Jump to content

[1.2] Real Solar System v12.0 Dec 8

NathanKell

By NathanKell
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

Starwaster

Starwaster

Posted
Posted (edited)
Yep, tab-opolis here too.

Starwaster: The only change I see in that source file you posted is the reversion of the typos you yourself found (I should be changing node, not pNode). Did you mean to change anything in the source?

I thought there was another change I made in there.... but I just realized while reading your message that the file I put in my drop box isn't the latest file. I'll fix that in just a sec...

The config node typo ensures that the RSS powerCurve gets put in the module and not in the part itself. (I probably should have seen that happening before but it's hard to read everything in the debug screen)

BUT. There is another change and that's to the powerCurve keys in the RSS settings file. When you were walking over the parts and replacing the powerCurve in solar panel module it's not loading the keys in properly. The original fix I put out worked ok by converting the first set of parameters to exp notation. I don't know why that wasn't enough when RSS loaded the keys in itself. I had to convert the second set of parameters too and that apparently fixed it. floatCurve.Load() seems to have problems that the config manager does not.... oh and it doesn't like comments in the powerCurve keys either so I got rid of those.

Edit: Ok, just double checked and the only other change I made was some now-unnecessary debugging stuff. It's not important. Just fixed the typos, converted all key values into exponential notation and removed the comments. And also put back in the 3rd and 4th parameters since I had no idea at that point what was going on and didn't know if those values missing were maybe causing this somehow.

So, summary on the settings file is that powerCurve.Load() doesn't like comments and for some reason was misinterpreting keys/values if they weren't all in exp notation (if the range key was too high?)

Edited by Starwaster
Link to comment
Share on other sites
White Owl

White Owl

Posted
Posted (edited)
This is great stuff. I just got the second iteration of 6.4:1 Kerbin up and running. Took roughly 7km/s to get to orbit with FAR, everything feels right so far (although the 2.2km/s to get to the Mun is a bit scary, lol). Again, thanks for all the hard work!

Here I was thinking about doing exactly this, and you've already started the project. Cool! :)

Edit again: Ah okay, I read back a few pages and see you're redoing the whole system. Nifty.

Edited by White Owl
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted

Sorry to ask this again but i got no reply. Has anyone noticed odd rover behavior in RSS? I have sent rovers to moon, Mars and Venus, all of them seem to "slide" slightly like they are on ice and tend to "flip and tumble" ramdomly like they have hit ridges although the terrain looks very smooth....how is this fixed if it can be...or is it just me???

If NathanKell could reply on this matter i would greatly appreciate it

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NathanKell

NathanKell

Posted
  • Author
Posted

KSC should be UT -5hrs, assuming that Kerbin's time zones track ours (KSC would be halfway along the Ecuador-Colombia border, basically). I haven't actually set Kerbin's initial rotation yet to match up so 0 days 12hrs has the sun right over the prime meridian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwaster

Starwaster

Posted
Posted

atmosphere isnt displaying properly in 0.23.....

havent actually tried 0.23 stock though. lol.

so I dont know yet if there's stock atmo changes the rest of you are aware of that I should already know about.

(very busy day, just had time to glance at it and not much more)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwaster

Starwaster

Posted
Posted
I just tried without Kethane. Still no sky! THEY TOOK THE SKY FROM ME!

Never!!!! they cant take the sky from us!

in fact, it's still there from what I can tell.... maybe the shading got altered or the shell isnt scaling high enough

Link to comment
Share on other sites
regex

regex

Posted
Posted
Here I was thinking about doing exactly this, and you've already started the project. Cool! :)

Edit again: Ah okay, I read back a few pages and see you're redoing the whole system. Nifty.

Yeah, I just have to tie up a few loose ends on the latest PreciseNode build and I'll be back to playing with this. I could probably put up a download link tonight or tomorrow for "v1"; I'll let NathanKell know when I do so it shows up on the front page. :) It'll also be packaged with the spreadsheet I used to generate it, so you can make 10:1 Kerbin, or 5:1 Kerbin, or whatever.

Funny thing about 6.4:1 Kerbin: It's actually harder to get to Moho than it is to get to RSS Mercury (if the Atomic Rockets site has the correct delta-V). The thing is that if you scale up Kerbol by 6.4 it ends up being bigger than our own sun, so I used our Sun's stats. This means that Moho is actually closer to Kerbol than Mercury is to the Sun; you're looking at some 5km/s for transfer and over 15km/s for braking. It's downright murderous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Camacha

Camacha

Posted
Posted
Camacha: what's wrong with inclined orbit snow? Or do you mean axial tilt?

