<Agathorn>
what sorts of factors typically go into the amount of time required between finishing one mission and starting another? Talking generically here, but as an example the Gemini program had an average of like 2 or 3 months per mission
<Agathorn>
I imagine part of that time, especially in the early days, was post mission evaluation but what other factors might there be?
<Agathorn>
I guess unless you have massive facilities, then you can only do integration on one stack at a time, so that would take some time
<soundnfury>
Agathorn: possibly one constraint was astronaut training? *shrug*
<Agathorn>
doubtful that would apply at that point
<Agathorn>
maybe a tiny amount of time to share knowledge gained
<soundnfury>
part of it is that a large portion of the vehicle checkout work was done at the pad.
<Agathorn>
good point
<soundnfury>
even the installation of pyros, iirc, couldn't be done in the VAB because muh safety
<Agathorn>
so if you had multiple pads you could probably cut that down? Then again you can't probably leave it "prepped" for very long?
<soundnfury>
(hang on, looking up a yarchive)
<soundnfury>
Agathorn: nope, all your personnel are swarming over one booster, no-one to check another
<Agathorn>
right but once that one is launched, they can scurry over tothe other
<Agathorn>
Acrually rendevous missions show turnaround can be quick
<Agathorn>
let me look that up
<Agathorn>
though arguably both launches could be considered part of one mission
<Agathorn>
So Gemini 6 launched 11 days after Gemini 7 for the rendevous
<Agathorn>
I would say if you pay for more facilities, and you pay for more teams, you can get it down pretty short
Sigma88 is now known as SigmaAway
<Agathorn>
to gamify it I think I will just reduce it mostly to that. Pay for more teams (to give overlap) and additional facilities
<Starwaster>
Google Calendar is informing me that I have a meeting scheduled for today. The meeting organizer: Starwaster
<Starwaster>
o.O
<waerloga>
well
<waerloga>
perhaps you should talk to yourself more
<waerloga>
:P
<Agathorn>
I lovehow Google emails me everynow and then to tell me I have nothing scheduled
<Agathorn>
which is strange enough on the surface then even stranger when I realize that it doesn't *always* email me to tell me that, just sometimes
<Agathorn>
and *never* emails me to tell me I *do* have something scheduled
<pap1723>
Also I think Skylab 2 was supposed to launch 48-72 hours after Skylab
Wetmelon has joined #RO
<soundnfury>
(yarchive knows all the things)
<Agathorn>
So I still think its safe to say, at least from a game perspective, that with additional integration and launch facilities, and more teams, you can cut times down
<pap1723>
Yes, but I wouldn't say that would be the norm
<Agathorn>
probably need to cap at some minimum that no amount of money can override though
<pap1723>
From the stuff I have watched and read, it was incredibly stressful and many felt dangerous to launch that quickly in those situations
<Agathorn>
even if you built 100 pads/vabs and hired a million people it would still have some minimum :D
<Agathorn>
Pap1723: yeah but that was utilizing like one or two pads, and a single integration facility so that makes sense
<pap1723>
right
<Agathorn>
but if you had, for arguments sake, unlimited facilities and people, you could essentially be stacking them up like an assembly line
<pap1723>
yes, for arguments sake, there is no reason that launches couldn't have happened like planes at an airport
<Agathorn>
have to come up with some function of hardware complexity that determines inetgration time, and then pad time
<Agathorn>
simpler hardware would obviously take less work and time than more complex/larger hardware
Probus has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<Agathorn>
"The Apollo 17 rollout was over three months before launch"
<Agathorn>
that just seems.. excessive
<Agathorn>
I almost think some of these times had no good reason
<Agathorn>
you can't possibly spend 3 months doing pyro and pad checks
<pap1723>
Module Manager Question...I am trying to remove a NODE inside of a MODULE It is called UPGRADE and it has other pieces under it. Would this work to get rid of all of it??
<pap1723>
!UPGRADES {}
rsparkyc has joined #RO
<soundnfury>
Agathorn: if you want to see an assembly-line approach to boosters, I gather Russia is (or at least, was) the place to look
<stratochief|away>
that Gemini 6A - Gemini 7 turnaround was madness. IIRC, those launches were from the Same Pad; they started preping and repairing the facility as soon as the first one was launched
<Agathorn>
oh pad repairs, I forgot about those
<soundnfury>
who cares if one blows up? there's plenty more where that came from
<Agathorn>
:)
<Agathorn>
might be worth having a safety slider or something, let the player choose faster or slower prep but with a safety tradeoff :)
<stratochief|away>
Agathorn: also, it depends on how many pads you have, and what those pads are good for. in reality, pads generally are good for 1 or 2 types of launcher. Gemini and the Atlas-Agena target vehicle launched minutes appart, because they were both at different pads
<soundnfury>
and yeah, the pad reconditioning time in our KCT presets is kinda hilariously short
<soundnfury>
> launch a Saturn V
<soundnfury>
> pad ready to use 48 hours later
<pap1723>
The other thing to consider is that it takes a long time to roll out a large ship, especially depending on the distance between the VAB or VIB and pad
<Agathorn>
stratochief|away: yeah in my current design, the pads and integration facilities would be unique/assigned to a specific program
<Agathorn>
soundnfury: what are more sane times?
<Agathorn>
for pad refurb I mean
<stratochief|away>
Agathorn: with a discount for upgrading it to a related infrastructure? like, Atlas to Atlas-Agena, or Atlas-Centaur?
<Agathorn>
how much is actually damaged?
<Agathorn>
stratochief|away: maybe but that might be hard to determine, especially for player designed hardware - might be hard to know what is "related"
<soundnfury>
Agathorn: I don't know xD
<stratochief|away>
Agathorn: I feel like that Gemini to Gemini gap is a short as you can sanely get. like, a week
<soundnfury>
it depends a lot on your GSE hardware
<Agathorn>
wht was it SpaceX was shooting for again?
<Agathorn>
24 hours?
<Agathorn>
granted thats modern stuff
<Agathorn>
I don;t think i'll have anything more granular than a day anyway -- maybe even a week -- for gametime
<soundnfury>
like, SpaceX TEL (with the new short umbilicals / throwback) can maybe realistically do three/four days once it's _totally_ routine
<stratochief|away>
I think pad turnaround time is somewhat correlated to launcher size. like you could launch V-2's like they were going out of style, practically off a conveyer belt
<Agathorn>
I want to see that now
<soundnfury>
stratochief|away: yup, stick 'er on the lemon squeezer and light 'er up :)
<stratochief|away>
Agathorn: you really dont. the other end of the conveyor was an underground bunker full of concentration camp workers
<Agathorn>
:(
<stratochief|away>
we live in a crazy timelne, where two super powerful nations simultaneously invested in record breaking projects at the same time. one on nuclear weapons, the other on long range rocket
<soundnfury>
stratochief|away: also the bunkers occasionally collected a Tallboy through the roof
<stratochief|away>
soundnfury: take that, Gerry!
<soundnfury>
stratochief|away: s/G/J
<Qboid>
soundnfury thinks stratochief|away meant to say: soundnfury: take that, Jerry!
<soundnfury>
USA: "let's invent nukes"
<soundnfury>
Germany: "let's invent rockets"
<Agathorn>
USSR: Let's out them together
<soundnfury>
UK: "just make bigger bombs, c'mon"
<Agathorn>
s/out/put
<Qboid>
Agathorn meant to say: USSR: Let's put them together
<Agathorn>
Nukes are bigger bombs
<Agathorn>
there isn't anything magical about them aside from the radiation
<Agathorn>
they're just ultra compact explosives
<soundnfury>
sure, but a Little Boy is a lot more expensive than a Grand Slam
<Agathorn>
pfft money
<stratochief|away>
drawing from an energy density 1 million times greater is in fact magical
<soundnfury>
the only thing the former is good at is levelling cities, and we already _had_ a way of doing that
<Agathorn>
well the argument is that what the former is really good for is deterrance
<xShadowx>
nukes only use about 1% of their energy
<pap1723>
soundnfury, not true, it was also a psychological element to having nukes as well
<Agathorn>
^^
<Agathorn>
That really was the original point
<pap1723>
Japan would never have surrendered without them and a massive, massive invasion costing 10's of millions of lives
<Agathorn>
before the world went crazy
<soundnfury>
Agathorn: tbh I think the threat of getting Hamburged/Dresdenned might have deterred some people ;)
<Agathorn>
Dresdenned?
<Agathorn>
dafuq
<stratochief|away>
fire bomb'd
<soundnfury>
Agathorn: the RAF destroyed *two* German cities with horrific firestorms, not just one
<pap1723>
The firebombing of Tokyo was much worse than the nukes at Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the Japanese were undeterred
<stratochief|away>
but with nukes, we no longer have to carpet bomb white people. progress!
<pap1723>
Most of Tokyo was built with paper, straw and wood, it was much worse than Hamburg and Dresden
<soundnfury>
Pap1723: clearly the USAAF weren't doing it properly
<soundnfury>
we managed to dismantle Germany _without_ radioactively salting the earth
<pap1723>
Ah, the Soviets had a lot more to do with that then they are typically given credit for here in the US
<soundnfury>
and I'd argue it was the RAF's area bombing, rather than the ground invasion, that killed off German militarist sentiment
<stratochief|away>
soundnfury: of course you would, you british partisan :P
<pap1723>
Yes, but most military people I have listened to have said that bombing is effective, but the boots on the ground are the only thing that actually win wars
<soundnfury>
stratochief|away: of course I'm a british partisan :)
<soundnfury>
Pap1723: that's my point. The infantry won the war, but the bombing won the peace
<soundnfury>
(bizarre as it seems)
<pap1723>
Is Ty_SP someone that hangs out in here?
<soundnfury>
not that I know of...
<stratochief|away>
soundnfury: I'm not sure why that an "of course", I wouldn't consider myself a partisan Canadijin. America's hat hasn't done much unique, other than developing CANDU with US and British assistance
<stratochief|away>
Pap1723: not that I' aware of
<pap1723>
Just wondering, I see him streaming RO all the time
<soundnfury>
stratochief|away: britain has a lot to be inordinately proud about :P
<soundnfury>
not my fault if your country is lame (j/k, Canadia is lovely)
<stratochief|away>
soundnfury: you be proud of that senes of proud. very circular, much jerk
<soundnfury>
stratochief|away: it's called Ha Ha Only Serious.
<soundnfury>
I simultaneously am proud and mock myself for that pride by exaggerating it for comic effect
blowfish has joined #RO
<stratochief|away>
well, playing the British in HOI4 was certainly fun, I'll ive them that. such a navy and eventually an airforce!
<soundnfury>
stratochief|away: anyway, you get to join in being proud about RAF bombers, because about a fifth of all the aircrews were Canadian
<stratochief|away>
meh, pride serves no purpose, it is just 'member berries that blind people to the truth
<soundnfury>
anyway, time I was |zzz
<soundnfury>
nn
<rsparkyc>
who here knows a lot about KSP's vectors
<rsparkyc>
i'm trying to find the angle between a ship, a celestial, and that celestials parent
<blowfish>
find vectors from ship to each body, dot them, and take inverse cosine
<rsparkyc>
i figured i could add the vectors of the ship and celestial (call that A), the celestial and its parent (call that B), and then do Vector3d.Angle(A,B)
<rsparkyc>
is the dot product what i actually want?
<blowfish>
err actually, that would be the angle difference between the bodies from the ships POV
<blowfish>
exactly which angle do you want?
<blowfish>
Vector3d.angle probably does what I just said
<rsparkyc>
yeah, except i'm getting results that don't seem to make sense
<rsparkyc>
and i bet i'm probably using the wrong vectors, there seems to be a lot of ones to choose from
<rsparkyc>
really i want to see if something is in L4 vs L5
<rsparkyc>
so: ahead of moon vs behind moon
<blowfish>
yeah, could be where the origin is
<blowfish>
you probably want to get world space vectors and then subtract them
<blowfish>
i.e. ship->body vector is ship position - body position
<blowfish>
err, actually other way around
<rsparkyc>
so on the vessel i probably want vessel.GetWorldPos3D()?
<blowfish>
I think so
<rsparkyc>
and on the celestial i just want celestial.position?
<rsparkyc>
i had this:
<blowfish>
probably? I'm not super familiar with which are which
<rsparkyc>
var bodyPlusVessel = cachedBody.position + vessel.GetWorldPos3D();
<rsparkyc>
var bodyPlusParent = cachedBody.position + cachedBody.referenceBody.position;
<rsparkyc>
var angle = Vector3d.Angle(bodyPlusVessel, bodyPlusParent);
<rsparkyc>
yeah, me either
<rsparkyc>
that seemed to produce numbers that didn't match what I was seeing ingame
<blowfish>
yeah, I think you just want to subtract
<rsparkyc>
let me try that
<rsparkyc>
i'm soooo rusty on vector math...
<taniwha>
rsparkyc: orbital position in KSP is a recipe for headaches
<rsparkyc>
good news: those numbers look right
<rsparkyc>
bad news: they're not signed
<rsparkyc>
so 5 deg left vs 5 deg right (or 355 deg left) both show 5
<github>
[RealismOverhaul] pap1723 opened pull request #1605: Remove UPGRADES from Fuel Tanks (master...patch-2) https://git.io/v93pn
<rsparkyc>
shm: MSDN says "Signed angles do not extend into 3-D space, so an angle between 0 and 180 degrees is returned."
<rsparkyc>
so grabbing the angle won't work
<rsparkyc>
i guess that makes sense though
<github>
[RealismOverhaul] pap1723 opened pull request #1606: Remove the Upgrades from the adjustable Sizes (master...patch-1) https://git.io/v93pC
<blowfish>
well think about it
<blowfish>
unless you know which way the body is rotating, L4 and L5 look equivalent
<blowfish>
since you could just flip the solar system upside down
<blowfish>
the axis of rotation adds a direction which distinguishes them
<pap1723>
<<<<<<-----Knows nothing, but can you get the angle from the center point of the celestial body with a reference to it's North?
<rsparkyc>
a moon travels toward l4
<pap1723>
Actaully, exactly what blowfish is sayinf
<pap1723>
*saying
<blowfish>
north doesn't matter, I'm talking about the rotation around the parent body, not its own axial rotation
<rsparkyc>
yeah, makes sense
<blowfish>
rsparkyc: I think I see a way to do it
<rsparkyc>
I'd need to create an imaginary point along the vector tangent to the orbit of the moon
<blowfish>
take the two vectors you already have
<rsparkyc>
and then get an angle with that
<rsparkyc>
go on
<blowfish>
instead of finding the angle between them, get the cross product
<rsparkyc>
that gets the normal vector IIRC
<blowfish>
that will be another vector, which will be normal to the plane of rotation
<rsparkyc>
yep
<rsparkyc>
ok, go on
<blowfish>
then dot it with the rotation vector
<pap1723>
blowfish, that is how North is determined...if you hold your hand in a fist with your thumb sticking out, whichever way the body rotates is which way your fingers are pointed, North is the direction your thumb is sticking out
<blowfish>
the sign of the result determines whether you're ahead or behind
HypergolicSkunk has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
<rsparkyc>
so what's the "rotation vector"?
<blowfish>
CelestialBody.RotationAxis
<blowfish>
I *think*
<rsparkyc>
that's assuming you don't have something like Uranus though, right?
<blowfish>
Pap1723: direction of rotation around the parent body need not be the same as direction of rotation relative to its own CoM
<blowfish>
are lagrange points well defined for highly elliptical orbits?
<pap1723>
Ah blowfish I see what you are saying, you are correct! I missed that part of it
<rsparkyc>
i have no idea about highly elliptical
<blowfish>
actually hold that though
<blowfish>
t
<blowfish>
CelestialBody.RotationAxis might not be the one you want
<rsparkyc>
ok, let me code this up and see what happens
<rsparkyc>
var bodyMinusVessel = cachedBody.position - vessel.GetWorldPos3D();
<rsparkyc>
var bodyMinusParent = cachedBody.position - cachedBody.referenceBody.position;
<rsparkyc>
var crossProduct = Vector3d.Cross(bodyMinusParent, bodyMinusVessel);
<rsparkyc>
var dotProduct = Vector3d.Dot(crossProduct, cachedBody.orbit.GetOrbitNormal());
<rsparkyc>
logging the dotProduct
<rsparkyc>
so i'll see what we get
jclishman has left #RO [Gotta focus, 'night]
* xShadowx
burries rsparkyc in a hole for using var
<rsparkyc>
i'll get rid of them...
<rsparkyc>
but for testing it's easier
<xShadowx>
you're like taniwha, var everywhere XD
<rsparkyc>
so, after testing, small perturbations in the orbit around L4 cause the sign of the dot product to vary
<rsparkyc>
blowfish: did the code above look like what you would expect?
<blowfish>
yes
<rsparkyc>
hmm :(
<blowfish>
weird
<rsparkyc>
the good news is, i have a REALLY good l4 orbit
aradapilot has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
aradapilot has joined #RO
<blowfish>
rsparkyc: can you tell if the sign is changing because the vector you calculated is changing direction or because the orbit normal is?
<rsparkyc>
i bet what was going on was that my orbit wasn't totally in the plane of the Mun, so that was probably screwing all sorts of stuff up
<rsparkyc>
i flattened it to be in the plane, and it seems to be staying negative
<rsparkyc>
i'm going to move to L5 and see what happens
<rsparkyc>
ok, at L5 it stays positive, but only after i make sure the orbit around L5 doesn't go up and down
Wetmelon has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
<rsparkyc>
so because the L4/L5 orbits can be "twisted", i don't know if i really like that approach
<rsparkyc>
I really need the angle between a point in space forward along the tangent of the celestial body's orbit, the celestial body itself, and the vessle
<rsparkyc>
<90 = L4, >90 = L5
<blowfish>
something's off, this shouldn't really be sensitive to being slightly out of plane
<rsparkyc>
well it was like 45 deg out of plane
<rsparkyc>
i mean looking at the side it looked like a rubber band ball
<acc>
just tested rp-0 on 1.2.2. works fine :)
<pap1723>
acc, yeah, as long as you follow the golden spreadsheet, you are in good shape
<rsparkyc>
blowfish: this seems to do the trick
<rsparkyc>
var bodyMinusVessel = cachedBody.position - vessel.GetWorldPos3D();
<rsparkyc>
var angle = Vector3d.Angle(bodyMinusVessel, cachedBody.GetFwdVector());
<rsparkyc>
that's less than 90 when in front, more than 90 when behind
rsparkyc has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
<pap1723>
Is there a way to have MechJeb spin up your craft using RCS before firing a SRB?
<acc>
nope
<Starwaster>
what does that mean anyway
<acc>
spin stabilization, I guess
<pap1723>
Exactly
<Starwaster>
yeah that's kind of antithetical to the way MJ does things. Even if you don't force a roll orientation it will want to stop you from rolling
<acc>
yep
<pap1723>
I DID IT! Landed on the Moon (unmanned only)
<acc>
grats :)
<waerloga>
by 'landed' you actually mean 'intact' right? :P
<pap1723>
lol, yes, with pictures for proof and everything
<Raidernick>
does anyone here who uses ckan know how long it takes to index a mod update
<stewart>
is there a 1.1.3 compatible version?
