[1.2] Galileo's Planet Pack (development thread) [v0.9]

[Jiraiyah]

there is still more room for 9 more formula and calculations in the sheet to be seen in one screen, anyone have anything useful to add?

[OhioBob]

49 minutes ago, Jiraiyah said:

by the way, i can't say how much i am grateful for your help, take a look at this final chart i hope it's solid rocket science now

That looks good except for one tiny thing.  The destination orbit altitude should be 2863.3329 km.  Remember that that changed when you computed Gael's precise sidereal rotation period.

 

49 minutes ago, Jiraiyah said:

Now i can go to sleep (1 AM here)m i am planning on developing a mod doing all this crazy math very soon, that is if i can find a way to get my hands on planets, their needed info, the moons the same blah blah, anyone know the api for it?

You can get what you need using KittopiaTech.  Just select a body, click the "Save Body" button, and it will generate a .cfg file in the folder GameDate/KittopiaTech/Confg.  At least the old version did that.  I just tried it using the KSP-1.2 version and it didn't work.

The .cfg files for the stock planets are also available online, though the files are 11 months old.  I don't know if anything has changed or not.

https://github.com/Sigma88/Sigma-Dimensions/tree/master/GameData/Sigma/Dimensions/Configs/Bodies/KittopiaExports

If you need the data for a mod, you should be able to find what you need in the mod's Kopernicus configuration files.  Those files should look similar to the ones above.

[kraden]

1 hour ago, OhioBob said:

You mean something like this + 431.268

You could also send them here

https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ

 

[OhioBob]

1 minute ago, kraden said:

You could also send them here

https://youtu.be/dQw4w9WgXcQ

Yep, that's as equally random and irrelevant as my selection.

[kraden]

32 minutes ago, OhioBob said:

Yep, that's as equally random and irrelevant as my selection.

Have you never been Rick Rolled?

Edited November 1, 2016 by kraden
Stupid autocorrect

[Galileo]

39 minutes ago, OhioBob said:

You can get what you need using KittopiaTech.  Just select a body, click the "Save Body" button, and it will generate a .cfg file in the folder GameDate/KittopiaTech/Confg.  At least the old version did that.  I just tried it using the KSP-1.2 version and it didn't work.

 

Kittopia updated a few days ago as did kopernicus. The dev didn't update the version  number because it was just a few minor fixes.  You can export the cfgs again though

Edited November 1, 2016 by Galileo

[OhioBob]

4 hours ago, kraden said:

Have you never been Rick Rolled?

Nope.  Never heard of that before.  I had to look it up.  Now I get it.

 

Edited November 2, 2016 by OhioBob

[OhioBob]

4 hours ago, Galileo said:

Kittopia updated a few days ago as did kopernicus. The dev didn't update the version  number because it was just a few minor fixes.  You can export the cfgs again though

Those newer versions aren't working for me either, but then I've had a whole lot of weirdness going with my installation (you may have read some of the discussion in the Kopernicus thread).  I just noticed that KSP 1.2.1 is now available; I'm downloading it now.  I'm going to delete all my old installations and start fresh.  Maybe that will clear up my problems.

 

[Galileo]

23 minutes ago, OhioBob said:

Those newer versions aren't working for me either, but then I've had a whole lot of weirdness going with my installation (you may have read some of the discussion in the Kopernicus thread).  I just noticed that KSP 1.2.1 is now available; I'm downloading it now.  I'm going to delete all my old installations and start fresh.  Maybe that will clear up my problems.

 

1.2.1 breaks kopernicus.... Getting pretty fed up with the constant updates 

Edited November 2, 2016 by Galileo

[Jiraiyah]

2 hours ago, Galileo said:

1.2.1 breaks kopernicus.... Getting pretty fed up with the constant updates 

well this update was unavoidable with the gui flashing bug, but i wonder why did it brake kopernicus, it looked like it would be only bug fixing !

 

8 hours ago, OhioBob said:

That looks good except for one tiny thing.  The destination orbit altitude should be 2863.3329 km.  Remember that that changed when you computed Gael's precise sidereal rotation period.

 

You can get what you need using KittopiaTech.  Just select a body, click the "Save Body" button, and it will generate a .cfg file in the folder GameDate/KittopiaTech/Confg.  At least the old version did that.  I just tried it using the KSP-1.2 version and it didn't work.

The .cfg files for the stock planets are also available online, though the files are 11 months old.  I don't know if anything has changed or not.

https://github.com/Sigma88/Sigma-Dimensions/tree/master/GameData/Sigma/Dimensions/Configs/Bodies/KittopiaExports

If you need the data for a mod, you should be able to find what you need in the mod's Kopernicus configuration files.  Those files should look similar to the ones above.

in that sheet every cell that is not greenish color is an input field, those numbers where there just for testing and that decimal section is almost nothing when the calculations where done.

and about the mod, well, i don't want my mod to be dependent of configs, i will look into the source to see how the kittopia is getting it's data to be exported, that is a better approach, because, for example, what if someone adds extra sollar mod and wants to take a look at these calculations for a planet from that pack? then? i would have config after config for every one of them, but being able to list bodies from inside the game and get data from the game would minimal the effort both for developing and maintaining the mod later

[Jiraiyah]

sigh, looked into kittopia, seems like he is exporting everything without care about special stuff, now i need to learn how to mod for ksp lol, damn i hate when i need to learn new API for Unity

[Phineas Freak]

1 hour ago, Jiraiyah said:

i wonder why did it brake kopernicus

It is not broken. It is version locked (down to the revision number) because of user spam complains (using an older Kopernicus version with a newer KSP version).

[Jiraiyah]

5 minutes ago, Phineas Freak said:

It is not broken. It is version locked (down to the revision number) because of user spam complains (using an older Kopernicus version with a newer KSP version).

so it will work but we get warning about version compatibility?

[Phineas Freak]

No, it won't work at all. You would have to change the revision number and do a recomplile for it to work.

[Jiraiyah]

1 minute ago, Phineas Freak said:

No, it won't work at all. You would have to change the revision number and do a recomplile for it to work.

sigh, damn, well, donno why people would hard code the version dependency but i am new to ksp modding, so~

[Theysen]

13 minutes ago, Jiraiyah said:

sigh, damn, well, donno why people would hard code the version dependency but i am new to ksp modding, so~

Publish a major popular mod (which might be the base for many other mods) and wait. I bet you a good amount of money you will sooner or later come to such measures. 

[Jiraiyah]

9 minutes ago, Theysen said:

Publish a major popular mod (which might be the base for many other mods) and wait. I bet you a good amount of money you will sooner or later come to such measures. 

true, but doing so means more maintenance with every single sub version updates, for example, right now 1.2.1 did nothing to break kopernicus, if i was the developer, i would look for major updates and ignore sub versions, that would at least solve situations like this one

[JadeOfMaar]

Even the tiniest update to the game can break mods. Even a drop of Mercury can poison an entire reservoir of drinking water. @Jiraiyah

You won't be able to ignore minor versions for long. Something will break when that build number changes. And someone will beg for a fix or compatibility update.

Also, to you and @OhioBob I just saw this in the official changelog thread. You guys might have to un-revise all your math formulae.

8 hours ago, TriggerAu said:

The Celestial Bodies have a GeeASL value that was based on the value of gee for before 1.2, in 1.2 these changed which meant things like the geostationary orbit heights, etc all moved a bit, and things were in slightly diffn places in the sky. This put them back at the right place with the right values.

 

5 hours ago, Galileo said:

1.2.1 breaks kopernicus.... Getting pretty fed up with the constant updates 

......Oh heck no.

[Phineas Freak]

1 hour ago, Jiraiyah said:

right now 1.2.1 did nothing to break kopernicus

At least the G ASL (and probaly the gravitational constant) value have changed according to the KSP 1.2.1 release notes:

* Fix CBs being in different places in 1.2 by adjusting GeeASL.

So Kopernicus would be a bit broken if it worked in KSP 1.2.1 right now.

[Jiraiyah]

1 hour ago, JadeOfMaar said:

Even the tiniest update to the game can break mods. Even a drop of Mercury can poison an entire reservoir of drinking water. @Jiraiyah

You won't be able to ignore minor versions for long. Something will break when that build number changes. And someone will beg for a fix or compatibility update.

Also, to you and @OhioBob I just saw this in the official changelog thread. You guys might have to un-revise all your math formulae.

 

......Oh heck no.

I saw that they made more precision to g but thought it was for 1.2 and was correctec back to 1.2.1. so what should i do in sheet to change the whole thing? just change the g for gael and to what?

[OhioBob]

I had missed the fact that the value of g_o (standard gravity) was changed in 1.2.  In prior versions g_o = 9.81 m/s², but now they've made it the correct value of g_o = 9.80655 m/s².  Since the gravitational parameter is computed internally from surface gravity (measured in gees) and the value of g_o, all the gravitational parameters in the game changed.  This changed things like orbital periods, spheres of influence, geosynchronous distances, etc.  In order to keep gravitational parameters the same as they were prior to 1.2, in version 1.2.1 they have changed all the surface gravities by a factor of 9.81/9.80665 to cancel out the effect of the prior change.

Take Kerbin for instance, prior to version 1.2 it had a surface gravity of 1 g, where 1 g was defined as 9.81 m/s².  Therefore its gravitational parameter was,

μ = 9.81 * 1 * 600000² = 3.5316E+12 m³/s²

Now they've redefined 1 g to be equal to 9.80665 m/s², but they've made Kerbin's surface gravity equal to, 9.81/9.80665 = 1.00034160493135 g.  Therefore Kerbin gravitational parameter is now the same as it was prior to version 1.2,

μ = 9.80665 * 1.00034160493135 * 600000² = 3.5316E+12 m³/s²

Therefore things like orbital periods, spheres of influence, geosynchronous distances, etc. have returned to their pre-1.2 values.

Note that they also changed the value of the gravitational constant from G = 6.674E-11 Nm²/kg² prior to v1.2, to G = 6.67408E-11 Nm²/kg² now.  That will change the masses of the celestial bodies, but I don't think mass is really used directly in any significant calculations.  I think this is likely more of a cosmetic change (i.e. mass is shown in the info box in the Tracking Station).

What implications does this have for GPP?  Since we're still in beta and GPP has only been played by a small number of testers, I certainly see no reason to apply a patch to force everything to return to their pre-1.2 values.  So the gravitational parameters are 0.034% smaller than we initially thought they were, big deal.  I say leave everything as is.  However, this will change some of the values in my tables of properties, which I'll have to revise.  And for @JadeOfMaar, this means you'll likely will have to make some revisions to your celestial body dossiers (I'll have revised numbers later).  @Galileo, there will also be some small changes to at least a couple planet cfgs.  For instance, right now I can tell you that the rotational periods of Icarus and Gratian will have to change.  I can't think of any other cfg changes at the moment, but if I do, I while certainly let you know.  @Jiraiyah, I think your spreadsheets might be OK provided you change 9.81 to 9.80665 in your equations (we can check later to see if any other unforeseen errors have crept in).

The only planet for which I can see possibly changing the surface gravity is Gael.  As far as it's physically properties are concerned, we've made Gael an identical twin of Kerbin.  If we want to keep Gael an identical twin, we would need to change its surface gravity to 1.00034160493135 g.  My personal opinion, screw it, leave Gael's gravity at 1 g (9.80665 m/s²).  Gael is not Kerbin, so if it differs a little bit, I'm OK with it.  There are already some small differences between Gael and Kerbin regardless of what we do, for instance, the sphere of influence distance.  This is not because of any difference in the physical properties of Gael and Kerbin, but because of differences between Ciro and Kerbol.  Also Gael is a little farther from Ciro than Kerbin is from Kerbol.  Since there are already a few small differences, I don't think it's a big deal to add a few more.

Opinions, comments?
 

Edited November 2, 2016 by OhioBob

[Jiraiyah]

33 minutes ago, OhioBob said:

I had missed the fact that the value of g_o (standard gravity) was changed in 1.2.  In prior versions g_o = 9.81 m/s², but now they've made it the correct value of g_o = 9.80655 m/s².  Since the gravitational parameter is computed internally from surface gravity (measured in gees) and the value of g_o, all the gravitational parameters in the game changed.  This changed things like orbital periods, spheres of influence, geosynchronous distances, etc.  In order to keep gravitational parameters the same as they were prior to 1.2, in version 1.2.1 they have changed all the surface gravities by a factor of 9.81/9.80665 to cancel out the effect of the prior change.

Take Kerbin for instance, prior to version 1.2 it had a surface gravity of 1 g, where 1 g was defined as 9.81 m/s².  Therefore its gravitational parameter was,

μ = 9.81 * 1 * 600000² = 3.5316E+12 m³/s²

Now they've redefined 1 g to be equal to 9.80665 m/s², but they've made Kerbin's surface gravity equal to, 9.81/9.80665 = 1.00034160493135 g.  Therefore Kerbin gravitational parameter is now the same as it was prior to 1.2,

μ = 9.80665 * 1.00034160493135 * 600000² = 3.5316E+12 m³/s²

Therefore things like orbital periods, spheres of influence, geosynchronous distances, etc. have returned to their pre-1.2 values were.

Note that they also changed the value of the gravitational constant from G = 6.674E-11 Nm²/kg² prior to v1.2, to G = 6.67408E-11 Nm²/kg² now.  That will change the masses of the celestial bodies, but I don't think mass is really used directly in any significant calculations.  I think this is likely more of a cosmetic change (i.e. mass is shown in the info box in the Tracking Station).

