AbeS Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 It has a stretch limit in career mode, you can expand it further by unlocking later techs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_robber Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 But the 9000 doesn't seem to stretch in any way at all - it's completely inert. I also can't set the fuel for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_robber Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 Ok, problem solved - reinstalled the mod and now they seem to be working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cardgame Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) Redacted - new 8.1 release being tried now to see if it fixes my issues.8.1 Has fixed everything, new SRBs are glorious. Edited January 9, 2014 by cardgame Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratzap Posted January 9, 2014 Share Posted January 9, 2014 I've noticed a problem with 8.1 and KIDS. I have KIDS set to 'Stock KSP' -> Thrust varies with Isp and the Isp cutoff at 351. Any atmosphere SSRB I ignite gives around 50kN instead of the full rating which it should at sea level. 8.0 worked fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rybec Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 I think I may be having a strange issue:I have a pair of .5m stretchy tanks on the sides of a Mun lander, with fuel pipes leading to them from a tank in the main stack. I flew it out to the Mun on top of a larger craft without issue, established orbit, and exited the game.I reload the scene and for about 20 seconds or so everything is fine, and then suddenly one of the tanks shoots outwards. It is still connected to the craft (fuel line still goes to it) and causes it to undergo strange accelerations. Every few seconds it suddenly jumps further out.I am uncertain if this has anything to do with the mod or not; it could just be normal KSP hijinks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted January 12, 2014 Author Share Posted January 12, 2014 What other mods are you using? MFT / RF used to do this; taniwha fixed it (if you have MFT or RF, is it the latest?). But maybe Stretchy is also just doing it itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatcargo Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 (edited) IDEASSymmetrical cross-section tanksFor now, tanks come as round, but why not have tanks and fuselages with 3,4,6 or 8-sided cross-sectional area ?EDIT : polygonal cross-section to snap other parts on flat surface.Xenon fuelPlease add Xenon Fuel resource to available fuels. I admit i did not yet try to build ion-powered crafts of any size, but stock tanks look a little puny to me.Size PresetsAdd Size presets to parts to match stock parts (or more, as author sees it fit). Presets could be called with hotkey or GUI window that can be shrinked to single icon.Toroidal geometryYes i know there are toroidal tanks, but may i suggest a new twist : besides having editable main radius and cross-section radius, also add arc length. This would allow creation of "pie-slice" parts or plumbing-like knee-joint parts. Ofcourse these would also have polygonal cross-section variant.Axial Alignement MarkersBy adding a small marker ring line at arbitrary point along part's main axis, builders can add part that snap EXACTLY to same position, without using SPH/VAB symmetry.Radial Alignement MarkersSimilar to the above, just for radial placement. Radial markers stretch along the entire main axis of part. Most useful if combined with above Axial Alignement Marker to create exact mount points, this means that when both marker options are combined, there are no marker lines anymore, only points. Any reasonable number is acceptable. ExampleAll above options should be mixed to maximize variety. Think of hex-shaped 3/4 arc torodial fuselage with mounting markers at several points. Good for weird-looking space-stations, vehicles and other special purposes.Possible bugAlso pay attention to potential bug when trying to use markers on polygon cross-section part, example 7 radial markers on 6-sided surface. It could be fixed by forcing marker radial count to match polygon symmetry count. In this case using radial markers has two consequences:- mount point can be created at any point where flat section of polygon is marked with axial marker line - or by activating radial marker with forced symmetry, thus cerating a mount point at exactly middle of flat section of polygonAlignement Marker Placement Modes : Free and SpreadAlignement Markers could be arbitrarily placed along their respective axes or they could follow a even-spread symmetry. Yes this is a duplicate of KSP editor symmetry, but this woul`d work on toroidal parts. Example : along their main axis (which is not a straight line). Edited January 12, 2014 by fatcargo more ideas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cardgame Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 Yeah, if we could get a sort of grid guideline to 'snap to' when adjusting sizes that would be fantastic. I'm thinking specifically about the adjustable-width tank and SRBs. The top and bottom don't scale identically; one can achieve .125m precision easily, the other varies far too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratzap Posted January 12, 2014 Share Posted January 12, 2014 What other mods are you using? MFT / RF used to do this; taniwha fixed it (if you have MFT or RF, is it the latest?). But maybe Stretchy is also just doing it itself.Who are you replying to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted January 12, 2014 Author Share Posted January 12, 2014 Ratzap: sorry, I missed your post at the bottom of the previous page. I was replying to Rybec, the post immediately above mine (hence why I thought I didn't need to call out to whom I was responding).As for you and KIDS...yeah, it's definitely an issue. KIDS sees the original thrust of the engine from the cfg, not the procedural thrust it's set to. Try flying without thrust correction, see if that fixes it. If not, either I need to add some extra stuff for KIDS compatibility or Ferram needs to apply his KIDS changes *after* onStart finishes for each PartModule, *and* not rely on module pointers for knowing what's correct and what's not.Regarding fixed-measurements GUI. Two very kind contributors, swamp_ig and cbjamo, have both expressed an interest in adding that. So it's hopefully coming in the not-too-distant future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ratzap Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 As for you and KIDS...yeah, it's definitely an issue. KIDS sees the original thrust of the engine from the cfg, not the procedural thrust it's set to. Try flying without thrust