ILS to make IVA landings on the runway easier? Fabian

Hmmm, I haven't developed it yet in the tech tree. I tested it in a sandbox game, but how do I change the base radius? I have only one black part which has the small diameter (size 1) I can assure you, it didn't work and it is not that big of a problem (yes a bit of dry mass, but I don't tune my rockets perfectly and I have enough fuel on board). I can retest it and show you screenshots. Fabian

I'm not sure if that is really so annoying, because how exact are they anyway. At least if you do the maneuvers manually you usually don't reach the optimal efficiency so you have to consider if your rocket has a dV of X you can use only Y (< X). So when you need a bit of fuel left you simply choose a lower Y. Also isn't it hard to measure the exact amount of fuel in real-word? So if it shows you X l of fuel, you can't be sure if it is really X l which you can be used. Unfortunately you could manually transfer all of it so you can break that illusion. Fabian

I will test that. Yeah I know, I simply mentioned it because that's why I noticed the change in reference. By the way, with RPM 0.14 that closure distance and time is somewhat useful now, so I was able to approach without leaving IVA. Especially with the closest approach shown on the map view. Fabian

About what part you are talking about? I have to check but I can't remember to have something black. For some reason not on my install. I don't know which plugin, but I had a craft already in orbit but then noticed that I was unable to decouple the cargo. It wasn't PF as it wasn't installed at that point. Fabian

Usually you need fuel at the bottom of the tank where the engines are attached. If the engine is not pressure fed (on J_Davis stockalike config all O enginesare pressure fed, (s)he said also U+ but I'm not sure, the Vesta isn't) you need something to push the fuel to the bottom. On the launch pad or after a landing for example on the Mun it is done by gravity. As long as engines are running they push the craft against the fuel. Although if your engine isn't powerful enough and you are in an atmosphere it might happen that the atmosphere is slowing the craft down which results in the fuel floating around or even "splashing" on the other side. And when no engine is running you are in weightlessness (especially if you are not in an atmosphere) which cases the fuel to float around so it might leave the input the turbopumps. That's why shortly after cut of it is still (very) stable, but after time it gets unstable. A trick might be to centrifuge the fuel to the end, but be careful with starting your engine. HoneyFox (the developer of that mod) suggest to throttle up slowly to avoid draining the input of the turbopumps to quickly. But usually you have some sort of engine which can be start always which pushes the craft a little bit forward resulting in the movement of the fuel to the engine. I suggest to use Sepatrons, or if you have KW Rocketry installed the Ullage Motors to push the craft slightly forward. RCS normally doesn't suffice as the thrust is to low, or you need quite a bit of it. Fabian PS: This is the mod we are talking about

Hi, I tried to use PF for cargo below the command pod similar to how the Lunar Module was below the Service Module on the Saturn V. Now I noticed, that you have to jettison the fairing and to cut the connection to the cargo. Is it possible to simply remove one fairing base without ejecting the fairing? This is my current layout: Fabian

Yeah that 7 km/s stage wasn't intentional ^^ But with an 460 s Isp you get quite an amount of umpf. It's unfortunate that you can fix that really. I first though you made the text (on the screenshot, not that on right click/hover) by yourself. But after careful examination I noticed it is exactly the same as that shown on right click/hover and the default text. So I guess it's fine, though you maybe can add a note somewhere in the OP or readme. But I really love that mod (it might appear in the other posts that I don't). I haven't come around to use RO/RSS because I thought I don't want to overdo it. But when I look in the GameData directory now I think I already overdid it with the mods. One suggestion: Can you maybe switch the auto configure buttons and the manually configure table when editing a fuel tank? I don't know if some of you use it differently, but I only use the auto configure except for the RCS/monopropellant. Oh and maybe some bugs (I didn't pinned them to your plugin, but I'll test that): First of all it shows me that a Rockomax X200-32 Fuel Tank with only xenon should mass 0.58 Gg (580 tonnes) but when I fill it, it masses considerably less (I'll provide pictures later). The other bug is that when you go on EVA it doesn't use the monopropellant on board of the capsule. Now I didn't checked it without RF so maybe it's the intended behaviour. It appears that is the stock behaviour strange. I thought with 0.23 it would use monopropellant. Here are the images: Fabian

Okay first of I don't use RSS so I should only need about 4 km/s. And second, I guess it's simply because of my inability. I did some tests and when I corrected the fuel flow I got the same value as MJ and tests on the launch pad yield the same burn time. Also I calculated some delta V values and MJ did it's job fine. I guess it was simply because I was still to deep into the atmosphere and the Vesta I'm using has a Isp at SL of 108.9 s. About the incorrect fuel flow value: Okay I mean if you know how to convert it into the real value it's fine. I peeked into your code and I know understand what do you mean. Fabian

Okay, my main reason why I said that X can be any volume unit, is because it doesn't matter to calculate the burn time. As soon as both are the same, they cancel out and you get simply "seconds". So the "Propellants:" section like that shown in the OP doesn't really show the correct numbers Aren't you able to fix that? I don't know how it's drawn there but shouldn't you be able to do the calculation and then show the value. Btw your links on the images aren't working, because an "i" is missing in front of the "mgur". And well, I didn't make it to orbit even with 7 km/s. Unless something else is wrong and it burn more fuel than thought I don't think that stage has 7 km/s. And I'm pretty sure the mass was higher than 150 kg. I really need to start up the game and get some numbers so we don't have to guess. Maybe I can deliver some within the next three hours. Fabian PS: Do you use 9.81 m/s² to convert between weighted specific impulse (s) and "normal" specific impulse (m/s)? Because I made few tests and confirmed statements of others that the conversion factor is actually more like 9.82 m/s² (see also: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Isp#Conversion_factor ).

I have to test it later and give you exact values, but if I remember correctly I calculated a burn time of 8 seconds and MJ showed something of 30 to 40 seconds. It did however showed a lower burntime when I reconfigured everything to hydrolox which has very high fuel volume consumption. So it does something correctly. I also have been checking only the burn time as this is pretty easy to do: You get the amount of LH2 in the tank and divide it with the amount of LH2 used by the engine (You are displaying that in X and X/s, where X is the same but arbitrary volume unit, aren't you?). I might check deltaV but it calculated about 7 km/s for the second stage with only two FL-T800 Fuel Tanks (hydrolox) which doesn't sound reasonable, and I didn't got into orbit and not because of lack of thrust. Fabian

Hi, I launched today my first manned rocket from IVA and almost docked without using the map view which brings me to my problem: I have no idea how to interpret the closest approach value. Especially that time "AT", is that relative? Because it doesn't tick down or up, very confusing. Another interesting "bug" is, when I set a docking port to "Control from here" (not with your GUI), the docking cam doesn't work. When I now set the reference part to the docking port it does work (yay) BUT strangely the nav ball changes. Now unfortunately I didn't test what happens if I set control from here to the command module (the only other part from which I could control the ship), if the nav ball changes there too. Also another problem is that when I try to select a docking port of the target ship it doesn't really do that. There is no red reticule on the nav ball and in the external view I still can set that part as my target. Maybe I'm doing it wrong? I select the target ship from the vessel list it then shows me two docking ports and I select one of them and hit "ENT" but both times the docking port is not targeted (I tested only one, so I don't know if I targeted both times the other docking port, but I personally don't think so). But apart from that it was a fun ride and another experience doing it from IVA and having no resource bar. Oh man this brings me to another problem I'm using RealFuels and I have to use the total resource view (I didn't tested the stage helper) because the small overview didn't show any fuel and oxidizer. Okay this is getting rediculus but I try to list everything which caught my eye: The battery charge showed always full in the simplified view. Fabian

Then you are talking about something else. The KW Vesta VR1 is a U+ engine but does simulate ullage. Fabian

Hmmm, when I attach an engine I can see the maximum consumption in "action group mode". When I now divide the amount in the tank with that value I get a different (I only got lower) value. Of course I compared only one resource but auto configured the tank. I guess I'll test if my calculation is correct. And if I understand that correctly RF changes the behaviour of the engines in such a way, that the burn time is always identical and does not depend on the pressure (like stock does; in RF the Isp doesn't change the amount of fuel burned but instead the thrust get which might explain your second paragraph). But it is really annoying when MJ gives you 30 s burntime instead of 8 s. Might it be because of engine config? I'm using the stockalike from J_Davis (not linked in the 2nd post). I tested it with the MJ 2.1.1 and the newest dev version. I have to do the calculations, but this might be, because the thrust (and not the fuel flow) depend on the pressure and maybe MJ calculates the thrust in vacuum? I've never looked to closely at that value so I don't know if that happens on my system too. And I got another question about the stockalike config linked in the 2nd post: Is J_Davis version basically an older revision? Or is J_Davis' completely different and both versions aren't comparable. Fabian

Okay I usually think of a hole integer when somebody says they rounded a number. And as I do much in Java (where Math.round() return integers) I was thinking of it. Of course you could round to a specific decimal place. But I have another question: Can't MechJeb calculate the deltaV/burn time correctly or is my setup wrong? I mean in theory it should be no problem for it, as it knows how many fuel for an engine is available it should know what type of fuel. And that actually does happen, because when your tanks are filled with the incorrect fuel it does show a burn time of 0 s. It even shows the same burn time for atmospheric and vacuum flight (afaik in stock the burn time in atmosphere is lower because it burns more fuel). Fabian

Ah okay I got worried, because it doesn't show them rounded when you auto configure the tanks (It doesn't look nice, but it works so it's fine ). Fabian

What do you mean with "round"? I'm using RF 4.3 (and not Strechy*) but when I automatically configure my tanks the amount is never an integer. I don't think that is a problem but I'm just curious what you do mean with "round". Yeah that would be nice. But also when you have a rocket and later researched higher tech levels that it (semi-)automatically updates all tech levels. Maybe someone has perfectly calibrated the thrust/efficiency so that the flight path with a higher tech engine wouldn't work. So maybe you can show a confirmation when a craft loads in the VAB/SPH and it detects that engines can be upgraded. (I don't know if that is possible with KSP) Fabian

http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Tutorial:Satellite_Coverage This does cover some of the calculations useful for that plugin. Although I might will add a "how many satellites at what altitude do I need when the antennae have a specific range". Fabian