undercoveryankee Posted January 6, 2015 Share Posted January 6, 2015 oh dam, ive been running windowed, since at 1080p it just looks better. I will attempt fullscreen. so in full screen mode, having its virtual desktop, allocates more ram ?Doesn't make a difference to the size of the address space or the size of the individual textures. Might make a difference in available video memory, which would affect how many textures can be offloaded to video memory if ATM is marking them not readable.It sounds like the main reasons Windows users need to worry about borderless-window mode is to reduce crashes and visual glitches when using OpenGL on Windows, and the main difference in memory performance comes from how OpenGL and DirectX handle textures differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hektos Posted January 7, 2015 Share Posted January 7, 2015 I was not happy with a lot of the KW engines in KSP v0.90 especially the 2.5M and larger engines. Thus I decided to do some tweaks to be more in line with stock KSP "balance". I've done my best to give each engine a role, or place, in the engine "hierarchy".I wrote the config as a module manager patch. Therefore, if you decide you don't like the changes you can easily delete the patch and have "stock" KW engines.I am open to opinions on these changes. I tried my best not to make any 1 engine the "best", though some engines are definitely better at certain things (such as the Griffon "series" engines being excellent launch engines).Release v1.0// Changed the Vesta VR-1 to be a lighter LV-T45 with less thrust- thrust increased from 90 to 100- ASL ISP reduced from 350 to 320- Vac ISP reduced from 400 to 370// Changed the Wildcat V to be a heavier LV-T30 with more thrust- thrust increased from 230 to 260- ASL ISP reduced from 325 to 320// Changed the Vesta VR-9D to be a lighter "Skipper" with less thrust- weight reduced from 5T to 2.5T- thrust reduced from 600 to 540// Changed the Maverick V to be a lighter "Mainsail" with less thrust- weight reduced from 6T to 4T- thrust reduced from 1400 to 1000- ASL ISP increased from 285 to 320- Vac ISP increased from 335 to 360// Changed the Griffon G8D to be a launch pad lifter engine (A 2.5M reversed-role KR-2L)- thrust increased from 1900 to 2000- ASL ISP increased from 280 to 400- Vac ISP reduced from 325 to 260// Changed the Wildcat XR to be a heavier KR-2L with more thrust- thrust increased from 1400 to 3800- ASL ISP increased from 275 to 280- Vac ISP increased from 370 to 380// Changed the Titan T1 to be a heavier KS-25x4 with more thrust //(also note Titan T1 is slightly less efficient due to massive gimbal)- thrust increased from 3600 to 4600- ASL ISP increased from 270 to 300- Vac ISP increased from 325 to 340// Changed the Griffon XX to be a launch pad lifter engine (A 3.5M version of the G8D)- thrust increased from 5000 to 5900- ASL ISP increased from 265 to 400- Vac ISP reduced from 310 to 260// Changed the Titan V to be a 5M variant of the Titan T1- thrust increased from 5800 to 7300- ASL ISP increased from 260 to 290- Vac ISP increased from 335 to 340// Changed the Griffon Century to be a launch pad lifter engine (A 5M version of the G8D)- thrust decreased from 11000 to 10000- ASL ISP increased from 257 to 400- Vac ISP reduced from 300 to 260Download the file here on dropbox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kickasskyle Posted January 8, 2015 Author Share Posted January 8, 2015 I was not happy with a lot of the KW engines in KSP v0.90 especially the 2.5M and larger engines. Thus I decided to do some tweaks to be more in line with stock KSP "balance". I've done my best to give each engine a role, or place, in the engine "hierarchy".I wrote the config as a module manager patch. Therefore, if you decide you don't like the changes you can easily delete the patch and have "stock" KW engines.I am open to opinions on these changes. I tried my best not to make any 1 engine the "best", though some engines are definitely better at certain things (such as the Griffon "series" engines being excellent launch engines).Release v1.0// Changed the Vesta VR-1 to be a lighter LV-T45 with less thrust- thrust increased from 90 to 100- ASL ISP reduced from 350 to 320- Vac ISP reduced from 400 to 370// Changed the Wildcat V to be a heavier LV-T30 with more thrust- thrust increased from 230 to 260- ASL ISP reduced from 325 to 320// Changed the Vesta VR-9D to be a lighter "Skipper" with less thrust- weight reduced from 5T to 2.5T- thrust reduced from 600 to 540// Changed the Maverick V to be a lighter "Mainsail" with less thrust- weight reduced from 6T to 4T- thrust reduced from 1400 to 1000- ASL ISP increased from 285 to 320- Vac ISP increased from 335 to 360// Changed the Griffon G8D to be a launch pad lifter engine (A 2.5M reversed-role KR-2L)- thrust increased from 1900 to 2000- ASL ISP increased from 280 to 400- Vac ISP reduced from 325 to 260// Changed the Wildcat XR to be a heavier KR-2L with more thrust- thrust increased from 1400 to 3800- ASL ISP increased from 275 to 280- Vac ISP increased from 370 to 380// Changed the Titan T1 to be a heavier KS-25x4 with more thrust //(also note Titan T1 is slightly less efficient due to massive gimbal)- thrust increased from 3600 to 4600- ASL ISP increased from 270 to 300- Vac ISP increased from 325 to 340// Changed the Griffon XX to be a launch pad lifter engine (A 3.5M version of the G8D)- thrust increased from 5000 to 5900- ASL ISP increased from 265 to 400- Vac ISP reduced from 310 to 260// Changed the Titan V to be a 5M variant of the Titan T1- thrust increased from 5800 to 7300- ASL ISP increased from 260 to 290- Vac ISP increased from 335 to 340// Changed the Griffon Century to be a launch pad lifter engine (A 5M version of the G8D)- thrust decreased from 11000 to 10000- ASL ISP increased from 257 to 400- Vac ISP reduced from 300 to 260Download the file here on dropboxFunnily enough I do actually have a set of stock "balance" numbers hidden in the dark depths of a forbidden excel spreadsheet tab. Did you use any performance metrics for the engines when you came up with your numbers or did you just use straight edit the stats?Sorry for the sparse replies all around guys and gals. I'm still knee deep in various levels of work and pretty much have been over the entirety of the Christmas holiday. Although I'm fairly sure I'll get a nice chunk of free time in a couple of weeks, so I'll use that to take a look over some things that have been needing to be touched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sampa Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undercoveryankee Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 Funnily enough I do actually have a set of stock "balance" numbers hidden in the dark depths of a forbidden excel spreadsheet tab. Did you use any performance metrics for the engines when you came up with your numbers or did you just use straight edit the stats?Sorry for the sparse replies all around guys and gals. I'm still knee deep in various levels of work and pretty much have been over the entirety of the Christmas holiday. Although I'm fairly sure I'll get a nice chunk of free time in a couple of weeks, so I'll use that to take a look over some things that have been needing to be touched.Since the stock 2.5m engines were rebalanced in 0.24, I've felt like the large KW engines were still on the old performance curve. For instance, I haven't really found a use case for a Vesta VR-9D over a Skipper any more except that the Vesta looks a lot better. (This career has been on standard funds yields with FAR for 3,200 m/s to orbit, so I've never been poor enough to worry about comparing costs. If the intended use case is "cheaper," I'm not complaining.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sampa Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 looking forward to getting this back into my game! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 ever thought of including a 3.75m stack probe core? KW seems to lend itself very well to large rockets, but the only thing really missing is a big probe core (for, say, a double-ended dockign ring-based >=3.75m tanker) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecripp Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 ever thought of including a 3.75m stack probe core? KW seems to lend itself very well to large rockets, but the only thing really missing is a big probe core (for, say, a double-ended dockign ring-based >=3.75m tanker)Here you go all you need is ModuleManager.*.*.* installed which if you have pretty much any mod installed you have it already and put the file anywhere in KSP/GameData. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72893034/probeStackXLarge.cfg.zip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul-Simon Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 I'm having a strange issue with this mod on 0.90.Every part is duplicated in the parts list, as in there's two of every part. This fills the list up unnecessarily.I've tried uninstalling and reinstalling the mod, and I've tried (as someone i found through google suggested) deleting the Squad and NASAmission folders and then verified game cache to re-download them.It's still happening, and I've no idea what to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MartGonzo Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Funnily enough I do actually have a set of stock "balance" numbers hidden in the dark depths of a forbidden excel spreadsheet tab. Did you use any performance metrics for the engines when you came up with your numbers or did you just use straight edit the stats?Sorry for the sparse replies all around guys and gals. I'm still knee deep in various levels of work and pretty much have been over the entirety of the Christmas holiday. Although I'm fairly sure I'll get a nice chunk of free time in a couple of weeks, so I'll use that to take a look over some things that have been needing to be touched.When you do get around to looking at the balance can you have a look at the weight of the stack decouplers?I'd like to use the KW Rocketry ones but it's hard to justify using them because they're 5 times heavier than the stock ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoseEduardo Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 not sure if related to 0.90 but everytime i try a CS+LEM flight using the petal adapter, after docking the spacecraft to the LEM if i try to decouple the LEM it get stuck to the adapter, and if i time warp hoping to have the LEM removed from the rocket, after i return to 1x the whole craft "crashes" into something, breaking solar panels, RCS and what else it canthat does not happen if i decouple both prior docking Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gatos Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 am I blind or really retarded? I can't seem to find the petal adapter.... I've been using this for a long time but I've never been able to locate the petal adapter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoseEduardo Posted January 16, 2015 Share Posted January 16, 2015 it's under the "structural" tabi don't have pics of it in the VAB, but here's something that might help ya finding itnot sure if this one will help, but...here's how it looks like in the VAB (closed) (it's under the Soyuz fairing btw) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gatos Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 oh thank you , I was just blind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmashBrown Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Looking forward to this getting another pass. KW is amazing, thanks for making it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
voidheart Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 Hi,Can anyone tell me (or point me to something describing) how to use the 'Interstage' parts? What are they for? I assume I can place cargo in them (like the petal adapter?) or are they more like inline fairings? I'm not sure how I should be placing them (they always want to overlap parts above above and below), how I should be attaching the payload or how it behave when working properly. Any information would be great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flow Posted January 17, 2015 Share Posted January 17, 2015 (edited) Edit: The problem I had seems to be something much more substantial, as there are also graphic glitches and all that. Bug doesn't seem to have much to do with KW Rocketry. Sorry for wasting your time Edited January 17, 2015 by Flow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lei07 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 (edited) Void: Interstage decouplers are just a different way of having stage seperators. Think of them as a hybrid between seperators and fairings. Normally you would just hide the engine of the next stage within them, but you could hide payloads in them sure.They are used in just the same manner as regular stage seperators, so make sure that they are placed on the most bottom node of the item that you are attaching it to, or the Kerbals will have an early firework night. Edited January 18, 2015 by Lei07 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamerboy67664 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/2448-0-16-KW-Rocketry-v0-5?highlight=SpaceplaneCan someone update the Ceres MPCV?I remember it as the first mod that I downloaded.Cheers, flamerboy67664/SpaceEagle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigaboom2 Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 I have a suggestion. Perhaps a lite version of this mod could be given a download link. This version would not include any of the parts that are supplied by an unmodified game. (Ex. parts that just have different textures, inter-stages, ect) This could reduce memory usage and clutter for those who choose to use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
problemecium Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 ^ If this motion passes, I suggest the "lite" version also not include fairings or interstages to make life simpler for people who want to use Procedural Fairings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Umlüx Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 good idea.but it is not that hard to do it yourself. just delete the fairing folders and all 1m, 2m files from fuel and engines folders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BudgetHedgehog Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I could be wrong, but wouldn't that just leave.. nothing? Stock already has batteries, fuel tanks, engines, RCS, nosecones, SRBs etc... What would be left if you do "not include any of the parts that are supplied by an unmodified game"? Apart from fairings and 5m parts I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigaboom2 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Most or all of the rocket engines would stay, as well as the adapters containing fuel, radial fuel tanks, radial SAS halves, andadapter inter-stages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
micheal rosen Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 if you update it (because maybe you wont need to) you should add 6.25m parts just for fun... i mean research. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts