mostlydave Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Okay, so I tried out phase II. Absolutely beautiful! I love the amount of detail that you have put into these parts. A small issue however, I took up a Habitation Module, and I didn't have very much fuel left after getting into a ~100x100 km orbit. This poses a problem as there are heavier parts than just the habitation module. I launched the KSO in the standard Space Shuttle configuration, using a fuel-optimal ascent, and I barely had enough delta-v to get back, even when using all of my RCS Monoprop. I managed to land eventually, albeit in the middle of nowhere. Some way of increasing the KSO's delta-v needs to be implemented, otherwise we would all simply have lots of Shuttles stuck in orbit.Aside from this matter, the rest of the pack is absolutely beautiful. I love each and every part of it. This truly is one of the greatest mods for KSP.I think 100km is too high for the orbiter. I plan on launching my station parts to 75km for assembly and then boosting the whole station to a higher orbit with a modified SST, an orbiter loaded with fuel or a purpose built module. I also plan on launching a power module + fuel module with some solar panels as my first station piece, that way I can always top off a shuttle if need be, or deposit some of its extra fuel instead of venting it into space. I also think it makes sense for the first part to be the one that powers all the rest.I was able to install and check out the parts for a few minutes this morning, this is going to be the longest day of work ever! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bomoo Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 (edited) Man, this is not hard to control. I consider myself a total dunce when it comes to spaceplanes, and I can consistently land it at the KSC.Also a PSA: the blank KSO skin does not appear to be compatible with the new redesigned payload bay. Leaves a square black patch in the middle of it, left over from the removal of the hatch that was in that position previously. So if you don't mind that, I suppose the blank skin still does work well enough for the externals. Edited March 21, 2014 by Bomoo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiwiak Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 I tested it a bit.New parts are very good - but its a pity that they are 1,25 m size. I woudl like to see them in some separate pack rescaled to 2,5 m.Really.And about dome IVA, i think cameras obscure view too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Cox Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Okay, so I tried out phase II. Absolutely beautiful! I love the amount of detail that you have put into these parts. A small issue however, I took up a Habitation Module, and I didn't have very much fuel left after getting into a ~100x100 km orbit. This poses a problem as there are heavier parts than just the habitation module. I launched the KSO in the standard Space Shuttle configuration, using a fuel-optimal ascent, and I barely had enough delta-v to get back, even when using all of my RCS Monoprop. I managed to land eventually, albeit in the middle of nowhere. Some way of increasing the KSO's delta-v needs to be implemented, otherwise we would all simply have lots of Shuttles stuck in orbit.Aside from this matter, the rest of the pack is absolutely beautiful. I love each and every part of it. This truly is one of the greatest mods for KSP.I'm seeing a similar issue. I tried putting the KSO into a 75km orbit with just an extended duration (extra fuel) module. MECO occurred at 63km due to the ET running dry. I immediately disabled the SSME's, dumped the ET and kicked on the OMS which was able to boost my orbit to 65km before I hit apoapsis and started descending. The OMS' TWR was too low to boost her into orbit from that altitude and kicking the SSME's back on burned through just about all of my fuel which negated the benefit of the extra fuel.I'm just wondering if the engine efficiency was tweaked a bit for Phase II, because with Phase I, I was able to put a payload that weighed a couple tons into a 250km orbit and land with just a bit of fuel remaining in the tanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virtualgenius Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Anyone having problems with the 6 way connector cant get it to connect to anything Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nazari1382 Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 (edited) Delivery of the observation module to the initial version of my station:Javascript is disabled. View full albumAnyone having problems with the 6 way connector cant get it to connect to anything Because of the node system hub parts can have odd behavior. We did tons of testing and usually the 6 way hub was fine. In fact the squad version seems much less cooperative. Edited March 21, 2014 by Nazari1382 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virtualgenius Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Ok an updated Nvidia driver and reboot seems to have cured all my problems sorry to be a pest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fusty Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Delivery of the observation module to the initial version of my station:Because of the node system hub parts can have odd behavior. We did tons of testing and usually the 6 way hub was fine. In fact the squad version seems much less cooperative.Lookin awesome! Can't wait to get home and fire this up. Time for 40 or so shuttle missions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptRobau Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 (edited) Only been able to try it out for a bit, but very impressed by it so far.Noticed two things that might need fixing. The 3-way coupler is won't connect at the stem of the T. Only it's two opposing sides will attach to anything. Fixing this would be great, as the 3-way coupler is the only coupler that can fit on something like a power module without being too big for the cargobay. The second thing is the lack of stackSymmetry on #-way couplers. Turning this on would allow easier placement of symmetrical parts (like docking ports) to the various coupler nodes. The stock 6-way node doesn't have it and it's the first thing I change, as it makes building stuff much easier.This is how it works. The number is one lower than the symmetry you want. Like so:stackSymmetry = 1 : 2x symmetrystackSymmetry = 2 : 3x symmetrystackSymmetry = 3 : 4x symmetryThe symmetry only works one one plane though. So a 6-way coupler would need 4x symmetry, aka stackSymmetry = 3. Edited March 21, 2014 by CaptRobau Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helldiver Posted March 21, 2014 Author Share Posted March 21, 2014 (edited) Man, this is not hard to control. I consider myself a total dunce when it comes to spaceplanes, and I can consistently land it at the KSC.Also a PSA: the blank KSO skin does not appear to be compatible with the new redesigned payload bay. Leaves a square black patch in the middle of it, left over from the removal of the hatch that was in that position previously. So if you don't mind that, I suppose the blank skin still does work well enough for the externals.Screenshot? I'm thinking you're still using something that is outdated (old cargo bay perhaps?). You must use the new blank provided in Alternate Textures v203.I tested it a bit.New parts are very good - but its a pity that they are 1,25 m size. I woudl like to see them in some separate pack rescaled to 2,5 m.Really.And about dome IVA, i think cameras obscure view too much.Can you give an explanation or reason why they can't be 1.25 meters?Why do you want to see them in 2.5m?If you don't mind.Delivery of the observation module to the initial version of my station:http://imgur.com/a/YV9gQBecause of the node system hub parts can have odd behavior. We did tons of testing and usually the 6 way hub was fine. In fact the squad version seems much less cooperative.Placed album in OP Edited March 21, 2014 by helldiver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsamuHigashi Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 No no no. In real life you can have a reentry angle that is too steep and you burn up. Too shallow and you skip out of the atmosphere. Reducing speed too fast means heating up faster than you can shed heat. Some vehicles reenter at steeper angles than others. Shuttle had a shallower reentry than Apollo.Actually i have to take back what i said about the inacurasy of DRE i testet it now out quiet a bit and it seams that they changed that in some version since i looked at it last time as im now capabel of coming in mutch stepper then befor and going up to 7 g when cominh back from minmus without blowing up witch was impossible before but the shuttle still need the 28 km or the wheels blow up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptRobau Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Posted something but other replies have already overtaken it. Might be interesting for you Helldiver to look above your last post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jethro Bodine Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Is it permissible to use the expression "nerdgasm"? 'Cause I'm having one! Thank you, helldiver & Nazari! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayana Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 I cheated and sent parts up with rockets instead. The parts are great, but SAS did not want to cooperate at all. Extending the arms on the tug just sends everything haywire and unbalanced. So here's a question, do all of the RCS ports always have the same thrust? Or is there any way to balance them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Percebob Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 I cheated and sent parts up with rockets instead. The parts are great, but SAS did not want to cooperate at all. Extending the arms on the tug just sends everything haywire and unbalanced. So here's a question, do all of the RCS ports always have the same thrust? Or is there any way to balance them?I thought I was the only one having that issue (though I did not cheat), it makes docking really hard with the tug (which is quite ironic) I tried without and with MechJeb and I also have KJR (kerbal joint reinforcement). Other than that, splendid update. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nazari1382 Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Don't maneuver with the booms extended unless you have cargo in front of the tug. The CoM is in the middle of the tugs body, and you're applying RCS equally at the rear and way out in front (aka not centered around the CoM) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helldiver Posted March 21, 2014 Author Share Posted March 21, 2014 Posted something but other replies have already overtaken it. Might be interesting for you Helldiver to look above your last post.That is because that is Nazari's department. He handles game data and configuration. Odds are he already saw it and either a fix is under way for our next update or there may be something else. Even if we don't reply we're both watching the thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Percebob Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 I forgot to mention that I had cargo, actually the problem occurs when there is cargo+booms extended+SAS. The SAS just goes mad, first time I see that kind of stuff happening, quite weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayana Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Don't maneuver with the booms extended unless you have cargo in front of the tug. The CoM is in the middle of the tugs body, and you're applying RCS equally at the rear and way out in front (aka not centered around the CoM)I made sure to do that. Now I've put the whole thing through RCS Build Aid and got a pretty bad result.The boom goes too far ahead in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebuchadnezzar Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Is this FAR compatible with v2? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helldiver Posted March 21, 2014 Author Share Posted March 21, 2014 (edited) Is this FAR compatible with v2?NoKSOS has never been FAR compatible, never will be. You need to post on that thread for customized configuration files.Should I put that in bold in the OP?Nothing against FAR, just that it requires customized exclusive versions of all the cfg files. Either the KSOS runs Stock or FAR, we're not doing both. We're not spending the time to balance both, we have enough issues as it is getting this to work in Stock KSP.I don't care how popular FAR or DRE is. If they become part of KSP Stock installation, then the KSOS will be 100% FAR compatible.I hope that answers that. Edited March 21, 2014 by helldiver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkyHook Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Anyone know the rescaleFactor to make the new parts 2.5m? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nazari1382 Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 I forgot to mention that I had cargo, actually the problem occurs when there is cargo+booms extended+SAS. The SAS just goes mad, first time I see that kind of stuff happening, quite weird.I made sure to do that. Now I've put the whole thing through RCS Build Aid and got a pretty bad result.The boom goes too far ahead in this case.I see. While I look into the best way to get rid of the strange rcs rotation, you should be able to maneuver ok with the booms retracted, even with cargo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaSquatch Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 Has anyone noticed a Right-Click bug on the KerbLab Module? Fresh-install with a simple LanderCan+Lab ship. Right Click the Lab and it kills Right clicking untill exiting AND restarting flight (not just revert from launchpad). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CFIRickM Posted March 21, 2014 Share Posted March 21, 2014 (edited) KSP Station Construction... So many options to consider. I'll post some thoughts on station construction after I get home from work, but in the meantime, a few pics from testing in stock KSP plus KSO plus MechJeb:First module in the station - the power source. 150KM orbit:Finalized "core"Two habitat modules and the solar arrays:Ready for permanent crew:Crew transfer and an emergency return ship Edited March 21, 2014 by CFIRickM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts