Pappystein
-
Posts
2,414 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Everything posted by Pappystein
-
Actually for that altitude that looks about right. In a vacuum it should dissipate faster (Be less solid looking) A lot of the early Solid rockets were that flammy and bubblely looking. Look up Terrier BT-3 for a good example. Or SeaSlug from the RN. Both SAMs had REAL yellow smokey motors. If this was a modern Solid Rocket I would agree with you.....
-
No, lots of engines are falling through the launch pad if you don't clamp the rockets.. The LR-89 (Atlas Booster engine) is doing it on my little sub-orbital probe rockets. It isn't a weight issue but I had thought it was caused by one of my other mods.
-
I am wondering, Is there a way, without plugins, to have a single CFG file alter itself from one career unlock to the next. When I say Alter itself these are the things I am thinking about: Change Cost, Change Weight Add Features Change IVA files Remote obsolete features. For example, Could I create a single CFG file to use both the base FASA Gemini capsule and then when unlocked, alter the Gemini so that it is now the MoarDv Updated Gemini with Glass cockpit IVA, a lighter launch weight and a higher cost? I know that certain mods unlock more features as time goes by (MechJeb comes to mind,) but I have not seen any mods where EVERYTHING can change, nor have I seen one that did not come with a plugin.
-
Yes, Commenting out the Apollo Chute code in the RS Mod manager files works. it brings it back to the less than ideal default performance for that chute system. I think I am going to un-comment it out because we are talking about a broken animation, not a broken physics constraint. IE I prefer Real Chute's actual chute performance
-
Thanks for that info. I was just ignoring the pre-deployed floats. I have now commented out the Apollo Chute in Real Chute CFG (An ! at the start of every line of the Apollo Chute)
-
Is that ISP with H2+O2 or with O2+Kerosene? After all the fuel energy is a major percentage of the ISP calculation. I will try to work up a Engineer balance sheet and a mod maker balance sheet. It won't be pretty at first but It might be a useful tool.
-
With a lot of maneuver point planning I did a straight run in at Kerbin ONCE with the now titled "Easy" Gemini pack. I had the "gemini Lander" stage below it with spearatrons so that when I was less than 50m above Mun surface I kicked it to the side and had just enough time to maintain my typical 3.5m/s landing speed. Using the Vertical Velocity mod was essential to me landing that as it provides accurate VERTICAL speed (rather than angular speed the nav ball has.) With the realistic SRB one I don't think you can make it unless you have 4 or 6x the RCS propellant and external 3D RCS thrusters (Not the 2D thrusters that are Gemini standard.) I just do not think it has enough Delta/V to pop off the surface, Break munar orbit and do a direct approach of Kerbin. Generally I don't Use Gemini itself as a lander unless it is a game I am willing to use something like Hyperedit on. I have however landed the whole stack (Capsule + CSM components with the lander legs) on Kerbin. i was using some of BAC9's Air breaks as well as 5 Parachutes (Main, Drogue on the nose and 3 on the perimeter just below the RCS skirt.) Co-incidentally even though I no longer run B9 Aerospace, the standard Airbrake is a common fixture in my game now (created my own folder for such gems.) If you are putting the Air break on your capsule FLIP it UPSIDE DOWN because otherwise it will point your Capsule NOSE FIRST.... (Ignore this for Winged Gemini/) While I don't use Deadly Re-entry or similar mods, I DO like my capsule to fly properly. Two on the Gemini Capsule does amazing and since it unlocks before the Drogue chute, I use them (1 pair) as a drogue chute analog for my Gemini capsules.
-
Frizzank. Curiosity question. Should the H-1 engine be more efficient than the RL-10? For grins I put them on the Centaur plate and got better efficiency out of them (I did have to enable collision avoidance during construction to pull this off.) I get that the INITIAL RL-10-RD-xx variants were not as efficient as the H-1 (hence the sub out of the J-2 and H-1s for the RL-10s on various Saturn proposals.) But the later RL-10-RD-xxs that were used on Centaur are more efficient than the H-2s (at least I thought so.) Or is this something that would only be seen with additional mods like Real Fuels due to the different Fuel fraction mass caused by switching to H2-O2 based fuel?
-
I don't have any picture to post but I run an INT-18 with 4 "Edited" UA-1207 SRBs. 5 J-2S engines in the First stage (my own cfg loosely based on the FASA J-2.) Beyond the fact that it is again a J-2S on the 2nd Stage, it is stock Saturn IB after the first stage and boosters. Incidentally 1st stage fuel tank is the long tank (S-1C), not the stock (S-II) stage tank. I am using the S-II engine plate however. Edited = Altered CFGs (copied, Changed and Renamed to create duplicate entries) These follow MY formula for "real" in the KSP. I have successfully gotten a LEM + full CSM equipped Command module into Low Kerbin orbit. I did not have enough DeltaV to get that into Mun or Minimus orbit however (Given that Saturn II was a replacement for Saturn IB that is a significant growth in launch capability without a significant improvement in chances to get to the Mun.) My Use of the Saturn II is to get Station components to my Space stations around Kerbin in my sandbox game. After all the "Real" INT-18 should have gotten 66,000 kg into Low earth orbit. During Setup I calculate the load vs # Thrust required to pull a half gee of acceleration through lower atmosphere. That determines HOW MANY if any J-2S engines I have on at start. My calculations are Number of engines active = WAG. Just one MOL tank (or alternative lab/hab 2.5m tanks) I am just using my SRBs. The only exception is Fuel tanks and crew. I prefer my Titan IV variant running LR-89-AJ-11A, and LR-91-AJ-11A engines on UA-1207 SRBs (again my edited ones,) that act as the station tanker.. It has enough thrust to carry a Large Silver or White Titan tank isolated from engines into orbit with my stations, it costs less to launch and less is therefor lost after all recoverable parts are recovered (even if you fully recover all parts from a Saturn II, it still would LOOSE more credits than would be expended on a completely lost launch of my Titan IV tanker. SRBs, SRB decouplers, SRB seperation rockets nosecones = 2x cost (4 vice 2 identical SRBs) I think you can see how this is already going I have toyed with a Saturn II INT-18 sans the SRBs but the core package does not have enough fuel/thrust2weight to hurl a Big G system WITH RETURN capabilities into LKO. I tend to have an orbit in the low 70,000 meter range (or LOWER) as max when I only have de-orbit fuel left. Currently my re launched career is only unlocked half way through the Gemini Titan Packages (still have to unlock Winged-G, Big G and a few smaller things like Drogue parachutes and SRBs.)
-
[1.12.3+] RealChute Parachute Systems v1.4.9.5 | 20/10/24
Pappystein replied to stupid_chris's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
So I was having the same issue. A "Nearly" Clean re-install (I deleted all my mods out of GameData, then Did a Refresh via Steam...) After 8 attempts by loading only one file at a time, I deleted RealChute out of my game completely. Verified that the game loaded. Noticed I had some issues with Stock chutes, so I re-downloaded again via Steam. Long story short, at some point back in the day an older version of RealChute had put a file in my SQUAD directory under Gamedata with stock chutes. I deleted that file, re-installed Realchutes and Viola! I am up and running on X64. -
Guys, I am not as much of an expert on out of atmo stuff than I am in atmo but that protrusion appears to be similar to a same generation gimbaled (commonly called ROBOT) camera I have seen on several test aircraft. I have seen a similar lash up (structurally and shape wise) in a pod attached to various USAF test planes in the same time period (with the pod removed of course.) But if I am wrong it wouldn't even be the first time today.
-
So it is time for someone to make a stability enhancement dll file for KSP (that only works up to a fraction of the parent parts weight for reducing OP)? Or maybe Drag-less counterweights? it is too bad extending the antenna does not alter the CoG like it would in real life. Could actually make a PAM module that mimics real life (Spin stabilization during trajectory change but cancels out at end of burn.
-
Actually this is also a problem with some of the mercury parts (The Retro-Rocket pack vs the Retro-Rocket mount vs the Command Capsule itself... two different sized nodes, all on top of one another causing lots of glitching.) My favorite is if you glitch this and you fire the retro rockets... you tend to enter a sideways spin that RCS is not powerful enough to stop completely. Unrelated, but is anyone aware of a mod that would cause the Gemini Black Docking port nosecone to have puffs of smoke arround it and not work correctly while the white one still works fine?!
-
Err, hope this does not sound rude, but there was no "official" setup. I have counted at-least 10 different NOVA configurations, including some without J-2s (M-1s and the J-2 replacement that evolved into the SSME.) Nova was never built and never contracted for full design. By using the Aerospace industry's standards, there was never an OFFICIAL NOVA setup. NOVA is a code name to a design study (Kind of like Aurora was for the ATB, later known as the B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber.) No definitive result was ever achieved as NASA decided to scale back (read that as Congress did that for NASA) and settle on Saturn V (or Saturn C5 as it was known at that stage.) No end result, other than the prototype parts for the M-1 engine ever existed for NOVA. Now, GoldForest, what you are representing as the "Official" setup is one of the likely final contenders to the design study. But saying that was what would have been built... well Look at the YF-22 vs the F-22. COMPLETELY DIFFERENT AIRCRAFT. They don't even have the same more than general appearance (Tails, wings and Fuselage all have different shapes.)
-
BioHazard, you are correct, the settings are not "Real World" They Are Kerbalized. Also there are 6 different production versions for both the LR-87 and LR-91. Lastly, The KSP game does not physically act correctly vs real world so without using a ton of additional mods to make everything "realistic" this is pretty good.
-
I am kind of playing around with the J-2Ts right now. Am reusing the SQUAD model as it has the best Toroidal Aerospike I have in my mod collection. They just barely fit on the 5X J-2 Plate. However the cfgs are not ready for me to release to the public, if anyone would be even interested. I just started them for My Saturn II project.
-
If my load is light enough My Saturn II INT-18 uses the Titan White (UA-1207 IIRC) in a 4 On layout for the first stage. The Second stage is the S-II-Mod stage (Stretched S-II with J-2+ rockets.) If the load is heavy I activate 1/2/3 of the J-2+ engines at launch. My station core took 3 J-2s at launch, My recent Launch of a Cooling module for the station was SRBs only. I try not to launch with 4 or 5 of the J-2+ engines running. I can barely make 70,000 with that config. If I only have a Gemini command module on the top of the Saturn II, I can get away with a 2x2 launch (2 SRBs + 2 J-2s at launch, 2 SRBs after releasing the first 2 SRBs and the other 3 J-2s turn on with the second pair of SRBs. Although that is a very slow inital launch profile and a bit fuel wasteful. On second thought the latter might be with my updated UA-1207 CFG file. One of many FASA models I have made alternate CFG files for. If the load is heavy I activate 1/2/3 of the J-2+ engines at launch. My station core took 3 J-2s at launch, My recent Launch of a Cooling module for the station was SRBs only.
-
-
Is anyone else having issues with the Apollo CSM's AJ-10 SPS engine? About every other build I get a "no oxidizer" message when I activate the engine. The CSM body is listed as full Fuel and Full Oxidizer. Does the engine have to be rotated a certain way to get fuel? I am attaching the AJ-10 directly to the bottom of the CSM. Am I doing something dumb? TIA
-
Heck, I stick with Gemini pretty much to the end. Prefer it to most of the other pods (Issues with the AJ-10 SPS engine on the CM are driving me batty ATM so I might just stay on Gemini.) I guess I am just baffled that people want a bit of shiny graphics over FUNCTIONAL EQUIPMENT. It is my opinion and I get that, but The Mercury panel isn't going to have half the functionality of even the basic Gemini unless it isn't historically correct (Mind you Frizzank has always said he Kerbalizes things....) No matter, I know that Frizzank will do amazing work, even if it is something I would never really use. Ach So! Frizzank: Thanks for giving us the opportunity to choose the closing phase of FASA. Your models and work have been amazing and an inspiration!
-
No but I did cobble together a Saturn II INT-18 with 4 of the White Titan SRBs and a modified SII Stage. Used the S1C engine plate to get my 5 J-2s further apart than the stock SII engine plate. I also used the S1C fuel tank instead of the SII Fuel tank. S-IV was with 3 J-2 engines (using the 5 engine plate from the default S-II stage.) Ideally the Nodes would be different for the J-2s instead of the F-1s (and obviously I didn't use the F-1's bell housing/fins.) All drawings I have of the INT-18 have the 5 J-2s enshrouded and the bottom of the stage looks like the bottom of a cylinder, no engines sticking out. Not sure aerodynamically or thermodynamically how sound that concept was but that was how she was drawn. So modding question. Are nodes just in the .cfg file or do they need to be edited in Unity? I feel the need to create a custom engine stands for both my Saturn II S-II stage and S-IV stage. TIA
-
Frizz, I have to say, seeing the old documents on the S1B's first stage. You did an even more amazing job getting it right than I previously thought. You have the "spider web" plate done correct to shape and proportion. Well Done!
-
1) are you using FAR? 2) Are you attempting hard or shallow turns? I have not built a full Saturn V yet but I did build my Saturn II INT 18. No issues on the gravity turn and I was hauling 4 White Titan SRBs. I hope this helps
-
Not certain if this should be addressed here but something mentioned earlier on was changing thrust of engines in KSP based on altitude. has anyone attempted a plugin to take advantage of the ability to set a thrust limit on the engine. Something like at X altitude Throttle limit = xxx%? Then have a section in the CFG file for engines with a SL thrust and a Vacuum thrust? Should I post this to a plugin request? Would it be helpful? Craig P
-
I think that has to do with the overall length of the engine. A Shorter engine length means a quicker throw if you will. Also less mass to counteract. I have noticed on several multi engine builds I have done (not just with FASA parts) that more small gimbaled engines offer better maneuverability than the same or fewer number of bigger engines. I too think this is a function of either Unity itself or the game code for KSP.
