seanth

I made the move to 1.2 and was testing a boat. The jet engine exhaust graphics are overwhelming. Is there a way to turn things down? Here's a bit of "wat?" in relation to the jet engine exhaust graphics over water

Boy, if I had know people would have accepted just a hard mode, we would have avoided all the level difficulty stuff. Edit: do you have a github up? I'm not involved, but would still like to follow along. Besides, maybe when I get a break from teaching I can think about helping out. The biology professor in me just can't help it....

I have managed to make the tiles for the slope, color, and sat views for all the bodies. Unfortunately the resulting zip is 2.9gig in size, so I can't upload it to github as a release. For those with space to spare on their drives, you can download the package and try and run it locally http://goo.gl/tOk0qD Edit: I wasn't aware that google's short links won't let you link to zip. Try this: https://ice-nine.org/seant/KerbalMaps.zip

Ok. I'll hold off, but will finish making all the tiles. That way people can download and have access to a mostly working clone of Kerbal Maps while updates are being worked on

Should I keep hacking on the elevation/biome/slope data display in the lower left corner?

A potential problem: I just realized that the maps up on mega don't have the biomes. I've made all the map tiles for kerbin (except for the biome map) and they are all working fine on my local. When I try and download the images as a complete zip the file is corrupted, so I am downloading them in batches now. I'll make the rest of the tiles for the bodies as the maps download. We need to find high res maps for biomes though

The info in the lower left display (biome, elevation, etc) isn't showing up for me either. I will look at it more later this morning. I'll read through the javascript and look at the leaflet examples online to try and get an idea of why it's not working (it seems like it should be working) I did get some tiles made: sat image at 6 zoom levels. Total folder sizer of ~150meg. I'll make the colour relief, slope, and biome ones next. @Drew Kerman: when I have them, do you want me to PM you and give you an url so you can download them, or just start putting things on github. If you started a github project, I could fork and add the images for you to pull in. However you like. You stepped up to recover things, and I just want to help.

It'll be a pretty big download. With all the images for all the planets, we're probably looking at something around 7gig

I have a version of Kerbin Maps working locally on my computer. I grabbed all the stuff off web archive and edited the paths in the javascript files so it loads the images correctly. https://goo.gl/photos/qxSizmstShgx4V6y9 I'm not going to waste my time downloading all the tiles for each body at each zoom, though. What I am currently doing is downloading all the maps on the Kerbal Maps download page. Once I have all those hi-res maps, I'll use the GDAL python tool to chop the maps into tiles. I _think_ that will automatically populate the tiles into the folder structure the leaflet js files wants. If I'm successful I'll put the the whole thing up on github for people to download and run locally, or for people to build on.

Would it be easier to take the data on mega and import it into something like google earth as a layer? I know you can import just the image of Kerbin as a skin on the globe, but that doesn't give you the terrain detail. Earth is also much bigger than Kerbin so distances would be wrong. I'm unsure what can and can't be done with Google Earth. Just a thought.

Oh, sorry. Methane hydrate, maybe? From Majiir:

I was thinking about Kepler space telescope data recently, and started wondering whether it would be possible in KSP to detect exoplanets in mods like Kerbal Galaxy 2 using mods like Hullcam VDS. It's immensely satisfying to use the cameras in Hullcam VDS to monitor Jool and it's moons. It'd be super cool if we could detect reductions in light coming from other stars in the game as their planets transit them. It's definitely possible to see eclipses and partial eclipses of Kerbol by planets in the Kerbol system, but I'm not sure the game would allow the player to detect eclipses of other stars by their exoplanets. Has anyone tried this? I don't think there is an existing tool in-game that would pick up the reduction in light. Maybe a new type of solar panel that is calibrated to show amount of energy produced (which would be vanishingly small) when pointed at other stars in KSP?

Now that Space-X has started releasing info on their LCH4 and LOX Raptor engines, it'd be pretty sweet to have some Kethane engines. Since kethane is ~methane, seems like a slam dunk and a nice part to add.

