griffin247 Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 is there a easy way of keeping track of updates on all the mods used by this ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadRocketsCo. Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 Here, finally got to the PC. I had the problem with the KSC being in a big hole. Well, it has gone worse. Once I go to a saved game, I only see the sky with Sun and Moon, no ground or buildings are there. Anyway, here is the output log: https://www.dropbox.com/s/7jogxjmqkcl9ljl/output_log.txt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted May 19, 2014 Author Share Posted May 19, 2014 Did you follow the FAQ in the wiki? Link in OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadRocketsCo. Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 Hmm, now that you mentioned, the problem is most likely with my RAM, although I do have Active Texture Managment installed. Well, anyways, I will look into it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pingopete Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 Make sure maxLevels is commented out anywhere it exists in your RSS.cfg file.You can decrease memory usage further (and increase performance) by setting terrain detail to default rather than high.Thanks this helped also removing a duplicate of the reflection plugin sorted most crashes. I've also been getting this strange half dark horizon, any clouds also get cut off beyond this edge? The horizon glow is also quite irregualr and has some weird dim, pollution'y hue to it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndreyATGB Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 The double horizon is because of the PQS fading, I'm pretty sure about that. I mentioned the unenven atmosphere earlier, I don't know why it's happening but it's visible from the surface as well. Seems to be higher on the side with the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrust Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 (edited) I fixed my biome map for Mars (hopefully no more biomes jumping), and made new one for Venus (15 biomes):https://www.dropbox.com/s/bjcoxfn6bg22y8r/mars_and_venus_biomes.zip(you need SpacedInvader's textures, 269 page of this thread) Edited May 19, 2014 by Thrust Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cagataypasa Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 I don't know if this happened to anyone else I looked for this bug and I couldn't find it. It was going well until I installed AIES and KAS. Then this happened(Look at "earth's" texture): . I tried uninstalling them and only installing one of them, nope... When I go to the game I can't see the planet or stars. I only see the sun as a star. I did the wrap = false thing but still doesn't work. Even though there is a lot of bugs this mod is awesome and it is annoying that I can't play it. (sorry for bad grammar) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacedInvader Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 So something about the fact that the Amazon basin is represented by grasslands interspersed with badlands in our current biome map for Earth just didn't sit right with me, so I went ahead and downloaded the WWF biome map:Ultimately there would be 17-20 biomes, depending on whether or not I end up including more than just a single ocean biome. Not sure when I'll get to this one though, as I'd really like to get back to working on some of the moons of Jupiter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuBisCO Posted May 19, 2014 Share Posted May 19, 2014 (edited) So I been playing with everything 10X sized, the sky is now black, things a little bouncy on the mun and worse when I quicksave and quickload with a Kerbal in EVA he freezes up and can't move anymore.-- had to go into the quick-save and respawn them in the ship. Edited May 20, 2014 by RuBisCO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starwaster Posted May 20, 2014 Share Posted May 20, 2014 So I been playing with everything 10X sized, the sky is now black, things a little bouncy on the mun and worse when I quicksave and quickload with a Kerbal in EVA he freezes up and can't move anymore.-- had to go into the quick-save and respawn them in the ship.The frozen Kerbal thing is a known issue. You need to update KSP. (same version; newer build number) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laggerd Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 I'm trying to use the 10x stock system config, but after the parts load on the yellow bar, then it goes to the other loading screen, the game just freezes. the regular solar system config works fine, and ive tried it with only RSS so im sure no mods are interfering. is the config just outdated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacedInvader Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 I'm trying to use the 10x stock system config, but after the parts load on the yellow bar, then it goes to the other loading screen, the game just freezes. the regular solar system config works fine, and ive tried it with only RSS so im sure no mods are interfering. is the config just outdated?Yes, but in a minor way... just read back through the last few pages to find a fix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted May 21, 2014 Author Share Posted May 21, 2014 Have a problem? Check the FAQ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted May 21, 2014 Author Share Posted May 21, 2014 Update news: I've finally got generation and caching of wrapped scaledspace meshes working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacedInvader Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Rocket building question:I know that I need ~9.0-9.5 km/s of delta-v to go from pad to orbit, the problem I've got right now is that, while both MJ and KER show how much atmospheric vs. vacuum delta-v each stage has, neither really do a good job of telling you how much of each is represented in that total requirement. I know I definitely don't need 9.5km/s of atmospheric delta-v as that leaves me with oodles left over once in orbit, but when I try looking for a ratio between the two, I'm often left without a clue as to what I'm going to have left over once in orbit. I'm sure there is all sorts of really fun math that I could use to figure this out, but I really don't have that much desire to break out a calculator, pencil, and paper for every rocket I design. Is there a rough rule of thumb for Earth orbit about how much of that delta-v should be of the atmospheric vs. vacuum?In addition to this question, does anyone know of a mod that would let you track your delta-v expenditure over the course of a mission through graphs / charts / tables? I'd really like to start building my rockets with better logic so they don't end up larger and more complex than necessary just because I'm hoisting so much extra fuel into orbit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted May 21, 2014 Author Share Posted May 21, 2014 (edited) 9.5km/sec includes nozzle and air-pressure losses. If you don't include that, you only need about 9km/sec.MechJeb does do that. Well, it gives you stats; you have to provide the graph.Open the custom window editor, create a new window (I called mine Ascent Stats, it's on the lower left). Add those values to it, noting that drag will only consider non-FAR objects; to get your actual drag once you've completed your ascent, take your expended delta-V and subtract from it your current surface velocity, gravity losses, steering losses, and stock-drag losses; the remainder will be FAR-drag losses. Edited May 21, 2014 by NathanKell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacedInvader Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 (edited) 9.5km/sec includes nozzle and air-pressure losses. If you don't include that, you only need about 9km/sec.MechJeb does do that. Well, it gives you stats; you have to provide the graph.http://i.imgur.com/bMziLO4l.jpgOpen the custom window editor, create a new window (I called mine Ascent Stats, it's on the lower left). Add those values to it, noting that drag will only consider non-FAR objects; to get your actual drag once you've completed your ascent, take your expended delta-V and subtract from it your current surface velocity, gravity losses, steering losses, and stock-drag losses; the remainder will be FAR-drag losses.Ok, but of that 9km/s how much is going to be represented by the atmospheric delta-v and how much by the vacuum? I know that its really going to be a shifting ratio as you get higher up, but is there a certain amount of DV that just has to be atmospheric vs the rest being vacuum? The reason I'm wanting this is because I'd like to start building launch vehicles that have roughly enough delta-v to get my payload onto a suborbital trajectory that will leave it about 500 DV to circularize. I feel like having this information is going to fit well with my current design regime of building a payload and then figuring out how to get it into orbit. At some point it will also help me in building generic lifters as it will give me the numbers I need to fuel them before launch.I'll put together that stats window so that will at least give me working information about what I'm using to get where, but I would still like to know how much atmospheric / surface delta-v I need to include before switching over to the vacuum delta-v stat for the rest of the vehicle.EDIT: In case there is some confusion here, I'm referring specifically to the atmospherics vs. vacuum delta-v numbers that are displayed by KER and MJ. Each of these numbers give the total for that type of flight, but I'm trying to figure where to switch from using one to the next. Edited May 21, 2014 by SpacedInvader Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted May 21, 2014 Author Share Posted May 21, 2014 (edited) I'm referring only to vacuum dV. I thought I was making that clear; 9.5km/sec vacuum dV will be enough to deal with nozzle and pressure losses.The problem here is that the amount of dV required is itself a function of drag losses, which vary greatly (Saturn V: 100m/s. A 10-ton rocket? Probably 500+m/s, especially if you have high TWR to limit gravity losses). Well, that's one problem. The other problem is that your Isp is a function of pressure, which varies with altitude, but your time at various altitudes is a function of TWR (which varies) and flight path. And, added to that, different engines have different ratios between sea level and vacuum Isp.Basically, you're *probably* safe in assuming you'll lose 2-400m/s to nozzle and pressure losses (aka firing engine in atmosphere), but that's greatly dependent on your ascent profile and how comparatively inefficient your first-stage engine is at sea level compared to vacuum (If you're using solid boosters, with little difference in SL and vacuum performance and a high TWR, you might be safe with only 100m/s; if you're using an L+ lower stage and a shallow ascent profile, closer to 400+).Basically, there's really complex and expensive software to model this sort of thing.The "good enough" Silverbird LV Performance calculator basically ignores that complexity, relying more on TWR. Edited May 21, 2014 by NathanKell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpacedInvader Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 I'm referring only to vacuum dV. I thought I was making that clear; 9.5km/sec vacuum dV will be enough to deal with nozzle and pressure losses.The problem here is that the amount of dV required is itself a function of drag losses, which vary greatly (Saturn V: 100m/s. A 10-ton rocket? Probably 500+m/s, especially if you have high TWR to limit gravity losses). Well, that's one problem. The other problem is that your Isp is a function of pressure, which varies with altitude, but your time at various altitudes is a function of TWR (which varies) and flight path. And, added to that, different engines have different ratios between sea level and vacuum Isp.Basically, you're *probably* safe in assuming you'll lose 2-400m/s to nozzle and pressure losses (aka firing engine in atmosphere), but that's greatly dependent on your ascent profile and how comparatively inefficient your first-stage engine is at sea level compared to vacuum (If you're using solid boosters, with little difference in SL and vacuum performance and a high TWR, you might be safe with only 100m/s; if you're using an L+ lower stage and a shallow ascent profile, closer to 400+).Basically, there's really complex and expensive software to model this sort of thing.The "good enough" Silverbird LV Performance calculator basically ignores that complexity, relying more on TWR.Ok, so I can safely ignore the atmospheric numbers as long as I make an accounting for the amount of performance I'm going to lose with my specific configuration, which is going to be something between 100ms and 500ms depending? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted May 21, 2014 Author Share Posted May 21, 2014 Pretty much. I mean, if you try launching with a U or U+ engine or something, you're gonna have a bad time. But the difference in SL and Vac Isp for even an L+ engine is not so severe (mostly because pressure falloff is exponential in atmosphere) that you're best lumping it in with "extra stuff to worry about" rather than trying to calculate some interpolation between vacuum and atmospheric dV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndreyATGB Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 White sun anyone?I just took the stock sunflare file and made it black and white, would be nice to make one that's more flare-y since it looks like small ball of light compared to the intense flare you see both with your eyes and cameras IRL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starwaster Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 White sun anyone?http://i.imgur.com/YGTSfIY.pngI just took the stock sunflare file and made it black and white, would be nice to make one that's more flare-y since it looks like small ball of light compared to the intense flare you see both with your eyes and cameras IRL.White hole sun, won't you come.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InneRs Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Add China's launch site please:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
regex Posted May 21, 2014 Share Posted May 21, 2014 Add China's launch site please:)Which one?Also, they'll be included in the next release, if the repo is any indication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts