|
Are there any mods that add more things to do with science points rather than more science experiments? I'm still a ways off from unlocking the whole tree, but it's going to happen sooner or later. I know I can turn it into funds or rep with various strategies, but what I'd really like is something that lets me spend science to make incremental improvements to parts -- say, spending increasing amounts of science to decrease a part's mass, or increase its impact tolerance or max thrust or the like. Is there anything like that out there? RoverDude posted:Yeah there was one bum release (0.30.3) be sure you are on 0.30.4 Just got home and checked and yeah, I was running 0.30.3.
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:45 |
|
|
 I would venture to suggest that this is not working as intended.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
Prevent overheats throttles back engines that are overheating due to running at high thrust. It doesn't take aerodynamic heating into consideration.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Unkempt posted:
The engine isn't overheating, which is the only thing that that setting has ever cared about.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Unkempt posted:
I don't see your engines overheating. Working as intended. You should unselect Limit To Terminal Velocity, and checkbox Limit Acceleration and use a value of 25m/s and you'll stop seeing fire effects on ascent. After you reach ~30km, uncheck that box.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Well okay then, it's 'Limit to terminal velocity' that isn't working. Either way it's hosed. edit: Otacon posted:
wait, what?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Unkempt posted:Well okay then, it's 'Limit to terminal velocity' that isn't working. Either way it's hosed. Correct, and it's being worked on. According to the latest dev version of MJ at least.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Unkempt posted:Well okay then, it's 'Limit to terminal velocity' that isn't working. Either way it's hosed. The Terminal Velocity value was changed from .90 (which is the value MJ still uses) and 1.00. If you leave that checked, your ship will (likely) never reach orbit. Trust me on the 25m/s acceleration velocity. It works.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Otacon posted:Correct, and it's being worked on. According to the latest dev version of MJ at least. Gotcha. Got Jeb stuck in orbit and he's not getting home on that flaming ball of dog poop.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Silver Alicorn posted:Prevent overheats throttles back engines that are overheating due to running at high thrust. It doesn't take aerodynamic heating into consideration. Actually no, it will prevent any overheats including aerodynamic ones. I found this out because one of my rockets was being throttled back hard, and after investigating discovered that it was because throttling up would cause the Hullcam VDS parts to instantly explode from aerodynamic heating. Those things are stupidly fragile, I don't think I've gotten a single one intact into orbit yet. ToxicFrog fucked around with this message at 23:12 on May 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Well, that isn't working either. I've got this thing into orbit loads of times but it seems to baffle mechjeb. Does having a Pilot matter? I think I've got an Engineer in there at the moment. edit: limiting my SRBs a bit seems to have done the trick somehow 
Unkempt fucked around with this message at 23:27 on May 24, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
From Reddit:
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
 So I'm testing out a satellite delivery platform for remotetech with smartparts (basically, components that trigger specific actions when conditions are met - out of fuel -> stage, reach altitude -> action group 1, that sort of thing). This craft can reach +- 90km without many issues. Except one annoying problem.  That is, during ascent, there is a small but significant deviation to the south, and I want these sats to be equatorial. I tried simply rotating the craft 5 degrees but if it had any effect I didn't notice it. Can anyone offer assist? Additionally, I could only keep the craft from pointing to the ground by increasing the T/W ratio to about 2.2, which is where you get mach and re-entry effects. If someone knows a better way that leaves me with less wasted delta-v, that'd be swell. However, this is very much secondary to the first issue - the inclined orbit.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
Is there any way, modded or otherwise to see the delta-v cost of any planned maneuvers other than the next one? It would be nice to explore different options mid-mission.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
Walton Simons posted:Is there any way, modded or otherwise to see the delta-v cost of any planned maneuvers other than the next one? It would be nice to explore different options mid-mission. Hover over the manoevre icon? In order for this to work you cannot have the "edit node" UI open, but if this is the case, you should see the dv cost when hovering over the icon.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Oh, yeah, I see it now! Thanks!
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
 Now I load up my game and I have -70 rep and 0 funds because both space station contracts expired, despite having over a year left on the clock. Maybe upgrading the Space Station Contract Pack invalidated the contracts or something? Or it's incompatible with Station Science?I'll just pretend that some unrelated political thing has blown up and the government has suddenly gotten extremely cold feet about space exploration, I guess. ToxicFrog fucked around with this message at 00:32 on May 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Walton Simons posted:I didn't realise Interstellar was updated for 1.0, thought it was long gone. Does it play nice with Near Future parts in career? Interstellar is in CKAN, but for some reason most of the parts aren't included. The small microwave transmitter and the inline receivers are in, but there's zilch for: reactors, antimatter collection, antimatter storage, thermal rocket parts, magnetic nozzles, radial receivers, and radiators (one small convective radiator made it in though). To answer your question, it probably plays nice with near future, as there's little in it to conflict.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 01:02
|
|
|
Luneshot posted:From Reddit:  KSP crashed on ignition of this thing but that might have been unrelated.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Luneshot posted:From Reddit: I explicitly named that spacecraft Skyfucker VII. 