What implications does this have for GPP?  Since we're still in beta and GPP has only been played by a small number of testers, I certainly see no reason to apply a patch to force everything to return to their pre-1.2 values.  So the gravitational parameters are 0.034% smaller than we initially thought they were, big deal.  I say leave everything as is.  However, this will change some of the values in my tables of properties, which I'll have to revise.  And for @JadeOfMaar, this means you'll likely will have to make some revisions to your celestial body dossiers (I'll have revised numbers later).  @Galileo, there will also be some small changes to at least a couple planet cfgs.  For instance, right now I can tell you that the rotational periods of Icarus and Gratian will have to change.  I can't think of any other cfg changes at the moment, but if I do, I while certainly let you know.  @Jiraiyah, I think your spreadsheets might be OK provided you change 9.81 to 9.80665 in your equations (we can check later to see if any other unforeseen errors have crept in).

The only planet for which I can see possibly changing the surface gravity is Gael.  As far as it's physically properties are concerned, we've made Gael an identical twin of Kerbin.  If we want to keep Gael an identical twin, we would need to change its surface gravity to 1.00034160493135 g.  My personal opinion, screw it, leave Gael's gravity at 1 g (9.80665 m/s²).  Gael is not Kerbin, so if it differs a little bit, I'm OK with it.  There are already some small differences between Gael and Kerbin regardless of what we do, for instance, the sphere of influence distance.  This is not because of any difference in the physical properties of Gael and Kerbin, but because of differences between Ciro and Kerbol.  Also Gael is a little farther from Ciro than Kerbin is from Kerbol.  Since there are already a few same differences, I don't think it's a big deal to add a few more.

Opinions, comments?
 

What if we change both the 9.81 to the accurate one and the surface gravity? wouldn't that make everything 100 % accurate? because if that would effect stationary orbit, a trip to jool and back and you may need to baby sit orbital com coverage

look at the result of changing 9.81 to the accurate value

now with the additional change on g to be the new accurate one :

long story short, i think for a good orbits, you may need both values, now the question is, would we need to change other g values on other planets or not?

as a side note, take a look at accurate calculations for every body :

as you see, with the rounding you have in the pdf, only ciro and gael get benefit of these changes so up to you

Edited November 2, 2016 by Jiraiyah

[OhioBob]

2 minutes ago, Jiraiyah said:

What if we change both the 9.81 to the accurate one and the surface gravity? wouldn't that make everything 100 % accurate? because if that would effect stationary orbit, a trip to jool and back and you may need to baby sit orbital com coverage

Changing both g_o and surface gravity is what Squad has done with stock KSP (versions 1.2 and 1.2.1 respectively).  But that's a game that's been out for years and has been played by thousands of people.  Users have gotten use to certain values that Squad apparently wanted to keep in place.  GPP is a new mod still in development that hasn't seen wide circulation yet.  So to what are we being 100% accurate?  To so made up numbers that we have the freedom to change at will?   It's true that things like geosynchronous distances are a smidgeon different now than they were when we started out in KSP 1.1.3, but that doesn't mean either value is better than the other.  The difference is insignificant and it will have virtually no affect on gameplay.  I just know that when I look at the info panel in the Tracking Station I'd rather see that Gael's gravity equals 1 g then see that it equals 1.00034160493135 g.  The difference that makes in the geosynchronous distance is less than 400 meters.

[JadeOfMaar]

It won't be an issue for me to update my dossier images. In total I've only made 9 of 27, and only some of that 9 have to change.

I like that Gael has all these more subtle differences from Kerbin and that there's no dire need to apply the suggested patch since this mod's userbase is quite small--there's no large userbase here yet to possibly upset by changing something or leaving it alone. I also agree to leave Gael's gravity at exactly 1, and that it could be unsightly to see 1.xxxx in that info panel.

In my dossiers, though, will I have to change "Kerbin masses" for all of them, even rename the field to "Gael masses"?

[OhioBob]

5 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

It won't be an issue for me to update my dossier images. In total I've only made 9 of 27, and only some of that 9 have to change.

I like that Gael has all these more subtle differences from Kerbin and that there's no dire need to apply the suggested patch since this mod's userbase is quite small--there's no large userbase here yet to possibly upset by changing something or leaving it alone. I also agree to leave Gael's gravity at exactly 1, and that it could be unsightly to see 1.xxxx in that info panel.

Good, I'm glad changing the dossier images is not a big issue (I was worried about that).  I should have the tables of properties updated later today.  I think a lot more of the numbers are going to change than what I originally thought.  Sorry about that.

I too like the subtle differences between Gael and Kerbin.  I'm glad they're very similar so that it's easy to make the switch from Stock to GPP, but they're not the same planet so I welcome small differences.  I also think the change in the location and orientation of KSC has a far greater impact on gameplay than any small physical differences between the planets.