<Raidernick>
stewart, i don't support old versions of ksp
<Raidernick>
once a new stable version is out that's it
<Raidernick>
so while you might be able to find an old 1.1.3 version somewhere
<Raidernick>
i unfortuantely can't help you with that
<stewart>
ok thanks.
TwistedMinds has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
jclishman is now known as jclishsleep
TwistedMinds has joined #RO
Olympic1 is now known as Olympic1|Semi
Shimmy_ has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
<Raidernick>
!tell stratochief I'm thinking about posting another pre-release of RO up if there are no objections to that. There are 2 pr's I'd like to close before doing so
<Qboid>
Raidernick: I'll redirect this as soon as they are around.
<github>
[RealismOverhaul] Ash19256 opened pull request #1609: Add HG-3 and HG-3-SL (master...master) https://git.io/v9sBB
Wetmelon has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
<TwistedMinds>
Is it normal to have most (all?) procedural parts/fairings unlocked at start? I can make a 30k battery before even unlocking basic batteries
<Raidernick>
TwistedMinds, in what ksp stock career?
<TwistedMinds>
uh no, using ro/rp-0 for 1.2.2
<Raidernick>
i don't know if rp0 properly handles procedural parts
<Raidernick>
it does prices and unlocks by part names
<Raidernick>
a procedural part has the same name no matter what size/shape it is
<Raidernick>
i could be mistaken about how it handles it but i wouldn't expect it to work
<soundnfury>
proc parts have tech unlocks on size limits iirc
<soundnfury>
but since batteries are really dense, you can make pretty much any battery you'll ever need with just Start tech
<Raidernick>
in rp0 or in the mod itself?
<TwistedMinds>
soundnfury, makes sense. I was confused since a lot of proc. part/fairing are unlocked at the same time than their basic parts (srb at least) but batteries and fairing are in the first tech
<TwistedMinds>
thought i might have installed wrong, I'll take a look at the config and see if I find anything
<Raidernick>
soundnfury, i'm seeing techlimit for start on procedural parts set to infinity for each dimension
<Raidernick>
TECHLIMIT
<Raidernick>
{
<Raidernick>
name = start
<Raidernick>
diameterMax = Infinity
<Raidernick>
lengthMax = Infinity
<Raidernick>
volumeMax = Infinity
<Raidernick>
}
<Raidernick>
that's for the batteries specifically btw
<Raidernick>
the other parts have mass limits but no dimension
<Raidernick>
that pretty much explains TwistedMinds complaint
<HypergolicSkunk>
I was also wondering about the procedural SRB in a career that you want to start with sounding-rockets first
<HypergolicSkunk>
the initial SRB size is waaaay too big
<HypergolicSkunk>
so many details ^
<Raidernick>
i don't feel like looking at the config but i suspect the same thing is happening there
<Raidernick>
btw these parts are not managed in the global tree file they have their own separate config
<Raidernick>
that would need to be fixed
<soundnfury>
fairly sure the SRB has techlimits, or at least it did last time I used it (which was a few versions ago...)
<HypergolicSkunk>
yep, I remember that, too
<HypergolicSkunk>
with new nodes opening up bigger sizes
<TwistedMinds>
If I understand the .cfg correctly, it looks like rp-0 does limit the diameter of proceduralbattery's diameter and length through tech
<Raidernick>
TwistedMinds, that code snippet i posted was directly off of the battery config
<Raidernick>
if it does limit it, it doesn't do it for start
<Raidernick>
which is pointless
<TwistedMinds>
can I paste a couple of line from ProcSizes.cfg (rp-0) ?
<Raidernick>
as long as it's not too long ok
<Raidernick>
actually
<Raidernick>
you can just link directly to the link
<Raidernick>
so you can use the battery to create a black hole basically
<HypergolicSkunk>
that should be fine, if the dimensions are limited?
<Raidernick>
should it?
<Raidernick>
it's been a while since i used any procedural parts
<Raidernick>
can you not manually set the volume?
<HypergolicSkunk>
I'd assume that a certain length and width volume should be enough to pose a limit
<HypergolicSkunk>
the volume is calculated from that, right?
<HypergolicSkunk>
err, dunno where the first 'volume' came from
<Raidernick>
even if that were true
<Raidernick>
i'm looking at these values for start
<Raidernick>
it say 2.0x15.0
<Raidernick>
that's meters right
<Raidernick>
that's pretty big
<Raidernick>
for start tech
<HypergolicSkunk>
absolutely
<Raidernick>
the problem looks like this is a generic config for all procedural tanks
<HypergolicSkunk>
but does it differentiate between NoseCone, Battery, etc?
<Raidernick>
that's normal for a fuel tank
<Raidernick>
but not battery yeah
<Raidernick>
they should be separate
<Raidernick>
but they aren't
<ThisDay>
April 27: Dinner Party, the first successful silo launch of the Titan II, occurs in 1963. In 1967, the USSR launches an investigation into the cause of the Soyuz I failure in 1967. Apollo 16 splashes down in the Pacific Ocean in 1972.
<Raidernick>
15 meters is too big for any tech level battery
<Raidernick>
it's actually insane
<HypergolicSkunk>
^^
<HypergolicSkunk>
yeah
<TwistedMinds>
Raidernick, welp, at least they are 'managed'. You guys are already doing a great job, I cannot ask you to individually customize everything at once :>
<taniwha>
nah, should be good for powering that flux capacitor
<Raidernick>
TwistedMinds, you absolutely can and should
<HypergolicSkunk>
or a Dyson Sphere
<Raidernick>
make an issue on the git
<Raidernick>
mention that the battery and the rest of the tanks are all managed as part of the same config when they shouldn't be
<Raidernick>
and post that line
<HypergolicSkunk>
which would make a more modular tech-tree very attractive... one that has a separate node-line for each procedural part
<Raidernick>
not every part
<Raidernick>
just the batteries and everything else
<HypergolicSkunk>
no
<HypergolicSkunk>
definitely SRB
<Raidernick>
the srb isn't listed there
<Raidernick>
so it already has it's own config
ThisDay has quit [Ping timeout: 204 seconds]
<TwistedMinds>
Sure will do, thank you :) I'm actually a bit shy to post issue on github since I'm not sure what is normal or not, being new to rss/ro/rp-0, but I'll take a quick look at these files and report what looks strange
<HypergolicSkunk>
I was talking about the tech-tree :)
<Raidernick>
oh yeah then ok
<Raidernick>
TwistedMinds, definitely post it i can assure you a 15x2 meter battery is beyond ridiculous
<Raidernick>
it would weigh what, like 300 tonnes?
