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

[JadeOfMaar]

32 minutes ago, TheCiroth said:

@JadeOfMaar wait, OPT does have a warp drive already built in? 

No.  The WarpJet engines aren't actual warp drives. Their processes may loosely resemble those of warp drives, therefore, the name. They are in a league by themselves as air-breathers. 

[danfarnsy]

On 11/2/2017 at 10:30 AM, OhioBob said:

What I was thinking is that instead of flying due east off the launch pad, you start out flying southeast.  Then as you start to build up speed, you gradually turn to the east.  By the time you really start accelerating, you've straightened out the trajectory and are now heading due east.  This will cost more fuel, but it will reduce (or maybe even eliminate) the plane change that has to be done in orbit.  It might end up being cheaper in the long run.  This could also be done with a regular rocket, it doesn't have to be a spaceplane.  Powered turns like this are sometimes done in real life, it's called a "dogleg".

I may need to try this.

I've got a low-tech Iota flyby vehicle in my 10.625x scale game, and even with a total delta-V of 13,500 m/s (flight in atmosphere probably drops that ~400 m/s), the plane change after achieving orbit drops me below the ~3100 m/s I need for a simple flyby on a free-return trajectory (from 140 km Gael orbit). Of course, there's always the MOAR BOOSTERS approach, that eats into ROI very quickly, since my on-pad weight is already 383 tons. Since I'm also using USI-LS, I can't stay up there indefinitely waiting for an Iota intercept that allows me to transfer at the AN/DN without doing a plane change, nor do I know how best to plan my launches for it.

383 tons, and I'll be landing on Gael with 800 kg. Maybe the problem is my design. *grumble*

By the way, does anybody have a good multiplier to use for different scales on the provided delta-V map? Just the square root of the scale?

5 hours ago, Galileo said:

I dunno, I assume they aren’t excited by the fact that they are still home.

They probably all have military backgrounds, and the photographer just said, "Show me your war face!" Turns out war faces are stoic, apathetic, and "stop wasting my time."

[danfarnsy]

8 minutes ago, danfarnsy said:

Of course, there's always the MOAR BOOSTERS approach

Looking over it, I'm just having to recognize that I'm destroying my mass fraction by using Skippers when I haven't unlocked Mainsails. I also have cryogenic engines installed, and I think the 2.5 m variants are in the same tech node as Mainsail, which will make a big difference on the dry masses.

[Galileo]

18 minutes ago, danfarnsy said:

They probably all have military backgrounds, and the photographer just said, "Show me your war face!" Turns out war faces are stoic, apathetic, and "stop wasting my time."

You might be on to something

[OhioBob]

41 minutes ago, danfarnsy said:

I may need to try this.

I've got a low-tech Iota flyby vehicle in my 10.625x scale game, and even with a total delta-V of 13,500 m/s (flight in atmosphere probably drops that ~400 m/s), the plane change after achieving orbit drops me below the ~3100 m/s I need for a simple flyby on a free-return trajectory (from 140 km Gael orbit). Of course, there's always the MOAR BOOSTERS approach, that eats into ROI very quickly, since my on-pad weight is already 383 tons. Since I'm also using USI-LS, I can't stay up there indefinitely waiting for an Iota intercept that allows me to transfer at the AN/DN without doing a plane change, nor do I know how best to plan my launches for it.

Here's what I always do for missions to Iota...  The phase angle for a transfer to Iota is about 115 degrees.  So launch due east from KSC when the phase angle to Iota is 205 degrees.  That is, we're launching when KSC is 90 degrees from the point where we want to place the maneuver node.  This will place the descending node of the spacecraft's orbit right where the maneuver node should be.  There's no need to wait around, just place a maneuver node at the DN only 1/4 of an orbit from KSC, and off we go to Iota.  Sometimes it's not even necessary to do a circularization burn.

There is one launch window of this type every day, when KSC is 205 degrees behind Iota.  So the only waiting that takes place is on the ground, and it's never more than one day.
 

41 minutes ago, danfarnsy said:

By the way, does anybody have a good multiplier to use for different scales on the provided delta-V map? Just the square root of the scale?

Yep, use the square root of the scale factor.  It's not super precise because there are a few things that this method doesn't take into consideration, but it will get you real close.  It should be pretty good for transfer orbits, but I think it overestimates the delta-v needed to launch from the surface of a body.
 

[danfarnsy]

2 minutes ago, OhioBob said:

The phase angle for a transfer to Iota is about 115 degrees.  So launch due east from KSC when the phase angle to Iota is 205 degrees. 

Exactly the information I needed (and probably should have figured out myself). Thank you!

[danfarnsy]

That's fantastic. I added 1600 m/s to my design for only 30k space bucks, retooled with the surface attachable smaller cryo engines (7 cores in asparagus), but after I followed your advice, I'm on a flyby course with 2900 m/s to spare, which means I could have used my previous design (5 cores, LF asparagus with Skippers) and still had 1300 m/s to spare, instead of being short by 300 m/s. But cutting out the 1100 m/s plane change isn't enough to account for the 1600 m/s savings here. My guess is that the rest is a combination of not circularizing before burning to intercept and increasing my sea level TWR to 1.5 (instead of 1.15 as with the Skippers) by going cryogenic, decreasing gravity losses.

Which all means WOOHOO! @OhioBob is the man!

Edited November 4, 2017 by danfarnsy

[OhioBob]

@danfarnsy, glad I could help.  Of course this method only works for Iota.  I've got a different trick that I use for Ceti.

[danfarnsy]

Ceti should be similar to launching to Minmus. Wait for GSC to line up with orbital plane, then launch into the plane. Iota needed a special trick because the GSC never crosses its orbital plane.

Edit: though, that's not the same as launch to intercept without circularizing. If you've got something more, I'm all ears.

Edited November 4, 2017 by danfarnsy

[danfarnsy]

@Galileo, I've got a slight, completely separate, issue. I left the name changer alone, using Jeb, Bill, Bob, Val, and twice now upon reloading a game it's changed the names of the "veterans" to the creators' names. That would be okay, I suppose, but it also means that Jebediah/Galileo loses all his FF awards for being the first to do everything awesome. The first time, it happened when I was using KSC switcher, when I switched to a different launch site. I got rid of KSC switcher, started a new game, and now it's happened again.

Logs found here, here. In the ksp.log, the last reference to Jebediah Kerman occurs at 16:28:55.802. The first reference to Galileo Gaelan occurs at 16:17:09.025, just after the SOI change from Gael to Iota, and immediately after that reference, he has apparently taken Jeb's place (gets awarded Iota ribbons from FF, etc.). I didn't notice until I was on re-entry.

[Galileo]

6 minutes ago, danfarnsy said:

@Galileo, I've got a slight, completely separate, issue. I left the name changer alone, using Jeb, Bill, Bob, Val, and twice now upon reloading a game it's changed the names of the "veterans" to the creators' names. That would be okay, I suppose, but it also means that Jebediah/Galileo loses all his FF awards for being the first to do everything awesome. The first time, it happened when I was using KSC switcher, when I switched to a different launch site. I got rid of KSC switcher, started a new game, and now it's happened again.

Logs found here, here. In the ksp.log, the last reference to Jebediah Kerman occurs at 16:28:55.802. The first reference to Galileo Gaelan occurs at 16:17:09.025, just after the SOI change from Gael to Iota, and immediately after that reference, he has apparently taken Jeb's place (gets awarded Iota ribbons from FF, etc.). I didn't notice until I was on re-entry.

I recommend just removing the renamer for now. It has been fixed for the next release. Hopefully we can make that happen soon. I know in its current state it’s frustrating. I’m in the same boat  there are some really cool developments going on right now and we don’t want to rush the update out before proper testing and such has been done. 

Edited November 4, 2017 by Galileo

[danfarnsy]

Just now, Galileo said:

I recommend just removing the renamer for now. It had fixed it for the next release. Hopefully we can make that happen soon. I know in its current state it’s frustrating. I’m in the same boat  there are some really cool developments going on right now and we don’t want to rush the update out before proper testing and such has been done. 

Roger that. I'll see if I can get Jeb and co. back by doing that, then edit the persistent save file to move all of Galileo's awards back to Jeb.

And everybody always loves cool developments. Not rushing is good.

[OhioBob]

22 hours ago, danfarnsy said:

Ceti should be similar to launching to Minmus. Wait for GSC to line up with orbital plane, then launch into the plane. Iota needed a special trick because the GSC never crosses its orbital plane.

Edit: though, that's not the same as launch to intercept without circularizing. If you've got something more, I'm all ears.

The trick with Ceti is that it's orbital inclination (9 degrees) is almost the same as the latitude of the launch site (8.64 degrees)*.  So if we launch at the right time, we can travel due east off the launch pad and end up in an orbit that matches Ceti's inclination to within a fraction of a degree.  We want to launch when KSC it at the same longitude as Ceti's positive antinode.  This can be eyeballed in the Tracking Station, but the easiest way to determine launch time is by using KER (and I suppose MechJeb, though I don't use it).  Make sure that the orbital category is displaying "Longitude of AN".  When that reads 89 degrees, launch.  (Theoretically we want to be at 90 degrees when launching, but I've found 89 works better because it compensates for the time it takes to pitch over and get up to speed.)

* I actually did this on purpose when I gave Ceti it's orbital elements.
 

Edited November 5, 2017 by OhioBob

[danfarnsy]

1 minute ago, OhioBob said:

* I actually did this on purpose when I gave Ceti it's orbital elements.

Ah, so not only do I wait for GSC to cross Ceti's plane, you set it up specifically so that I don't really cross it. I just brush it, ever so gently, a nice little tangent line. Very smooth.

[Jalaris]

Found the git repo for KSC-Switcher 0.7, anyone know if there is an updated version?

Edited November 5, 2017 by Jalaris
Original question void

[Galileo]

6 hours ago, Jalaris said:

Found the git repo for KSC-Switcher 0.7, anyone know if there is an updated version?

You don’t need that. GPP bundles it’s own compiled version of KSC switcher. Look in the Optional mods folder.

Edited November 5, 2017 by Galileo

[Stratickus]

I have a problem that I believe is installation related. I followed JadeOfMaar's instructions and have reinstalled multiple times, but I cannot figure out what I am doing wrong.

Spoiler

 

I am using OPM Galileo + GPP + GPP_Secondary. I have deleted the OPM config file in GPP_Configs to put the OPM planets back in the Kerbol system. Other than that, I have not changed any of the GPP files. 

The problem is on a brand new career save all of the KSC buildings are fully upgraded. Removing GPP & GPP_Secondary puts the buildings back to lvl 1. Additionally, with GPP installed, the observatory that is added by Research Bodies is also missing.

This is a snip from my GameData Folder. I have GPP v1.5.3 (manually installed) and Kopernicus 1.3.1-2 (CKAN installed).

..and this is what the GPP folder looks like

Spoiler

I can't figure out what I've done wrong. I had this identical setup in 1.3 and it all worked fine. Any help would be appreciated.

Cheers,

Edited November 5, 2017 by Stratickus

[CatastrophicFailure]

@Galileo and maybe @JadeOfMaar: Having a bit of an issue, here, unrelated to anything relevant here.  I'm trying to adjust the height of Rald's cloud layer, using that config that Galileo made me up a while back (thanx!). Anyways, there should only be one cloud layer, but I think I'm getting two. Is there any way I can poke thru a log, or maybe the MM cache, to see if there's another config that's somehow adding another cloud layer?

[Galileo]

2 minutes ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

@Galileo and maybe @JadeOfMaar: Having a bit of an issue, here, unrelated to anything relevant here.  I'm trying to adjust the height of Rald's cloud layer, using that config that Galileo made me up a while back (thanx!). Anyways, there should only be one cloud layer, but I think I'm getting two. Is there any way I can poke thru a log, or maybe the MM cache, to see if there's another config that's somehow adding another cloud layer?

You can go through the MM cfg and find the EVE nodes for Rald. There is nothing in GPP that would add another layer. I would go through all of your folders and check that you didnt accidentally drop another copy of the cloud cfg in somewhere. 

[danfarnsy]

On 11/4/2017 at 4:21 PM, OhioBob said:

Of course this method only works for Iota.

So... there's a big commnet blind spot sitting at the equatorial descending node centered at 90 degrees longitude from GSC. I'll assume you set THAT up on purpose too.  

"See, somebody will ask me about my trick, and I'll tell them, but then they'll try to use it with a probe and it'll be a great laugh!"

To be fair, I did change the atmospheric bodies comm size from 0.75 to 0.9, and vacuum bodies to 1.0. I don't have good numbers for what it ought to be, but I know that low enough frequency stuff can go around the world because, at shallow enough angles, it's got total internal reflection from the ionosphere and ground, which means it's not leaking much out unless the angle from surface normal is sufficiently small (e.g. somewhat close to overhead). Higher frequencies are more transparent, but also don't have indices of refraction that would justify a multiplier of 0.75 for atmospheric bodies' apparent size. I know there's some refraction around even a vacuum body (but I would guess this is small), and there are some atmospheric components which will give some scattering. It's almost as if KSP wasn't designed to be an EM transmission simulator!

Either I need to man up and set up an orbital relay network around Gael, or I need a significantly higher apoapsis sitting on that descending node (last attempt was 195 km Ap, still using 10.625x scale).

[OhioBob]

10 minutes ago, danfarnsy said:

So... there's a big commnet blind spot sitting at the equatorial descending node centered at 90 degrees longitude from GSC. I'll assume you set THAT up on purpose too.  

I don't remember there being a blind spot there, but then again, I've never played at 10.625x (only 1x and 2.5x).  At 10.625x you'd have to be 10.625x higher to have the same lines of sight to the tracking stations.  I suspect that's the reason because I've never experienced the problem at smaller scales.  It certainly wasn't done of purpose.  In fact, I'm not sure there's even a way to modify the locations of the tracking stations (@Galileo?).

[Galileo]

5 minutes ago, OhioBob said:

I don't remember there being a blind spot there, but then again, I've never played at 10.625x (only 1x and 2.5x).  At 10.625x you'd have to be 10.625x higher to have the same lines of sight to the tracking stations.  I suspect that's the reason because I've never experienced the problem at smaller scales.  It certainly wasn't done of purpose.  In fact, I'm not sure there's even a way to modify the locations of the tracking stations (@Galileo?).

 Was just testing and I don’t get a blind spot @danfarnsy do you have Kerbal Konstructs installed? Also, do you have the additional ground stations enabled in the difficulty settings?

[danfarnsy]

19 minutes ago, OhioBob said:

It certainly wasn't done of purpose.

Yeah, I was just poking fun because it would have been funny if you had done it on purpose. As it is, it's just another fun, unexpected problem, since I haven't played RSS/RO with any seriousness since 1.0.5, and otherwise I always played with stock scale. This is great, having issues like this that you wouldn't anticipate, having to figure out workarounds like either launching to 400 km apoapsis over the DN (287 km last attempt wasn't quite enough) or creating a relay network. How cool is it that, by coincidence, I have full control over my vehicle except for a few degrees before and after the DN?

11 minutes ago, Galileo said:

 Was just testing and I don’t get a blind spot @danfarnsy do you have Kerbal Konstructs installed? Also, do you have the additional ground stations enabled in the difficulty settings?

No to Kerbal Konstructs (removed it and KSC++ when the scale factor spread the buildings out too thin, also removed KSC switcher when I erroneously thought it was responsible for the bug with renamer), but yes to extra ground stations. I also set occlusion modifiers to 1.0 for vacuum and 0.90 for atmosphere, figuring those were more realistic numbers, though, honestly, it was just a SWAG. Occlusion modifier is probably the source of the difference.

Edited November 7, 2017 by danfarnsy

[Galileo]

2 minutes ago, danfarnsy said:

No to Kerbal Konstructs (removed it and KSC++ when the scale factor spread the buildings out too thin

Go install a Rescale! cfg and also install KKtoSD. Be sure to reinstall Kerbal Konstructs too. That will position the KK statics correctly regardless of rescale size

[danfarnsy]

6 minutes ago, Galileo said:

Go install a Rescale! cfg and also install KKtoSD. Be sure to reinstall Kerbal Konstructs too. That will position the KK statics correctly regardless of rescale size

I did use Rescale! Otherwise, I would've been completely lost. I dropped in SD and the 10.625x RESCALE folders in GameData. But I guess I didn't see the KKtoSD, because the statics were definitely messed up. And here I thought I had been so careful following @JadeOfMaar's extended instructions. I'll give that a try and report back after I finish this 400 km Ap attempt I'm in the middle of flying.

Edit: clarity about installation of SD, Rescale

Edited November 7, 2017 by danfarnsy