Jump to content

plausse

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    132

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by plausse

    [1.8-1.12] Ferram Aerospace Research Continued: v0.16.0.5 "Mader" 03/04/22

    in KSP1 Mod Releases

    Posted

    On 5/9/2021 at 6:21 AM, dkavolis said:

    Updated KSP version 1.11
    Update to MFI 1.2.10

    Added Dynamic Deflection for Control Surfaces Option #110, @Alioth81
    Fixed Mk1pod.v2 voxelization by switching to mesh voxelization, colliders were missing top and bottom planes resulting in shell-only voxelization
    Rotor blades are no longer voxelized
    Reduced submerged lift and drag, multipliers are controlled by FARConfig/Settings/submerged[Drag|Lift]Multiplier with default value of 0.25
    Renamed FARWind to FARAtmosphere and added overrides for gas properties

    I find FAR indispensable for KSP and each time it's updated I get into playing again. 

    Just wanted to take a moment to say thank you for keeping it alive! It is very appreciated.

     

    A dicussion on the merits of paying for mods, moved from another thread.

    in KSP1 Mods Discussions

    Posted

    1 hour ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

    even if you guys charge 2.99 thatd be almost 100k

    and very worth it....

    Provided the number of downloads remained constant. What people feel is reasonable and what they actually do is often not the same. Historically, I think there was a very successful ksp mod that tried a premium model, with no success. Also looking at Skyrim, when people have attempted monetising, it has brought up all sorts of expected and unexpected issues making it not only not worth the effort, but often killing the joy of the creator and maybe the whole mod.

    I wonder if some kind of (dreaded) freemium model is a tenable answer, like patreon but maybe a little more in your face than most ksp modders use it. Maybe setting donation goals and explaining how the money is contributing to allowing the mod to continue. I think there was a GoT inspired mod for Mount and Blade which tried something similar. 

    I'm aware this may be OT but thought I'd the team is feeling lethargic, overworked and underappreciated, it could be worth looking into. Personally I feel more implied to pay/donate to the more backend kind of mods, like this or projects to save orphan mods etc. 

    [1.5.0 <-> 1.8.1] Kerbalism v3.2

    in KSP1 Mod Releases

    Posted

    3 hours ago, Sir Mortimer said:

    Nope. Radiation damage only affects solar panels, transmitters and RCS wheels (not thrusters). Engines are immune to radiation. Unless, of course, you change the config files.

    Engines are guaranteed to get 35% of the rated burn duration without a failure to material fatigue, and after that the probability of a failure raises exponentially. If my math doesn't fail me, this means that you will get, roughly rounded:

    • 0% failures up to 35% of the rated duration
    • 3% failures at 50% of the rated duration
    • 20% failures at 75% of the rated duration
    • 56% failures at 100% of the rated duration
    • 80% failures at 110% of the rated duration
    • 100% failures at ~117% of the rated duration

    So, for mission critical engines, I'd suggest you plan to burn it not longer than 50% of the duration, plan the ignitions very very conservatively and hope for the best.

    From what I can see based on the feedback I get the feeling that engine failures might be happening a bit too frequent. What do you think, should they be changed to be more reliable?

    Looking at the wording "rated", to me it feels like that is where they have been tested to for reliability during development. If I had to shoot from the hip and suggest numbers I would think 0.5% failure up to 35% of burn time (to allow freak accidents, like a broken fuel line or something), 3% rate up to 50% burn time, 5% up to 75% of burn time, 15% after 75% - then maybe 25% at 100%, 75% at 110%, 90% at 120%, 95% above that.

    To me that would let the rated number make more sense, in that failures can happen below that, but that it is a reasonable ballpark for how long an engine actually can be used safely. Having a real utility above 100% I think makes "out of parameter" missions, Apollo 13 style, more fun as they have a real chance of success . I guess looking at real space missions most don't suffer engine failures, but a significant minority do. Thinking more about it my numbers above are probably way too low, but the idea is that redundancy is there for the odd time something goes wrong, but is usually not needed - rather than it being standard to go through three spare engines. 

     

    Overall take what I say with a pinch of salt. Haven't used kerbalism before - I tried a while ago but it killed my framerate - I really enjoy it now though!

