Jump to content

Starwaster

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    9,282

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Starwaster

  1. Starwaster
    Do the Space Y SRB's use the new thrust curves? Thrust curves do pretty much the same thing (if I understand correctly) that the thrust limiter does: Modify thrust according to how much propellant was used.
  2. Starwaster
    Well it is just a tiny cube actually. About 100m across. (less actually) _cam.transform.position = GalaxyCubeControl.Instance.transform.position; _cam.farClipPlane = 100.0f; _cam.cullingMask = 1 << 18; if (_cam.RenderToCubemap(_rtex, faceMask)) result = true;
  3. Starwaster
    Updated for KSP 1.0.5 Experimentally, it seems to work better with Open GL. (KSP 1.1.2: only working with OpenGL so far...) Fixed long standing detached transform bug Fixed rendering artifacts Switched to multi-pass rendering (as done in Texture Replacer... MULTI-PAAAASSSS) Compiled for KSP 1.0.5 Included version file https://github.com/Starwaster/Reflection-Plugin-Continued/releases/tag/v2.0
  4. Starwaster
    Reflection plugin is updated for KSP 1.0.5 and is working pretty well. Unfortunately in the process I've broken it for KSP 1.1.2 and am still working on that. (anyone actually still PLAYING KSP 1.0.5 can pick up the update here: https://github.com/Starwaster/Reflection-Plugin-Continued/releases/tag/v2.0)
  5. Starwaster
    What it kind of looks like is the camera's viewpoint not moving with the ship or part's transform. But I'm not sure that can account for everything happening in your video
  6. Starwaster
    The code on the page you linked to is the basis for reflection plugin first created by Razchek and then picked up by myself: https://github.com/Starwaster/Reflection-Plugin-Continued/blob/1.1-Update/ReflectiveScript.cs The Texture Replacer plugin uses some of that code only they render in three passes (skybox -> scaled space -> terrain), a change that I've incorporated back into the Reflection Plugin.
  7. Starwaster
    And, just want to add here that there is no 'correct' ratio. IRL it's not uncommon for a mix ratio to be used that does not guarantee total combustion of all fuel. Some engines might burn lean or rich. Not only that but (for example) the J2 used on the Saturn V switched to different ratios during ascent.
  8. Starwaster
    Fascinating. This could even replace the reflection plugin that I'm working on updating...
  9. Starwaster
    Then I'd say you have your work cut out for you. You need to work on your targeting so you can hit plains or water (obviously not water on Duna) instead of hills. Maybe offset your center of mass so that you can do lifting reentries. Or add some winglets for gliding capabilities. Or airbrakes. (hint: airbrakes can be used as control surfaces - make sure yaw/pitch are enabled for them) Personally, for Duna I prefer one of the canyons. I even have a favorite: Once you clear the cliff on reentry, the canyon has a nice reasonably flat floor.
  10. Starwaster
    We must be cautious. Come.
  11. Starwaster
    I'd say landing on a hill is also something to avoid in the future. And if you're talking about the hitchhiker's pod, yes, it definitely needs legs. It has a very low pain threshold. Capsules? Sturdier, but don't land them on hills.
  12. Starwaster
    Deadly Reentry v7.4.4 Adjusting RSS fallback config. (used when Real Solar System is installed but Realism Overhaul is not and RSSROConfig is not set. Possible fix for explosion/burning sounds being too loud for distant objects. Went to a cat art auction and pigged out on hors d'oeuvres. https://github.com/Starwaster/DeadlyReentry/releases/tag/v7.4.4
  13. Starwaster
    Game breaks how? And logs? Where is the logs?
  14. Starwaster
    deleted
  15. Starwaster
    It's tied into the action group editor. Invoking that invokes the chute editor. That's just the reality of the situation right now.
  16. Starwaster
    You can already do that in the VAB. There is a lot you can do including change size of chute, style of chute, etc, Auto calc what size the chute should be for a given planet. You need to use the action group editor though so if you're in career mode you must have upgraded to being able to use the AG editor
  17. Starwaster
    Does it not occur to you at all that maybe your comprehension of what he taught you wasn't as complete as it could have been? Or that he might have presented only a portion of something larger that you filled in the blanks on? You can't destroy energy and what you proposed would be doing that. You can only move it around. Ease the load on one wheel by moving some of it to another one? I can totally get behind that. But the pent up energy is still there and has to be dealt with.
  18. Starwaster
    KSPI represents technology beyond what I want to play so I don't use it to begin with. I won't say more past that in a public forum.
  19. Starwaster
    Don't use Real Fuels with KSPI. Pick one or the other. There are compatibility issues between the two.
  20. Starwaster
    Well, obviously NASA is doing it wrong. Someone better get @Nich in touch with them pronto. Just think of all the propellant we can save.
  21. Starwaster
    No, at best they can exchange momentum and what you've done is to just split it up. Sooner or later all of them would get saturated and you would run out of wheels to dump the momentum into. And it doesn't just naturally decay by itself, you have to have a means of desaturation. That can be RCS thrusters to apply torque to make up for the momentum transferred as you desaturate the wheels or it can be atmospheric drag or gravity gradients. This isn't made up stuff, they have to deal with this on the ISS
  22. Starwaster
    Check out how these engine configs do it: https://github.com/Raptor831/RFStockalike/blob/ea9bbcc84efeb6ee1c9174150c8aa4b4c196d248/GameData/RealFuels-Stockalike/Stockalike_Squad.cfg
  23. Starwaster
    Here's an example of an ignitor config: That goes into the part's config or if you have engine configs (ModuleEngineConfig) on the part then it can be part of one of those configs ModuleEngineIgnitor { ignitionsAvailable = 1 useUllageSimulation = true autoIgnitionTemperature = 800 ignitorType = Electric IGNITOR_RESOURCE { name = ElectricCharge amount = 0.2 } }
  24. Starwaster
    Engine Ignitor is built into Real Fuels now. What you're asking is possible but you would have to remove Community Resources Pack, or at least override it by writing custom tank configs that revert back to using stock resources. And you would have to write up new engine configs or write an MM patch that configures the engines to support limited ignitions
  25. Starwaster
    Yes, that's the one. That configuration will give performance roughly equivalent to the space shuttle. It has high heat tolerance, high emissivity, low skin-internal conductivity and low skin thermal mass. The end result is that space planes made with those parts will want to do shallow rather than steep reentries. They should even be able to handle Real Solar system reentries with no modification though YMMV depending on total ship mass and how long it takes to aerobrake to safe speeds in the upper atmosphere. If you want to go the opposite route then you'd do something with high thermal mass which is how the stock Mk2 parts do it. The ModuleAeroReentry with leaveTemp = true tells Deadly Reentry not to cap the max temp values. (non-heat shields or parts without leaveTemp will get their max temp cut in half if it's excessively high) (and remove all the ModuleHeatShield entries since they're not going to have ablative shielding)
×
×
  • Create New...