Jump to content

Pappystein

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,391

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Pappystein

  1. Pappystein
    Well Galileo's update to 1.3 is a ways off but I can tell you my experience with 1.22.... Don't use Sigma Dimensions to rescale the first time you fly. I run BDB + SSTU (with mods to make BDB tanks and Engines closer in functionality to SSTU) as well as this and DMagic Orbital Science. The Grind was much harder in my game than standard stock so..... No I don't think your combination is over balanced.
  2. Pappystein
    I think you are right Minepagan, I had similar but not the same issues with KJR in the past (back in late 0.90 IIRC.) It was then KJR interacting with some other DLLs weirdly that caused it.... With the new advanced tweakables it is better in my opinion NOT to use KJR. I have not had KJR on KSP since 1.2. Sure with out KJR spindle rockets are hard to fly until you unlock the ability to autostrut but..... no game issues.
  3. Pappystein
    Ok then you are not using the Master file on the Github but just the last official release then. @CobaltWolf has already addressed that above. In BDB in my game there are currently 12 (I think) Tanks for various centaurs. T/G 2.5m, T/G 1.875m, T/G Adaptor tank, etc etc etc.
  4. Pappystein
    Which Tank? There are several. Oh and WHICH Centaur are you trying to make. Again their are several
  5. Pappystein
    I haven't downloaded the LATEST 1.3.dll but the older one (from 2 days ago.) seems to work A-OK! ...If that matters
  6. Pappystein
    I will cotton onto what @Jimbodiah stated. I have not done a Cost vs benefit calculation Visa-v the types of tanks/engines... but I too run Hypergolic for landers and unmanned probes/sats. I run LH2 for all my upper stages except Vega and transtage (From BDB converted to work with SSTU containers and fuel.) I run LFO or Hydrolox first stages .... Hydrolox only if I have a SRM/SRB 0th stage. I have found these combinations to give the best over all performance and keep my careers from floundering like many players complain about (the grind.)
  7. Pappystein
    Rgr on the Soon(TM) and good news. And I was more asking for CASTOR-1/4, GEM40 etc... Problem is KSP grabs at COM which in most of the BDB SRB/SRMs is quite low.... Results in Decouplers near the bottom 1/3rd of the rocket. Unless there is something I am missing.... Which is also likely
  8. Pappystein
    Then I retract my statement. Thanks for the quick replies and the clarifications.
  9. Pappystein
    Oooooooooohhhhhhh! 1.875m? AWESOME! When can I haz? Kidding of course. @CobaltWolf Am continued to be amazed So that brings up a question that sort of popped into my head today while I was driving (4.5hrs of drive-time today) is there any way to apply a SLIGHTly greater force at the top of a decoupler to tend to pop SRBs/SRM/LRBs away from the Connected Rocket? IRL bomb shackles do this the front or rear as needed has a higher force of explosive (I kid you not explosives are used to drop bombs) to separate the bomb tail or nose first. IE can a decoupler apply a torque from top to bottom in addition to sideways push force?
  10. Pappystein
    Personally I would rather NOT see this part go.... To be clear we are talking about the two tank skeletal setup like the EUS/IUS from Space Launch System? I use mods beyond just SSTU and I LIKE the ability to swap engines to whatever I want (isn't that the point of this game?!) I mean I almost have the Papptek Industries Mk7 NERVA ready to test on it... err no I don't but you get the point I think.
  11. Pappystein
    So, I am about to try a RESCALE via MM files of the Balutes to make them thinner. Has anyone tried this before and were there any issues. I am just trying to reduce the height of the parts to allow my entire stack to fit in the VAB without major clipping/editing issues. TIA!
  12. Pappystein
    Totally Joking but... um KSP 1.3? Seriously I just migrated last night once I saw @stupid_chris was recompiling RC (BIG THANKS BTW!) and I have to say game-play seems to have improved a tiny bit. Things are easier to read and some of the bugs that annoyed me are gone. With the exception of RC all my mods but one (72 of them) either worked fine with their 1.22 version or had a 1.3 version already. Now I await a fully Functional Galileo Planet Pack and 1.3 compliant toolbar to round out my mods Now @Calvin_Maclure to solve your problem... Go to the OP. Click to Download from Github. You will note it only shows the CURRENT version. click on the RELEASE button/text and you will see all versions on the GitHub. Hope that helps!
  13. Pappystein
    Um, Did this get Ret-conned? When I click on the link to your Github to download it has 1.2.7 and says no commits since December (this is including the Master copy.) Did I miss something? I have been missing the IBs for quite a while. *UPDATED* I manually changed the URL from 1.2.7 to 1.2.8. A-OK! https://github.com/riocrokite/InlineBallutes/releases/tag/1.2.7 Is the URL the OP still links to
  14. Pappystein
    So I only did a quick read through the linked document below (and only to page 250 as I am late for a family gathering.) It is a drawing but, ALL of sector 1 was either full of ballast or taken up by the Lunar experiments: https://history.nasa.gov/alsj/SM2A-03-BK-II-(1).pdf Page 179 for the top down view that is easy to scale from.
  15. Pappystein
    First off Cool! I too had issues with the Apollo CM and was unsure WHAT they were but you are right the windows are the major issue... They look.... off.. somehow. I don't want to speak for others but couldn't you just hollow out the bottom and add another 4 node set between the existing center 4 nodes and the outer 4 nodes... where E-1 would have to be mounted? Or are you thinking of B9 part switch the bottom for E1 or H1 engines?
  16. Pappystein
    I can't wait for BREXIT to stop distracting Cobaltwolf err actually that isn't true, BREXIT will be an awesome collaborative mod unto itself from what I have seen out of it's various authors. Rather I should say, I am patiently awaiting an E-1 engine setup similar to the newest Titan engines deployed in the master copy on Github. And a Saturn 1 mounting plate with a re-designed bottom section so we can mount a 4x E-1 array to it... Then Saturn I family can be considered complete as far as *I* am concerned including the fanciful but awesome S-1E stage. On the subject of the new Titan engine, I am unsure if @Jso or @CobaltWolf are aware the Titan engine in the master with the select-able adapter sizes has a gap between the top node and the engine with no adapter is chosen. It appears to have the same space between the engine bell assembly and the node as the 1.25m tank butt. I have not downloaded the master in about a week so if you have already fixed it AWESOME! Engine in question is: bluedog_LR87_SingleChamberB.cfg I will verify if this is not listed in the Git and post there as well.
  17. Pappystein
    Yes and while I am not a person involved with the Brexit mod, I can clearly state Blue-Streak / the various Europa versions posted above by CobaltWolf is coming home to roost! The question on Air started can be answered simply. Do 4 RZ.2s on the radial LRB sets have enough power to lift the Europa (I assume they are RZ.2s?) But that means the Brittish made ALL the parts for a British Atlas except the 1n1/2 stage separation parts. Sustainer (VO RZ.2,) Booster (RZ.2) and Balloon tanks (LOX tank.) Does that mean the LRBs for Europa 34L are also RZ.2 engines? How much of the existing RZ.2 geometry can be re-used for the LRBs?
  18. Pappystein
    Wow, No one could finish the quote?!?!?! Something borrowed something Blue......er Streak! It was fun watching you develop that as well as converse with you during your twitch stream last night! As I stated last night, I can't wait to use that as a SRB replacement for my Titan and Saturn variants!
  19. Pappystein
    In the short term I am worried about stand alone but longer term the whole shebang. So basic +PART for stand alone and the copy paste the module for the complex parts is what you are saying?
  20. Pappystein
    So to be clear, if I want to make a Module Manager file that gives me a DP-0.5 or a DP-1.5 port in addition to the stock DP-0 and DP-1 ports (that is to say a 0.9375m or a 1.5m port in addition to the DP-0 or DP-1) then I would want to replicate the existing SSTU_Model Module in MM with the alterations to nodes and scale? PS @Shadowmage not that it matters, but it looks like the node position changes at a slightly different scale than 0.938 as dictated by your scale factor in your example above. I am guessing you actually used 0.9388 (the exact answer for 2.347/2.5.) I state this in-case someone is trying to re-create your math since the example and the text don't quite match. you have got to love Sigfigs! Well, no, you really don't! TIA!
  21. Pappystein
    Um I wish to report a failure of an umbilical. I see that is not covered by your exception list at the bottom of the image. No corrosive liquids were spilled with this failure but my 800k money units rocket did not make orbit
  22. Pappystein
    I know you have a lot of work to do on it and I know you have other higher priorities but I for one like the initial Geometry. But this, when you have the time and inclination to do it will be a good compliment for Big-Gemini as well as Mun landers. Eventually 1) I am all for an alternative Gemini SM. The TRAILS one is too narrow looking, to my view, because it comes to a sharp point (mostly there is no "waist" looking area that is slightly larger at the junction of the capsule with the CSM. Truthfully the Gemini should have a stand alone decoupler similar to the Apollo CM/CSM. This should be slightly larger diameter than the CSM's front/top diameter (or at-least change the angle.) I fully understand WHY we DON'T have that and am OK with it. I am just making clear that visually the CSM should slope in at a little more acute of an angel and then a nearly flat sided, larger diameter Decoupler or similar device should join the CM to the CSM. 2) I hope we see BOTH of those CSMs
  23. Pappystein
    Can't wait to see it live! My Pregnant Gemini will look a little better with that. (Pregnant due to the one man lander carried between LR91 stage and Transtage.) Of-course it won't look pregnant when the 3.125 Titan Barbarian is released. Since that is just slightly larger than my lander's diameter.
  24. Pappystein
    Doth mine eyes deceive? Is that a new CSM for Gemini?... or is the perspective angle, just causing a "fatter" appearance?
  25. Pappystein
    So hopefully someone here can help me. I use Mechjeb in my career. I have a simple file with the following lines of code and am wondering why it does not work for JUST BlueDog DB. Any thoughts: every other control point device (Command pods, to Probe cores,) I get Mechjeb right out of the gate. I obviously have the same problem with my code to add Engineer to the command modules and again only with BDB. TIA
×
×
  • Create New...