    [1.5.0 <-> 1.8.1] Kerbalism v3.2

    in KSP1 Mod Releases

    Posted · Edited by plausse
    Looked at the config files

    On 11/19/2019 at 9:14 AM, Sir Mortimer said:

    The engine reliability settings are done with just a few MM patches that try to determine the relight and burn duration numbers based on  some rough guesses. It's a very broad brush we use there, and it isn't perfect - but it works. If you (or anyone, really) is willing to provide engine-specific numbers that are somewhat realistic and work for the game, we'll happily use that ;)

    And here I was really impressed by how good the guesswork was. That said.. Is there anything that influences chances of failure? Because I think on average a good majority  of engines breaks down for me well before the end of its rated service life (either burn time or ignitions). This would mean a lander doing a normal mun or minmus landing would either go through a few redundant engines or need several inflight repairs. I love the feature, it just seems a tad aggressively tuned. Can this be modified in config?

    *Edit - engines that will need restarting would probably be flagged as high quality anyway, so changed the general "QualityScale = 4.0"                modifier to 8 on high quality parts. Also changed "the rated_operation_duration = 600" tp 1000. I will test if that gives a bit more juice in those high impact cases where one would happily pay more for a bit extra.

    [WIP] Infernal Robotics - Next

    in KSP1 Mod Development

    Posted · Edited by plausse

    4 hours ago, Rudolf Meier said:

    Just for clarification... the main goal of IR Next was and is to solve the problems of the old IR. Which are e.g. movements of parts when you warp time, problems when you undock ships with parts and dock them in  a reversed way and stuff like that. And additionally there will be a project that brings inverse kinematics for IR Next. So, IR Next is not just an update to IR, but a completely new project... and almost everything has been written new (of course not without looking into the old code and using some ideas).

    One of the best things with ksp in My opinion is how it makes things like this project possible by being a canvas. Imaginative, practical and really impressive. Very excited.

    [Minimum KSP version - 1.11] Kerbal Attachment System (KAS) v1.12

    in KSP1 Mod Releases

    Posted

    KAS is amazing, and new KAS to me feels like another step up. A humble request though.. whilst new KAS definitely feels more plausible than some aspects of old KAS, it also limits some things that could previously be done. 

    It makes sense that the rigid connectors require a Kerbal to attach, but would it be possible to change the disconnect to not need one? Or have one version that works that way? It could even be more expensive/ heavier/ need to electricity to do it. 

     

    Mother Development Thread

    in KSP1 Mod Development

    Posted

    2 hours ago, FreeThinker said:

    Wait, you are planning to have large onboard fusion reactor and you not using it for direct thrust? Sorry but that doesn't make any sense. Usually when you have a big bulky fusion reactor on you ship, you attach a magnetic nozzle to it to generate High Isp thrust (which can be lowered by adding more propellant). The reason for this is that the most efficient way of converting fusion energy into useful thrust. Converting it first into electric power for your ion engines would incur huge efficiency losses which mean you need a lot of radiators to get rid of all the resulting wasteheat.

    Instead I would simply call is a Propellant tank adapter which for a mother ship  would be refilled multiple times.

    I'm not trying to be flippant, but this just made me visualise a big bunch of ships out there with bulky fusion reactors. Have to say it would be a great sight though :D

    Official FAR Craft Repository

    in KSP1 The Spacecraft Exchange

    Posted

    1 hour ago, AeroGav said:

    With Ferram, you can get more lift in the upper atmosphere at hypersonic speed, so heating is less of an issue because you stay out of it longer.    In the Gameplay Questions and Tutorials section,  there's a thread asking about re-entry angle and everyone is saying pitch up to 90 degrees radial out,  even though the OP was complaining about losing contro

    The discussion then inevitably moves on to being unable to control landing point,   with folks coming down on the wrong continent and getting no recovery value on their expensive re-usable spaceplane.

    I try to argue for a non-stalled re-entry angle but tend to get buried by the avalanche of "pitch 90 degrees" advice.     

    Seems in this game, people handle re-entry in one of two ways

    • put pointy cockpit on very front (rather than inline), then re-enter on prograde hold because hey, capsules re-enter on retrograde right?  Then complain when it explodes
    • then come in at 90 degrees radial out, go into a flat spin, recover at 12km, land 4000km away from the space centre and get 29% recovery value.

     

     

    Sarcasm aside I tend to re-enter at 30-50 degrees AOA depending on the plane, and make sure that my control surfaces aren't stalled even if parts of the main wing is. When it works it gives a lot of supersonic lift, and allows for shedding speed high up, and doing s turns if needed. 

    I tend to land with empty tanks though which makes it easier. Currently I am trying to make an SSTO with low landing speed and land it on laythe with (almost) full tanks. It's proving quite hard and I'm leaning towards a supersonically optimised shape with RATO, or something like that ...

×
×
  • Create New...