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

[JadeOfMaar]

I feel for OhioBob. But GN is purely a sandbox thing indeed.... Now I've poisoned my imagination with having these planets around an A-class star, from all the blue in this mod's promo art.

[Sigma88]

7 minutes ago, Galileo said:

Let's not do that lol let's have GN have Ciro be its own thing and GPP stay the way we have it.  No need to create extra work for yourself.

yeah, my intention is not to put any kind of hassle onto you guys. I usually let the devs choose the star type/name and how to handle the removal of stock bodies (if there are any). but I do that just because it seems nice to ask you instead of just butchering the system myself and call it a day.

As I said, if it's important for you guys that the star remains like it is, I have zero issues keeping it like that.

anyways, there's no rush to take a decision since I'll be working on other stuff for a long time.

I just wanted to let you know that I had noticed the mod and put it on my todo list

 

(and I completely understand ohiobob point of view, so I would never change the type if he finds it annoying, the last thing I want is planet pack developers annoyed at my mod )

Edited November 7, 2016 by Sigma88

[OhioBob]

14 minutes ago, Galileo said:

Let's not do that lol let's have GN have Ciro be its own thing and GPP stay the way we have it.  No need to create extra work for yourself.

Oh yes, I agree, let's not change GPP as a stand-alone product.  I like it just as it is.

I was talking about if we wanted to change the cfgs for use in GN.  If we change the star type, it would be pretty easy to re-compute and change the semimajor axes (only the planets would change, no need to change the moons).

To be honest, this is the first I've heard of GN.  I'm now starting to understand just what it is.  If no one really cares much about realism, then we could leave the semimajor axes just as they are and not worry about it.

Edited November 7, 2016 by OhioBob

[OhioBob]

36 minutes ago, Sigma88 said:

(changing the number of days in the calendar year is) not possible via cfg, it's probably doable with plugins but I've never looked into it.

Someone should write a mod for that.  I would if I could, but it's beyond my ability (I'm only good at editing cfgs).  I tried some experiments and found the calendar is hardcoded to 426 6-hour days.  I think it would be great if we could (1) change the length of a day, and (2) change the number of days in a year.  That way we could have a customized calendar to match the rotation and orbit periods of any planet we wanted.

[Sigma88]

21 minutes ago, OhioBob said:

Oh yes, I agree, let's not change GPP as a stand-alone product.  I like it just as it is.

I was talking about if we wanted to change the cfgs for use in GN.  If we change the star type, it would be pretty easy to re-compute and change the semimajor axes (only the planets would change, no need to change the moons).

To be honest, this is the first I've heard of GN.  I'm now starting to understand just what it is.  If no one really cares much about realism, then we could leave the semimajor axes just as they are and not worry about it.

long story short:

home system is the stock KSP system. and each planet pack an user decides to install gets loaded on a different star rather than replacing / adding to the stock system

you should not have to change anything in your mod's cfg. I will take care of the compatibility patches to move your system when GN is installed.

here: I found a gif that should give you an idea

(every dot is a star, with a planet pack loaded around it)

Edited November 7, 2016 by Sigma88

[OhioBob]

2 minutes ago, Sigma88 said:

long story short:

home system is the stock KSP system. and each planet pack an user decides to install gets loaded on a different star rather than replacing / adding to the stock system

you should not have to change anything in your mod's cfg. I will take care of the compatibility patches to move your system when GN is installed.

In that case, I'm certainly not going to demand that the star remains a G-type.  For GPP stand alone, that's another story.  If you want to change the star type for GN, then I'm OK with that as long as no one else objects.

[JadeOfMaar]

Then the case is settled. No one's objecting.

[JadeOfMaar]

Test release of dV map. I plugged in all the numbers I got so far and added a version number.

Spoiler

 

[OhioBob]

16 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

Test release of dV map. I plugged in all the numbers I got so far and added a version number.

I'm making progress on the rest of it.  I think that by the end of tomorrow I'll have everything except the descent/ascent dV for atmospheric bodies.  Figuring out the dV for bodies with atmospheres will probably be a pain in the neck.

[JadeOfMaar]

Cool. I wonder what value you'll get for Niven as I already put something rough for ascent (2200m/s) with my own manual testing with an orbit of 62~64km.

1 hour ago, Sigma88 said:

(every dot is a star, with a planet pack loaded around it)

I did mentally exclaim "What the deuce?" when I read "South Pole star" in your thread. That GIF!

[Sigma88]

4 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

Cool. I wonder what value you'll get for Niven as I already put something rough for ascent (2200m/s) with my own manual testing with an orbit of 62~64km.

I did mentally exclaim "What the deuce?" when I read "South Pole star" in your thread. That GIF!

Yes I have a polaris analogue but I decided to put it "on" the south pole of kerbin rather than the north pole.

With the added bonus that RSS can load on the other side (meaning the polaris analogue will be on earth's north pole)

[JadeOfMaar]

Only among Galileo's Planets will you get views like...

 

Update: It's officially a shadow fest. All the moons are doing it.

 

Edited November 7, 2016 by JadeOfMaar
2nd image :o

[Galileo]

@eddiew

If you would send me your cfg for Rald i will try to troubleshoot. I already have the scatterer stuff ready i just cant get rald to show up in orbit and i dont have a ton of time to try and figure out why today lol

[JadeOfMaar]

Experiencing Otho's flag... while landed!

       

Edited November 8, 2016 by JadeOfMaar

[Galileo]

14 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

Experiencing Otho's flag... while landed!

       

I like everything except for the seam in the ground texture. . .  Wish I knew what was causing that.  What I've been told is it's a stock bug In 1.2

Edited November 8, 2016 by Galileo

[JadeOfMaar]

4 minutes ago, Galileo said:

 the seam in the ground texture. . .

I forgot that I was trying to avoid that. Head was in the clouds... *badum tish* It's hard to tolerate that when screenshotting is concerned. Thanks for the headsup.

[Galileo]

and this beautiful bug

[JadeOfMaar]

What is that and can you replicate it? xD Moon looks like Ceti.

And in the first picture, what are we looking for? Improved pine tree scatter?

Edited November 8, 2016 by JadeOfMaar

[Galileo]

18 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

What is that and can you replicate it? xD Moon looks like Ceti.

And in the first picture, what are we looking for? Improved pine tree scatter?

Yeah I can replicate it.  It's actually Tarsiss.  I'm not at my computer so I forget the value I changed in scatterer. .

And the other screenshot was just a pretty landscape photo opportunity on Gael. I love how far the scatter reaches out.  I did play with the scatter on Tellumo and I'll post some pics tomorrow. It looks pretty awesome. 

Edited November 8, 2016 by Galileo

[danfarnsy]

On 11/6/2016 at 6:32 PM, OhioBob said:

I tried some experiments and found the calendar is hardcoded to 426 6-hour days.

Stock KSP also has a settings option for using Earth calendar (365 24-hour days), so it could be more accessible than we're guessing.

[OhioBob]

2 hours ago, danfarnsy said:

Stock KSP also has a settings option for using Earth calendar (365 24-hour days), so it could be more accessible than we're guessing.

Yes, I'm aware it can toggle between the Kerbin calendar and the Earth calendar.  That does give me hope that other settings are possible.  I'm planning to make a request for a mod in the Add-on Discussion section.  Hopefully there is somebody out there who is willing to write a plug-in for it.  I think that would be a really nice addition.

(edit)  I posted a request.  Hopefully somebody will show some interest.

 

Edited November 8, 2016 by OhioBob

[JadeOfMaar]

Going to add these to the Gratian dossier. Until now I never saw what it was that kept bleeding my PC's performance anytime I came to low orbit here. But now I know what it is... Worth it!

   

 

Spoiler

Well this is a pleasant coincidence. Any Yamato fans around?

Then I went to Tarsiss. My plane works just fine, surprisingly, but Niven's proportion of atmosphere pressure to gravity makes it struggle when I had hoped Niven would be the best place for crafts like this.

 

[OhioBob]

1 hour ago, JadeOfMaar said:

Then I went to Tarsiss. My plane works just fine, surprisingly, but Niven's proportion of atmosphere pressure to gravity makes it struggle when I had hoped Niven would be the best place for crafts like this.  

Surprises like these are good things, it keeps us having to alter our plans and designs.

I can see how at first observation you would think that Tarsiss, with half the atmospheric pressure, would be a tougher place to fly than Niven.  But since Tarsiss is so cold, its air is actually denser than Niven's.  And as you say, the biggest difference is really in the gravity, where Niven has nearly three times the surface gravity of Tarsiss.  A big part of the reason for that is because Tarsiss is an icy body with a much lower density than Niven.

That's one of the things I think I'm going to like about this mod, it has a lot of variation and different challenges to overcome.

[JadeOfMaar]

@OhioBob I was expecting poor performance as while Tarsiss has exactly Duna's atmosphere pressure, the half of Duna's gravity and nearly twice the atmo height (and surely a different atmo curve provided by yourself vs Stock) would make worlds of difference. So yes, I was quite surprised.

On the subject of atmosphere pressures, I've measured the ascent dV for the remaining atmo worlds excepting Catulluss and Tellumo, and stated Gael GSO in meters.

Here's the updated chart, v0.5:

Spoiler

 

Anyone who wants to use it, feel free and let us know.

Edited November 9, 2016 by JadeOfMaar

[OhioBob]

1 hour ago, JadeOfMaar said:

Here's the updated chart, v0.5:

I'd still prefer to see some of those numbers rounded off (as per our private message), but other than that I like the way it looks.

I'm not sure what to put in there for the "low orbit <> planet" value for the gas giants.  Obviously we can't land, so it doesn't really make much sense to compute an ascent Δv.  Pretty much any descent into the atmosphere of a gas giant is going to be one-way, so I'm leaning toward just putting in the amount of Δv required to produce a safe deorbit and atmospheric entry.  For Nero this might only be about 50 m/s or so (it doesn't take much just to drop the periapsis down into the atmosphere).

Edited November 8, 2016 by OhioBob