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 03:17
|
|
|
Agency K spotted a rogue signal at a high latitude. Crack Kerbal agents were scattered to investigate. After reaching the [redacted] kerbal agents took ground surveys and as is standard program policy planted a team flag  In an unrelated note, several days later several [redacted] were loaded onto a rocket  the destination of [redacted] was highly unusual, but K agents don't ask questions, or test equipment, or run calculations.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
Man I'm having a lot of fun building planes despite the fact that they suck at doing anything other than fly in a straight line.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 04:10
|
|
|
I haven't played KSP in a long while. With 1.0x, do the mods that add cloud layers/effects work? I tried the latest version of the astronomer pack that I used back in 0.23, but it crashed on me so I'm thinking it's not 1.0 compatible. Is there an alternative that people use?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Hobnob posted:I haven't played KSP in a long while. With 1.0x, do the mods that add cloud layers/effects work? I tried the latest version of the astronomer pack that I used back in 0.23, but it crashed on me so I'm thinking it's not 1.0 compatible. Is there an alternative that people use? Look for "KSP CKAN" and use CKAN to keep all of your mods up to date. Might as well just nuke your .23 mods and start over but yes, the cloud mods through EVE and Astronomer's packs were updated to work with 1.xx
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
I haven't played in a while either and I have a much more basic question. I assume asparagus staging is gone and done. What's the new ~meta~ for efficiency in rocket design?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
General Battuta posted:I haven't played in a while either and I have a much more basic question. I assume asparagus staging is gone and done. What's the new ~meta~ for efficiency in rocket design? Asparagus staging still works and still rules.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
Is there a reason my solar panels are only producing 0.09 e/sec on the surface of Eve? Sun exposure is 0.96.General Battuta posted:I haven't played in a while either and I have a much more basic question. I assume asparagus staging is gone and done. What's the new ~meta~ for efficiency in rocket design? The new meta is aerodynamics- stock is now much more like FAR than it was pre-1.0. Fat, wide rockets are now much worse than slender ones. Nosecones have a tangible effect on performance. Tailfins are crucial for stability. Asparagus staging actually still works.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Luneshot posted:From Reddit: 362 tons seems a little small for KSP size. Biggest I've made is 8500 tons that put 921 tons with 60,000 liquid fuel / 73,000 oxidizer in orbit.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 05:19
|
|
|
Luneshot posted:From Reddit:
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 09:08
|
|
|
Ak Gara posted:Biggest I've made is 8500 tons that put 921 tons with 60,000 liquid fuel / 73,000 oxidizer in orbit. :O Do you have video or screenshots of this? e: VVVV motherfuck! thehustler fucked around with this message at 11:16 on May 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 09:19
|
|
|
thehustler posted::O  Bill isn't liking the look of this thing.    Bill doesn't know what he saw, Jeb is Jeb, and Bob just wants to go home.  Not the same rocket but still pretty tall. (Twice the height of the old launch tower) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWCqdFrXvNY Ak Gara fucked around with this message at 10:01 on May 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 09:58
|
|
|
ow my framerate
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 10:09
|
|
|
Why can't I dock my rover? e:  
Sanctum fucked around with this message at 11:38 on May 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 11:14
|
|
|
Away all Goats posted:Man I'm having a lot of fun building planes despite the fact that they suck at doing anything other than fly in a straight line.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 11:22
|
|
|
Sanctum posted:Why can't I dock my rover? Docking on kerbin can get really finicky due to the gravity, try firing the rovers thrusters to lessen the suspension on the wheels to make it go a bit higher
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 11:25
|
|
|
Ok quick question: if I want to go to something and get into orbit around it, it's best to approach it as close as possible, right? And do my burn as low as possible? Because that will take the lowest amount of delta-v?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 12:10
|
|
|
Sanctum posted:Why can't I dock my rover? I'm wondering if your docking ports are connected to the modular girder segment by the correct node. e: I think you are using Surface Attachment; try Node: 
Corky Romanovsky fucked around with this message at 12:32 on May 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 12:26
|
|
|
Using docking ports on land is hard. Consider using a claw.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 12:39
|
|
|
Palicgofueniczekt posted:I'm wondering if your docking ports are connected to the modular girder segment by the correct node. ._. Also yeah now that I look at it, it looks like the one on your rover is using the wrong node/or surface attachment.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 13:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 00:45 |
|
|
Germstore posted:Using docking ports on land is hard. Consider using a claw. Palicgofueniczekt posted:I'm wondering if your docking ports are connected to the modular girder segment by the correct node.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2015 13:22
|
|