Jump to content

[1.2] Real Solar System v12.0 Dec 8

NathanKell

By NathanKell
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

NathanKell

NathanKell

Posted
  • Author
Posted

For Woomera, I had trouble with the mapdecal. So leave it unchanged (i.e. leave it at the Cape), but use this for the PQSCity:

latitude = -30.9711
longitude = 136.4763
repositionRadiusOffset = 1
repositionToSphereSurface = true

(add that last one).

You can try something similar with the other site.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Agathorn

Agathorn

Posted
Posted
For Woomera, I had trouble with the mapdecal. So leave it unchanged (i.e. leave it at the Cape), but use this for the PQSCity:

latitude = -30.9711
longitude = 136.4763
repositionRadiusOffset = 1
repositionToSphereSurface = true

(add that last one).

You can try something similar with the other site.

Does that last bit automagically put in on the surface?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NathanKell

NathanKell

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Yes.

Also, no idea about clamps yet, other than what I assume is going on is that we're now on the "graphical surface is lower than actual groundheight" part of the world rather than "graphical surface is higher than actual groundheight" part we were on before.

My usual 2D analogy. Think of a circle. Now approximate it with a polygon. The vertices will be outside the circle, and the sides will spend part of their time inside the circle. Only at very few points will the circle and the polygon intersect. That's what's happening here. The real ground height is the circle, but since PQS is obviously inexact, the polygon is the mesh you see. Since the planet is so much bigger, but resolution is not much better, you get more difference between groundheight and visuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Agathorn

Agathorn

Posted
Posted

It isn't a huge deal for me right now. I'm just launching my rockets with landing gear :D

That makes sense though. I did notice that parts do not seem to be sitting down inside the terrain on the launchpad anymore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wallenberg

Wallenberg

Posted
Posted (edited)

Just tried the new pre6 (with massively downgraded graphics settings though, since my rig is old) and I must say great job again, Nathan.

For those interested to place their launchpad to the exact location of the Militäraeronautische Anstalt Fischamend (military aeronautic institute) that existed in the 1910s next to Vienna, capital of Austria...

Note the repositionRadiusOffset of 575, while Fischamend is - roughly - located 600m above sea level. Are these figures correlating just by coincidence?

				PQSCity
				{
					KEYname = KSC
					//repositionRadial = 158200.0, -220.0, -570000.0
					latitude = [COLOR="#B22222"][B]48.099693[/B][/COLOR] //28.608389
					longitude = [COLOR="#B22222"][B]16.630025[/B][/COLOR] //-80.604333
					repositionRadiusOffset = [COLOR="#B22222"][B]575[/B][/COLOR] //1 //53 //42.7000007629395
					[B][COLOR="#B22222"]repositionToSphereSurface = true[/COLOR][/B]
					lodvisibleRangeMult = 6

				}
				PQSMod_MapDecalTangent
				{
					//radius = 79637.5
					radius = 10000 // KSP: 7500
					heightMapDeformity = 80 // was 75
					absoluteOffset =[COLOR="#B22222"][B] 575[/B][/COLOR] // 0
					absolute = true
					latitude = [COLOR="#B22222"][B]48.099693[/B][/COLOR] //28.608389
					longitude = [COLOR="#B22222"][B]16.630025[/B][/COLOR] //-80.604333
				}

Edited by Wallenberg
bolds and colours mine, typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wallenberg

Wallenberg

Posted
Posted
[...]

Wallenberg: Thanks! :)

It's hopefully *not* a coincidence--I've been trying hard to match real-world terrain heights. :)

I'm sorry to disappoint you then - I just rechecked and found out that Vienna Int'l (LOWW) is at 183 m above MSL. This is about 5 km from the pre-WWI airfield I mentioned in the above post, it can't be any higher than 250 m. The 600 metres was based on my memory mistaking it. But still very close for a modded world map!

Do you know what repositionRadiusOffset references to? Sea level? Or some sea floor terrain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NathanKell

NathanKell

Posted
  • Author
Posted

AbeS: Ah. Thanks!

Captain Party: Is that a pic of Woomera, using what I suggested?

Wallenberg: Ah, well. I'll Have to lower it then.

repositionRadiusOffset does different things depending on whether repositionToSphereSurface is true or false. If false, it's an offset from sea level. If true, it's an offset from the terrain at that spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wallenberg

Wallenberg

Posted
Posted
[...]

Wallenberg: Ah, well. I'll Have to lower it then.

repositionRadiusOffset does different things depending on whether repositionToSphereSurface is true or false. If false, it's an offset from sea level. If true, it's an offset from the terrain at that spot.

I see. Well, I would not bother too much. Since I don't live too far from the alps peaking 3800 m ASL, heightmaps would have to be tediously dissected to get rid of the spoilt averages. At least I imagine this could be the reason terrain is a bit too high in a flatland next to mountains.

Anyway, great work it is, and I'm looking forward to yet another new savegame, this time launching from insane 48° latitude...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwaster

Starwaster

Posted
Posted
Hey folks,

I know that a black sky in daytime is a fairly normal problem with this mod. But many of you posting pictures have a working sky. Is there something I can do to get my sky working?

Cheers!

Sounds like you don't have the very latest version.... at least I think that was only happening right after the move to 0.23 .... and then it stopped for me. I don't remember doing anything special, just downloaded the latest version one day and my sky was back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Deathsoul097

Deathsoul097

Posted
Posted

So is the moon still crazily inclined, or has it been moved to the equator?

I had an idea to get around the axial tilt of earth. Instead of trying to tilt earth, we should tilt it's orbit. Then everything inside it's SOI will match up with RL. (Unfortunately, this means everything outside it's SOI will be screwed up, but I guess that's the choice we have to make, until squad or the unity devs change something.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AndreyATGB

AndreyATGB

Posted
Posted (edited)
So is the moon still crazily inclined, or has it been moved to the equator?

I had an idea to get around the axial tilt of earth. Instead of trying to tilt earth, we should tilt it's orbit. Then everything inside it's SOI will match up with RL. (Unfortunately, this means everything outside it's SOI will be screwed up, but I guess that's the choice we have to make, until squad or the unity devs change something.)

Well tilting everything in the solar system then balances it out, you can try doing that yourself, the config files are extremely easy to read and change. But keep in mind stuff like Uranus isn't in a polar orbit around the sun and Venus isn't retrograde. This solution would work for normal circumstances but not for these planets.

To answer your question, yes it is. In 6.0 KSC is also the real KSC so you're launching 20 degree orbits. This means a 200m/s inclination change for a moon encounter.

Edited by AndreyATGB
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ralathon

Ralathon

Posted
Posted

For those among us who want to enjoy the collision box fixes and higher quality terrain, but aren't interested in the real solar system or the transition from Kerbin to Earth. Here's the 10x config I've cooked up.

It used the new terrain features etc, but scales the planets by a factor 10 (both in SMA and radius) and keep Kerbin the same as it always looked.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/n8y6oasa4tx3kj5/RealSolarSystem.cfg

It's made for the 6.0 prerelease v1 and it allows you to get rid of the big heightmaps and normal maps in the Plugins folder of RSS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gleedadswell

gleedadswell

Posted
Posted
Sounds like you don't have the very latest version.... at least I think that was only happening right after the move to 0.23 .... and then it stopped for me. I don't remember doing anything special, just downloaded the latest version one day and my sky was back.

Hooray!

You can't take the sky from me... (yeah, like that's an original joke on this thread...)

Yes, I grabbed this mod very shortly after 0.23 came out and didn't realize there was a new version to fix things that 0.23 broke. Nice to have a sky!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
gleedadswell

gleedadswell

Posted
Posted

Known bugs:

...

*Launch Clamps have issues. Make your own using radial decouplers, or place a stack decoupler under the bottom of your rocket and ring it with trusses.

...

What is the nature of these issues? I haven't noticed anything terribly wrong except that if I use a lot of clamps (like, 8) I get a terrible lag when I launch, but the lag eventually resolves itself. But I get the same sort of lag if I have a lot of radial decouplers that all have to stage at the same time, such as when I'm dropping a bunch of small SRBs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
asmi

asmi

Posted
Posted
To answer your question, yes it is. In 6.0 KSC is also the real KSC so you're launching 20 degree orbits. This means a 200m/s inclination change for a moon encounter.

There is no need to plane change. just proper timing. I've launched a mission from Baikonur (220x220x45.9° orbit) and then went for direct intercept from the line of nodes (that guarantees that you intercept orbit, and with right timing the Moon itself). Once you near apogee, you can do whatever plane change you need to aim for landing (in case of free-return-like trajectory) for just few tens of a deltaV since your orbital velocity is really low.

For GSO sats (I use RemoteTech) I use three burn profile similar to what is used in real life (check here on page 2: http://www.ilslaunch.com/sites/default/files/pdf/TURKSAT-4A%20Mission%20Overview%20final.pdf ). My GSO sats require to have about 2400 m/s of deltaV as they complete GSO insertion and plane change at the same time.

1. LV delivers orbital unit (space tug + satellite) to suborbital trajectory (-10x220x45.9°)

2. First burn completes orbital insertion (220x220x45.9°)

3. Then at equatorial node (either AN or DN depending on target GSO position, I use MJ to find these nodes - "Time to equatorial A[D]N") I do second burn (220x35875x45.9°). This way apogee will be exactly above equator.

4. Unlike a real life, I separate my comsat at that point and later dispose of the tug via small burn at apogee.

5. At apogee I do a circularization burn combined with inclination change (total dv is about 2250 m/s) - I use excel spreadsheet (essentially vis-viva equation plus cosine theorem) to calculate direction of that burn at exact dV as function of transfer orbit and then stuff numbers into RemoteTech flight computer.

I use RT's flight computer to pre-program that whole sequence so that I could turn off antennas to save electricity right after completing orbital insertion, and re-enable them once the sequence is executed to fine-tune final orbit - that mostly involves fine-tuning orbital period so that it would be exactly 23h56m4.09s - my comsats have small amount of RCS for that since it's hard to get it right using main engine only.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
AndreyATGB

AndreyATGB

Posted
Posted

Yeah I meant a "go for it" moon encounter. It's surely possible to wait for the moon to get on one of the nodes, besides its SOI is gigantic anyway. Also, you can use MJ's limit acceleration option to get ridiculously low thrust from any engine. It's kinda cheating but useful if you forget some ion engines. It might not even work with some of the realism focused mods, I don't know if any recommended mods fix engine thrust so they can't go from 0 to 100%.

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