This. I took a close look at all the travel times and speeds I have recorded over the past few months, limiting myself to stretches that go in more-or-less straight lines from the KSC: east to the peninsula jutting out int the ocean, and southwest to the tip of the continent the KSC is on. It's tricky to look at recorded speeds since the speed recorded is the speed when reaching one of those points, and there is variability as the craft gets up to speed, changes during travel, etc. Long story short: multiply speed by the travel time and the resulting distances are 1/2 what F3 reports. Dear Squad, wat? I guess this is a bug? Can has fix? Hugs and snugs, me Thanks to everyone for helping me sanity check this. I didn't _really_ think Kerbin was a different size. I had too much orbital data supporting the accepted planet radius. I just didn't think that getting distances from the F3 info screen could be so wildly off. But it was nice to see people doing some real sciencey stuff to prove it has a radius of 600km. Now I wonder if the 2x error is somehow caused by getting boats into the water using hyperedit, or whether it's just always wrong.

I hope you don't think I'm trying to present bad data. I know the claim that Kerbin might be a different size is pretty out there, but the data I presented in OP is what I have gathered thus far supporting Kerbin being a different size. I acknowledge there are other observations that support the accepted size, and I can't reconcile why some people are seeing data going one way and why other people are seeing data supporting something else. Maybe there is some weird bug in F3 distance calcs depending on whether you travel E-->W vs W-->E? Maybe deviating to the N or S impacts it? I don't know. All I know is I have numerous observations saying Kerbin is larger than I thought it was. Having said that, I have orbital data saying Kerbin is the normal size. Sooo...this thread. I have some ideas about looking at time of sunrise at the KSC and then time of sunrise very far away (but still on the equator) along with the horizon distance experiments. This week is very busy for me, but I will try and compile all the observations I have. I really need to come up with a way of obtaining distance measurements without relying on F3, though (thus the time of sunrise at various points on the surface idea)

I agree. Your measurements support a r of 600km. I'm finding the whole thing confusing and frustrating. Sometimes the observations clearly say it's 600km. Othertimes they point to 1,200km. I guess for the time being I'll assume there is just something weird about my distance measurements.

So that backs up the idea that Kerbin has a radius of 1,200,000m. Weird.

Well, if horizons actually work in KSP, this can be answered by figuring out distance to horizon. If the observer is 5m above sealevel: If Kerbin's radius is 600,000m they will be able to see 2.45km If Kerbin's radius is 1,200,000m they will be able to see 3.46km (assuming my math is correct)

That might be true, but here's another data point: When testing my boat, I would record speed, and mission clock time. I took 4 readings going from the KSC to the southern tip of that continent with the speed averaging 68m/s. It took me 1:48:40 (or 6520sec) to get from the KSC to the tip. 68m/s * 6520sec = 443,360m. That's further than the F3 reported 384,410m, but I know for a fact I wasn't going 68m/s the whole way. There were times when I would lose my hydrofoil would lose plane and crash down into the water, so my actual speed was slower. I am getting more convinced this is some weird bug in KSP. In moving to unity 5, was there a mixup between radius and diameter?

