Jump to content

Bishop149

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    402

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Bishop149

  1. Bishop149
    Hmmmm well that probably is what's going on, I did some testing with a much much simpler setup: Rover 1: Basically nowt but a reactor, generator, radiators and some energy demand it can't satisfy alone: Rover 2 is essentially identical except lacking the power draining bit, but with some stuff in its place to give it the same weight (so the docking ports line up) When I connected it I kinda expected Rover 1's reactor to run at 100% and for it to essentially ignore Rover 2 as it did on my last ship.. What actually happened was the opposite, which is weird as hell. Made no difference at all when Rover 2 was connected with its reactor switched off and then subsequently turned on: As I see it, it must be something to do with the way KSP-I calculates power supply and power drain across a docking port. If a generator become disconnected from a reactor due to some node rearrangement weirdness, wouldn't I have got the generator shut down message? Prehap's its not fixable, but I do think its quite a major flaw that docked ships essentially can't share power. It would also mean there's no way to swap out neutron damaged reactors. Next I'll test and see if charged particle based reactors are any different. It was the most space, weight and money efficient way to get the required power . . . . . original plan was to hook in another Dusty Plasma + generator but was far heavier, about three times a pricey and made the ship look more than a little ridiculous.
  2. Bishop149
    Pretty sure it is. On one half of the docking port I have a Dusty Plasma directly attached to a Direct conversion generator, this one always seems to work On the other side of the docking port there are 4 Molten Salt reactors all directly attached to thermal generators (which can be seen in the first picture), these supply power to the whole ship when launched activated and pre-docked. They don't when launched inactive, then docked, then activated. I haven't tested: Launched activated then docked. It seems to me that despite the ships being docked, KSP-I is still calculating power draw as separate ships. I'll do some testing. Loops?
  3. Bishop149
    Those new models are lovely! A quick bug report: I launched a ship that had a single Dusty Plasma and charged particle generator that could generate about 1.44GW of power. This wasn't enough to power everything I need but I couldn't afford the weight to lift more heavy generators. So I planned to dock a second module with some extra generators to boost up the power. Here is the the ship sitting on the launch pad, pre docked all generators active, as you can see its fine: As a side issue, I didn't want to attach radiators to the module I was docking so I launched the reactors deactivated and turned them on after they docked But when it's all docked and turned on in orbit its essentially as if the docked generators aren't there, and as you can see the molten salt reactors are idling at 10%, and I still don't have enough power.
  4. Bishop149
    Slightly perhaps, but the other end is still a 5m almost flat surface . . . . . And I'd have had to turn it round after it separated to apply thrust which I don't think I would have had time for, was cutting it fine for "time out of the atmosphere to circularise" for the final burn as it was.
  5. Bishop149
    Thank everybody, I'm pretty sure it's the brick like aerodynamics of the payload that is the issue, I did finally manage to get it to orbit by doing the above. A little more fuel in the second stage and a slightly different ascent profile, started turn at 25km and also turned a little slower than usual (I normally just point orbit prograde and leave it there) to allow a higher apoesis and more time for the somewhat sluggish upper stage engines to burn through their deltaV. This was what I was going to try next, the design would have been an absolute pain though as the sides of the payload aren't straight. Anyway pictures below, happy to call this one "Answered"! If anyone's interested in what it is, it's composed mostly of KSP-I parts primarily 8 huge atmosphere scoops. It's designed to sit just above the Kerbin's atmosphere and skim off nitrogen as part of my orbital fuel production operations
  6. Bishop149
    I'm trying to launch my first really BIG payload at 120 tons and I just can't get it to orbit Many problem is that every time I try and start a gravity turn at 10-15 km up I just loose control of the bloody thing at it just falls all the way over. Have now been through umpteen design iterations mostly involving increasing thrust, more reaction wheels, more gimbleing or control surfaces . . . . . nothing makes the slightest difference. Best I've managed is not starting the turn until about 20-25 km up and then due to the massive inefficiency of the maneuver running out of fuel and thrust just short of orbit. Its possible the payload is too unaerodynamic. . . but there is nothing I can do about that, faring isn't an option payload is too big. Any tips appreciated, starting to tear my hair out
  7. Bishop149
    You know much as I HATE to discourage a modder who does a sterling job and clearly want to develop and update ASAP this isn't such a bad idea. Multiple updates a week can take quite a lot of staying on top off, a weekly update schedule is a pretty good idea. The absolute worst for this is Contract Configurator. . . that bloody thing can have updates every day. As a result I got a little blasé about them and tended to just update when I felt like it without reading the changelogs. As I result I installed one the other day that completely wiped my contract list and reset all the contract packs I had to their default state, perhaps if I hadn't become so jaded by the constant updates I would have read the notes and it wouldn't have happened.
  8. Bishop149
    I had a nightmare of a time trying to assemble a monstrosity in LKO, parts that needed docking were so irregularly shaped that it was impossible to get the RCS thrust balanced with the CoM. . . thus whilst I could get them docked I could not get them perfectly aligned. After failing to successfully: [undock, rotate about 3 degrees and re-dock] about 10 times with the first module, and faced with the prospect of doing this 7 more times, I rage-quit and terminated the two station modules launched to date. I then decided I needed a bigger lifter so I could dispense with all this stupid docking malarkey. Biggest thus far lifts about 40-50 Tons to LKO, I aimed to make one that could do 100 tons and after a few iterations came up with one that can do a max of about 120 tons. Then failed to lift the actual real payload into space . . . . couldn't manage the usual gravity turn without falling nose down, if I left it until about 20km up after first stage separation it would just turn and stay stable. After that incredibly inefficient gravity turn when approaching apoesis I had to have the payload to do the last push to orbit under its own thrust. Decoupled it and it instantly shook itself to bits and exploded into its component parts I really don't get why this happens to some ships. . . . . fine on the launchpad on their own, fine on the launch pad attached to the lifter, fine under thrust in atmo to orbit, decouple in space and NOPE I'm gonna explode. I think this is a 1.0 thing in beta if a ship design was unstable and explody it would do it under ANY circumstance
  9. Bishop149
    I've notice an issue with the Atmospheric Scoop. Essentially if you leave the scoops activated and change scene, the next time you go to the ship with scoops they aren't working. They don'te even appear in the list of equipment drawing power, switching them on and off in the same scene does nothing to help. Picture of failure state below: What DOES fix it however is to switch them off, change scene, change back and then turn them on again. I've also noticed they don't collect when you're not flying the ship. . . . which is irritating and perhaps related to the above?
  10. Bishop149
    Well it took me a while but I eventually found this: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/119559-1-0-2-Automatic-Landing-Gear-Leg-Solar-Panel-Alpha%280-0-4d%29 Will give it a go. Just liked Freethinker's version because for the radiators at least I know it works flawlessly.
  11. Bishop149
    After forgetting to redeploy my solar panels following an aerobrake not once but TWICE in the same play session on the same ruddy ship (The first I sent an Kerbal to fix, the second I reloaded a quicksave!) might I repeat my request to add the radiator automation to solar panels? Personally I'd find it extremely useful. I honestly think it would make an awesome mod in its own right and a very nice addition to KSP-I. If you're worried people might not like their panels developing a life of their own just default the automation to "off". Also I find that the more complicated KSP-I parts cause quite a bit of lag on load (either placing them in the VAB/SPH, or on entering physics range), obviously for things like reactors and ISRU modules this is unavoidable but do the new RCS thrusters need quite so many options on the parts? I missed the whole discussion on this but is there a way I could just make them like them just like the stock RCS with the fuel switch option and get rid of the umpteen other options? I'd rather avoid another laggy part if possible. Edit: Oh and is there a reason the new RCS thruster won't run on water?
  12. Bishop149
    In my opinion "finished" is a lack of any major structural issues with the game, the occasional bugs or seemingly incomplete feature are pretty mush par for the course in many games, "good" developers will support their game and try and patch and improve such things out over time. Major holes in KSP as I see them: - No 64-bit as yet, and its a game that would hugely benefit from it . . . . hopefully 1.1! - Takes a RIDICULOUSLY long time to load, many many times longer than any other RAM heavy game. I know very little about coding but assume this is an optimisation issue - Lack of a decent save structure, it remains FAR too easy to lose a vast amount of game progress from either the game bugging out randomly or accidentally hitting the wrong button. - The heat system still requires some major work, seemingly random overheating explosions abound. - Memory leaks, IIRC stock KSP still has a few. . . . unacceptable in a "finished" product IMO Fix those and I'd be pretty happy with in, I have no idea how much work that would be compared to whats already been done but guessing I'd say KSP is probably about 90% finished.
  13. Bishop149
    Well, in my case I'm using a 1.25m Gas Core (a joy for small ships, I only just unlocked them!) with same size thermal nozzle running on Hydrazine. I can run the engine at about ~70% throttle (giving about 25-30kN of thrust) with it teetering on the edge of explosion temperature (2700K) . . . any higher and Boom.
