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

[eberkain]

What is the 'in space high' for 10x Gael going to be?   Oops, 3000km it is.      

Edited March 24, 2017 by eberkain

[OhioBob]

1 minute ago, eberkain said:

What is the 'in space high' for 10x Gael going to be?

Sigma Dimensions factors that, but I don't know what the current formula is.  I think it use to factor the flying and space limits by the same factor as the atmosphere.  But Sigma now has two atmosphere factors, Atmosphere and atmoTopLayer, so I don't know what it does.  You might want to ask that question in the Sigma Dimensions thread.

[MaxL_1023]

Just wondering - the clouds config for 10x has them at about 18000 meters. Is this intentional? I never heard of thick clouds existing that high except for the tops of thunderstorms. 

Also, can I change the sky color vs altitude curve? The sky stays blue way higher than it should - by about 30-35km the zenith should be completely black. 

[Galileo]

19 minutes ago, MaxL_1023 said:

Just wondering - the clouds config for 10x has them at about 18000 meters. Is this intentional? I never heard of thick clouds existing that high except for the tops of thunderstorms. 

Also, can I change the sky color vs altitude curve? The sky stays blue way higher than it should - by about 30-35km the zenith should be completely black. 

You have to mess with the sigma cfgs I forget the parameter name that would have to be changed. I'll look it up tonight when I boot up

As for the clouds, it was intentional. I wanted them lower, but it will look like garbage in orbit. (The clouds clip through a lot of the mountains) that's why I set them so high. It's easy to change if you want. Just go into the sigma cfg and find the EVE Clouds node and change multiplication value to something more suitable.

Edited March 25, 2017 by Galileo

[CatastrophicFailure]

Hey, I just had a thought, here. 

Ok, you can stop laughing now. 

 

Anyways, would it be possible to give Gael earth-like seasons by giving it a slightly eccentric orbit? Y'know, cuz lack of axial tilt in KSP & all that. Probably wouldn't actually do much except give slightly different thermometer readings for anyone paying that much attention, and maybe add/subtract a handful of m/s on transfers. 

But anyway, I had a thought. 

[JadeOfMaar]

@CatastrophicFailure Giving Gael an eccentric or inclined orbit would needlessly void all sorts of other things and introduce unwanted challenges such as waiting for additional and increasingly rare transfer windows in order to access the reduced cost of dV or just to get around.

[OhioBob]

1 hour ago, CatastrophicFailure said:

Anyways, would it be possible to give Gael earth-like seasons by giving it a slightly eccentric orbit? Y'know, cuz lack of axial tilt in KSP & all that. Probably wouldn't actually do much except give slightly different thermometer readings for anyone paying that much attention, and maybe add/subtract a handful of m/s on transfers.

Changing the orbit wouldn't do anything to the weather.  For planets with atmospheres, all the temperatures are controlled by the atmosphere temperature curves.  That is, orbit and temperature are controlled completely independent of each other.  If I really wanted to mess with things, I could turn Niven into a frozen ice world, and make Hox a sweltering desert.  Of course, what the developer really should do, and what I did for GPP, is write temperature curves that are consistent with the planet's location and orbit.  Some of the planet's in GPP do have seasons of a sort, but the temperature variations are pretty small (generally +/- only a few degrees).

@Galileo, this just got me wondering about something.  Is there any way that you know of that can link visual effects to seasons?  For instance, could you produce snowfall effects only during a winter season?

4 hours ago, eberkain said:

Oops, 3000km it is.      

Ah, good to know.  Apparently Sigma Dimensions must change the space altitude threshold by the resize factor.  It's probably the flying altitude threshold that's changed by the atmosphere factor.

@Sigma88, if you're out there, please refresh my memory (I asked you once before but I've forgotten the answer).  How are flyingAltitudeThreshold, spaceAltitudeThreshold, and timewarpAltitudeLimits changed when a planet and its atmosphere are resized?

[OhioBob]

4 hours ago, MaxL_1023 said:

Also, can I change the sky color vs altitude curve? The sky stays blue way higher than it should - by about 30-35km the zenith should be completely black. 

My guess is that you want to tinker with the @atmoVisualEffect setting in 10X.cfg.  If you find a setting that you think looks better, please share it with us.

Of course changing the global setting will change it for all the planets.  If you only want to change Gael, you can make a planet specific change.

Edited March 25, 2017 by OhioBob

[OhioBob]

5 hours ago, MaxL_1023 said:

As far as I know, the 3.2x scale was designed to increase the delta-v to orbit requirement from ~3500m/s to the ~4500m/s which existed during the pre-1.04? "soup-o-sphere" days. Basically, the new aerodynamics made orbit easier by reducing low and mid-atmosphere drag.

4500 m/s definitely sound low for a 3.2x scale, I think its more like 5000-5500 m/s with the current KSP version.

Here's my rationale for suggesting a 2.5x system...

