[KSP 1.12.1+] Galileo's Planet Pack [v1.6.6] [23 Sept 2021]

[DarkFighter]

Ok @JadeOfMaar,

I didn't manage to properly install Eden sunflares so I stuck with the default one. (Default one is broken too)

Scatterer is now okay, but THE SKYBOXES ARE TOO DARK!

me wanting of bright skyboxes

comparison: vs 

[Norcalplanner]

5 hours ago, eddiew said:

So 3.2x is kicking my ass  

With ~5.6km/s required for LGO, it seems pretty obvious that I need a mining base on Iota, but... nothing I put together in the VAB can lift significantly more ore to orbit than it needs to refuel itself for another trip. At best I'd be looking at about 300 units of fuel per run, and that's going to drive me mad. 

This is going to take a lot of pondering. Don't want to give up just yet, but lifting anything to LGO that's much beyond 40 tons is a problem with my current tech, so I'd really hoped I could have a small miner to start off. 

Maybe I need to revisit nuclear engines... Iota's g-asl is pretty forgiving, and it's going to be an unavoidably heavy craft... which is where nerva's shine, if you can get away with the low TWR...

(I would prefer to keep the refinery in orbit if possible, since Iotian nights are very long and I don't have good batteries or RTGs yet.)

 

Silly question, but do any of them have... stars? As pretty as the Eve ones are, they feel kind of trapped in clouds...

@eddiew

As one of the few other players running GPP at 3.2x with Kerbal R&D, I'm available to talk and brainstorm, either here or via PM. One thing that jumps out at me is that your science return setting is down at 10%, iirc.  I don't think anyone would think any less of you if you bumped it up to 20 or 25%, and it would provide additional science to start upgrading the vacuum Isp on a few engines to help out your landing/mining efforts.

[eddiew]

Thing is @Norcalplanner, I'm refusing to use KR&D until I've unlocked the tech tree - because I want to actually use some of the modded techs, and I won't if I can just throw points into nervas.

On the other hand...

Badgermole II
31 tons unloaded, 56 tons full of ore.
With a full load, packs enough delta-v to get down to Iota and back again - in practise, this is overkill, because she'll go down empty and come back loaded.
Carries 2400 units of ore, converting to 4800 of fuel (or 2160 of fuel and 2640 of oxidiser).
Carries 2000 units of fuel, so there's 2800 <something> left over after processing. Probably more.
Junior drills can be powered even by the little 1x6 panels.

It's not pretty, but I think this one might be viable. It's not a vast amount of fuel to per run, a bit less than an X200-32 tank, but the TWR is quite generous for Iota and maybe I can scale the design up a bit for a better ore:fuel ratio  

 

That aside, I'm first going to loft a science lab to LGO because I'm using Science Relay, which means I can transmit science to a lab to get the multiplier on it. I've got a probe on route to Tellumo, and linking it to the lab should let me unlock gigantor solar arrays, which will help.

[Akira_R]

7 hours ago, eddiew said:

So 3.2x is kicking my ass  

With ~5.6km/s required for LGO, it seems pretty obvious that I need a mining base on Iota, but... nothing I put together in the VAB can lift significantly more ore to orbit than it needs to refuel itself for another trip. At best I'd be looking at about 300 units of fuel per run, and that's going to drive me mad. 

This is going to take a lot of pondering. Don't want to give up just yet, but lifting anything to LGO that's much beyond 40 tons is a problem with my current tech, so I'd really hoped I could have a small miner to start off. 

Maybe I need to revisit nuclear engines... Iota's g-asl is pretty forgiving, and it's going to be an unavoidably heavy craft... which is where nerva's shine, if you can get away with the low TWR...

(I would prefer to keep the refinery in orbit if possible, since Iotian nights are very long and I don't have good batteries or RTGs yet.)

 

Silly question, but do any of them have... stars? As pretty as the Eve ones are, they feel kind of trapped in clouds...

I personally use Karbonite and MKS in my 3.2x game so my experience is probably a bit different than yours, but one of the things that I enjoy about using a rescale is it makes you start pondering things like the efficiency of moving raw resources to orbit for refining or refining on the ground and moving the products to orbit.

Generally speaking it is always going to be more efficient to refine on the surface and send the products to orbit as the products are going to have a higher energy density and you don't have to carry the weight of what is essentially the waste products to orbit as well. This difference can be overcome by using more efficient engines (overcome isn't really the right word as moving the products will generally be cheaper but the difference can be made inconsequential if your engines are efficient enough) or if the tanks for the raw resources an be made light enough that the differences in dry mass will make up for decreased energy density of the raw material.

Again for me facing these kinds of problems is the draw of using a rescale, it makes you face more design issues that actually are faced in the real-world.

[Norcalplanner]

1 hour ago, eddiew said:

Thing is @Norcalplanner, I'm refusing to use KR&D until I've unlocked the tech tree - because I want to actually use some of the modded techs, and I won't if I can just throw points into nervas.

On the other hand...

Badgermole II
31 tons unloaded, 56 tons full of ore.
With a full load, packs enough delta-v to get down to Iota and back again - in practise, this is overkill, because she'll go down empty and come back loaded.
Carries 2400 units of ore, converting to 4800 of fuel (or 2160 of fuel and 2640 of oxidiser).
Carries 2000 units of fuel, so there's 2800 <something> left over after processing. Probably more.
Junior drills can be powered even by the little 1x6 panels.

It's not pretty, but I think this one might be viable. It's not a vast amount of fuel to per run, a bit less than an X200-32 tank, but the TWR is quite generous for Iota and maybe I can scale the design up a bit for a better ore:fuel ratio  

 

That aside, I'm first going to loft a science lab to LGO because I'm using Science Relay, which means I can transmit science to a lab to get the multiplier on it. I've got a probe on route to Tellumo, and linking it to the lab should let me unlock gigantor solar arrays, which will help.

Thanks for explaining your upgrade philosophy. Science relay should help - I'm using it as well.

You might want to consider adding a few more ore tanks to your lander. You only need a vacuum TWR of 4 (local to Iota) for a really efficient ascent, which works out to a Gael TWR of 0.34.  Adding two or four more ore tanks will make things even more efficient, albeit with slightly thinner delta v margins.

This might help too when ascending from the surface:

 

Edited February 1, 2017 by Norcalplanner
Added link

[eddiew]

1 hour ago, Norcalplanner said:

You might want to consider adding a few more ore tanks to your lander. You only need a vacuum TWR of 4 (local to Iota) for a really efficient ascent, which works out to a Gael TWR of 0.34.  Adding two or four more ore tanks will make things even more efficient, albeit with slightly thinner delta v margins.

Yeah, so far I've tweaked it down to 0.39, carrying 2700 ore, refining to 5400 LF+O - which is about a large silver tank's worth. It's not huge, but as an early days miner, I think it's not bad   I can envisage a station that is largely just ore tanks and a refinery, with a few docking ports for the miner(s) and tankers. Going to have to be careful about keeping the part count low, but I think I have some welded parts from last career that will help me there.

 

 

2 hours ago, Akira_R said:

I personally use Karbonite and MKS in my 3.2x game so my experience is probably a bit different than yours, but one of the things that I enjoy about using a rescale is it makes you start pondering things like the efficiency of moving raw resources to orbit for refining or refining on the ground and moving the products to orbit.

Generally speaking it is always going to be more efficient to refine on the surface and send the products to orbit as the products are going to have a higher energy density and you don't have to carry the weight of what is essentially the waste products to orbit as well...

According to the Wiki, the ore to fuel conversion conserves weight. Seems like an intentional choice which (while unrealistic) makes there no clear winner as to whether you should plant your refinery on the ground or keep it in orbit   I'm going for orbit because of the power requirements, and the long nights on Iota. It'll spend less time in shadow than in daylight, so have a better uptime in general.

I could certainly adapt my design above into an all-in-one with onboard refinery, and swap all but one ore tank for LFO, but I'd lose 4 tons of payload and have to add an awful lot of solar panels. With my current tech, I'd rather keep it a modest miner-only for the moment. I'm also inclined to farm and store the ore for conversion when I need it, so that I don't end up with, for example, a huge oxidiser excess that I can't dump  

 

Edited February 1, 2017 by eddiew

[eddiew]

Hyperedited to Iota orbit for test run. Works a charm

Won't take much to dock with a station, so probably only using 12-1300 units per run, leaving around 4000 available to stock the orbital refinery. When it exists. And when this thing is actually launched for real. Right now it's just simulations. But at least it works 

Was gonna send a rover mission to pick out a hotspot... but it only took ~2 game days to fill the tanks on a bit that looked good from orbit, so frankly that's good enough. Now all I have to do is stretch a fairing around this bad boy... 

[Norcalplanner]

34 minutes ago, eddiew said:

Hyperedited to Iota orbit for test run. Works a charm

Won't take much to dock with a station, so probably only using 12-1300 units per run, leaving around 4000 available to stock the orbital refinery. When it exists. And when this thing is actually launched for real. Right now it's just simulations. But at least it works 

Was gonna send a rover mission to pick out a hotspot... but it only took ~2 game days to fill the tanks on a bit that looked good from orbit, so frankly that's good enough. Now all I have to do is stretch a fairing around this bad boy... 

It's funny - you've decided not to use R&D until you're done with the tech tree, while one of my personal quirks is to never use hyperedit. I love how KSP can accommodate all sorts of play styles and house rules. 

[eddiew]

3 minutes ago, Norcalplanner said:

It's funny - you've decided not to use R&D until you're done with the tech tree, while one of my personal quirks is to never use hyperedit. I love how KSP can accommodate all sorts of play styles and house rules. 

I use hyperedit for testing - then I revert the flight. Basically I use it the same way a proper space organisation would use a room full of engineers and mathematicians. I don't have anyone to double check my maths, so I do simulated runs when I'm not confident  

Put a launcher together for it... it's half a million on the pad 

[acidpaintball]

Would I post here or remote tech's thread for a weird glitch?  So when I have Galileo and Remote tech installed... I get zero connection, but if I run remote tech without Galileo it runs fine. 

 

Is there a trick on installing both?

 

[JadeOfMaar]

@DarkFighter Can you send me your KSP_x64_Data\output_log.txt ? I'd like a glance at your modlist. There just has to be something in there that's dulling the game.

[Galileo]

18 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

@DarkFighter Can you send me your KSP_x64_Data\output_log.txt ? I'd like a glance at your modlist. There just has to be something in there that's dulling the game.

He has DOE installed....... i can replicate the dimming... DOE is just doing its job. it just doesn't look right with your skybox. 

Either turn off dynamic dimming or remove distant objects

[JadeOfMaar]

@Galileo I find that so peculiar but I completely get it.

[Galileo]

4 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

@Galileo I find that so peculiar but I completely get it.

It's because there is too much color in the skybox. DOE needs more negative space (darkness, blackness) for it to look right. Otherwise, you can see dimming even in the color

[Javascap]

I've run into a bit of an odd bug with landing on Ceti. I'm using the 1.2.1 version, which is the gamemode I am on. When I got close enough for the terrain scatters to render, the ground textures disappeared. I could still land on the ground, and there is a faint, ghostly texture visible, but for the most part the ground is see-through.I can think of a few things that might be causing this issue. I am using Sigma Dimensions to increase the size of everything by 6.4x, but that simply modifies the size, and nothing else. Scatterer could be a culprit, but I don't think there is any atmosphere on Ceti for scatterer to cause trouble with. So, yeah. I'm stumped. Here's an album link to what I see.

http://imgur.com/a/hPrR5

Edited February 2, 2017 by Javascap

[OhioBob]

4 hours ago, eddiew said:

I use hyperedit for testing - then I revert the flight. Basically I use it the same way a proper space organisation would use a room full of engineers and mathematicians. I don't have anyone to double check my maths, so I do simulated runs when I'm not confident  

That's exactly what I do too.  I consider it a simulation.

[Iso-Polaris]

On 2017/2/1 at 5:49 AM, Galileo said:

Ok, how about a screenshot? Just saying there is a bug doesn't help us.

It looks normal in Tracking stantion, however:

Even the orbit line of Lili is hiding behind the blue haze

Edited February 2, 2017 by Iso-Polaris

[Galileo]

26 minutes ago, Iso-Polaris said:

 

It looks normal in Tracking stantion, however:

 

Even the orbit line of Lili is hiding behind the blue haze

 

did you disable eclipses in the scatterer menu?

[Iso-Polaris]

4 hours ago, Galileo said:

did you disable eclipses in the scatterer menu?

I tried, that did not work

[Galileo]

11 minutes ago, Iso-Polaris said:

I tried, that did not work

post your logs.. i think something else is going on

[Iso-Polaris]

1 minute ago, Galileo said:

post your logs.. i think something else is going on

Which log you are talking about? I did not crash, so no crash log

[Galileo]

1 minute ago, Iso-Polaris said:

Which log you are talking about? I did not crash, so no crash log

you don't have to crash to produce a log. I need your output log. 

 

[Iso-Polaris]

2 hours ago, Galileo said:

you don't have to crash to produce a log. I need your output log. 

 

Well, I cant find the KSP_win64 folder in my game folder

• Windows: KSP_win\KSP_Data\output_log.txt (32bit) or KSP_win64\KSP_x64_Data\output_log.txt (64bit)

I do have KSP_x64_Data folder , but theres no log in it

Edited February 2, 2017 by Iso-Polaris

[Iso-Polaris]

Another problem. The surface of Thalia is muc darker than its on tracking station when you actually land on it, even in the high noon.

extremely low reflectance? made of carbon?

[JadeOfMaar]

@Iso-Polaris The files exist when KSP is running. Thalia indeed has the lowest albedo of all planets so its sunny side should be quite dark despite its closeness to the star.

@OhioBob ...Carbon planet? Or other reason?  *curious about that now*

Edited February 2, 2017 by JadeOfMaar