<Raidernick>
i don't know if a battery like that even exists
<Raidernick>
let alone in the 1950s
ThisDay has joined #RO
<TwistedMinds>
game is almost done loading, let see what i can craft with the starting tech only :>
<taniwha>
Raidernick: a 2mx15m lead-acid battery could be fun
<Raidernick>
it would be theoretically possible yeah
<taniwha>
(would be doable, too, but there's that "fun")
<Raidernick>
but i can't see any application for that
<Raidernick>
yeah i was a bit off but 67 tonnes is still pretty damn big
<taniwha>
Raidernick: running a very big starter motor :)
<HypergolicSkunk>
world's most cumbersome powerbank
<Raidernick>
did the math that would be 2230 car batteries
<Raidernick>
so there's your lead acid battery lol
<TwistedMinds>
17 982 477.61 electricity on that bad boy.
<taniwha>
Raidernick: good for a starter motor + engine scaled by 13 in each dimension
<Raidernick>
lol
<taniwha>
(assuming the power required to start such a thing goes with the mass)
Starwaster has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
stupid_chris has quit [Read error: -0x1: UNKNOWN ERROR CODE (0001)]
<HypergolicSkunk>
my comment about the Proc SRB initial size being too large was wrong. it's actually too small (max. diameter of 0.2m) if you want to use it with the sounding-rocket avionics part, which has a diameter of 0.3m
Olympic1|Semi is now known as Olympic1
rsparkyc has joined #RO
rsparkyc has quit [Client Quit]
<stratochief|away>
if someone wants to build a mondo sized battery, it won't really do them any harm or good. good luck, have fund trying to get any benefit from having a 68 tonne battery at the start of the game, when you can't even put 20kg in orbit :P
<stratochief|away>
Raidernick: what makes you want to do another pre-release? what additions/changes has RO seen since the last one?
<stratochief|away>
riocrokite: hmmm, nice smooth animation. and is that an exernal cockpit for the thing being driven?
<riocrokite>
used stock mk1 cockpit
<TwistedMinds>
Another quick question about rp0 (sorry, rp0 channel is kind of dead right now), if I want to change where a part is unlocked in the tech tree, all I have to modify is tree.yml/recompile, right?
<pap1723>
yes TwistedMinds
<TwistedMinds>
thank you :)
<HypergolicSkunk>
wait, there's a #RP0 channel?
<pap1723>
Yes HypergolicSkunk but there hasn't been a word said in it in at least 2 weeks
<HypergolicSkunk>
ah I see
<HypergolicSkunk>
hm, what is the difference between changing the Tree.cfg, and changing the tree.yml?
TonyC1 has joined #RO
<waerloga>
iirc, one is 'source code' that is compiled into the other
<waerloga>
don't recall which is which though
TonyC has quit [Ping timeout: 204 seconds]
<HypergolicSkunk>
hm. I just manually changed the node in which Procedural SRBs are unlocked by modifying the Tree.cfg in the RP-0 folder, then started up KSP and began a new career - this worked.
SigmaAway is now known as Sigma88
<HypergolicSkunk>
would I then still have to use the perl-script for something?
<TwistedMinds>
Sigma88, are you afraid the fixed runway (1.3) will make it too easy to takeoff? :p
<pap1723>
If you edit the Tree.cfg, it will work fine for your personal game, all edits and changes you push to Github would need to be in the .YML file
<HypergolicSkunk>
ahh. ty :)
<Sigma88>
TwistedMinds: that's a proof of concept
<Sigma88>
if someone is interested in making RSS more realistic we can make lakes, rivers and waterfalls work
<Sigma88>
like the niagara falls
<pap1723>
Damn, pretty impressive Sigma88
<TwistedMinds>
Sigma88, I was just kidding :) It looks great! Anything that add more variety to the terrain is welcome
jclishsleep is now known as jclishman
<TwistedMinds>
The game severely miss unique features like this
<pap1723>
So, the RD-180 does not have Test Flight configs right now
<pap1723>
In terms of reliability, what is a similar engine that I should model it after?
<pap1723>
From what I understand it is one of the best engines ever made, but I admittedly do not know that much about it
<Sigma88>
if you know anyone interested in making such features for RSS tell them to leave me a tell around here
<TwistedMinds>
Pap1723, my google-fu had failed me :( I can't find "numbers" about its reliability other than it's the best thing ever and it share about 70% common hardware with the rd-170. 100% mission success rate :/ Maybe that's why there's no testflight for it :p
<pap1723>
lol, no, there seems to be some Test Flight Data missing for it, there is no rated burn time, also for the F-1 - I will be working on adding it
Qboid was kicked from #RO by *status [You have been disconnected from the IRC server]
Qboid has joined #RO
RokkerSleep is now known as Rokker
ThisDay has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
<riocrokite>
burn time for rd-170 = 150s vs 270s for rd-180
<riocrokite>
and 325s for rd-191
Thomas|AWAY is now known as Thomas
Thomas is now known as Thomas|
Thomas| is now known as Thomas
<pap1723>
thanks riocrokite
<pap1723>
I was going to use the rated burn time for the RD-180 as 255s as that is 5 seconds longer than the burn time for the Atlas V 521 version
<pap1723>
The only place I saw the rated burn time for the RD-180 at 270s was on Astronautix
<riocrokite>
yah probably the place I got the value
rsparkyc has joined #RO
<TwistedMinds>
eh? the burn rate for the rd-180 is on the wikipedia
<TwistedMinds>
burn time*
<pap1723>
yes it is on the wikipedia entry as well, but they show Astronautix as one of their sources
<Agathorn>
I'm guessing right now that R is radius and H is height, not sure if that is correct or not
<rsparkyc>
that was going to be my guess
<rsparkyc>
g might be gravitational constant
<Agathorn>
even if it is, then the question becomes is it height above surface or height from center
<rsparkyc>
height from center
<rsparkyc>
sorry
<rsparkyc>
surface
<rsparkyc>
that's why there's R+H
<rsparkyc>
(that's just my guess)
<Agathorn>
does radius make sense to you? I don't recall seeing an orbit measured in radius
<rsparkyc>
i don't know what else it ould be
<Agathorn>
although I haven't looked at this stuff in a while so maybe i'm just forgetting things
Olympic1 is now known as Olympic1|Nomz
<Agathorn>
hmm maybe it means earth's radius
<taniwha>
Agathorn: radius for orbit means from body center to vessel position
<taniwha>
hmm, however, yeah, that looks like R = body radius, H = altitude
<HypergolicSkunk>
taniwha: may I ask you something in relation to FAR or general aerodynamics with RO/RSS? :)
<Agathorn>
taniwha: ah ok well that makes more sense than the actual radius of the orbit :D But yeah I'm leaning towards H = altitude and R -= body radius, especially based on the more confusing source upon which this ewuation was derived
<TwistedMinds>
Almost done with the tech tree, it's starting to look good :) Another quick question, is RO dealing with changing the category a part appear in? There's some minor (imho!) error in there, like the procedural decoupler in 'structural' instead of 'coupling'
<TwistedMinds>
Or should I approach the original mod dev?
<Agathorn>
TwistedMinds: RO doesn't deal with the tree at all. All of that is in RP-0
Olympic1|Nomz is now known as Olympic1
<Agathorn>
and in RP-0, yes categories are dealt with
<TwistedMinds>
Hmm yeah I meant RP-0, my bad :)
<Agathorn>
If you think somethign is wrong, best route is to open an issue on GitHub and explain what you thinki is incorrect
<Agathorn>
then let the RO conclave come to a decision :)
<TwistedMinds>
I'll do :) It's just that, at this point, I already do it for myself while searching for inconsistencies, I might as well try to keep it similar to how rp-0 deal with it
<HypergolicSkunk>
is it a lot of work for you guys if we open issues that aren't actually issues, or that we messed up ourselves? :(
<Agathorn>
what do you mean?
<Agathorn>
I mean if you broke somethign yourself, logically you should fix what you broke :)
<HypergolicSkunk>
my test-install has several issues, but I'm not sure those are because I fouled up the install-process, or whether it's a real issue
<Olympic1>
if you're not sure begin with a clean install
<HypergolicSkunk>
ok :)
<Agathorn>
yeah sometimes it can be hard to tell. Best thing is to strip things back to find where it occurs and then go from there
stratochief|away is now known as stratochief
<stratochief>
HypergolicSkunk: you're always free to ask, just don't be surprised if you don't get an answer due to low attendance at the time or if people just don't know
<Qboid>
stratochief: Raidernick left a message for you in #RO [27.04.2017 08:59:58]: "I'm thinking about posting another pre-release of RO up if there are no objections to that. There are 2 pr's I'd like to close before doing so"
<HypergolicSkunk>
stratochief: that's perfectly fine, I understand you folks are doing this out of the kindness of your heart :)
<stratochief>
TwistedMinds: yeah, the proc decoupler should probably be in decouplers. there is probably an RO or RP-0 patch that addresses that part, you could PR a fix to it that corrects the category?
<stratochief>
HypergolicSkunk: well, so are players :) and all/most of us here are also KSP players, or at least have been at some point
Shimmy_ has joined #RO
<stratochief>
TwistedMinds: also, what are you doing to the/a tech tree?
<pap1723>
Hey stratochief I finally landed a probe on the Moon
<TwistedMinds>
stratochief, mostly for myself, but moving some starting tech to the first relevant tech. TBH, it is almost all procedural parts
<TwistedMinds>
aka procedural battery to basicConstructions (the first battery is there), etc..
<stratochief>
Pap1723: I saw. congrats :) what was the mass of the probe? any pics?
<stratochief>
TwistedMinds: ahh. IIRC, we were intending to phase out the specialized procBattery part, since you can put a battery in a service module and other procedural tank types
<HypergolicSkunk>
no :(
<TwistedMinds>
stratochief, woopsie. Well, at least I'm learning a lot about ro/rp-0 by doing it so it's okay :>
<stratochief>
TwistedMinds: meh, using it yourself doesn't do any harm. and now you understand why it wasn't where you thought it was :)
<stratochief>
TwistedMinds: IIRC, the reason was because as already mentioned, redundant, and because the density/mass was a bit odd. this was many months ago and my memory for bits and bytes isn't great
<pap1723>
One ton when decoupled from the SRB deceleration stage, landed with 32 delta-v
<stratochief>
you like to live a risky life. well done! was the Atlas Centaur enough, or did you go with a larger launcher?
<pap1723>
I had to go larger, actually, after I finished the mission, Raidernick pushed a commit that would have allowed me to use the Atlas Centaur
<HypergolicSkunk>
Pap1723: nice!
<pap1723>
It was a single F-1 below a single J-2 below a 4x Bell 8096 below the probe and SRB
<pap1723>
Cost me $25k to make $75k, totally worth it!
<Agathorn>
I've still never managed to soft land anything on the moon
<pap1723>
KSP screwed up all my screenshots and they are all out of order and some are missing form the mission, but all my Moon missions have been night launches, so not much to see anyway
<Agathorn>
after years and years of KSP
<pap1723>
I did a direct approach, no lunar orbit
<Raidernick>
stratochief, read my message?
<stratochief>
Raidernick: ready my response?
<stratochief>
[08:48:49] <stratochief|away> Raidernick: what makes you want to do another pre-release? what additions/changes has RO seen since the last one?
<Raidernick>
all the commits that fixed and added stuff?
<Raidernick>
i have 4 pr's ready to merge now
<Raidernick>
which i'm about to do
<Raidernick>
in addition to the stuff already done
<stratochief>
I'd rather we don't do another pre-release before checking to see how close we may be to a real release. pinging ferram4_?
<Raidernick>
stratochief, can you do me a favor and check #1430 and #1454
<Qboid>
[#1430] title: Titan Engine updates | For some reason we currently have the LR87-AJ-7 and LR91-AJ-7 engines used on the Titan GLV as being weaker than the LR87-NA-5 and LR91-NA-5 engines used on the Titan II ICBM and Titan 23G (Titan II SLV). I'm not sure where the numbers we currently use came from. The first reference address, while full of great information, doesn't seem to have any thrus
<Qboid>
t or ISP information for the Titan. And Astronautix no longer seems to have usable data. I was able to find a NASA Technical Document from the Gemini 7 mission which does list the thrust for both engines and those values appear to line up with what can be found on b14643.de so I'm suggesting we update.... | https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/issues/1430
<github>
RealismOverhaul/master 654eda1 raidernick: Merge pull request #1596 from PhineasFreak/RO-Kestrel-1B-Updates...
<Raidernick>
HypergolicSkunk, the stuff i listed is required
<HypergolicSkunk>
Raidernick: are you saying every mod on the RO-tab of the magic sheet is required?
<Raidernick>
did you read what i just said above?
<Raidernick>
i listed what you were missing
<HypergolicSkunk>
ah
<HypergolicSkunk>
my bad
<Raidernick>
rss, community category kit, engine group controller and modular flight integrator
<HypergolicSkunk>
I've never heard of Community Category Kit before 2 minutes ago!
<rsparkyc>
it's on line 36 of the spreadsheet
<HypergolicSkunk>
how did I miss that oO
<rsparkyc>
how did you miss Real Solar System? :)
<HypergolicSkunk>
it wasn't mandatory before
<HypergolicSkunk>
not for RO
<rsparkyc>
how was it not?
<rsparkyc>
i've never played RO in the kerbin system
<HypergolicSkunk>
you could easily play the stock KSP system with RO mechanics. super-overpowered, but yeah :)
<HypergolicSkunk>
and yes, I understand they're meant for each other, but I'm trying to figure out whether RO mechanics are working, so I assumed it's not mandatory
<rsparkyc>
i guess it was only a "Recommendation"
<HypergolicSkunk>
yeah
<HypergolicSkunk>
also, I don't see the Engine Group Controller anywhere in the sheet
<rsparkyc>
huh, you're right
<HypergolicSkunk>
yay! something I didn't mess up ^.^
<rsparkyc>
how did I miss that oO
<TwistedMinds>
i also don't remember installing it, but somehow I have it installed. it must be bundled or required by another mod on the list
<pap1723>
Engine Group Controller is bundled with RO
<HypergolicSkunk>
same for me, TwistedMinds. I have it in my grand folder of downloaded mods
<rsparkyc>
maybe that's in what CKAN does?
<github>
[RealismOverhaul] raidernick pushed 3 new commits to master: https://git.io/v9GXb
<github>
RealismOverhaul/master f9f7295 raidernick: Merge pull request #1430 from ctiberious/patch-49...
<TwistedMinds>
Pap1723, hah, that's it.
<github>
[RealismOverhaul] raidernick pushed 2 new commits to master: https://git.io/v9G1K
<github>
RealismOverhaul/master da0b73b Edward Cree: Sensible config prices for the H-1 family...
<github>
RealismOverhaul/master e0de3e4 raidernick: Merge pull request #1454 from ec429/master...
<rsparkyc>
Pap1723 yep, that's right
<rsparkyc>
phew
Starwaster has joined #RO
<pap1723>
Raidernick, any chance of including the SSTU configs I put up as pulls?
schnobs has quit [Ping timeout: 204 seconds]
<Raidernick>
i don't usually like merging configs without testing them
<Raidernick>
i'm merging these cause they've been open for 5 months now
<Raidernick>
and only changed a couple lines
<Raidernick>
and nobody is responding to them
<Raidernick>
for sstu you'll need to talk to someone more familiar with it
<Raidernick>
maybe stratochief|brb is
<pap1723>
No problem, I tested and it is working how intended, but I understand there is no hurry and don't want to bork up the install
<HypergolicSkunk>
aaaaand suddenly my RO install is not missing a COL-indicator ... thanks guys <3
<pap1723>
HypergolicSkunk, that means it is time to load it up with part mods and break it all over again!
<HypergolicSkunk>
already happening >:D
<pap1723>
Raidernick, is there any reason to keep all of the support for the parts mods in RO that haven't been updated since 1.04 and no longer work?
stratochief|brb is now known as stratochief
<Raidernick>
I've suggested removed them many times
<Raidernick>
nobody listenes to me
<Raidernick>
talk to stratochief
<Raidernick>
he's back now
<Raidernick>
lol
<Raidernick>
typically the configs are only remvoed if the pack is entirely broken
<Raidernick>
or nto available to download anywhere
<Raidernick>
or both
<Raidernick>
is that the case?
<Raidernick>
stratochief, I am drafting a changelog
<pap1723>
I would have to look into them closer to see if they are available, but like AIES I cannot find anywhere
<stratochief>
scumbag RN: asks me to review something, immediately merges them...
<stratochief>
Someone could certainly look for all the parts mods, see if A. they can be found and B. if they still work well with their RO configs or not
<Raidernick>
stratochief, sorry about that
<Raidernick>
i double checked what i asked you to look at again
<Raidernick>
it was just the pr with changes to some pricing values
<Raidernick>
nothing major
<stratochief>
Pap1723: possibly track that in an Issue, if you can't find it? I've never used AIES, but I recall regex I think asking if they still worked in RO a few days ago, so presumably he was still able to find them or still had them
<stratochief>
Raidernick: gotcha. in future, please don't do that :)
<Raidernick>
at any rate
<Raidernick>
stratochief, can you check that draft i have written
<stratochief>
I see you poked me about them yesterday, which is appreciated. I've been a bit busy the past few weeks to check out much on Github
<Raidernick>
it includes everything added since the previous one
<stratochief>
I think we (as in RO group) are in general agreement that a mod should be A. acquirable, and B. working in RO for it to still be listed on the RO list of supported mods
<stratochief>
someone (generally, sometwo) should probably confirm that a mod is lost to the cause before removing it from 'the list'
<Raidernick>
stratochief, there are 3 pr's you can check as they are not mods that i am familiar with using
<Raidernick>
#1606, #1605 and #1588
<Qboid>
[#1606] title: SSTU-Remove the Upgrades from the adjustable Sizes | This makes the SSTU parts behave much more like procedural parts. When playing a RP-0 career, the tanks, decouplers, fairings and heat shields should all be able to be adjusted. | https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/issues/1606
<Qboid>
[#1605] title: SSTU-Remove UPGRADES from Fuel Tanks | This makes the SSTU parts behave much more like procedural parts. When playing a RP-0 career, the tanks, decouplers, fairings and heat shields should all be able to be adjusted. | https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/issues/1605
<stratochief>
Raidernick: thankee. I'll take a look at that when I can. let us wait a day or two or until I can check in with ferram4 to see if we're near having an official FAR so that RO can go official as well
<Raidernick>
the authors have been complaining there that they are getting no feedback on those prs
<Raidernick>
and i agree
<Raidernick>
not pap though as his are new
<pap1723>
I don't complain
<stratochief>
Pap1723: Curse has AIES 1.6.1, listed as for KSP 1.0.4 ; have you tested that to see if it still works in RO? parts mods like that generally are hard to break, even if they haven't been 'updated'
<Raidernick>
Pap1723, read right above
<stratochief>
exception being wheels, landing gears, concave colliders, etc.