  14. Bishop149
    Over the last week or so I have: Continued to upgrade / replace my remote tech network, the below is my new Inner system Sat, 16 dishes with a range covering Moho to Dres, should be sufficient. Need to make an "Outer" one now. . . . boy that thing will have to be HUGE, super long range dishes are rather big. My Duna Expedition lead by the Kallichore (below) complete all their transfer burns and are now on their way to Duna intercept. I got a little annoyed at my returning Eve / Gilly flyby mission. I jumped to the ship when the "1m to Kerbin Encounter" alarm went off to be confronted with this: No where bloody near, SOMETHING screwed up. I managed to rearrange an intercept but in another 136 bloody days, and slowing down into orbit will now drain the dry. . . won't be enough to deorbit. Well screw that I wasn't waiting 136 days, so I designed a small high burn ion ship to go get the science which was basically a MkI lander can with as many Dawns and as much Xenon as I could fit under 10 tons. . . ended up with a deltaV of around 18,000m/s, shot it off to go meet the Eve mission. Made the intercept and returned to Kerbin within ~20 days and had about 7,000m/s left afterwards. Also probably holds the record for fastest Kerbin approach, entering SOI to 100km Periapsis in less than 2 days. I also swapped out the pilots as I felt poor Isabella deserved to get back quicker. A meeting / pilot swap in Solar orbit Yay, science finally! Was enough to buy 3 lovely research nodes.
  15. Bishop149
    I've also noticed my thermal nozzles over heating rather rapidly but was only tested one ship so was hesitant to post, but this does seem like a recurring issue. Edit: I'm still on 1.4.7
  16. Bishop149
    I had a go (and failed) at making a large rover. . . . over 100 tons fully loaded. Simply doesn't work, hit any kind of a bump going at anything approaching a decent speed and there is an ~50% chance a wheel will come off and half the rover will explode. Went through a LOAD of design iterations often with an awful lot of struts trying to hold the bloody thing together, all to no avail. . . . is such a heavy rover just a flat out impossibility?
  17. Bishop149
    Ah, Thank you . . . . thought it might be that but wanted to check before committing the Science. Had also figured out the front page was incorrect!
  18. Bishop149
    Just a very quick question: Which node upgrades thermal turbojets to hybrid thermal rockets?
  19. Bishop149
    I replaced my LKO RemoteTech control network that consisted of 4 very ancient / primitive satellites: With 3 which were a little more modern . . . . . which also double a relays for a future microwave power network. I'm hoping these three will maintain their 120 degree separation over time. . . . the last networks orbits had drifted waaaaaaay out of position over the 2 years they'd been up. Their orbits were pretty precise but I guess even very tiny differences in orbital period added up over time. The new three have a synced orbital period down to a 1/100th of a second (which was accurate as I could get KSP to measure it!).
  20. Bishop149
    I'd say your mistake is using docking mode. . . . . don't, it's pointless. Granted the last time I tried it was probably about 10 versions of KSP ago but the fact remains that I never use it and just control RCS in normal flight mode. Press R to turn on RCS, controls are then: H - Translate Forward N - Translate Backward J/L - Translate Left / Right I/K - Translate Up / Down AFAIK these are the default controls, I certainly haven't changed them. If you wanna just deorbit, aim you ship retrograde (orbit), press R and then hold down H. The ship will automatically fire the correct RCS nozzles to head in the direction intended, if you only have 2x 4-way blocks chances are at least some of those 8 nozzles are pointed the right way to achieve the desired effect, if not try rotating the ship around a bit. As a rule of thumb for future designs I always try and have RCS blocks in four-fold radial symmetry somewhere close to the CoM.
  21. Bishop149
    Its based upon this: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/107471-1-0-4-TextureReplacer-2-4-8-%2813-8-2015%29?p=2066086&viewfull=1#post2066086 The author of that helpfully included a GIMP file so you could make your own variations with ease.
  22. Bishop149
    Meh in my game some Kerbals are blue by default (portraits in pic below). . . . they don't all HAVE to be green, much like all humans aren't exactly the same colour, in my head-canon at least.
  23. Bishop149
    Indeed, the stock game already contains fuel cells for the generation of electric charge so I'd set the process in the refinery up to act more like a super charged version to generate the kind of power levels required for the processes you mention . . . . perhaps it could have two modes? Low power / Slow for support of basic ship systems, High power / Fast for restart of fusion or rapid water production?
  24. Bishop149
    I finished fueling the Kallichore with just under 100k units of water from my Minmus water mine She's now ready for her first mission / shake down voyage to Duna. The process revealed some weaknesses in the Ground based operation, namely my tanker rover is too small. . . . time to design and launch a replacement. Here's a shot of one of the landers in sitting snug in a cargobay
  25. Bishop149
    Just one quick thought, I have often thought that a useful IRSU process would be simply "Burn Hydrogen" to make water: 2x H2 + O2 = 2x H2O As a fortunate side effect this process energy could be generated rather than consumed. Just an idea, I often find I am left with excess O2 I can't find much use for, the option to vent it would be good but the option to turn it into water even better!
×
×
  • Create New...