My goal is to find a scale that plays a lot like real life, but using stock parts.  In real life, using conventional rockets, the general rule it that it takes two stages to achieve orbit, and three stages to escape.  So that's the main driver behind my decision making.  At 1x scale it's possible to reach orbit on only one stage, so that's out.  At 2x the Δv requirement is large enough that SSTO is pretty much off the table, but it's still possible to pack enough Δv into two stages to reach escape velocity.  That then brings us to 2.5x.  At this scale we've pretty much reached the point where it takes three stages to go interplanetary.  So the goal has been achieved at 2.5x.  3.2x achieves the goal as well, but I'm not sure it adds anything new to the experience.  3.2x is just a more difficult version of 2.5x, and I don't see a reason to make things more difficult than they need to be.  I believe that at 2.5x rockets will have a lifelike design and look to them, but because of the lower Δv requirements versus 3.2x (about 13% less), a player will be able to do more and achieve more.

That's my 2₵, for what it's worth.

[CSE]

On 24/03/2017 at 2:21 AM, OhioBob said:

I've never heard anyone give a good reason for 3.2x.  I assume it's used just because it's half of 6.4x.  Personally, I have serious doubts about 3.2x.  At the larger sizes (6.4x and 10x) it is really essential that the parts be modded to improve their mass ratios.  At 3.2x I think we're on the line between having to mod the parts, versus really struggling to get by with stock parts.

Around KSP 0.90 or just before, the delta-v requirements for 2x scale with FAR were about the same as for the 1x scale with the stock atmosphere. The 6.4x scale, originally intended for Real Fuels users as a less gritty experience than full RSS, had also become popular as a nearly-RSS mode for users of some of the higher-performance engine mods such as KW (with FAR, naturally). The 3.2x scale ('Jumbo 32') sat in between the difficulty of stock (= FAR 2x) and non-RealFuels 6.4x scales; it gave roughly stock-like player difficulty for an install with FAR and larger diameter engine parts.

Since then, the stock atmosphere has become closer to old FAR and the stock parts' properties have been rebalanced to keep the performance of existing craft roughly the same, for ascents on Kerbin. So perhaps in KSP 1.2, the 2.5x scale will play more closely to old 3.2x.

[Tynrael]

On 3/19/2017 at 5:12 AM, Luovahulluus said:

I've recently sent my rovers to both Icarus and Thalia, and encountered an annoying bug both times. I don't know if this is a GPP issue, but I don't know where else to complain . I tried the Transfer Window planner, Astrogator and Mechjeb, and the result was always the same: I set up the maneuver node using the mods, but I don't get the target closest position marker in the right place. With a little bit of tweaking I got the markers to appear, but the distance was hundreds of thousands of kilometers off. More tweaking and the marker would jump to being millions of km off. Apparently the marker jumped to earlier lap around the sun of the destination planet. 

A little late for an immediate response but... I believe all transfer calculations assume origin and destination are in the same plane so when you follow the planner requirements you have to tweak them to account for that not being the case all the time.

[fallout2077]

Hey there, I'm having an issue where all of my comm stations are on Icarus rather than Gael. I searched through the thread and discovered a user that was having the same problem a while ago (the remedy was to clear the module manager cache, which I did, to no avail). I tried changing the "Body =" in the GPP RemoteTech config from 5 to 1, then from 1 to 6, and even tried inputting "Gael", which didn't work. I will paste a link to my Output_Log below.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kmycjn11lwbeh3r/output_log(GPP).zip?dl=0

[OhioBob]

1 hour ago, Tynrael said:

A little late for an immediate response but... I believe all transfer calculations assume origin and destination are in the same plane so when you follow the planner requirements you have to tweak them to account for that not being the case all the time.

I'm pretty sure that Transfer Window Planner does take into account the different orbital planes (otherwise it wouldn't give a normal component).  That being said, I have experienced problems getting an encounter with the target planet when using the Δv numbers it provides.  On the other hand, I've had other times when its been pretty much right on the money.

[Galileo]

11 minutes ago, fallout2077 said:

Hey there, I'm having an issue where all of my comm stations are on Icarus rather than Gael. I searched through the thread and discovered a user that was having the same problem a while ago (the remedy was to clear the module manager cache, which I did, to no avail). I tried changing the "Body =" in the GPP RemoteTech config from 5 to 1, then from 1 to 6, and even tried inputting "Gael", which didn't work. I will paste a link to my Output_Log below.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/kmycjn11lwbeh3r/output_log(GPP).zip?dl=0

Unfortunately, I think this is a bug with RT. For some reason RT will only reset itself during a new game. Try starting a new game with the Body = 5. and see if your stations appear on Gael. If not, Just hang tight until the update. I can ensure it will work with our update

Edited March 25, 2017 by Galileo

[MaxL_1023]

It is also worth noting that it is significantly easier to get into orbit of Gael than Earth when playing at 10x vs RSS - Gael is only about 91% as large saving about 500-600 m/s off of the delta-v needed to get to orbit.

Also, Iota is significantly smaller than the Moon (I think Ceti is as well) so landing missions are much less difficult. 

[fallout2077]

58 minutes ago, Galileo said:

Unfortunately, I think this is a bug with RT. For some reason RT will only reset itself during a new game. Try starting a new game with the Body = 5. and see if your stations appear on Gael. If not, Just hang tight until the update. I can ensure it will work with our update

Ahh, okay then... I had a feeling it had something to do with an incompatibility between RT and GPP. I'll sit tight until the update, and thank you for the accelerated reply!

[Luovahulluus]

1 hour ago, OhioBob said:

I'm pretty sure that Transfer Window Planner does take into account the different orbital planes (otherwise it wouldn't give a normal component).  That being said, I have experienced problems getting an encounter with the target planet when using the Δv numbers it provides.  On the other hand, I've had other times when its been pretty much right on the money.

My problem was, I don't know if I was close or not, as the closest-to-target nodes were in the wrong place. The years of the planets close to the sun are very short. It's like the game doesn't check far enough if there is a closer encounter, but settles with the closest encounter of a year one too early. When I tweaked the maneuver node I got it in the correct year of the inner planet, but it wasn't very close anymore. A little more tweaking and it jumped back to the previous year.

[OhioBob]

26 minutes ago, Luovahulluus said:

My problem was, I don't know if I was close or not, as the closest-to-target nodes were in the wrong place. The years of the planets close to the sun are very short. It's like the game doesn't check far enough if there is a closer encounter, but settles with the closest encounter of a year one too early. When I tweaked the maneuver node I got it in the correct year of the inner planet, but it wasn't very close anymore. A little more tweaking and it jumped back to the previous year.

I wonder if I've experienced the same problem and just didn't realize what was happening.  The last time I played GPP I was trying to set up an encounter with Thalia and just couldn't get it to work.  The planet didn't seem to be where it was suppose to be. I eventually got an encounter, but it was way off from where I intended it to be and the dV was way too high.  I don't really remember all the details anymore, but it sounds very similar to your problem.  I ended up just giving up out of frustration.

[eberkain]

I'm beginning to think that 10x is just not a good idea.

[Galileo]

28 minutes ago, eberkain said:

I'm beginning to think that 10x is just not a good idea.

Well, not until we get updated over to 1.3

[MaxL_1023]

3 hours ago, eberkain said:

I'm beginning to think that 10x is just not a good idea.

In that case, I activate repulsors (hack gravity) until I clear the runway. Someday I will make a SSTO spaceplane in 10x - it is much harder since jets do not really help you get the speed you need to reach space. 

[Luovahulluus]

16 hours ago, eberkain said:

I'm beginning to think that 10x is just not a good idea.

Can you take off if you roll next to the runway? Or is the whole island broken?

[eberkain]

1 hour ago, Luovahulluus said:

Can you take off if you roll next to the runway? Or is the whole island broken?

You can't see them, but I drove a rover around the island and every so often I would hit a nasty bump that would fling me into the air, and I was only going 5m/s

[4d4Garrison]

Just finished my video of a 4.293 Ton rocket to Iota.

 

[eddiew]

On 24/03/2017 at 10:28 PM, JadeOfMaar said:

@Luovahulluus It's perfectly normal to take very long on a design of any sort and in any subject. Any well-crafted and well-purposed thing is deep and is time-consuming to bring forward. Galileo's Planet Pack arrived in only 3 months since its conception but is as complex and polished as any giant mod or any stock KSP feature that took a year or more to develop.

When i was younger I designed fantasy world characters and my own Pokemon-derived monsters and even a magic arts tree like KSP has tech trees. Now I design alien species and tech and starships for them.

  Reveal hidden contents

Lego blocks and transformer figures.  Golden days they were.

 

Day 6*... still haven't launched... but now I have a mothership design that can carry a mk3 spaceplane to Augustus, which in turn will carry a 4-seat rover. At some point this mission is going to click together and it will be glorious! No, no it won't be able to land on the vacuum worlds... because it's a plane with a cargo ramp. Which is why I'll also need a lander to stick on the other end of the mothership. And possibly a small satellite to send into a polar orbit and do some mapping, I really can't remember if I've done that task yet! 

Also if you want to talk about long term design, I've been writing a fantasy fiction story for ~18 years... it's not on a back burner, it's just that I write a chapter, then change it, then change it, then change it... it's become a state of zen where the goal is to be occupied by writing a story, rather than to finish it 

Also also, I'm still annoyed that I broke a bit off my first-edition Optimus Prime when I was 5... he would be worth so much if he was mint

* Really more like day 5. I got distracted for one day by Cities Skylines... and didn't eat for 24 hours because that game is preferable to meeting basic physical comforts. At least KSP slows down after a few hours and the restart takes so long that I might as well go for a cuppa and a snack!