Um, yes, I could have been clearer. I meant proper axial tilt, returning the inclinations to how they should be/actually are/look like in models/whatever you call it.

I understood it was something small at the Squad side that could make this possible, so I was wondering whether any headway was made and if Squad is actually planning to make this possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jsimmons

jsimmons

Posted
Posted

Since people keep asking for a config for a scaled up kerbal system (10x) so I worked out the settings. First I found the planets were actually quite under wieght as well as being small so the densities actually work out to realistic values. Kerbol's mass was scaled up since the default mass is to small to actually create a fusion reaction for a star. The size is the same as our Sun but that can be changed without affection to much right now. Down the road that might affect angualr momentum converstaion in the systenm but for now we can ignore. Don't know what do about tilt values. Using kelpers 3rd law I filled in the new ortibal periods of the planets and moons as they would be in real life if the kerbal system existed. The big difference you will noticed is for the tidally locked moons of Jool. The longs orbit/rotation is now 33 days is you can end up in the dark for many days so prepare your batteries.

As for the rotation periods their is no standard formula for that. The best you can do work out the conservation of angular momentum for planet moon systems. You will noticed the planets without natural satellites have very long rotations since they don't have a lot of excess energy. The closer the moon the shorter the period of rotation of the planet. So the 6 hour period for kerbal is not unreasonable. With that amount of energy in the kerbin mun system I would imagine lots of tectonic plate action of earthquakes, volcanoes, and pretty intense tides.

http://www.infradead.org/~jsimmons/RealSolarSystem.cfg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Camacha

Camacha

Posted
Posted

So I downloaded this lovely program and immediately fell in love with it. However, I am also considering playing my 0.23 install with the RSS mod. Of course TOT is useless with completely different planets and orbits, so I was wondering whether something like that existed for RSS. Are the orbits actually accurate enough to use NASA/ESA planning software? I see that these things require a high degree of accuracy and I am worried that the KSP RSS model does not have that for various reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwaster

Starwaster

Posted
Posted
So I downloaded this lovely program and immediately fell in love with it. However, I am also considering playing my 0.23 install with the RSS mod. Of course TOT is useless with completely different planets and orbits, so I was wondering whether something like that existed for RSS. Are the orbits actually accurate enough to use NASA/ESA planning software? I see that these things require a high degree of accuracy and I am worried that the KSP RSS model does not have that for various reasons.

They 'should' be, for varying values of 'should'.

Also, it was mentioned that Kerbin's rotation is wrong for the 1950 epoch and that Nathan will fix that later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Camacha

Camacha

Posted
Posted
They 'should' be, for varying values of 'should'.

Can I translate that as yes, you can use NASA/ESA software without the craft ending up in all the wrong places, or maybe more importantly, somewhat wrong places that make all the difference? That is pretty neat.

Luckily I can justify part of this time sponge, as I find this analysis and planning business is really helping me along doing the same for my projects in the real world. Doing it in a somewhat confined situation first helps when trying to apply it to the unconfined real world.

Also, it was mentioned that Kerbin's rotation is wrong for the 1950 epoch and that Nathan will fix that later.

Hmm, that might complicate things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AbeS

AbeS

Posted
Posted

It isn't really wrong, Kerbin does not have the same continents as Earth yet. So he will just adjust it so that Year 1 day 1 12:00:00 is 12:00 PM in KSC, or that's what I understood

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NathanKell

NathanKell

Posted
  • Author
Posted

metaphor: freakin' amazing, as always!

Camacha: find that person's original project, whence s/he derived Kerbal TOT: it was originally for Orbiter. :)

Ah: http://orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=19682

Yes, you should be able to use real planning software, just remember that as of RSS v5.3, KSP year 0 is 1950.

EDIT: CRAP, KSP starts at Year 1, right. That's 1950. Guess I should change it to epoch 1951 or something so the math works better :(

Wish we could just change the display...hmm.

Note that Kerbin's rotation shouldn't matter; it's only rotation on its axis that's off, not rotation around the sun. It just means you might have to complete another quarter of a parking orbit or something.

AbeS: Basically, although as above since KSC is at 74d West, midnight at KSC will occur at 5am UTC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...