correction, see if that fixes it. If not, either I need to add some extra stuff for KIDS compatibility or Ferram needs to apply his KIDS changes *after* onStart finishes for each PartModule, *and* not rely on module pointers for knowing what's correct and what's not.I reverted to 0.8 and it seems to be working. Might be worth crossposting your reply to his thread if I remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 So im trying to use the conic tank as an adapter that widens down to a larger SRB. .. How do I link the two tank together? I changed the conic tank's fuel to solid, but on start up it magically obtains Liquid and Oxy along with solid fuel. And it doesn't drain into the lower SRB. Now.. I haven't tried this with liquid fuel yet, but is cross-feed capability not possible with solid fuel or am I doing something wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbeS Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Do you have the latest version? I think that was fixed IIRC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Do you have the latest version? I think that was fixed IIRCReinstalled. Now there is no solid fuel to choose. Instead its structural fuselage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbeS Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 weird, would you mind installing MFT and see if that works?And I have my doubts about what you are trying to do. I don't think solid fuel can be transferred, at least it shouldn't. but this is KSP, so I'm not sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted January 13, 2014 Author Share Posted January 13, 2014 Motokid600: since SRBs won't eat fuel outside their own part AFAIK, there's really no point in making other solid fuel tanks. Thus swamp_ig removed the ability to set non-SRB stretchies to solidfuel mode, and instead added structural tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Motokid600 Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 (edited) Oh, I see.. I was just thinking you could stack the tanks and add the fuel total like you can with liquid. O well.. I guess the adapter is all I really needed. Made for a nice Mun rocket. I do wish the nozzle on the end of the stretchy SRB was less pronounced. Edited January 13, 2014 by Motokid600 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoneyFox Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Motokid600: since SRBs won't eat fuel outside their own part AFAIK, there's really no point in making other solid fuel tanks. Thus swamp_ig removed the ability to set non-SRB stretchies to solidfuel mode, and instead added structural tanks.I'm thinking if we can give an alternative SRB part with TVC capability, but it needs an additional resource like N2O4 to make TVC gimbal work, just like the one on Titan III C's...Nah, ModuleGimbal doesn't seem to have capability to consume any resource. whatever... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted January 13, 2014 Author Share Posted January 13, 2014 Well, ModuleGimbal stinks and we should all use replacements anyway. There *are* other methods for TVC, I believe, though I don't recall offhand what they are. Currently both SRBs have *tiny* gimbals (well, the sea-level one has a decent degree or so), though you're right it'd be better if there were alternatives and you had to pay some cost for gimbaling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoneyFox Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 (edited) Well, ModuleGimbal stinks and we should all use replacements anyway. There *are* other methods for TVC, I believe, though I don't recall offhand what they are. Currently both SRBs have *tiny* gimbals (well, the sea-level one has a decent degree or so), though you're right it'd be better if there were alternatives and you had to pay some cost for gimbaling.I've tried some other gimbal module, "SmartGimbal" IIRC... but i was quite disappointed to its performance on one of my design that resemble Ares I (yes, i was using that 1:1 replica shuttle solid booster mod). The gimbal strangely turned quite a lot when i was giving roll channel input. I wonder if it's because there's slight error of the x/z coordinate of the thrust transform, that leads the SmartGimbal to turn quite a big angle just to generate slight roll moment, while at the same time making the rocket to pitch/yaw wildly.I would hope that a gimbal module can provide three tweakable coefficients for each axis, so that you can set to 0 if you don't want it. Or even negative value if you want to invert that. Edited January 13, 2014 by HoneyFox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiraiyah Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 guys I have an issue with stretchy tanks, when i hold f, it reduces the size to some amount but no matter how many times i tried, it won't go above the size it's originally is, also all the tanks are half of the normal pod in radius, I'm not sure if these are mented to be like this or not because i can see in pictures that people make tanks bigger in radial size so what's going on? by the way I have lots of mods installed but i don't think any of them should affect this, because if it was other mods affecting, then why would the thanks go lower on radius but not higher?thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted January 13, 2014 Author Share Posted January 13, 2014 HoneyFox: SmarterGimbal (the one in Exsurgent Engineering, right?) has broken roll control. careo is fixing it. For now try dtobi's KM_GimbalJiraiyah: you're playing in career mode. You need to unlock more rocketry nodes to have access to larger-radius tanks. There's a max radius for each node, and it starts quite low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goozeman Posted January 13, 2014 Share Posted January 13, 2014 Well, ModuleGimbal stinks and we should all use replacements anyway. There *are* other methods for TVC, I believe, though I don't recall offhand what they are. Currently both SRBs have *tiny* gimbals (well, the sea-level one has a decent degree or so), though you're right it'd be better if there were alternatives and you had to pay some cost for gimbaling.Some SRBs have flexible seals which allow the nozzle to pivot, I believe typically somewhere in the neighborhood of 10*, though I'm sure you could do more or less as necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiraiyah Posted January 14, 2014 Share Posted January 14, 2014 Jiraiyah: you're playing in career mode. You need to unlock more rocketry nodes to have access to larger-radius tanks. There's a max radius for each node, and it starts quite low.Woot, thanks man, that makes it more realistic and more interesting, more balanced, thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts