Jump to content

Starwaster

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    9,282

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Starwaster

  1. Starwaster
    Or at least the only one to use them in KSP 1.7.1 - and it's not just space plane parts. It's potentially everything that might have stuck a leaveTemp = True in the body of the main PART itself. That can also affect other mods that might want their parts exempted from being balanced by Deadly Reentry. What's happening there is that because most parts designed for stock have ridiculously high max temps. We're talking parts that have higher melting points than tungsten. So we have a ridiculousMaxTemp value and if that a part exceeds that value then its maxTemp is cut in half. If it STILL exceeds that value then it is capped at ridiculousMaxTemp. But, some mods have parts like nuclear reactors where the temperature can get very hot and their parts don't function right or explode when DRE is installed. Realism Overhaul also balances max temps itself and doesn't want DRE stepping all over them. So if anyone puts leaveTemp = true in the body of the part config then they get exempted by having a special module added that tells DRE not to try balancing the temps. So, what did I change exactly? @leaveTemp = true becomes %leaveTemp = true The first one says change leaveTemp if it already exists and don't do anything if it doesn't exist. The @ patches existing fields. % patches them if they are there but inserts them if they are not there. For some reason, @ was functioning the same as % and some change in KSP (not Module Manager) altered that behavior.
  2. Starwaster
    Download just this file and copy it over the existing file in the DeadlyReentry folder https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Starwaster/DeadlyReentry/master/DeadlyReentry/DeadlyReentry.cfg The problem is that a Module Manager patch method that worked up until KSP 1.6.* stopped working in KSP 1.7.1 (the specific patch command wasn't really correct for that situation and probably should have failed anyway but was succeeding until now)
  3. Starwaster
    Copy the contents of the zip file to your KSP installation folder.
  4. Starwaster
    The other file I had asked for was actually ModuleManager.ConfigCache which is in the GameData folder and it shows the final configuration of every part after all patches are applied... But before that, I think you should completely uninstall DeadlyReentry; delete the folder entirely. And make sure that you have downloaded the right version. Redownload to make sure and reinstall after the old folder is deleted. Install all files Looking at the logs, I see certain things happening to the landing gear that should not be unless some config files were out of date. The plugin itself says it is the correct version but I can't say that about the config files. The landing gear is going through a temperature rebalancing phase that its DRE configs should have exempted it from.
  5. Starwaster
    @Atlessa maxOperationalTemp is a Deadly Reentry thing only and is different from maxTemp which is the stock system. The stock system is a hard limit on temperature: The part will explode if it exceeds that temperature. The Deadly Reentry one is the temperature at which the part starts taking damage and is considered a 'soft limit'. If skin takes damage it is locational and will admit reentry heat directly into the interior if it gets bad enough By default, operational temps are 85% of the max temps. DRE sets SmallGearBay skinMaxTemp to 2700 so skinMaxOperationalTemp should be 2295 (?) The most likely culprit for the discrepancy you are seeing is this: https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/blob/master/GameData/RealismOverhaul/RO_SuggestedMods/Squad/RO_Squad_Wheel.cfg#L132-L134 Edit: Except that 1500 * 0.85 is 1275 ... hmmmm. Probably need to see your logs and ModuleManager.ConfigCache file to trace this down
  6. Starwaster
    anything deemed a spaceplane part is configured to have low internal max temp and high (2700) skin max temp, high emissivity (when closed) low skin-internal conductivity. They're roughly configured to tolerate the kind of reentry the space shuttle had to fly: shallow reentry. Looking at the gear configs; Their skinMaxTemp is 200 lower than other space plane parts and the internal (maxTemp) is set almost twice as high. I'll beef up the skin a bit and lower the internal. I'm betting it's the skin that's probably failing for you. But again, what kind of reentry are you flying on that plane? It really should be shallow. If you try to bring it in like a capsule then it it's probably going to overheat.
  7. Starwaster
    Just experience with the various systems involved and knowing where to look and what to cross reference. But after looking at your craft file a bit more and the log file I also noticed that ModuleFuelTanks was missing a parameter. On a hunch I tried removing that from the configs on a local install and reproduced your problem using only a minimal mostly stock installation (with Real Fuels) Create a cfg file somewhere in your GameData folder (anywhere in there) and paste the code at the bottom into it. Assuming there aren't other physics killing mass issues then this will fix it. Once the problem is patched in RO you can remove the file but it's written in a way that it won't hurt if you leave it. ModuleFuelTanks_type_fix.cfg @PART[RO-sspx-iss-demo]:AFTER[RealismOverhaul] { @MODULE[ModuleFuelTanks] { %type = LifeSupport } } @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleFuelTanks]:HAS[~type[*]]]:FINAL { @MODULE[ModuleFuelTanks] { type = Default } }
  8. Starwaster
    Part RO-sspx-iss-demo in station.craft is having its mass adjusted -5.96999979. That would be my prime suspect. According to its config file (https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/blob/master/GameData/RealismOverhaul/RO_SuggestedMods/StationPartsExpansion/RO_SSPX_Extendable.cfg) it has a mass of 6 (5.97 if TAC Life Support is installed... which it is) That brings that part's mass to 0.00000021 which is extremely low at 0.21 grams. Negative masses will pin your rocket to the ground. It cannot launch and I have even seen them spin around like ferris wheels. I have not known very small positive masses to have the same effect but anything could be happening in the code when it comes time for KSP to assign a mass to that part's rigidbody The part has ModuleFuelTanks on it so try adding 5 tons of lead ballast to it and see if it still happens. (MFT is one of the modules on that part which is capable of adjusting mass but it shouldn't be capable of causing this problem, at least not by itself. Pretty sure we did put some sanity checking in there but we can't account for other modules)
  9. Starwaster
    No.
  10. Starwaster
    Don't know, need to know more. Which gear are exploding on you? But if I had to guess then you're probably coming in too steeply for that part. Spaceplanes come in very shallow trying to do as much braking in the upper atmosphere before descending to the lower atmosphere. Either that or the gear you're using are unsupported. And no, just adding the resource is not enough. It would need ModuleHeatShield.
  11. Starwaster
    I did some digging around in the underlying Unity wheel code a long time ago and it looks to me that landing leg/wheel spring values are a rate and not a force, so that's also an issue. (i.e. if the spring value is set to 1 then it is moving the piston at 1 meter per second no matter what the mass of the part or various other connected parts are)
  12. Starwaster
    @Tonas1997 What Blowfish said but it really bears repeating that Real Fuels does not do patching of the actual engine module anymore. There was a time long ago, when dinosaurs still roamed the Earth when it did in fact patch the engines (and occasionally add ModuleEngineConfigs for engines that needed multiple configurations) But those times are long past. That is why on the very first post it tells you that engine configs are mandatory and that RF doesn't come with them anymore. And you should be careful about using multiple RF engine configs. Don't use RF Stockalike with Realism Overhaul and be careful about using any RF engine packs with other packs unless you know that one isn't going to overwrite another. (unless it was deliberately intended to do so) In any event we can't provide support for those engine packs here.
  13. Starwaster
    Animated Decouplers are working just fine with the latest KSP. They are unlikely to break unless a KSP update changes the underlying decoupler class in dramatic ways.
  14. Starwaster
    Zoom in so that your camera view is inside of the tank (or other thing) you are attaching to the radial decoupler. Aim for the center of the decoupler. The same applies if after attaching, you want to move the decoupler (and its attached parts) then zoom into the attached part so you can see the decoupler. Grab it by its center.
  15. Starwaster
    Correct, except that the actual calculation happens in the stock engine module (RF's ModuleEnginesRF merely extends stock ModuleEnginesFX which itself extends ModuleEngines which is where the engine's thrust is modified depending on the data in atmosphereCurve) @SpacedInvader what he said.
  16. Starwaster
    OMGWTF SOMEBODY GETS IT.
  17. Starwaster
    Yeah, I could compile it for the new KSP updates. I still use it myself anyway but I wasn't sure anyone else was still interested in it so I hadn't pushed any updates out. I've done a bunch of code fixes and tweaked the patches to work with Real Fuels (if installed) so that players can replace the O2 with LOX in the O2 tanks which also includes builtin heaters. (makes it a lot easier to do long term missions, especially in RSS or other scaled up environments - just don't stir the tanks)
  18. Starwaster
    I would be pretty surprised if it didn't; that's why I took the compatibility restrictions out so that it only warns the player of the version mismatch instead of disabling itself. I'll try to get some updates out soon; things have been hectic around here since that big storm blew through here and we lost power. Not DURING the storm mind you. We lost power AFTER the storm... and it didn't just go out, it cycled on and off rapidly several times a second. It somehow forced the modem to reset itself to factory defaults which meant it had to be set back up with CenturyLink like a new modem only it wasn't being recognized so they had to send us a new modem. And just today we realized the refrigerator wasn't cooling properly so now we have to get a new refrigerator which is mucho $$$. (you know... I thought that chicken tasted a little funny last night...)
  19. Starwaster
    Well that escalated quickly
  20. Starwaster
    The altimeter reports altitude above sea level, and even though Mars is a waterless planet, the concept of 'above sea level' still applies but with different meaning. On Mars, 'sea level' is the lowest altitude found on the planet and it is the only altitude at which the altimeter will read 0. The atmospheric pressure at sea level on Mars is only 0.6% of the sea level pressure on Earth. It is a very thin atmosphere and braking can be challenging. Edit: This is why IRL we target deep craters and basins for our missions. Highland landings are going to be very challenging requiring either HIAD (inflatable shields/aero decelerators) or retropropulsion or for very heavy payloads it may require both.
  21. Starwaster
    Sounds like a problem with your engine pack, not Real Fuels. RF does not contain engine configs any more and that's where the problem will be: the engine part config.
  22. Starwaster
    Be less demanding.
  23. Starwaster
    Any part which use the stock heat shield module (ModuleHeatShield) is converted over to the DR version which alters shield characteristics when the shield is depleted. The inflatable heat shield is changed (thermal characteristics to match real world equivalent, mass reduced and smaller/larger versions added) Every single part is gone through to make sure it max temp and other thermal characteristics are realistic and not overpowered. This is done through custom patches in the DR config files and during runtime when the game first starts up for those parts which lack specific DR patches. At that time if the max temp exceeds a specified value then it is cut in half. If it still exceeds the value then it is capped at the specified value (1523.15 by default). Heat shields are exempted as are any parts which have leaveTemp = true in their config. (parts designated as Realism Overhaul parts are also exempted)
  24. Starwaster
    You don't. Suggest to Squad that you would like a means of not wearing the personal chute.
  25. Starwaster
    Yeah, limiting your isp nerfing to the atmospheric portion should probably would work.... should have the effect of forcing a larger rocket size lift stages while keeping vacuum-only payloads at their expected size... (your lift stage would increase but not as much as before seeing as how your payload would be less massive) But landers for planets with atmospheres would put you right back where you don't want to be and there's no way around that. Honestly, my opinion? Bite the bullet and go to a scaled up star system. If not Real Solar System, then Kerbol x10. Either of which has the added bonus of not having to worry about overheating during launch. (IMO anyway)
×
×
  • Create New...