HoneyFox Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 That's realism but to change it you'd have to change throttle in the cfgs, set it to 0 for all enginesNathan, then we no longer need the other gimbaling plugin? or we are supposed to use both now?Oops I've just implemented one for my own use... but it has some advantage of allowing single-axis vernier thrusters w/ roll control.I don't know if any other gimbal plugin has already supported that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Party Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 -snip- So wait, "throttle = 0" or "throttle = 0 //" ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted January 18, 2014 Author Share Posted January 18, 2014 (edited) m_robber: known issue with RT2 (check the thread). Cilph is working on a fix, and there's a user-made patched dll that (mostly) fixes the issue.brooklyn666: two weeks is a long time where KSP mods are concerned. In fact, I dare say all of them are out of date. Also, the RPL thread had some old versions for a while (especially the minipack, which has been pulled)...so you should deifnitely nuke anything that came from the pack, and redownload fresh; and check the readmes to see if the mod really is the most up-to-date version (RSS won't have changed, but RF and DRE were updated in the last week, and RftSEngines was updated *yesterday*).And thanks! I take it it *is* finally working now?Captain_Party: um, that's the *point* of Stockalike engine configs, as it says in the description right by the download: they don't change thrust. So, since even those massive 5m engines from NovaPunch only have like 3000 thrust or so max, well, that's as much as you'll get.At this point I *highly* encourage you to just use the Calcs spreadsheet (post #2 of RealFuels thread) and make your own configs. Then they will be exactly as you want them.EDIT: didn't notice next page.Captain_Party: Open search-replace. Put this in the "Find" box:throttle =Put this in the "Replace" box:throttle = 0 //HoneyFox: Ooh, cool! Will try it out. Edited January 18, 2014 by NathanKell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agathorn Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Oops I've just implemented one for my own use... but it has some advantage of allowing single-axis vernier thrusters w/ roll control.I don't know if any other gimbal plugin has already supported that.Is this to SIMULATE the existence of vernier thrusters? Or are the actual thrusters somehow added as a new part? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted January 18, 2014 Author Share Posted January 18, 2014 Well, FASA has Atlas verniers. And I've been using 24-77s as verniers (this is why in RftS they have a 20+ degree gimbal range). Could probably also use the LV-1R model as a vernier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Party Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Thanks so much Nathan. You are a credit to this game and it's modding community. Thanks so much for everything mate. Here, have some rep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agathorn Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 Well, FASA has Atlas verniers. And I've been using 24-77s as verniers (this is why in RftS they have a 20+ degree gimbal range). Could probably also use the LV-1R model as a vernier.Verniers were attached to the base of the stage though, not the engine right? So are they in KSP as an actual part that you attach to the side of the tank bottom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Party Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 They were attached at the very lip, just above the bottom of the fuel tank at a 45° angle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agathorn Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 So i'm curious what everyone's thoughts are on the detail vs performance trade off as I model these real engines. As an example, the RS27a that i'm working on right now:The "plumbing" so to speak up top is quite complex and difficult to figure out. But even if I could, it wouldn't be much more than a rat's nest of widgets inside KSP.Now obviously the larger pieces should be there. Like the gimbal armature, the pipes, and whatever those two tank looking things are on the top right (sorry I don't know the right terminology).But obviously the more detail I put in, the longer they take to make, and the more polygons they will have and thus you will need a stronger computer to handle them. Just getting a decent looking Bell nozzle and combustion chamber, i'm closing in on 2k polygons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted January 18, 2014 Author Share Posted January 18, 2014 For a vernier example:Captain_Party: Aw, thanks! :]Agathorn: I wouldn't go above, say, 20k for the part. Under that, who cares. And (for KSP!) it's much better to spend tris for detail than to spend normal map pixels; a 20k part with a 256x256 normal map is better for KSP than a 2k one with a 2048x2048. (As long as the collision mesh is low-poly!)Regarding what detail to add: I think you can get away with (in the RS-27A example) just modeling the two gold cylinders, the structural mounts, the rest you describe, and just making reasonably textured chunky turbopump assembly in the center. I think probably KW's engines are a decent level to shoot for, but if that's too much work, it's better to have the engine than not! That said I highly encourage you to create a dev thread in Addon-Dev forum so we can all ooh and ah and comment on your progress Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agathorn Posted January 18, 2014 Share Posted January 18, 2014 For a vernier example:Agathorn: I wouldn't go above, say, 20k for the part. Under that, who cares. And (for KSP!) it's much better to spend tris for detail than to spend normal map pixels; a 20k part with a 256x256 normal map is better for KSP than a 2k one with a 2048x2048. (As long as the collision mesh is low-poly!)Regarding what detail to add: I think you can get away with (in the RS-27A example) just modeling the two gold cylinders, the structural mounts, the rest you describe, and just making reasonably textured chunky turbopump assembly in the center. I think probably KW's engines are a decent level to shoot for, but if that's too much work, it's better to have the engine than not! That said I highly encourage you to create a dev thread in Addon-Dev forum so we can all ooh and ah and comment on your progress Thanks for the info. I don't want to hijack your thread, just needed some starting direction. I promise once I have something to actually show I will start a new thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted January 18, 2014 Author Share Posted January 18, 2014 No problem! I (and so many others I'm sure!) am *super* happy you're doing this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoneyFox Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Is this to SIMULATE the existence of vernier thrusters? Or are the actual thrusters somehow added as a new part?As a new part.What my plugin allows is to constrain these thrusters to have only one axis gimbal... so they won't rotate inwards/outwards. and allow them to rotate when roll command is given. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agathorn Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 No problem! I (and so many others I'm sure!) am *super* happy you're doing this! I've posted a new thread here:http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/66501-WIP-Real-Engine-Models Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_robber Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Hey NathanThanks for the previous advice - hadn't seen that remotetech had that issue. Could you tell me where I need to put the ExsurgentEngineering dll? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted January 19, 2014 Author Share Posted January 19, 2014 In GameData/ExsurgentEngineering/Plugins(since it's just a plugin, location shouldn't matter, but that's where B9 puts it...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armchair Rocket Scientist Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Hi,I've been trying to make a "Realistic Space Program" install. However, I would prefer to keep the stock 1.25m part sizing system and pod torque. Is there a way to do this? Also, is there a compatible RealFuels engine config, or would I have to make my own? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted January 19, 2014 Author Share Posted January 19, 2014 If you want *some* of what RO does--for example, battery and solar panel changes, heatshield changes, etc., then just delete what you don't want, and for things where you want some of the changes (pods) comment out the rescaleFactor lines and the @MODULE[ModuleReactionWheel] stuff.If you don't want any of RO, um, don't use RO.For engines, what you probably want is the Stockalike config from Post 2 of RF thread. Make sure you delete any other engine config (like the folder GameData/SFJBRealEngines, which appears after installing RO). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Party Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 Hey Nathan, I've upped the RT2 Range up to x10, but what dish should I use for going to Mars? Just the standard Communotron 88-88 (600.00GM)? Or the Reflectron AR-14(900.00GM)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junkie_business Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 (edited) First of all, this is a great mod. I jumped straight into (a slightly tweaked) career mode, and I'm really paying for it. :/Anyway I'm just wondering if the line of present orbit (the blue one) is supposed to be visible through the planet? Pic: http://imgur.com/LLiRHh4If it is intentional, uh, how can I turn it back? Thanks for the mod,David Edited January 20, 2014 by junkie_business Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AbeS Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 It is RSS related, but I would bet it is a stock bug that is revealed while using RSS. I don't think there's a way to fix that yet (Sometimes it hides if you zoom in) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted January 20, 2014 Author Share Posted January 20, 2014 There is, I think; I think it's determined by lowerCameraVsSmaDistance (and upperCa....). I have to try out different values to find what's right.Though AbeS is right it's a known issue in the current build of RSS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junkie_business Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Thanks guys. Also I'm a big fan of the FASA mod so I got the RO FASA patch. The Gemini Titan (the one without the SRBs) won't reach orbit. Nor will Mercury. Also the upper tank of the first stage of the Gemini Titan isn't resized. Am I missing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted January 20, 2014 Author Share Posted January 20, 2014 Redownload FASA patch from 2nd post. There was a slight issue with the mixtures, you'd have to fly an even more optimal ascent than usual.Here's a craft file for you too: https://www.dropbox.com/s/7dqv6vyko7hiyui/Gemini-Titan%20II%20GLV.craftAnyway, I just verified that I can get into a 510x170 orbit with, oh, probably 100m/s left in the upper stage. I flew this ascent in MJ: orbital height 500km, ascent path: start 1.3km, end 120km, end 0 degrees, shape 45. Stage at first stage burnout; MJ will shut off the engine. Stage to separate Gemini, then use RCS to tweak orbit as desired.Remember, Titan II was *barely* enough to launch Gemini; that's why, among other reasons, they went with ejection seats rather than an LES--no mass budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agathorn Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 "Sorry guys but we can't afford the weight of a real escape system, so if anything goes wrong your'e going to have to, um, well, jump" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts