xZise

Remember: Even when you get a 0.0.5.1 version to work on your 0.21.1 install it won't work with 2.0 as 2.0 breaks compatibility. Fabian

Do you know the big orange tank on the space shuttle?! This is ALL the fuel the Space Shuttle used during ascent and nothing else. And now imagine that most of the tank was for the LH2 while only in the tip was the LOX tank. The LOX tank has a volume of 553 m³ and stored 629 t while the LH2 tank had a volume of 1 497 m³ but stored only 106 t. Now the TWR has nothing to do with this mod. The LV-T45 has more than 3 times the thrust of the LV-N (in stock configuration) what your measurements also indicate: 200 kN/60 kN · 1.11 = 3.7 Another important value is also the drymass as the rocket equation uses the quotient of full and dry mass. And the LV-N already make half the mass (41%) of the craft while the LV-T45 only makes 27% of the craft's mass. Now I personally don't know what the issue here is? It's simple math(s). When you increase the density of LH2 your normal rocket engine configurations get smaller too so this won't balance your outcome. Increase the Isp of the LV-N? The Isp is already huge. Reduce the mass of the LV-N? This actually might help with your problem, but you have to keep balance. The same goes for you: What could be wrong with this mod? This mod defines the density of LH2, the specific impulse of the LV-N and the thrust of the LV-N. KSP itself then calculates the mass used to generate the given thrust with the given specific impulse and then calculates the volume with the calculated mass and the given density. Fabian

@p1t1o: Yep this looks correct. The OP really needs some installation guide, as I didn't know where to put the Real Fuels directory. @rosenkranz: I just tested the NERVA with the X200-16 (the second smallest tank with a big diameter). Filled with LF+OX it has a mass of 13.59 tonnes and filled with only 3.49 tonnes, so about a quarter of the LF+OX configuration. To accumulate the same mass as the LF+OX I used a eleven tanks (300 kg lighter) and those have of course higher ÃŽâ€v (but the same TWR). Now I don't understand why you want to compare their volume. If you want to do that stick with LF+OX as those are the densest fuels. It has nothing to do with the NERVA is nerfed with this, as your assumptions aren't working then: NERVA use super light LH2 but the same amount of mass then before. So consequently it uses much more volume compared to other fuels. And the mass of the engine is only a secondary concern and it is the stock mass so nothing has changed. Your mass/fuel ratio gets a bit worse: My one tank craft had only 800 kg mass (22 %) while the LF+OX combination used 72.7 % of the craft's mass. It's hard to explain, but that's the drawback of cryogenic fuels: They are light so you need more tank volume. The NERVA eats 31.85 dm³/s on ground level, but with eleven tanks you have 17.16 m³. The LV-909 (LF+OX) only 3.76 dm³/s but the tank only stores 1.6 m³, and the LV-909 isn't that bad on the ground level. Fabian

Okay your … 5 "tonnes" drive isn't 5 tonnes anymore when you don't use LF+OX. I don't know where you get your ÃŽâ€v values and I'm not sure how light LH2 really is (compared to LF+OX) but when you only have 1/8th of the fuel you only get 1/2th of the ÃŽâ€v even when the Isp is 4 times better. Okay I don't know any numbers so I'm not sure if the NERVA is really inefficient or something like that, but you can't really compare TWR and ÃŽâ€v when you don't compare mass. I mean you could use your 5 "tonnes" drive everytime, but then you need to compare TWR and ÃŽâ€v relative to your mass. Maybe later today I'll try it for my self to compare for myself (unfortunately you didn't posted the masses of your ship with the different fuel configurations). Fabian

You need to compare their masses and not volumes: You get a lower ÃŽâ€v for LF+LOX (and even lower when both are cryogenic LH2+LOX) but a higher TWR because LOX (and LH2) are not as dense as LF/OX. So the volume is the same but LF/OX are heavier. As ÃŽâ€v and TWR both work with the mass and not the volume you need to compare the fuels when their mass is the same. Basically you add more tanks when you are using LOX (or LH2 and LOX) to have the same fuel mass. Then you get a higher ÃŽâ€v when you use LF+LOX and even more ÃŽâ€v when you use LH2+LOX. But your TWR roughly stays the same (you need additional tanks to fill the same amount of fuel resulting in a slightly lower TWR when the fuel masses are the same). Build a rocket and look up the mass with LF+OX, LF+LOX and LH2+LOX and you will notice that the rocket gets lighter every step. Oh and the NERVA using only LH2 (and a bit of nuclear fuel) is SUUUUPER light. Compare the mass of your NERVA craft with a fully fuel LF/OX tank (the NERVA won't work but you only need to compare the masses). Fabian

Is there a reason, why you can change the LV-T45 fuel configuration? I added them manually (extrapolated the thrust values from the LV-T30) and it works fine so it doesn't look like a bug in 0.21. Fabian

Did you deactivate all except your necessary network ports? Worked for me. Fabian

Ah I assumed you would use the game own persistence system. But as I already said I have no idea how KSP does this actually. Hmmm this link doesn't seem to work for me. Isn't https://github.com/KerbalSystems that the same? Fabian

Not necessarily: When you strap a Mainsail on the Jumbo-64 tank and throttle up to 100%, the Mainsail starts to overheat after a while. LV-N do this regularly but never damage the craft. Also at least one of the jet engines tend to overheat after some time running on full throttle. But this is hard to do with your time based alarm system, as the overheat depend for example on the throttle and usually you have to create an alarm which then activates after X seconds. It's like the resource warning suggested (some) pages before. I won't object if you add that, but its not really something your plugin is build to cover. Fabian

I didn't tested it yet. I even not updated KSP to 0.21.1 because I wanted to have RemoteTech (for real). So I don't know what features are missing/bugs exist. Fabian

0.5.0.1 offically won't work and the new RemoteTech2 version is ONLY for testing (e.g. a default delay of at least 1 second). Fabian

Hi, as only KSP related devices can be added/removed via docking/staging you could add additional interrupts like "device added" and "device removed". And how do you plan to store the state of the devices? I'm have almost no idea about how KSP handles that, but what if you add an interface "StorableDevice" (some devices might not need to be saved?) with one method with one parameter which is the ID for the CPU? Or every device has the interrupt ID (I guess that is the problem with saving the state? So that after loading the program can still access the same device with the same ID) which get's set when its get added to the DCPU. Of course this could cause problems when you have two DCPUs on one craft. Although there are other problems with this. Fabian

Maybe more general: Alarm when passing an specific altitude and you can select also the bodies' atmosphere as a special limit. And then (like usual) you could set the warning to 2 minutes before. Fabian

Yeah for all orbiters around Jool and Kerbol this is happening, because there don't exist Kerbal maps for those two (if you haven't figured it out already). Fabian

mod is working but anything that u put on a ship with remotetech enabled u wont be able to use the new sas It's not because of the new SAS. But they said the new version of RT (not 0.5.0.1) will break compatibility with 0.5.0.1. Fabian

Does the new version break compatibility? I'm currently on 0.20.2 and finishing few missions and waiting for your new version so I don't have to reset everything twice (with 0.21 once and then your break). Fabian

Not now: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/24594-0-20-0-Telemachus-%E2%80%93-Telemetry-and-Flight-Control-in-the-Web-Browser?p=519039&viewfull=1#post519039 Fabian

The map itself is able to draw lines, but the API doesn't provide some crucial data (at least longitude of ascending node is required, I guess). And I have no idea how to calculate that path. But would be an awesome addition. Fabian

Now probes like Voyager 1 also have only one antenna for commands and science data. Okay they have afaik three different types, but they all do the same and only differ in the efficiency. Fabian

No it adds the Telemachus functionality of your two antennae to all RemoteTech antennae. so you don't need two antennae (one for each plugin). Fabian

Isn't there one ] missing? Fabian

When I get the source correctly, you parse the file by the game, so there is no way to add this in without implementing an own parser? Fabian

