Jump to content

NathanKell

Members
  • Posts

    13,406
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by NathanKell

  1. Since PF itself comes only with Egg and Conic fairings, that sounds like an issue with which adds those parts of which you speak.
  2. @Phineas Freak any idea what might be going wrong here?
  3. Look at what I change here, and change things a bit less? https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealSolarSystem/blob/master/GameData/RealSolarSystem/PhysicsModifier.cfg
  4. The painting method works because the wings have a special shader applied and have masking set up for them. I.e. exactly what KerbPaint does for other parts.
  5. @Der Anfang Heh. Speaking as not-a-dev, it would indeed be pretty cool. And you did indeed understand; because Eve's atmosphere has a defined endpoint (or startpoint, descending) and is so comparatively short, the ramp from 0 pressure to OMGIMBURNING pressure is quite fast--especially since the entry speed for its atmosphere is very, very much higher than Kerbin's. @DarklordMogrithe That's a bug. However, were the atmosphere to not be clamped off as it is, then you'd get a note about inability to timewarp in an atmosphere. @MaxL_1023 it's really not a steep pressure rise; 10km in, Eve's atmosphere has gained only slightly more pressure than Kerbin's. 20-30km down Eve has gained rather more. Now, Eve's atmosphere is denser than Kerbin's, so that's magnified a bit, but the 80-90km region's burnyness is more due to the velocity at which you're entering (and remember that heat transfer is a function of velocity cubed) than there being an air-wall. Also, note that in KSP we no longer follow scale heights; that's pre 1.0 atmospheres. In 1.0 and above atmospheres use manual pressure curves with varying scale height so as to permit better tuning and the feeling of real atmospheres at various levels. However, you can use BodyLoader to change the bodies' pressure curves.
  6. "the very top of Eve's atmosphere" would be like 2-300km up. I mean, in real life Earth's atmosphere extends well past geostationary oribt (about 36,000km of altitude). Due to the small sizes of the KSP universe, and the extent to which atmospheres are "compressed" so you can have dragless orbits on rails, that of necessity means that when we *do* start modeling atmosphere, there's more than just a few wisps of it.
  7. No, I mean you'd add it to the existing MODULE { name = ModuleParachute ... } You can do it with an MM patch, i.e. make a new cfg somewhere in gamedata and put this in it, and if you have Module Manager it'll be applied to all parachute parts: @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleParachute]]:FINAL { @MODULUE[ModuleParachute],* { %automateSafeDeploy = 0 } } This will indeed work no matter the atmosphere, or rather it will work exactly like the display does already.
  8. Yep, and this is why RF tells Tweakscale to not apply mass changes for engines/RCS, IIRC. EDIT: But yeah, let's hope this works better in 1.1.
  9. @Ryland_k someone on the RF Stockalike thread might know; it was a longstanding issue that I thought @Felger fixed but either he did not, or the current release was never updated to include the fix, or the issue is in the RF Stockalike Plume Configs. The issue is that the plume configs set the engine to ModuleEnginesFX, whereas if it's already ModuleEnginesRF it should be left as such.
  10. On the RO side, get Porkjet's Atomic parts. There are nice configs for them which @ferram4 wrote.
  11. Uh, no. That was a bug from trying to use an old (for KSP 1.0.4) version of Kopernicus with 1.0.5. It was, of course, fixed in the first compatible-with-1.0.5 release of Kopernicus.
  12. There's even a way to have parachutes hold off going from armed->deployed until conditions are safe. In the MODULE for the parachute, set automateSafeDeploy = 1 for deploy on risky, or automateSafeDeploy = 0 for deploy on safe. The default (if not given in the cfg), as you might guess, is automateSafeDeploy = 2 (i.e. deploy even on unsafe, i.e. deploy as soon as you arm it).
  13. The text says "Risky". It is when the combination of outside forces and heat will eventually destroy your parachute if nothing changes, but will not do so instantly. You may slow down enough, before the parachute melts/shreds, that the parachute no longer is at risk of melting/shredding.
  14. @Ryland_k sounds like RealPlume is still breaking things. Make sure you're on the absolutely latest version of it? @Dermeister open RealFuels/RealSettings.cfg and scroll down to the bottom, where it talks about ullage. Set ullage simulation to False instead of True.
  15. Cargo bay shielding issue, the wing is probably being counted as shielded by the bay. Try using the offset gizmo to move the wings slightly outward from the bay.
  16. Sounds like you're staging your parachute on launch. Don't stage it until you're descending and the background of the parachute icon is neither red nor yellow.
  17. Yes. Which makes doing this without RF/RO a bit of a fool's errand. You'll want to use tank type Balloon (or BalloonCryo if making a modern 1970s+ insulated stage) for the tanks.
  18. @user_337 please post on the RO thread about that issue. Also please ensure you're on the latest (v10.7.2) version of RO, the latest (1.0.5 build 1028+) version of KSP, and the latest (15.5.4) version of FAR. @shoe7ess any folder in FASA can be deleted; parts which share textures are in the same folder. If you delete a capsule, you can also delete the associated IVA in Spaces, and if you delete all capsules and IVAs you can delete the props.
  19. I think you mean @sal_vager not salvager. Also, Squelch is the guy with the British accent, RoverDude is a yank (as am I); some of the above you have attributed to Squelch is actually RoverDude (particularly regarding antennas and regarding flying-turkey-skepticism).
  20. First, the Utilization slider comes from Real Fuels. Second, it sounds like perhaps the stock-fuels Proc Parts is set up so a tank will hold fewer units of liquid fuel than oxidizer. That may deserve revisiting now that the Mk1 fuselage tank holds the same mass of LF as the FL-T400 holds of LF-OX (remember that in earlier KSP versions, LF-only tanks held less than you'd think they should).
×
×
  • Create New...