ZaPPPa Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 @harlikwin Contracts disappear at high warp. If you slow down the time acceleration, the contract system has enough time to generate them. Just warp to next morning and wait for it to complet, or manually warp at 10000 for a couple of (warped) hours and you should be good to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harlikwin Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 Thank ZaPPPa I'll give that a try. Also, I'm wondering how to build a better R-7like rocket with only the stock parts. Mainly trying to figure out a way to "blend" the 4 booster stages to the main body. Procedural tanks doesn't seem to like to build anything other than cylinders or weird egg shaped type tanks. Same with the procedural nose cones. I'm using 2m boosters so the stock 1m blended nosecone doesn't really work. Any advice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 @harlikwin sounds like you might be on Kerbal dates. Main Menu->Settings->change use kerbal time to use Earth time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harlikwin Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 Hi Nathan, I'm pretty sure I'm on earth time. The box displays earth time IIRC. I did that as part of the setup. I'll double check it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artforz Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 8 hours ago, harlikwin said: Also, on the tech progression, I've invested "heavily" i.e. 30sci/day into R&D and most 2nd/3rd tier techs (i.e. improved orbital rocketry or basic solids) are like 1-.75-.5 years to complete. Is that about right? Unless I'm mistaken, with base R&D 30 sci/day should be about 7300 upgrade points. Even with T3 R&D, it's still ~3650 upgrade points. I find spending north of 40M funds on R&D and science upgrades while still in T2/T3 era a bit hard to imagine. Are you sure it's sci/day and not sci/year (afaict KCT displays sci/year until you get above 36.5 sci/yr = 0.1 sci/day)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZaPPPa Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 @artforz That's what I'm seeing. If you follow the calendar from 1951, it will actually match relatively well with reality. It is possible to launch the first satellite in 1953, but then it will take until at least 1955 before you are able to launch the next generation satellites (with solar panels etc).. If anything, the RP-0 science goes too fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabada Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 27 minutes ago, ZaPPPa said: @artforz That's what I'm seeing. If you follow the calendar from 1951, it will actually match relatively well with reality. It is possible to launch the first satellite in 1953, but then it will take until at least 1955 before you are able to launch the next generation satellites (with solar panels etc).. If anything, the RP-0 science goes too fast. I'm curious why research is set up to be done one tech at a time. Surely it is more realistic to have several research projects going simultaneously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZaPPPa Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 It used to be like that, but you could min/max early rockets and "accidentally" get close to the moon and get a ten years head start on science. Honestly, I'd prefer a method where I can research a specific engine instead of getting both the Vanguard and AJ10 in one node, but that would require a rewrite of the whole tech tree mechanism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chriguana Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 I've been doing a play through for a couple weeks now and I'm loving it, but my major issue is that many parts do not have testflight configs (I'm obviously using testflight). Engines, the bare minimum of required configs, are only partially included. I'd say it looks like 70% percent of engines are properly configured. And that's it. No fuel leaks, stuck open reaction jets, explosions, failed stage separations, nothing. In fact, in all my flights so far, about 20 or so, I haven't had a single rocket fail whatsoever, and most rockets do not even appear on the testflight MSD. Are there any community configs for rp-0, or can anyone direct me to somewhere that tells me how to make my own? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harlikwin Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 15 hours ago, artforz said: and science upgrades while still in T2/T3 era a bit hard to imagine. Are you sure it's sci/day and not sci/year (afaict KCT displays You are correct it was sci/year. And it does tick up to Sci/day once you get over 36 or so. So now i'm on .1sci per day or so. 14 hours ago, ZaPPPa said: It used to be like that, but you could min/max early rockets and "accidentally" get close to the moon and get a ten years head start on science. Honestly, I'd prefer a method where I can research a specific engine instead of getting both the Vanguard and AJ10 in one node, but that would require a rewrite of the whole tech tree mechanism. I actually sort of did that tech wise by building a manned A4 suborbital rocket using the X1 cockpit. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't survive a full reentry however. I could actually see a progression of engines/electrial etc just in a linear fashion, or perhaps block fashion to do exactly as you would like. but it would mean re-doing the tech tree. 14 hours ago, Rabada said: I'm curious why research is set up to be done one tech at a time. Surely it is more realistic to have several research projects going simultaneously. Yeah That would be great, kind of like the whole VAB with differential build rates is done now. It would make sense that your engine engineers aren't the same team developing your comms/sensor systems for example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZaPPPa Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 13 hours ago, Chriguana said: I've been doing a play through for a couple weeks now and I'm loving it, but my major issue is that many parts do not have testflight configs (I'm obviously using testflight). Engines, the bare minimum of required configs, are only partially included. I'd say it looks like 70% percent of engines are properly configured. And that's it. No fuel leaks, stuck open reaction jets, explosions, failed stage separations, nothing. In fact, in all my flights so far, about 20 or so, I haven't had a single rocket fail whatsoever, and most rockets do not even appear on the testflight MSD. Are there any community configs for rp-0, or can anyone direct me to somewhere that tells me how to make my own? Agree.. I have looked into this and have actually tried to add configs, but no matter what I do, I cannot get them to work. For example, the Vanguard engine has an actual config in TestFlight (I think the part is called SXTX405 or something). The Testflight numbers show up in the menu when you right click on the engine and the numbers there match the config. However, TestFlight does not recognize the engine in-flight, so the actual failures never appear. This happens for all the SXT modified engines I think.. and probably many more. I manually created a config for the LD105 (liquidEngine3) and same story, the numbers show up in the menu, but TestFlight does not work in-flight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luciano Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Hello! I've been playing arround with this, and i can say it's an impressive work!! I tried to make some kind of space shuttle but the engines lack the gimbal i need. Is there a mod compatible whit this that has the rs25? Thanks and keep the good work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 @Luciano this does have the RS-25, it's just fairly late (TL5 hydrolox). Regarding only one tech at a time: the problem is this. KCT applies the same rate to each tech, so if you can research multiple techs at a time, then your science rate is no longer x/day, it's (x * number of techs being researched) per day. So you thus have an incentive to keep queuing up techs, since the more techs you have researching, then, the faster they all get done. That's hilariously unbalanced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZaPPPa Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 I wonder if it would be possible to write a tool that can scan all the part configs, assign each part its own tech node and technology level and then auto-create a tech tree with connections going from low tech nodes to higher tech nodes... Though, even if this would be possible (and under the hood I cannot think of a reason why not), the tech tree user interface is not set up to handle a tree of that size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luciano Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 34 minutes ago, NathanKell said: @Luciano this does have the RS-25, it's just fairly late (TL5 hydrolox). Thanks a lot!!! i found it! it's really late.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harlikwin Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 1 hour ago, NathanKell said: @Luciano this does have the RS-25, it's just fairly late (TL5 hydrolox). Regarding only one tech at a time: the problem is this. KCT applies the same rate to each tech, so if you can research multiple techs at a time, then your science rate is no longer x/day, it's (x * number of techs being researched) per day. So you thus have an incentive to keep queuing up techs, since the more techs you have researching, then, the faster they all get done. That's hilariously unbalanced. That is why I suggested there should be a second or third rate, like they do with the build times for spacecraft at the VAB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adax Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) Hello! I have a question about non-RP0 parts. Is it possible to move all of them to empty node, that i created in CCTchanges.cfg? I assume this must be done in NonRP0.cfg file, but can't understand how... On 11.01.2016 at 11:19 PM, harlikwin said: Also, I'm wondering how to build a better R-7like rocket with only the stock parts. Mainly trying to figure out a way to "blend" the 4 booster stages to the main body. Procedural tanks doesn't seem to like to build anything other than cylinders or weird egg shaped type tanks. Same with the procedural nose cones. I'm using 2m boosters so the stock 1m blended nosecone doesn't really work. Any advice? Don't know if this is still a question, but, as i remember, in the same node where you unlocked side tanks for R-7 there are 3 more R-7 tanks - lower center (simple cylinder), high center (complex form for that side tanks) and small for block L. Just use them or create your own with this form from procedural tanks. Sorry for my english if there are many mistakes. Edited January 13, 2016 by Adax Mistake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoe7ess Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 On 1/8/2016 at 3:13 AM, Phineas Freak said: @shoe7essscratch what i said, the non - RP0 category created by RP-0 is for the parts that are compatible with RP-0 but incompatible with RO. All other parts are completely hidden and must be accessed by using the secondary categories like you do. @NathanKellhow we could modify the RP-0 FilterExtensions patch and create categories for the hidden parts? Any solution to this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phineas Freak Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) Technically, RP-0 should have a FilterExtensions config, like RO has, to create "WIP-RP0" and "NON-RP0" categories. Then, the "NonRP0.cfg" patch should be modified so that non - configured parts are not placed on the "NON-RO" category or get completely removed from the stock categories. Edited January 13, 2016 by Phineas Freak Wrong info... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jevon4 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Im not sure if this is a bug or just my ineptitude, but I am having an issue with avionics while simulating my ships. I built a manned ship, and simulated it with a pilot in it, I got "insufficient avionics" and cannot steer. I was under the impression avionics were not required for controlling a manned ship, has this changed? is there any documentation anywhere describing the how the avionics system works? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.LoveJoy Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 4 hours ago, Jevon4 said: Im not sure if this is a bug or just my ineptitude, but I am having an issue with avionics while simulating my ships. I built a manned ship, and simulated it with a pilot in it, I got "insufficient avionics" and cannot steer. I was under the impression avionics were not required for controlling a manned ship, has this changed? is there any documentation anywhere describing the how the avionics system works? Well, I don't know if it is strictly mentioned in all the FAQs, but 'since this is RP-0, it is meant to simulate real life. And in real life, "Avionics" refers to the control systems used to manipulate the control systems of an aircraft or spacecraft. It has nothing necessarily to do with the guidance System per se , which can be a pilot or a computer core. So, this means insufficient Avionics can happen if you have a pilot, since the craft just doesn't have enough power to manipulate the tonnage, no matter how hard you pull back on a stick :-) Looked at another way, imagine an 18 wheeler truck without power steering, parked, and think about how on earth you would actually turn the wheel. Thats what "Insufficient Avionics" means. One thing which is also not mentioned is that you can stack Avionics units to get more control. so two 45T unite can control 90T, and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jevon4 Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 41 minutes ago, Dr.LoveJoy said: Well, I don't know if it is strictly mentioned in all the FAQs, but 'since this is RP-0, it is meant to simulate real life. And in real life, "Avionics" refers to the control systems used to manipulate the control systems of an aircraft or spacecraft. It has nothing necessarily to do with the guidance System per se , which can be a pilot or a computer core. So, this means insufficient Avionics can happen if you have a pilot, since the craft just doesn't have enough power to manipulate the tonnage, no matter how hard you pull back on a stick :-) Looked at another way, imagine an 18 wheeler truck without power steering, parked, and think about how on earth you would actually turn the wheel. Thats what "Insufficient Avionics" means. One thing which is also not mentioned is that you can stack Avionics units to get more control. so two 45T unite can control 90T, and so on. Thanks! that makes sense! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phineas Freak Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 (edited) OK, after a bit of head bashing i finally managed to create categories for the RP-0 parts, like RO has. @shoe7ess will link the required files later for testing. Edit: RO and RP-0 links:RO global config RP-0 Filter Extensions patch RP-0 global config Replace and/or create the files/folders as required. Edited November 16, 2016 by Phineas Freak Remove deprecated links Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harlikwin Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 On 1/13/2016 at 0:04 AM, Adax said: Hello! I have a question about non-RP0 parts. Is it possible to move all of them to empty node, that i created in CCTchanges.cfg? I assume this must be done in NonRP0.cfg file, but can't understand how... Don't know if this is still a question, but, as i remember, in the same node where you unlocked side tanks for R-7 there are 3 more R-7 tanks - lower center (simple cylinder), high center (complex form for that side tanks) and small for block L. Just use them or create your own with this form from procedural tanks. Sorry for my english if there are many mistakes. I don't see any R7 specific parts in the stock RP-0, I'm not running with most of the mods. I did figure out how to do it with procedural tanks, use 2 tanks one as a cylinder on the bottom and then a pointy cone at the top, and then rotate the top cylinder until its tilted right, and then move the whole assembly over until it is touching the center tank. It works surprisingly well as a booster, though its a bit finicky to fly right, I get some weird rotation and stability issues when the boosters are running that I'm trying to solve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanKell Posted January 14, 2016 Share Posted January 14, 2016 @Phineas Freak that's great! Can you put that in a PR if it isn't already? I've crunching tutorials but strato has rights to merge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts