xZise

When you only want the challenge of setting up a relay network but not that time delay, you could set the speed of light to a high multiple like 1000. This will make all actions almost instant. Fabian

Afaik you don't need the empty ones when you have MF as you can empty an full tank. By the way there is an error in the fix file you quoted: In th 5th line is one opening bracket to much (before the LiquidFuel). Fabian

Wow this is a great addition. I was wondering if it is possible to get the highest position for each latitude (e.g. for each degree going north/south) so it is possible to determine what minimum height you need for an inclination. For example on the Mun the highest point is at the south pole, so as long as you don't orbit polar (or near polar) you don't have to bother with this. I was hoping to create a graph showing the highest elevations. Maybe I create an example graph to visualize what I wanted to create. Edit: Okay here is an example with random generated numbers: Fabian

What do you define as a control module? Fabian

Nice and thanks, it appears now to work. Fabian

Ah nice, I'm looking forward to see that in the official version. It works nice, for example the KSC: http://test.kerbalmaps.com/?loc=-0.102668048653556,-74.5753856554463 I was trying to place multiple markers: http://test.kerbalmaps.com/?loc=-0.102668048653556,-74.5753856554463&loc=-0.122668048653556,-74.55 But the script does seem to run in an endless loop, although your example does work. Fabian

Okay, I tried to test RT2 I'm wondering if there is a list what is working or not. Of course (as it was mentioned earlier) I could simply open bug reports, but I'm not sure if this it what you want. Maybe it's a feature which isn't implemented yet. Also does the new RT2 work differently but where to ask? About the new satellite dish: Is the fairing fixed to this? If so, shouldn't be possible to have a separate faring base and faring. Fabian

Okay I checked the values: As Kerbol has already a diameter of 261.6 Mm (aka 261 600 km or 261 600 000 m) and Kerbin's SoI is only about 84 Mm in radius this isn't really possible. So without relays you can't communicate with another celestial body, when Kerbol is in between. To communicate with a craft on the other side of Kerbin's orbit you need twice of Kerbol's radius (aka diameter) as the altitude from Kerbin's center. But as soon as your altitude is lower than Kerbol's radius (which it is everytime) you can't communicate “around†Kerbol. And it should be independent of the inclination (a polar orbit also doesn't help) and the RT version you are using. It is basically the intercept theorem: S is the other craft, C is the center of Kerbol and D the center of Kerbin. A is on Kerbol's surface (|AC| = 130.8 Mm) and B is the satellite around Kerbin. And because |AC| is larger than |BD| there is no point S where A is in between S and B. Fabian

Hey, I don't know if it is possible, but isn't it possible to test a new version of KAC with 0.20.2 and when you think it's ready to release test it once with 0.21? Or does the codebase heavily change in between so it isn't really upwards compatible? Fabian

I'm wondering if there is still connection when Kerbol is in between? Fabian

Hi is possible to link directly to a position with parameters so I could share them with other people? I want to add a link to your map with a marker to wiki pages about locations, like in Wikipedia. Fabian

All reference codes are listed on the wiki: http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Orbit#Reference_code Fabian

Indeed this looks elegant, I like it! Don't use quotes, and fix your link (add an i. and the file extension): [IMG][B]http://i.imgur.com/1BPs2Id.jpg[/B][/IMG[B][/B]] But when you have a question about RT2, then the bug tracker isn't really helpful. Also I can't find any search function on the bug tracker, or I'm blind. And RT1 isn't really helpful at the moment. I'm only waiting for the official release of RT2 to start playing KSP again. Fabian

When you are using RT1 you need to install the compatibility pack to support the stock antennae. With RT2 this is still buggy and you have to wait for a fix. I don't understand why RT2 shouldn't discussed here too. Maybe some questions don't get answers, but I'm pretty sure they don't get answers because nobody knows how to fix is. I don't see that RT1 specific questions get ignored, and most of the time a non-dev is answering RT2 specific questions, so you don't have any additional work load. Of course it could be possible that devs (like you) can delete posts in this thread and I don't see all that RT2 specific posts, because they get deleted before. But of course then you wouldn't answer because you could have deleted that post. Fabian

As this 21 % of Kerbin's SMA. I guess you meant either 2.87 million meters (= Mm) or 2.87 thousand km. Fabian

Oh that additional use for AN/DN is nice. But for the launch pad it's not very useful if this is stick to a rocket. So maybe allow adding the AN/DN countdown without a source vessel if you want to start from the launch pad. That way you can add it, and start other missions in the mean time. Fabian

I didn't check it with my own calculations, but I guess it's because of the additional dry mass. You could test if you add enough fuel to the LF/OX combination which isn't LF/OX so that the dry mass (the mass of the tank fully fuelled except for LF and OX) is about the same dry mass as the LF/LOX tank. Or another possibility is, that KER/MJ don't really bother what type of fuel you use. So if you fill the tank only with LF if KER and MJ still calculate the ÃŽâ€v as if you could use all LF (what you can obviously as oxidizer is missing). At the moment I can't test it on my own so I can only suggest. Fabian

That would be a nice addition. (Of course to do that, the flight computer needs to know when the dish opens) Fabian

I'll test that later today, but who calculates you the ÃŽâ€V? As I already said I'm pretty confident that the calculations KSP is doing are correct. Fabian

Okay I was talking about the calculation KSP is doing. I also looked the density of liquid hydrogen up and get 72.01 kg/m³. Now the ResourcesFuel.cfg states that the unit is kg/6.25 m³ which I highly doubt that's correct, as the given values are way off. For example liquid fuel has a density of 0.005 u but according the density of RP-1 is about 1 g/ml (= 1 g/cm³ = 1 kg/dm³ = 1000 kg/m³). It looks more like Mg/6.25 dm³ (t/6.25 l), which would get me a density of 0.000011 u (≃ 0.00007201 Mg/dm³). Which is way below the density given in the configuration file and actually make the complete situation worse. Or maybe I did a conversion error because LOX has a density of 1146 kg/m³. With LH2/LOX density ratio of 0.062) I get 0.062·0.007=0.000434 (0.007 u is the density of LOX in the configuration file) which matches almost the given density of LH2. But then again RP-1 is either to light or LOX to heavy (and then LH2 too), as 1146 kg/m³/1 g/ml·0.005=0.00573 (0.005 u is the density of RP-1/LF in the configuration file) this would be density of LOX. My wording on this was poor, but saying my rocket looks unrealistic because it's so huge doesn't really work, as we never saw a rocket with one NERVA engine. They only conducted ground based tests so maybe a rocket with a NERVA engine simply looks this way. Yeah I was interested too what the problem could be. And it looks like you make some progress in making LOX and LH2 useful. Fabian

When you don't want to program your own landing program for RT2, shouldn't MechJeb do? Use the landing autopilot and only input the values once prior to landing. Of course it would be nice, if MJ would be aware of the signal delay. But as MJ is a computer on the craft, the control from MechJeb would be instant and only your actions like "point towards prograde" would be delayed. I'm not sure how MJ exactly works, but maybe it is possible (when the developers of both plugins work together) to implement this. So when you execute an action on MJ it adds this action the RT's flight computer queue and after it's being transmitted RT's flight computer then executes the corresponding functions in MJ. Apart from the rest of your discussion: It's unfair for the developers if people don't recognize that this is a playtest (aka alpha/beta?). So features aren't finished and bugs aren't fixed, so nobody could say: “I don't like that RT2 doesn't support MJâ€Â, because this mustn't be true, except the person could time travel and knows if RT2 support MJ. Fabian

Give it time. It's not finished yet, so this might get fixed. Fabian

Actually it's 900 Gm. (But with the new RT2 it doesn't really matter) Fabian

But what could be wrong?! Simply saying "THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG" doesn't help. With an Isp of 3000 the LV-N would be almost as efficient as the Xenon Ion Engine. Or do you also want to pimp the Isp of that engine to 42000? The only reasonable way to “maintain realism†is to reduce the mass. This would increase the ÃŽâ€v as you could add more fuel on your craft. You could for testing purposes change the mass of the LV-N to the mass of the LV-T45 and then check the results? What I'm trying to say is: Physically speaking it works fine! So I don't know where the problem might be that it (seems?) unrealistic, but there is another problem about realism: There was never a nuclear engine mounted on a rocket so we don't know how much fuel it would need. The LV-N needs not very much mass but a lot of volume and this adds additional dry mass making your over all ÃŽâ€v worse. About the Space Shuttle example: The SSMEs (and the LV-T45 when fitted to LH2+LOX) are burning both and as LOX is very dense (compared to LH2) a SSME/LV-T45 burns longer with the same volume of fuel. Another way to test that would be to test the LV-N with a heavier craft, so that the additional mass by the LV-N doesn't matter. Okay I tried to rebuild rosenkranz's ships but my LF/OX craft (build like yours) was able to add one FL-T100 and one Oscar-B fuel tank and the mass is only 5.48 t? Now the dry mass for my ship is then 2.07 t so there are 3.43 t fuel on board. With a LV-N rocket like you build and reduced the mass of the LV-N to 1.5 (LV-T45's) I was able to put 2.45 t of fuel in it. That explains your discrepancies: LH2 (and LOX) drymass/fuelmass ratio is worse than the LF/OX ratios. Now I don't have a good solution for that, except maybe to either use large amounts of LH2 (at least you choose to do the hardcore mode) or stick to classic engines which use the heavier LF, OX and LOX. By the way: With the reduced mass of the LV-N I get 4.9 km/s ÃŽâ€v (due to the additional fuel I was able to add). Fabian

Maybe the other antenna at the KSC to the west might be rented (via the Mission Controller) to get additional coverage? Fabian