Jump to content

Starwaster

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    9,282

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Starwaster

  1. Starwaster
    I figured that's what you meant; I was just being a bit sarcastic as I'm skeptical of us getting there anytime soon. At least as far as NASA goes though I do have hopes that Elon might get it done..... in my lifetime....
  2. Starwaster
    Realism Overhaul is supposed to model real engines and a lot of research went into it. If an engine in the game is supposed to represent a real world engine and it is unthrottleable then chances are its real world counterpart was likewise unthrottleable. Most of the engines aren't throttleable you say? Guess what, most engines IRL aren't either. IT HAPPENS. Pick a new engine and/or redesign your craft. I was just in the same boat when I realized my lander couldn't throttle when I was in the last few kilometers and I immediately had to go check the engine because I was so sure it was throttleable and guess what? IT WASN'T. Sure as hell it wasn't in real life. IT HAPPENS. Pick a different engine. Or patch your game so that you can throttle all your engines as you will and then don't call it Realism Overhaul anymore because it won't be.
  3. Starwaster
    I definitely agree that most of the hypergolic engines are woefully limited with regards to ignition. But as for throttling, that's just matter of fact: Most rockets especially in the early days of rocketry were limited in throttle capability. Generally it's a matter of stability or efficiency: You can't just limit flow of propellants into the chamber. It was designed to operate at specific temperature and pressure and if you limit flow into the chamber you change those parameters. It could suffer not only reduced efficiency but it could even damage the engine.
  4. Starwaster
    @Damo84 Your screenshot doesn't actually demonstrate what resource your RCS is using but the report is talking about the stock resource named Monopropellant and there are four 'consumers' (i.e. engines/RCS) that aren't getting it thus indicating that you have four engine or RCS parts that are not configured for Hydrazine or any other RF fuel but they are configured for Monopropellant. So you need to either right click your RCS and click the button for the engine GUI or use the Action Group Editor and select the RCS parts. Then configure them manually and don't assume that they are automatically using Hydrazine. Make a note of what parts are using Monoprop so you can report those parts specifically so they can be looked into.
  5. Starwaster
    We don't NEED an update for a name change... it's not like there are (known) physical changes. (yet)
  6. Starwaster
    Sounds like one of those 'who would win' memes... WHO WOULD WIN? THE INGENUITY OF A PLAYER OR ONE MISPRESSED SPACE BAR??
  7. Starwaster
    @tater I use the petal adapter to make a cargo BFR (oh... excuse me - STARSHIP) also useful for making a LANTR aerospike SSTO ( @Nertea's nuclear engine pack has one that I scaled up to full size for that)
  8. Starwaster
    @Damo84 it sounds like something isn't installed properly. Nothing uses monoprop - generic and typically replaced in parts with hydrazine. RCS itself can be configured for different propellants use the action group editor and select RCS and choose the propellants you want - do the same for parts with monoprop (probably command pods)
  9. Starwaster
    What's weird here is that I'm using scaled up version of it with a scaled up star system so things get a bit more extreme for me... (and my ship stays intact... at least until I flip over and belly flop into the terrain)
  10. Starwaster
    1981 or 2081?
  11. Starwaster
    Then why not DO something about it. Make pull requests and make your case in the pull request comments. Quite likely nobody actually chose anything. They probably just didn't know how it should be configured and just added a token configuration. YOU decide how it should be configured and then go configure it. Nobody else here seems to know KOS that well or they wouldn't be asking you questions about it. You seem to know something about it so that qualifies you. (not trying to be harsh here, just saying that you're just as empowered as anyone else here)
  12. Starwaster
    Sounds like improperly configured effects/plumes...
  13. Starwaster
    No, I don't see how this mod can help. It plays an animation while decoupling, optionally delaying decoupling until after the animation completes. It would require a new plugin ... something that monitors for chute deployment and triggers the animation... Easiest solution, considering that it's really an aesthetics issue, is for the player to bind both animation and deployment to an action group.