For whatever reason, the info screen (what you see when you press F3) is reporting distances 2x what they actually are. It's unclear as of this writing (2016.10.02) whether it always does that, or whether there is a minimum distance needed before it becomes incorrect. Thx to everyone that commented and helped sanity check things. TL;DR: I think there is an error in how KSP is reporting the size of Kerbin. Kerbin's radius can't be 600,000m because circumnavigations are longer than the expected circumference. Yet the geosync height for sats matches a planet with a 600,000m radius. For the past few months I have been refining a boat that will let me circumnavigate Kerbin without refueling. I based my initial designs on the information of the wiki that says the radius of Kerbin is 600,000m. That gives a circumference of 3,768,000m (2*3.14*600,000m). Based on the fuel efficiency of some early designs, I worked out a target fuel efficiency and the amount of fuel I would need to go 3,768,000m. The problem was, when I went that far, I was only about half way around the planet. I didn't think too much about it and continued to refine my designs and increasing fuel until I finally managed the circumnavigation. The total distance in a test run I did was 7,866,453m. Again, I didn't think much about it. I was just pleased I had accomplished it. It wasn't until I started documenting things for a Elcano Challenge entry that I realized something didn't make sense. What made it clear was that, for some graphics, I put a skin of Kerbin onto the globe in Google Earth as described here. The plan was to make isochronic maps in google earth to show my boat tests and refinements, but I needed to be able to convert distances reported when I would hit F3 in KSP to distances in Google Earth. What I would was the 2,500,000m on Earth would equal approximately 447,000m on Kerbin. That would mean that Earth is 5.59x larger than Kerbin, not the 10.6x I had thought it was. If Kerbin's radius is 1,200,000, that would explain the Earth/Kerbin surface distance conversion and why my circumnavigation distance was 7,866,453m. If I take the lat/long of the runway island (-1.517306, -71.965488) and the southern tip of the continent the KSC is on (-9.5581, -85.9790), you can plug them into online tools and get the distance on Earth between those points. That link reports it's 1789km (1,789,000m) between those points on Earth. If Kerbin's radius is 600,000m that means it is 10.6x smaller than Earth and the distance on Kerbin should be 168,773m from Runway Island to the tip. If Kerbin's radius is 1,200,000m, Kerbin would be 5.3x smaller than Earth, and the distance would be 337,547m. My notes say it was 384,410m during my most recent test run. If Kerbin's Radius is 600,000m If Kerbin's Radius is 1,200,000m Circumference 3,768,000m 7,536,000m* Size relative to Earth 10.63x smaller 5.31x smaller** KSC to southern tip (by water) ~168,773m ~337,547m*** * Matches what I have seen in my circumnavigation **Matches what I have seen converting Google Earth distances to Kerbin distances ***Matches the distance I recorded in game. I can't resolve what I'm seeing with what other people have reported in the past. For example, here's a circumnavigation done by a plane. It's total distance (3,876,325)matched what you'd expect with r=600,000m. And Geosync sats in game are at an altitude above sealevel that is correct if r=600,000m. Can anyone else confirm this or tell me where I am being an idiot? I suppose a mod could be interfering, but the only mods I have are MechJeb and Hyperedit. Could there be something about traveling on water that is making the F3 info screen display the distance travelled incorrectly? EDIT: In looking at F3 shots from people doing circumnavigations (this thread) there are differences in the distances reported. 25 June 2015: 4,189,588m (close to 3,768,000m for r=600,000m) 20 October 2015: 3,775,794 (close to 3,768,000m for r=600,000m) 19 February 2016: 8,308,562m (close to 7,536,000m for r=1,200,000m) Could something have happened going from KSP 1.0.5 to 1.1?

My vague memory was that the part worked correctly back in 0.24 when I was submerging orange tanks. I could just be misremembering, though.

I was looking at the readings from the PresMat Barometer as a part I had descended into the ocean of Kerbin, and the readings weren't making sense based on the density of water on Kerbin since 1.0.5 Sitting at a depth of 513m below the surface, and with a water density of 1000km/m3, I would expect the pressure to be: Density*gravity*depth=1000kg/m3 * 9.81m/s2 * 513m = 5,032.53 kPa Instead I see a value of 101.325 kPa...which is what I would expect to see for an atmospheric value near sea level. It seems like the part isn't "seeing" that it's in liquid and is still using the atmospheric density calculation. This definitely feels like a bug and might make it impossible for sciency players (or the children of players that are being encouraged to play KSP to use applied mathematics) to derive the density of liquids on other planets de novo (which would be cool). Can anyone else confirm it's not working correctly?

Have you ever tried to compress water? @RoverDude: am I missing something about the in-line ballast plate vs the ventral ballast plate? The ventral plate looks much smaller than the in-line one, but holds much more.

Maybe this? And I agree: a redone contract pack using the older parts as "experimental" ones would be sweet

Are the github release links up to date? Also, would you mind if we (kethane users) started updating the wiki on the github page?