leops1984

January 26, 2016

22 hours ago, nom said:

Thanks, your config added the boiloff to procedural tanks for me. They still have the wrong LH2/LOx ratios though. Seems there's some other patch or something I have that overrides yours, adding the hydrogen option to procedural tanks even if I only copy over the CryoEngines folder (and not the cryotanks folder with the configs), giving them the wrong ratios. Any idea what that could be/how to fix it?

I genuinely have no idea. Maybe Modular Fuel Tanks if you're using that?

January 23, 2016

// Cryo configuration for Procedural tanks

@PART[procedural*Liquid]:NEEDS[CryoEngines]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name =  ModuleCryoTank
		FuelName = LqdHydrogen
		// in % per hr
		BoiloffRate = 0.05
	}


	@MODULE[TankContentSwitcher]
	{
		TANK_TYPE_OPTION
		{
			name = LqdHydrogen
			dryDensity = 0.04346
			costMultiplier = 0.035
			RESOURCE 
			{
				name = LqdHydrogen
				unitsPerT = 40000
			}
		}
		TANK_TYPE_OPTION
		{
			name = LqdHydrogen+Oxidizer
			dryDensity = 0.069535
			costMultiplier = 0.785
			RESOURCE 
			{
				name = LqdHydrogen
				unitsPerT = 15000
			}
			RESOURCE 
			{
				name = Oxidizer
				unitsPerT = 1000
			}
		}
	}
}

Here's a configuration file for people to tryout and see how it works. I've adjusted the masses and volume so it should be close, but I have NOT adjusted the costs at all.

January 23, 2016

30 minutes ago, White Owl said:

But right now I'm trying to wrap my head around correcting the quantities and masses to match Nertea's parts...

I've been trying to figure that out myself. The quantities are easy enough, it's the dry masses I can't figure out...

January 23, 2016

Just a heads-up: upgrading via CKAN leads to a wildly incomplete install (the DeployableEngines and CryoTanks folders aren't included).

EDIT: Also, procedural tanks still have the old ratio.

January 17, 2016

14 hours ago, blowfish said:

All engines should have the same fuel and oxidizer flow regardless of ambient conditions.

After some troubleshooting I found the mod that caused the behavior when installed: Modular Fuel Tanks. Which makes no sense whatsoever.

January 16, 2016

Newbie question about this mod: by design does it really use less oxidizer when operating in a vacuum? I was using these engines to build a Delta IV-like rocket, but then I noticed all the excess Oxidizer when I dumped the first stage.

EDIT: Never mind, it's not doing it on my only-cryo test setup. I will have to troubleshoot...

January 5, 2016

Question: is MFT supposed to affect launch towers/clamps? I was trying to figure out why the stock launch clamps were successfully pumping fuel into tanks when the FASA towers were not, and I found that one of the Module Manager files for MFT includes this:

Quote

@PART[launchClamp1]
{
   //!RESOURCE[LiquidFuel] {}
   //!RESOURCE[Oxidizer] {}
   //!RESOURCE[MonoPropellant] {}
   MODULE
   {
       name = RefuelingPump
       pump_rate = 100.0
   }
}

So two questions - am I correct that if I want to get any tower/clamp working to resupply resources with MFT installed I need to add a similar MM configuration file, and is there a way to make the pump be on all the time instead of being triggered manually?

January 3, 2016

Question: if someone is willing to invest the effort in creating a new sound pack, can it be done by making a new folder in the Sounds folder with the right file names, or does support have to be written into the addon by the mod author?

December 30, 2015

I've started getting a weird issue with CKAN. This error message pops up when I click the "Add available updates" button:

The error message mentions the SDHI SMS mod, which I did have installed manually. However, I removed the mod folder from my GameData folder, and it's still happening. This just started happening today, wasn't a problem the last time I ran CKAN (a few days ago). Help?

July 13, 2015

I build my lifters and payloads independently. I have lifters of various sizes and capabilities saved as separate .craft files. I build the payload, then figure out which lifter I need. I transfer the payload over as a subassembly.

I use Kerbal Engineer and it gets very confused when you build bottom-up. Only the first stage shows up on the delta-V calculation. Often I will start building from a probe core at the top of the lift rocket and right below the payload decoupler if I'm testing a lift rocket with a payload that has its own engines and fuel, so that KER calculates only for the rocket.
For the OP: Have you tried saving your lifters as sub-assemblies? That's an easy way to use the same lifter for different payloads.

Try changing the root part to something in your payload - when I have similar issues that's usually it.

April 28, 2015

Yes. Just copy over the entire KSP folder to somewhere else and it'll run fine.

February 26, 2015

OH WAIT. I just flew a rocket with the Titan engine from KW Rocketry and the flames DO seem to expand at higher altitudes. Thanks so much for this!

IIRC correctly all the flames have expanded a bit since the start. My tweaks have always been aimed at making them much more... dramatic.

February 26, 2015

This is incorrect, we have had this for quite awhile now, my basic config can be acquired here

D'oh. Didn't realize that.

February 25, 2015

It is part of the pack I created which I linked to a few posts up from here clicky . It doesn't say it there because deepspacecreeper wanted something different, but it includes Squad, NASA and KW configs by Akira_R.

Oops. Didn't realize that.

Okay, I am too lazy to sift through more than just a few pages. Are there any expanding plume configs available for stock engines? Ven's Stock Revamp has a config, but what about the stock engines?

Not yet, as far as I know... once I get a good handle on upper-stage engines I may do that as an experiment next.

February 25, 2015

I love this idea. I too, like the FASA towers, but I would like to see ones with a different aesthetic. I rather like the following ones myself:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

- - - Updated - - -

Launch towers aren't needed for stock KSP, cause rockets seem to be teleported to the pad already full of fuel and pilots and payload. Stability enhancers appear to simulate the hold-down arms, but its an unrealistic solution, they are integrated as part of the thrust deflection/ignitor structure. I would love to see a mod replicating an actual launch pad, with a LUT and tower for astronaut access. The rest of the launch pad structure could be a part attached to the rocket during construction!

I've always wondered if given that we have upgradable launchpads now with Career Mode, if it's possible to do a mod that modifies the pad itself...

February 25, 2015

Hi guys,
This is probably already answered before, but I'm wondering if the KW rocketry engines could have the same huge plume effect during ignition as the stock engines have already? If I want to do this, how do go about enabling this for KW rocketry engines?

There's a configuration file that can do it. It's somewhere in this thread, but when I get home I'll post it for you.

February 23, 2015

I'm actually working on some improvements for the upper-stage engines as well... I think what I have looks better than the original ones, but I have no idea if they're realistic in any way.

Let me try and tweak them some more before I post them. I've tried hard to look for any pictures or diagrams of what the plume from a real-life upper stage should be, but I haven't found any. Does anyone have any suggestions for that?

February 21, 2015

I think I have the settings for first-stage engines down pretty well... the current test now includes the 3.75m four-nozzle KW engine as well.

http://pastebin.com/TTgH7cDj

(No gallery since it's pretty similar to the 2.5m I posted earlier, except scaled up)

Now I'm going to see what I can do about the upper stage engines... I'll check back in later when I have some good results.

February 20, 2015

I honestly can't give you an answer on that. I suggest asking in the Smokescreen thread, since that's the plugin that powers HotRockets. I suspect any limitations would be on that end.

February 18, 2015

exhaust effects must always originate within the bell as much as possible, no gaps between engine bell and exhaust

There is actually one exception to this... if any of the engines are modeled as liquid hydrogen/oxygen engines (I don't know if any are right now), there can be a bit of a gap.

http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/2017/why-do-the-exhaust-flames-from-cryogenic-stage-engines-appear-to-be-separated-fr

http://space.stackexchange.com/questions/7751/are-rocket-exhaust-flames-ever-opaque

February 17, 2015

Regarding your second post about launch smoke, honestly I'm unsure of how I am going to want to handle this going forward. Mostly because I don't use it, and I know there are some people that don't want it, so being able to easily disable it is a must, so having a separate config for it would be ideal, either one like what we have now but tweaked a bit so it is more specific in what engines it targets, or just strait up adding it only to specific engines.

I would ask in the ModuleManager thread if there's a way to target specific parts without using wildcards. Right now, the best "workaround" would be a separate configuration file with each engine having its own section, but that gets tiring quickly even if the exact same configuration is used.

This is exactly the direction that I am trying to take HR, your low to mid atmo stuff looks fantastic, I feel you need to keep the emission up a little longer in the upper atmo though, but that is my personal preference.

Some of that is a limitation of the KWflamesmall animation... it gets faint real quick.

KWflamelarge seems to work a bit better, though. I expanded my experiments to the Griffon G8D (four-nozzle 2.5m KW engine).

Javascript is disabled. View full album

It's a relatively "heavy" load (the NRAP payload is set to 15 tons). The last picture is just over 15km in altitude, first stage separation was soon after that. (For comparison, the first test I posted went up to around 30km).

The configuration is below (it also tweaks the Wildcat configuration a bit too). Akira_R, if you're doing something like this already, I don't want to step on your toes - you're welcome to use what I have. They're more tinkering/experiments than anything else.

http://pastebin.com/XYSPxDHS

February 13, 2015

Recently NathanKell posted a gallery which had some fairly impressive rocket plume expansion. So... I decided to go back and see if the same effects could be done without Realism Overhaul. So based on the configurations in RO and Akira_R's existing configurations I put the following configuration together:

http://pastebin.com/BJKPiDZv

The test engine is the KW Rocketry 1.25m Wildcat V (since that's what my launch vehicle uses). And these are the results:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

I'm trying to go for a semi-realistic look here... I'm of mixed minds if this is better/more realistic than the existing configurations by Akira_R. Suggestions are welcome.

January 27, 2015

I suspect he means something like the low profile B9 (or is it KW?) adapters that are at most 1m long.

Yes, that's what I meant. Some of the stock adapters are pretty low profile as well.

January 26, 2015

Simple request: right now there aren't any good structural adapters for the spaceplane parts to use them with regular cylindrical sizes. It would be really useful to have structural adapters so they can be used with 2.5m and 3.75 m parts. There are existing adapters, but they're very much on the large side and are fuel tanks.

If there's a mod that would do this (or already does), it would be highly appreciated.

January 22, 2015

As much as possible, I try to clean up my space debris - I will deorbit lifter stages with an attached probe, etcetera. However, I use the debris tab instead as a storage place for "decomissioned" satellites (i.e, those I have no more use for).

Profiles

Forums

Developer Articles

KSP2 Release Notes

Bug Reports

Posts posted by leops1984