Daveroski
-
Posts
784 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Daveroski
-
-
On 8/9/2020 at 7:45 AM, allista said:
Ah, I see. So what we actually need is either an option to set maximum deviation from prograde (currently it is hard-coded to 10°), or an option to offset the start of the gravity turn to lower dynamic pressure. Or maybe I could just made the former dependant on the latter.
Could you, please, share the craft file, or, better, make something pure-stock that'll have the same problem?
Well now... there's the rub right there see?
Most of my ships don't like the 5° that MJ defaults at I almost always have to drop it a couple or three.
If yours is hard coded at 10° then that will explain the nose getting pushed down by shear.
The bigger and heavier the craft, the less the affect. As bigger craft tend to be Bum Heavy,
I like to make a craft just big enough to do the job. If I have to drop more than my emergency reserve of fuel before re-entry, I get sad.
< sad see?
I always try to make a craft that doesn't need tail fins and most of the time I manage. But even with tail fins and a heavier craft that 10° shear is like taking an uppercut... pow! right on the noggin.
I don't only want to be able to change that variable. I want your Auto Pilot to take the variable into account and not be too late to catch the bus after I have changed it.
Now I am playing with a bunch of 0.625
While I am not that bothered about a launchpad for it, I have managed a rescue from lunar orbit and I suspect I can do a rescue from the surface of The Mun using the same wee system. It is all terribly unrealistic but it is a LOT of fun.
Anyway... these little rockets really hate your wind shear.
But as I said, I even turn down MJ to 2 or 3° even for most of my own stock rockets. 10° is just way too much.
D.
-
On 8/7/2020 at 3:51 PM, allista said:
You can manually set time to ApA to big enough value. Try 2-3 minutes.
I'll play with it and see what happens
On 8/7/2020 at 3:51 PM, allista said:Problems with drag usually mean low TWR.
The drag is arising from the fact that while the air is travelling in a retrograde direction the ship is not taking advantage of it's needle like shape and instead is trying to fly several degrees off prograde. Those several degrees present a long surface area to the wind and cause a tremendous amount of shear. My light but powerful ship becomes 'a leaf on the breeze' but not in the way that was meant in the popular show.
If I can cut down on that shear, my awl like vessel will respond just as well using your autopilot as it does by my hand and I just paid your autopilot a compliment because I fly beautifully.
D.
-
When launching from KSC to intercept a target in orbit, I need to lower the angle of attack so that drag doesn't kill my ship.
Can I do this?
D.
-
16 hours ago, allista said:
I'm currently running automated tests of the deorbit autopilot that I hope I've fixed; using the save game you provided.
Everyone can watch it live in twitch:
I have seen the video.
To be honest I only watched a couple of hourst. Without commentary it was hard to figure out which aspects you were testing on each landing.
You seem to make the ship move in a much more natural way than 'other` auto-pilots.
I was considering having a play on KSP today and came to the forums first as I usually do. How can I not play now? I must.
I am absolutely gobsmacked by the effort you put into your art.
Seems I can get rid of that 'other' auto pilot again.
To be honest, I only really needed an auto pilot to hover. I just cant seem to do that particularly well by hand. As the fuel burns the mass changes and the thrust increases. Now I sound like someone trying to teach Rembrandt how to paint.
Anyway, the thing is, once I used your Auto pilot for the thing I don't do so well, I enjoyed using it for the other stuff too. The launches from KSC can be quite impressive. Does TCA play nice with the 'other' one? The only reason I'm asking is that The 'other' one does help with interplanetary nodes. KSP seems to think that everyone should be happy to play in the Home System. To actually plan a trip to another world requires looking at a website or using a transfer mod. I prefer it in-game.I can't wait to show my mate all the work you have done.
D.
-
in 1.10
The deployable wheels are broken.
I have tried using them on only a Rovermate Pod but they just sit and spin.
D.
-
On 7/14/2020 at 10:00 AM, allista said:
But I've tried your saves and see that the landing autopilot is indeed broken in several places: one being the NRE
It seems that Mechjeb was suffering a similar ailment but it seems to have been fixed in the latest dev version.
-
3 hours ago, Well said:
Parachute/Decoupler is not a problem for me, i'm sorry if that was caused some problem for you. I can't change that because that how the part is supposed to work. I suppose i'm habitued with those sort of parachute/decoupler because i've played a lot this way with tantares.
Then could you at least put the decoupler in staging when it's active?
3 hours ago, Well said:Landing leg are not planned.
Shame.. The Smallest vanilla legs look huge.
3 hours ago, Well said:Dv problem, i need more info about that, picture or other details, that just a complain. The post above with my screenshot show every stage with DV calculation, you could have a little difference between Mechjeb and KSP because how they calculate Monoprop stage. that all
How about you go into the VAB and add a monoprop tank to your pod bottom and check out the dV readout. It drops to 0
Then change the Thrust Level to about 10% and then move the tank from the bottom to the top
It shows the correct values at 100% but when you change it and then add a docking port to the top of the monoprop tank and see what happens.
D.
-
13 hours ago, Well said:
- i've also noticed than yes Luciole is awesome and really help at the start of the career... but after some time you don't really need anymore a 0.625 rocket. i still think luciole parts add a lot of possibilities of play. This afternoon i've tested some duna probe with sucess. But yeah when you play "realistic" Luciole rocket is really limited for late career, if people have idea to make them more usefull let me know.
That WAS a big comment.
Please read the rest of my post. Parachute/Decoupler... Lander Legs ... dV problem in Editor.
D.
BTW
I made a 0.625 profile Mun Lander that will do the job.
I made an excellent Probe-Data-Return-Module for larger probes.In late game, the uses for these 0.625 parts are still VERY useful.
-
I have been playing a carreer game with your mod.
It is starting to earn it's keep now that I can launch networking sats with it.
Quite honestly I find no use for the little cube sats. Sure they can get enough power to run themselves but other than cheating sat missions with sats that don't actually do anything other than fulfil the requirements of the mission.
Early in the game I found I could get into space easily enough, but really didn't have much to do when I got there.
The size of the scientific experiments available (Materials bay and goo) are too large to realistically work with these tiny rockets.I don't like the decoupler as part of the parachute especially as the decouple doesn't appear in the staging, just the parachute.
I have had to restart a few missions because I simply forgot to turn off the decoupler.When I add a small mono tank to the pod, the resource only shows up in the dV stats if I place it on top of the pod. Not on the bottom.
Some landing legs for the pod would be a good addition, which lay flush against the pod when not in use and extend to keep the pod just a little off the ground.
At this point in my career I think it will be useful for returning the data back to Kerbin as a drop-pod hurled into Kerbin's atmosphere letting gravity a heat shield, a teeny tiny command ring and a parachute do the final step.
Later though I will be building a space plane and this should fit nicely in the Mk2 cargo bay so my space plane will get its own lander. That should be fun.
D.
Ok so I have had a look at making a lander using Lanternfly
I find that when I add either Greenfly or Flea tanks to the pod and adjust the Thrust Limiter of the pod it seems to break the dV stats. If I change to LfOx tanks and engines it seems to work as it should but then the whole craft becomes a lot bigger than I would like. I need it to leave the mothership, land on the Mun, and then rejoin the mothership.
It's just too fiddly having to reset the Thrust Limiter each time I add or remove something from the craft to get accurate dV.So I'm going to put a pin in this one. I hope you get it fixed soon. It could be a problem with KSP and how it handles Mono as a fuel. I dunno... If you do manage to fix it, please let me know as I think it could be a lot of fun even in the later stages of the game.
D.
-
A craft needs only enough monoprop to get you onto the next station where your stock can be resupplied. Any more than that and you are wasting fuel carrying mono that you won't use.
Taking a small space plane that only carries crew to orbit and back (10 inc crew) I only need the mono in the cockpit and most of the time even that is 100's of % too much.
One thing that most people tend to neglect is the strength of the thrusters. Much mono can be wasted by having thrusters that are too powerful causing one to overshoot and have to compensate. It is quite surprising how much mono can be saved simply by turning down the power of the thrusters.
On the space plane mentioned above I have the thrusters turned down to about 25% power. And always try to make sure that they are not overpowered for any ship I design.
I put one of the largest tanks on each station and usually never have to refill them. There is usually enough for the whole game.
Any ships that become obsolete on the station will donate their resources before leaving the station to be scrapped.
D.
-
I ripped out your mod and went completely vanilla again and landed the craft manually.
I undocked from my station and warped to a place to start my decent.
When I applied full thrust to the engine I noticed that I had set the power to that engine much lower to give more burn time while intercepting the station when I first docked.
When flying manually I find longer burn times to be more controllable with my wrinkly old sausage fingers.
When I left the station with your mod installed I had not reset the engine thrust to maximum power.
Your mod may have been trying to cope with a greatly knobbled engine thrust.
Do you think this might have had some unwanted effect?
-
-
I play on linux and yours is the first mod ever to force me to KILL KSP's PROCESS.
First time I told it to land. Picked an area and off it went.
On the way down I got the unknown instance of an object error a lot.. It froze the game. Couldn't spit 'em out fast enough.
Started up again and loaded the save before landing. and it just would not even start. My kerbals portrait was trapped in white noise.
The mouse barely moved. Had to bring up system monitor to shut it down.
I built you up to my mate before this after seeing your launch from KSC to orbit. Very smooth.
I got egg on my face.
Only your mod. No other mods except Mod Manager of course.
No DLC.
I just wanted something to take the grind out of recovering crashed wrecks missions. Really hard to hover in vanilla.
I can still play and still use your mod for what I intended it for but I really wish I hadn't tried to let it land.
My mate wouldn't stop laughing at me.
D.
-
Over 5000 hours of KSP but I will not be buying the sequel.
I play on linux.
It uses the same engine. Which means that all the problems that couldn't be fixed because of the engine in the first program will have the similar unfixable issues in the second. "Not our fault.. it's Unity."
Every time unity was upgraded. something on KSP was broken.
The garbage collection was awful.
There have been atmospheres and such for years in mod form. You could have added them to the original game. It seems you didn't because you wanted to tease with them in the sequel.
And lastly, the sequel is being written by mod writers.
I tried many of the mods provided by many of the mod writers on the team and most of the mods were broken or faulty in such a way as to render them a pain in the backside to use. I'm supposed to have faith that the game will work right out of the box?
Got none.I supported Squad in Early access. Alas a couple of weeks too late to be appreciated for my support.
While I won't wear a sandwich-board outside the station, warning others away, I won't be boarding the train either.
D.
-
I'd like to see the engineer's report have some useful information in it.
Showing a value for torque would be good and would help in building asymmetrical rocket designs and VTOL style aircraft.
But... if I was greedy, I would also like it to show at-a-glance stuff like electrical storage, max heat and cooling requirements.
I'm not greedy though..so on with my wish-listI'd also quite like electric propellers for Duna, Eve, Lathe and the other place... Kerbin.
Life support would be nice.. though something akin to TAC but with a better range of containers and closed loop possibilities. Greenhouses and such.
I'd like to see all wheels and landing legs auto-strutted to grandparent instead of heaviest part.
I'd like it if when I clicked on a planet's info tab that it would tell me when the next transfer windows are to all other bodies.
I'd like for something like the RND mod to kick in after I have researched the last thing on the tech tree.
I think that these things would extend my vanilla play time considerably.
D.
-
Never mind guys.
If any of the older players I used to chat with were still in here reading this I may have gotten something like a decent conversation.
Maybe about radiators quickly reaching maximum tolerance and having an animation where they melt down and break.
Maybe about radiators and how engineers could repair them when they overheat and break down.
But as I seem to be having this conversation alone, having to imagine other imaginative people chatting with me, it's just no fun at all.
That no one seemed to be able to read (or perhaps understand) my original post and assumed I was having some kind of noob problem is sad.
D.
-
On 4/2/2019 at 10:42 AM, AVaughan said:
@DaveroskiActually a screenshot of a vessel which has problems with radiators might be useful. Often these type of issues are because the game is a more complex simulation than players realise, and a screenshot which shows the vessel in question might let other people make useful suggestions on how to make better use of KSPs radiators. (And provides a starting point for deciding whether radiators/heat transfer seems to be buggy, or whether the issue is a craft design issue).
Edit: Also PC or console? What version? Modded or unmodded? (If modded what mods?)
How about you try it and see for yourself? Only take you a few minutes.
The vessel? Any vessel. Try a command pod, a container of ore, a few batteries, an ISRU and any extending radiator those are the ones that are supposed to be plumbed in to the core of any heat producing equipment.
I have over 5000 hours in game. I have been everywhere and done pretty much everything. I don't need suggestions on how to use radiators. Why people always try to make it about something other that what was clearly stated I have no idea. All they have to do is read the original post. It was hardly a wall of text. It certainly wasn't too highbrow. I wanted a discussion about the problem not an argument about if there even is a problem.
I am pointing out.. you know what?.. forget I said anything. -
23 hours ago, M_Rat13 said:
@Daveroski that sounds like a bug with the mining equipment, tbh.
So you think that both sizes of drill and both sizes of ISRU are more likely to be bugged than the core heat transfer routine used by the radiators.
Ok.. I'll bite.. Why do you think that?
-
31 minutes ago, M_Rat13 said:
It depends on other interactions. How effective are radiators near the sun, for example? If they work fine there, it's a bug on the mining equipment. If they don't, either the radiators themselves are bugged, or need a rework.
No actually it doesn't.
Specific items + specific use = specific result.
I am not referring to how they react with solar heat removal nor am I speaking about how they cool any engine on board that gets hot.
No. I am referring to something that can be demonstrated right outside the VAB or hangar. The core heat of the ISRU and drills.
These items one would expect to be directly connected to the reflectors via pipework and coolant. One would expect the results to be faster and more visible than they are. The panels react so slowly to the core increase in temperature of the equipment. They do glow eventually but only after quite a long time.
Try it yourself. Give an ISRU some work to do and give it far too little radiators. Watch how much the ISRU overheats before the Radiator has even gotten to anything like maxed out.
-
I am not happy with the way that radiators work or rather not happy with the way radiators 'seem' to not be working properly.
Example.
If I have an ISRU and or some drills and some radiators. The equipment overheats before the radiators have reached anywhere near their potential cooling ability.
So you are watching the radiators slowly creep past 16% cooling and the ISRU or drill is over max.
While as a veteran player I am aware that a certain amount of radiators are required to cool certain equipment however it still feels wrong that the equipment is overheating and the radiators are not even at a fifth of their cooling efficiency.
It would 'feel' more accurate if the radiators ran up to 100% and were glowing brightly before the equipment started overheating.
It would at least 'seem' more obvious that more radiators were required if they were maxed out and the equipment was still overheating.
The radiators are not keeping pace with the given equipment and it just feels wrong.
D.
-
They gave us all these worlds to go to but no means of deciding when to go.
One either has to go straight to Kerbol orbit and then plot a course from there or use external means or a mod to get a launch window.
Once other planets were included in the game transfer widow data should have been available.
We even have an info screen on the various planets. When I look at the info on a planet, I should be able to see the next transfer window.
D.
-
I notice that people only seem to ask for realism which will make the game more difficult or to some of us just more of a grind.
I rarely see these same people asking for the realism that would make the game easier.
Such as automated docking. It's real but that might make the game less grindy (or more playable for people who can't dock) so they never ask for that.
Automated landing. It's real and has been done several times. But again, that would make the game easier (or even possible for those people who have difficulty landing) so they would never ask for that.Automated engine burns. Oh come on! it's been with us since the 60's. Any chance this real thing will get into the game? Not a snowball's.
Closed loop life support. Possible on Mars or anywhere that water is available in reasonable quantities. If we get life support added to the game, do you think it will have any possibility of being closed loop? Not a chance. Has to be a grind or it's no fun.
By all means ask for things that will make the game harder or provide more challenge.
At least add a sprinkle of the other pet conversation in here.. Balance.D.
-
5 hours ago, Hotel26 said:
Сколько космонавтов вам нужно, чтобы прибить флаг?
Two... "when I nod my head son, you hit it."
-
I saw the 1.5m Spaceplanes here and thought why not?
This one flies really well. More controllable than I expected.
Then I thought why not make the front end a lander capable of landing on the Mun, returning back to Mun orbit and reacquiring the craft.
The lander itself has over 2000 dv so ... nailed it.
D.
< sad see?
[1.9-1.10] Throttle Controlled Avionics
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted
Ok...
I really noticed the problem when I was playing with
But had the devil of a time trying to reproduce it on stock craft because most of the vanilla parts are a bit bigger.
So I found this old bird in one of my archives and brought it back from limbo.
Now here's the thing...
I can fly it to orbit manually easily. Once one understands that these thrusters don't want to be at low altitudes then the idea is a steeper ascent to let them work where they work best.
MechJeb can fly it to orbit if I set it's AoA to 2 deg. It still has to have the cowl jettisoned too soon and it has a bit of a psychotic twitch trying to keep the Ap at 100m but it manages. To give MJ it's due, it had almost as much fuel left in the last little tank as I did.
Your auto pilot can get it to around 23000 meters
I have tried having the 'Time to AP' manual longer and shorter. but it just ain't workin'.
It is fighting the atmosphere all the way. Trying to get into a fast horizontal configuration so that it can get the Pe down at the same time.
(Which MechJeb managed to do by-the-way got it up in the 40k's)
As requested, Craft file and metadata file.
https://www.dropbox.com/preview/KSP stuff/Little Squawk.loadmeta?role=personal
https://www.dropbox.com/preview/KSP stuff/Little Squawk.craft?role=personal
https://imgur.com/NYkgO31
Ain't she purdy?. The future of communications.. I'll tell ya.
Have fun and have-at-it
D.