Jump to content

Starwaster

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    9,282

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Starwaster

  1. Starwaster
    @Joker58th @Shadowmage angle 'snapping' works fine but there's another field that needs to be set which is captureMinRollDot - how close does it actually have to be to the snapOffset to be considered on target. Specifically it's the dot product between the two and by default it's set to -3.40282347E+38f so by default it's always successful. So to get this feature working you have to have these fields: snapRotation = true snapOffset = 90 captureMinRollDot = 0.9999984769 first one says (obviously) to use this feature. Second one is our snap angle (has to be 90 degree increments) and finally the captureMinRollDot which if I set that correctly means it has to be within 0.1 degrees. (obtained that value from another page that said to use the cos of 0.5 * radians and that seems to work out) Optionally there's also acquireMinRollDot acquireTorqueRoll As I understand it, acquireMinRollDot works the same way as captureMinRollDot except that it controls how much roll torque to exert to try to force the ports to roll to their snap points. Works similarly to acquireForce and acquireTorque which personally I hate both of those and my game is always patched to disable them so I don't do the dreaded docking port dance. The roll feature sounds nice and I think I could tolerate it except I haven't got around to trying it out but I believe it works as I described. I think I'll go find out now...
  2. Starwaster
    Watch your angle of attack especially in the first half of your ascent. I'd keep it less than a degree. (you might get away with as much as five degrees but with the trouble you say you're having I wouldn't do that) The Kerbal Reusability mod has the landing legs. It's one of the requirements for this mod. And it's the first link in the requirements section.
  3. Starwaster
    pyrolysisLossFactor is close. lossExp and lossConst are almost certainly wrong but those are secondary in importance to pyrolysisLossFactor. ablationTempThresh is also wrong but IMO you can get away with it. You can even raise it if you want and say it's the temperature at which the pumps start to actually pump the cryogenic methane in. I did the math previously. The ones I said were wrong; I just left them alone too. If you want I could kick it around some more and come up with appropriate values but like I said I consider the other one more important. See below. I also configured it to convert the LqdMethane into Methane gas so it could be recovered with adequate storage although at that point I'm not sure it counts as transpirational cooling...? MODULE { name = ModuleAblator ablativeResource = LqdMethane outputResource = Methane lossExp = -7500 lossConst = 0.1 pyrolysisLossFactor = 147.878 reentryConductivity = 0.01 ablationTempThresh = 500 outputMult = 593.5983263598326 // round it if you want }
  4. Starwaster
    It might mean that the space plane parts need tweaking as they are supposed to require a shallow reentry with high altitude braking. In general, steeper doesn't necessarily mean more total heat. It will mean a higher peak heat loading and higher G forces. Another thing about that slider: Increasing or decreasing it will increase / decrease the rate of heat and for ablators that means higher or lower ablation rates.... but the way I originally configured the plane parts, the point at which they are in thermal equilibrium isn't going to change at all. Only how long it takes for them to reach that point. So if they're too survivable at steep reentries then I might need to change their max temps, or possibly their emissive/reflective values....
  5. Starwaster
    Usually aim for about 20km Pe (stock)
  6. Starwaster
    There’s an option in the ascent pvg menu to omit coast. The floating above the water is a graphical glitch probably. I don’t think you can do anything about it
  7. Starwaster
    Ah they died? G forces? Need a shallower reentry. And with regards to descent mode make sure your roll is 0 not 180 like you might in an Apollo. The CoM shifts up towards the pilots heads. Again not sure how much that will help as 11g's sounds like you came in way too steep. With regards to procedural wings I have no idea. I don't use them at all.
  8. Starwaster
    If you're getting 11g it's probably because you're coming in too steeply. A lifting reentry only helps so much with that. (IRL a lifting reentry is mostly for targeted landings. By controlling roll and pitch they can narrow the landing zone. Research Curiosity to see how much that helped)
  9. Starwaster
    Update time already. Don't expect a lot of updates on this mod; it's fairly simple and I want to keep it that way. https://github.com/Starwaster/Kerbal-Occupation-Colors/releases/tag/v1.1.0 Support added for stock KSP Settings menu. Option added to force Future Suit for all new hires. (from inside save game: Escape -> Settings -> Kerbal Occupation Colors) Tentative support for USI MKS classes. Need feedback on these colors! I do not use that mod and can't readily test out the colors. Feel free to suggest alternate color schemes (with before/after screenshot if possible) Format change in KerbalOccupationColors.cfg: Occupations must use proper case. (previously allowed all lower case but that might confuse people) When adding support for new occupations, entries must use the same case as the occupation being supported @Space_Coyote There you go. Should work but I have no idea what some of those colors will actually come out as in game. So try it and let me know.
  10. Starwaster
    Not sure that makes sense... if you are expected to move mod folders around then something is very wrong. You're not going to like this solution but too bad On the tug part you want to do this to: MODULE { name = KASLinkWinch } IT WILL WORK Where by 'work' I mean if the proper version is installed then the you'll have KASLinkWinch installed. If the proper version isn't installed then KSP will silently complain in the log and it will move on without the module. It's about as elegant as Alpo and Velveeta for dinner but it will get the job done.
