velusip

Did you try pressing "R" to change the type of symmetry?

Hello Kerbals, One of my controllers is not shown in the AFBW controller listing. The log shows unity detecting everything, and the mod is "Loaded" and "initialized" without any errors. However, when the AFBW window is open (Ctrl+L) the framerate drops to less than 1fps. I won't be able to get around to debugging this right away, but I can at least assume there is something fishy regarding the configuration for CH pro pedals. This is the only useful bit from my log for now: /dev/input/js0: driver version: 2.1.0 (20100) /dev/input/js0: fd 46, buttons 16, axes 5, name raphnet.net WUSBmote_v1.3 /dev/input/js0: axis 0: raw 0, mapped 0.000000 /dev/input/js0: axis 1: raw 0, mapped 0.000000 /dev/input/js0: axis 2: raw 0, mapped 0.000000 /dev/input/js0: axis 3: raw 0, mapped 0.000000 /dev/input/js0: axis 4: raw 0, mapped 0.000000 /dev/input/js1: driver version: 2.1.0 (20100) /dev/input/js1: fd 47, buttons 19, axes 5, name CH PRODUCTS CH PRO THROTTLE USB /dev/input/js1: axis 0: raw 0, mapped 0.000000 /dev/input/js1: axis 1: raw 0, mapped 0.000000 /dev/input/js1: axis 2: raw 0, mapped 0.000000 /dev/input/js1: axis 3: raw 0, mapped 0.000000 /dev/input/js1: axis 4: raw 0, mapped 0.000000 /dev/input/js2: driver version: 2.1.0 (20100) /dev/input/js2: fd 48, buttons 19, axes 5, name CH PRODUCTS CH FIGHTERSTICK USB /dev/input/js2: axis 0: raw 0, mapped 0.000000 /dev/input/js2: axis 1: raw 0, mapped 0.000000 /dev/input/js2: axis 2: raw -19932, mapped 0.000000 /dev/input/js2: axis 3: raw 0, mapped 0.000000 /dev/input/js2: axis 4: raw 0, mapped 0.000000 /dev/input/js4: driver version: 2.1.0 (20100) /dev/input/js4: fd 49, buttons 0, axes 3, name CH PRODUCTS CH PRO PEDALS USB /dev/input/js4: axis 0: raw -32767, mapped 0.000000 /dev/input/js4: axis 1: raw -32767, mapped 0.000000 /dev/input/js4: axis 2: raw 0, mapped 0.000000

So I arrive at KSC this morning only to find it is barricaded. I was able to smash a window and get into R&D, but the door is barricaded from the outside. I can only assume this is the work of Kerbal rights activists. Probably something regarding cloning or recognizing clones as people, I'm not sure. Some time back, during a station building missio,n we ended up with Jeb staring at Jeb on a spacewalk -- an accidental cloning, I don't want to get into it -- regardless, I'm locked in/out/whatever. Enough about that, onto the solution: I contacted payroll about adding a second entry for Jeb in the books. Thus recognizing clones as people and ensuring any payroll disputes are handled, but I'm still locked up. I'm considering climbing back out the window, going into hiding for a few years, and starting a new space program under a different corporate identity. Here's our mission history as per my company laptop. Any help is appreciated. http://sprunge.us/TQDY

See thread http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/100793

When you say stock volumes are bonkers you mean they are too high? In that case, why are the few existing RF volume configurations for plane parts generated with such a high multiplier? Or did you mean that the stock volumes are too low and required a higher multiplier to account for all the empty space? I'd like to fill in the blanks in the RF volume config for all these new stock parts. I just need to know some of the rationale that went into the plane parts which already have RF volumes defined (mk2Fuselage, et cetrea). I tried using some Blender plugins to calculate volume in the stock parts as a starting point. I will then subtract volume based on some assumed/imagined internal structure based on the stock crash strength, and further subtract what other systems might occupy the part internals (cockpit, life support, electronics, pumps, solenoids/servos, et cetera). Since several of the models are poorly made, I can't get an accurate volume from Blender (perhaps someone else has more experience summarizing subtractive geometry to yield fine detail). In the meantime I will just overlay simple geometry and add up an approximate volume.

There's a long thread here, but perhaps someone can point me toward the rationale for setting the tank volumes as they are? e.g. Most of the rocket fuel tank volumes seem to be merely multiplied by 5 to yield the realfuels volume. However the volume of spaceplane parts and adaptors are variable from 8.33 to 13.3. It doesn't seem to be related to crash strength or structure, part scaling, and I can't accurately calculate part volume, so I'm not sure why these values exist. Anyway, a whole bunch of new tanks need to be added, and I'd be happy to help, but I just need info. Here's the incomplete chart I generated by parsing the stock files and comparing to the provided module manager changes: mono O2 liquid volume crash multi "nacelleBody" 40 "radialEngineBody" 40 "adapterMk3-Size2Slant" 1125 1375 "adapterMk3-Size2" 1125 1375 "adapterSize2-Size1Slant" 360 440 "adapterSize3-Mk3" 1125 1375 "adapterSize2-Mk2" 360 440 "adapterSize2-Size1" 360 440 "adapterMk3-Mk2" 900 1100 "fuelTank1-2" 1440 1760 16000 6 x5 "miniFuelTank" 5.735 7 62.5 6 x4.91 "fuelTankSmallFlat" 45 55 500 6 x5 "fuelTankSmall" 90 110 1000 6 x5 "fuelTank_long" 360 440 4000 6 x5 "fuelTank4-2" 360 440 4000 6 x5 "toroidalFuelTank" 10 12.2 112.5 6 x5.07 "fuelTank" 180 220 2000 x5 "fuelTank3-2" 2880 3520 32000 x5 "fuelTank2-2" 720 880 8000 x5 "MK1Fuselage" 150 1900 20 x12.67 "mk3Fuselage" REMOVED "mk3FuselageLF_50" 5000 "mk3FuselageLFO_25" 1125 1375 "mk3FuselageLFO_100" 4500 5500 "mk3FuselageLF_25" 2500 "mk3FuselageLF_100" 10000 "mk3FuselageLFO_50" 2250 2750 "mk3FuselageMONO" 1000 "mk2FuselageShortLFO" 135 165 3600 50 x12 "mk2FuselageShortLiquid" 300 2500 50 x8.33 "mk2Fuselage" 600 5000 50 x8.33 "mk2FuselageLongLFO" 270 330 7200 50 x12 "mk2_1m_Bicoupler" 135 165 4000 50 x13.33 "mk2_1m_AdapterLong" 225 275 5900 x11.8 "mk2_1m_Adapter" REMOVED "mk2DockingPort" REMOVED "mk2pit_Standard" REMOVED* "mk2Cockpit_Standard" 15 45 "mk2pit_Inline" REMOVED* "mk2Cockpit_Inline" 25 "mk2SpacePlaneAdapter" 135 165 3000 x10 "mk2FuselageShortMono" 300 3600 x12

Updated the stock Inlets by clearing the dangling definitions (small versions of parts removed) and added the 3 nacelles. Might be incomplete, but seems to work well so far.

I think this crashes pretty bad with RealFuels installed. It complains about the resource types and then mayhem. This is pretty understandable, though.

Just a heads up, many of the parts now contain a small fuel tank for LiquidFuel (e.g. nacelleBody, radialEngineBosy, some cockpits), but this is not reflected in the overrides in RealFuels. I did a quick thingie and the results are in. This is how I got that list, just in case it's missing something. find . -name '*.cfg' -exec awk '/LiquidFuel/{ln1=NR;line1=$0} /amount/{ln2=NR;line2=$0} END{if(ln1&&ln2&&ln1 <ln2){print FILENAME, "\n", line1, "\n", line2}}' {} \;|sprunge

Okay, scratch anything I said earlier. Any information on how the Inlet configurations are defined? I mocked up some definitions for the missing inlets area (radialEngineBody = 5, radialEngineBodysmall = 1, nacelleBody = 5, MK1IntakeFuselage = 3), but I'm not sure how to derive appropriate TPR.

Porkchops in my KSP? It's more likely than you think. Awesome work, TriggerAu!

It was a problem with a missing intake configuration and defaulting to silliness. However, here's an unrelated/new problem when using RealFuels: After filling a fuel tank with only Kerosine (which by default contains resource definitions for LiquidFuel and Oxidizer), AJE's modified engines will not pull the Kerosine resource from that tank (or any similar tank). The engine will spool up and make some noise, but no fuel is consumed or thrust produced. Everything works fine when switching to a stock single fuel tank filled with kerosine.

Just noticed there is no intake configuration for the MK1Fuselage in AJE. I'm not sure what configuration would be fair or how you have been calculating it from the model geometry, so I have no input atm. edit: I'm just copying the nacelle config and dropping the intake area from 3 to 2. From eyeballing them side by side it appears about two thirds.

Perhaps the energy density is fine. I mean, I don't know what the units are in stock and I haven't been following on with the developments of RealFuels. It just didn't seem right when trying AJE with stock. It's hardly worth the effort to look into, especially since RealFuels is now updated (lol), but assuming the Mk1 liquidfuel tank contains less than 1000 litres of fuel: should this engine be able to throw it out the back so quickly?

This needs a Scott Manley video review.