Hi, I created a ModuleManger file to support RemoteTechs antennae: // RemoteTech Compability File @PART[RemoteDeployAntenna] { MODULE { name = TelemachusDataLink } MODULE { name = TelemachusPowerDrain powerConsumptionBase = 0.01 powerConsumptionIncrease = 0.02 } } @PART[RemoteDipoleAntenna] { MODULE { name = TelemachusDataLink } MODULE { name = TelemachusPowerDrain powerConsumptionBase = 0.01 powerConsumptionIncrease = 0.02 } } @PART[RTmegaStrut] { MODULE { name = TelemachusDataLink } MODULE { name = TelemachusPowerDrain powerConsumptionBase = 0.01 powerConsumptionIncrease = 0.02 } } @PART[RemoteDish] { MODULE { name = TelemachusDataLink } MODULE { name = TelemachusPowerDrain powerConsumptionBase = 0.01 powerConsumptionIncrease = 0.02 } } @PART[RemoteLongRangeDish] { MODULE { name = TelemachusDataLink } MODULE { name = TelemachusPowerDrain powerConsumptionBase = 0.01 powerConsumptionIncrease = 0.02 } } @PART[RemoteTrackDish] { MODULE { name = TelemachusDataLink } MODULE { name = TelemachusPowerDrain powerConsumptionBase = 0.01 powerConsumptionIncrease = 0.02 } } @PART[RemoteMiniDishJr] { MODULE { name = TelemachusDataLink } MODULE { name = TelemachusPowerDrain powerConsumptionBase = 0.01 powerConsumptionIncrease = 0.02 } } @PART[SatDish9000] { MODULE { name = TelemachusDataLink } MODULE { name = TelemachusPowerDrain powerConsumptionBase = 0.01 powerConsumptionIncrease = 0.02 } } @PART[RemoteTechMicroSat] { MODULE { name = TelemachusDataLink } MODULE { name = TelemachusPowerDrain powerConsumptionBase = 0.01 powerConsumptionIncrease = 0.02 } } @PART[RemoteTech RC antenna] { MODULE { name = TelemachusDataLink } MODULE { name = TelemachusPowerDrain powerConsumptionBase = 0.01 powerConsumptionIncrease = 0.02 } } @PART[RTintelliStrut] { MODULE { name = TelemachusDataLink } MODULE { name = TelemachusPowerDrain powerConsumptionBase = 0.01 powerConsumptionIncrease = 0.02 } } @PART[RemoteTechAeroProbe] { MODULE { name = TelemachusDataLink } MODULE { name = TelemachusPowerDrain powerConsumptionBase = 0.01 powerConsumptionIncrease = 0.02 } } Simply create with the extension cfg and place it in a directory like <game>/GameData/Telemachus/. You also need to add ModuleManager. Fabian

Hi is it already possible to add the same modules to multiple parts like: @PART[foo] @PART[bar] { MODULE { name=snafu } } Oh and I got another question: Are foo/bar the part's name or the part's directory name? Fabian

Same for miles and pounds. Luckily this game doesn't. @Cliph: How does the new target system works? I lost a probe, because it antenna was located at “sun†and when it got into a solar orbit it didn't connected to the other probes in the solar orbit. I know this is the default behaviour of 0.5.0.1 but it's kind of strange that within Kerbin's SoI I got a connection and suddenly it left the SoI and the connection terminates. This is even weirder when you are between Mun and Kerbin: A relay satellite points at Mun with the 50 Mm dish, but a satellite between Mun and Kerbin outside Mun's SoI got no connection. Actually I don't have a good solution for this, except allow multiple targets and when a connection failed it tries the next one. For example I would add Kerbin to my probe as a secondary target and I could establish a emergency connection from Kerbin with another satellite. And at lest the satellite between Mun and Kerbin could target all relay satellites around Kerbin. It won't fix the problem for this satellite as I still have to manually target the satellite from a relay satellite. Another “workaround†is to target the Mun, but this only works with a relay satellite network around the Mun and there is the same hazard of losing connection forever, when this target isn't changed to Kerbin and it is entering the Mun's SoI. Although this could be fixed by an omnidirectional antenna (as there needs to be a relay network already) or another dish pointing at Kerbin. And another thing about the expandable 50 Gm antenna: It's quite heavy, twice as heavy as the fixed one, although it looks relatively small. Now I did reduce the mass to 250 kg and I'm now able to control my little probes (and those go into interplanetary space so I need the 50 Gm one), but I personally want to be as “original†as possible so maybe there could be another way to reduce the antenna's mass? For example to use a less effective one with a lower bandwidth, but I don't know how the plugin can simulate bandwidth. It only seems odd that you always have to use the very large antenna. And afaik real world satellites use different types of antennae allowing connection without pointing at each other (like the omnidirectional ones) but with a very low bandwidth simply as backup to fix the satellites orientation. But in the end I'm pretty happy with the plugin! Nice work. Fabian