  14. Starwaster
    Faulty airlock seal. Many Kerbals died to bring us this information.
  15. Starwaster
    No, not the way it's implemented. It can only handle a single animation name which it plays (and optionally delays the decoupling until that single animation has finished)
  16. Starwaster
    You have to rotate the other fin/canard 180 degrees
  17. Starwaster
    Create a file in your GameData folder or one of its subfolders (I have a permanent ZZZMyTweaks folder where all of my personal tweaks and patches live - the prefix of ZZZ is to try to ensure that my patches really are the final ones) Let the file have an extension of cfg (e.g. AddGroundTether.cfg) Edit the file and paste @Tonka Crash's patch into the file. You will also need the USI-Tools that he mentioned. (you can get it by installing any USI mod, as mentioned) Save the file and run Kerbal Space Program.
  18. Starwaster
    Looks cool.
  19. Starwaster
    You don't have to feel pressured about it. Nobody's trying to pressure you.
  20. Starwaster
    A simple MM patch could clone the B-EX-1 and rescale it... and as long as there is some control module inline with the tube then you don't have to use the tube as a control reference. Not a great solution but it is workable, at least until the issues get fixed.
  21. Starwaster
    Maybe this is less of an Oh Scrap! question and more of a Scrap Yard question... and partially Stage Recovery question: But what happens with my Falcon 9 type stages? Are they recovered as actual vehicles? Or just broken down into parts? How would I assemble it back into a Falcon 9 (or F9 Heavy) type vehicle? Does it just all end up as parts?
  22. Starwaster
    No, those lines definitely were definitely missing a patch operator. As written, all it was doing was adding in duplicate fields with different values. Also, it should have been deleting the stock input/output resources and it wasn't. I created a pull request fixing that part of the config
  23. Starwaster
    Definitely. And its issues are even worse than what we've been talking about. @Nertea It has a collider that extends when the arm button is clicked, just as though the tube had extended. It stays extended even if the tube is disarmed. It has no control transform which combined with its starting orientation causes issues if you click 'control from here' on the part. (uses the Y axis as the control vector which points out the SIDE of the tube) Either there is NO node transform or it does not have the right transform name configured. Number three is why it's not connecting. ModuleGrappleNode can't find a node transform for it to raycast from to see if it can connect to anything. Number two isn't a showstopper but these tubes could really use a control transform. (the config will accept controlTransformName to tell it what transform to use; Y axis should point out along the direction of the grapple node) No idea what causes number one; something about the model hierarchy maybe... definitely dangerous though if you get too close to the target with the tube with it retracted and then press Arm. I wonder what would happen if I stuck a Kerbal in front of it first... must try this.... (the collider issue can be easily seen if you use MechJeb. Open the Docking Autopilot window and enable Draw Bounding Box. Close docking window. Then click arm on the B-EX-2 tube and watch the collider jump out. Disarm and the collider stays extended. Click Extend and the collider will conform to the extending part the way it should be) Edit: My Kerbal experiment resulted in extreme disappointment. I was hoping that the collider bug would let me SPLAT! a Kerbal but not only was my 'volunteer' unharmed but the 6 ton shuttle cockpit was catapulted away and into the air as though the volunteer had been a 10 meter thick titanium wall instead of a soft squishy Kerbal. Oh well, better luck next time.
  24. Starwaster
    Just remember that the further we are away from a design freeze, the further we are from that lunar flyby and even further from Mars launches. What we've got now are basically treatments of concept vehicles and we get a new one every few months. I know the natural reaction is to be excited when Elon tweets a new design or gives a presentation but every time he does: We just got THAT much further away. Edit: I guess the good news though is that the constant redesigns shouldn't have too much impact on the prototype, which is basically just a testbed for the landing technologies involved in a vehicle of that size.... Also, @damonvv? I'll just leave this here...
  25. Starwaster
    try autostrutting?
×
×
  • Create New...