  11. Starwaster
    Ah no, I didn't say RO in 1.7 Just 1.7 with Kopernicus and Sigma rescale x10 - but yeah some of the important RO components are there like Real Fuels and that's where it looks like the major conflicts are. Try patching it with !MODULE[SSTUVolumeContainer]{} - strip that out and it should work.
  12. Starwaster
    I've said as much Just needs the names of the extra classes added along with the appropriate color codes.
  13. Starwaster
    Hmmmmm I bet that's the SSTUVolumeContainer on there.... it's what people have been saying; SSTU doesn't work with RO right now. It CAN be made to work but things like that have to be stripped out of there. It's basically like Real Fuels in that it's a resource management system and when you have more than one of those on a single part they get in each other's way. Still, it didn't used to be that bad. I've got SSTU working with KSP 1.7 but I think I stripped the SSTU resource modules out in my personal set of patches.. Pretty sure I did. SSTUModelSwitch plays nicely but it doesn't mess with resources and it notifies Real Fuels/ MFT when it changes volume.
  14. Starwaster
    And it's MM patch extensible if new classes are added.
  15. Starwaster
    You can change MJ UI size. There's two basic UI sizes and you can also rescale it arbitrarily. But yes, your ascent profile sounds like it needs adjusting. You should be able to get that into orbit
  16. Starwaster
    Are you flying manually or using something like MechJeb? If the latter, what does your pitch program look like? (assuming PVG for ascent not classical) The pitch program I used started at 50 m/s at 0.5 degrees per second until guidance took over. Edit: (one thing I noticed btw was that you didn't seem to have any forward thrust on your capsule service module; you should look into that)
  17. Starwaster
    As he said, it allows subdirectories. Most parts if the mod's folders are structured sensibly will have the part in its own properly named folder. So target that folder. Obviously that won't work for mods which force their parts to live all in one folder or groups masses of them into one folder.
  18. Starwaster
    @saithraphim Please make your log files and ModuleManager.ConfigCache file available for download. Preferably output_log.txt instead of ksp.log. Use something Dropbox or other service. (ModuleManager.ConfigCache can be found in GameData folder) Edit: (the log needs to cover the time period between you starting the game, loading your craft in the VAB and finally putting it on the launch pad. Once it is fully loaded and the problem has manifested then exit the game. That should generate enough to the log file) Edit #2: Sorry one more thing: persistent.sfs file from the save folder. And the craft file; two more things.
  19. Starwaster
    @saithraphim that’s not the same image you showed before. And the one on the pad still says lack of pressure. That’s got nothing to do with what resources you do or do not have on there. Look people can only help you based on the information you provide. The information you’re giving me says you don’t have the right kind of tank for that engine.
  20. Starwaster
    @saithraphim Look at the PAW on the launch pad. flame out cause is lack of pressure! You don't have pressurized tanks on that. Nothing there indicates that your fuels are 'cleared out'.
  21. Starwaster
    When presenting craft files for problem demonstration and reproduction you should always use only what is required to demonstrate the problem. That mod and the its vent part in the craft file don't look necessary and it forces me to have to download something else that's not part of Realism Overhaul. Please re-upload the craft without it Edit: Ok never mind. I got it to load without the vent parts by changing them to something else. You're not using the right engines for that rocket. The parts are the right parts but you have to reconfigure them by clicking the Engine button in the PAW (says Show GUI to the right) or by using the Action Group editor and selecting the engines. There are several configuration buttons representing different versions of that engine. Read this page. It seems reasonably accurate and will tell you what engines you want. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Titan_II_GLV Don't change the parts, just change the configuration. LR87-AJ-7 for the first stage and LR91-AJ-7 for the 2nd. You'll go from a SL TWR of 1.01 to 1.26
  22. Starwaster
    @KnedlikMCPE I can't load that craft file because of a part named 'vent'. What mod is that from?
  23. Starwaster
    @saithraphim Please post screenshots with the service module's PAW both in the VAB and on the launch pad with its 'fuels cleared out' @KnedlikMCPE I have no idea what 'so low TWR' means that's too vague and too subjective. Please say exactly what TWR value you are seeing at launch. Also, what engines are you using? And I think you should also post your log file and your ModuleManager.ConfigCache file (it's in the GameData folder)
  24. Starwaster
    @severedsolo If it's important the the Kerbal parts be blacklisted then you will want to know that there are more Kerbal parts now. Six total.
  25. Starwaster
    @Korb Biakustra 25k lines isn't that big. You can zip it up if you want. Put it on Dropbox and share the link for other people to download. Never give only part of a log. The log has all of your mods listed btw so you never have to list your mods separately. If you want to search it for yourself you want to look for the word exception. Errors will often be listed as exceptions. NullReferenceException is a common one. The beginning of the log will have information about what mod plugins did not load properly. It will also list their version numbers to help you determine if you have the most up to date version of that mod.
×
×
  • Create New...