<Olympic1>
Raidernick: they have to understand that you guys have lives too
<stratochief>
Raidernick: a month is hardly any time, not sure why people are so impatient :P
<Raidernick>
stratochief, i'm not talking about the pr's that were open since november alst year
<Raidernick>
and had the author asking several times for it to be reviewed
<Raidernick>
that's why i finally jumped in on those
<Raidernick>
i'm talking more about*
<Raidernick>
wow i messed that sentence up
<stratochief>
Raidernick: appreciated. as long as you test something and report on things being odd, or give your feedback from the testing, you should feel free to merge PRs from other people too
<Raidernick>
stratochief, i usually don't feel comfortable merging pr's for parts that i didn't have a hand in making
<Raidernick>
but those were open so long i finally decided to just test the part pack
<pap1723>
For me personally, I just don't install the mods that I don't want, but a year ago when I first started looking at RO, it was completely overwhelming that that many things were there. I had no idea what parts mods to install and didn't know what would be enough. Maybe as a group we could give some notes, or recommended parts mods? I don't know, I just always like trying to help new people out.
<stratochief>
I was on a ~2 week vacation a month ago, and I'm now about 2 weeks into catching up on 2 weeks of regular work. as Olympic1 says, we all have lives. we all get to exercise our patience and empathy :)
<Raidernick>
i should start looking at and merging stuff more often then i guess
<stratochief>
Raidernick: yeah, those really old ones I was on the fence about, and sometimes provided a bit of feedback trying to explain why, sometimes I didn't have the time or attention to do that unfortunately
<Raidernick>
stratochief, the atlas engines needed to be fixed
<stratochief>
as you said, a RP0- price adjustment doesn't break the game either way, so I elected to delay, you elected to merge. fine either way
<Raidernick>
i got several complaints recently about them being screwed up
<Raidernick>
and i also saw a video where scott manley mentionned it
<stratochief>
Raidernick: I still didn't quite understand what had been wrong with those Atlas engines; waht was the deal?
<Raidernick>
so at that point i decided to just do it
<Raidernick>
they couldn't get the proper payload mass to orbit
<Raidernick>
2 of the configs had issues
<stratochief>
Raidernick: yeah, feel free to review other people's PRs, I understand it can be daunting or uncomfortable. worst case, you test it and give positive feedback, and multiple reviews/opinons makes it easier for one of us to merge
<stratochief>
Pap1723: we could assemble a review or set of personal opinions on various mods, and what we individually suggest/prefer somewhere?
<pap1723>
I think that is something that other people on here that want to contribute could do stratochief
<stratochief>
IMO, the absolute RP-0 basics are pretty good, if you include Procparts, because those allow you to make whatever you want really. I throw in Taerobee so I get a couple of options for starter rocket tanks and engines
<pap1723>
Maybe the people that don't have the time / knowledge to code or make configs could take that over (if ant of those people exist)
<stratochief>
Pap1723: certainly, someone just has to start the Issue or forum thread to get it rolling. I agree it is a good idear
<Raidernick>
Pap1723, there is nothing stopping anyone from reviewing someone elses pr and saying if it works or not
<Raidernick>
i meant mods*
<Raidernick>
i can't type today
<stratochief>
someone new like a year ago basically demanded that NK or someone make a list of 'to do', things that we've thought about doing but haven't done. NK put a bunch of time into writing it up, then naturally that new person didn't do anything to help :P
<stratochief>
I've also put some time into organizing RO and RP-0 Issues, closing old or fixed ones, etc. things to make it easier to reference things that somebody new or interested in contributing could do.
<Raidernick>
stratochief, there are a LOT of open old RO issues
<Raidernick>
i've suggested before reviewing and closing a ton of them
<stratochief>
Raidernick: a LOT fewer than there used to be :)
<Raidernick>
there's no way they can all be relevant still
<Raidernick>
some are from 2014
<Raidernick>
lol
<stratochief>
certainly not. why not you, Raidernick? really, anybody could review a few and weigh in
<stratochief>
*certainly not all relevant
<Raidernick>
i talked to NK about it before
<Raidernick>
and he shut me down
<Raidernick>
so i don't do it now
<Raidernick>
i literally had a list of issues i thought were useless
<Raidernick>
and he refused to close them
<Raidernick>
and they are still there
<stratochief>
I created a "Ready to Close?" label for Issues, if someone is of the opinion that one should be closed, then can apply the Label
<Raidernick>
stratochief, the entire page 3 has those tags on it
<Raidernick>
and those are still open
<Raidernick>
and those are also the ones he wouldn't let me close
<stratochief>
I'll take a look and close some of them sometime. a counter-argument for some of those old ones is that nobody looks at page 3 anyway :P
<Raidernick>
stratochief, yes you close them
<Raidernick>
that way i can't be yelled at for it
<Raidernick>
just you
<Raidernick>
lol
<stratochief>
Raidernick: I'll yell at you all I want :)
<stratochief>
You just complain when people blame or ask you, I take it like a true scotsman :P
<TwistedMinds>
close them all with a "confirmed irrelevant by raidernick" comment, then take a coffee break
<Raidernick>
stratochief, i'd say there is a good chance anything from 2015 back is no longer relevant
<Raidernick>
which is 2/3 of the issues
<Raidernick>
TwistedMinds, i already posted those comments in several issues lol
<Raidernick>
last year
<pap1723>
What can I do to contribute?
<pap1723>
Other than the contracts I mean
<Raidernick>
Pap1723, any issues with help wanted tags
<Agathorn>
I see only 5 issues with the "Ready to Close?" tag that aren't actually closed, and 14 that are closed, so i'd say the tag is working
<stratochief>
TwistedMinds: don't give RN any bad ideas :)
<Raidernick>
Agathorn, i had about 30 more tags
<Raidernick>
i was asked to remove them
<Raidernick>
lol
<Raidernick>
basically i had taged most of the issues from 2014/early 2015 that made no sense to have there anymore
<Agathorn>
One of them was an issue I had opened, so I just closed it. of the reminaing 4, 3 were opened by NK so I can see people being afraid toclose those :p
<stratochief>
Raidernick: go ahead, tag away and write an actual justification/rational for closing. preferably relevant to the actual issue text or title
<Raidernick>
Agathorn, that's why i ask stratochief to close them
<Raidernick>
he can take the heat on that
<stratochief>
Raidernick: oh, it'll get done, eventually
* stratochief
add whatever Raidernick is currently mumbling about to his million long to-do list
<pap1723>
Agathorn, are you the one that works on Test Flight?
<Raidernick>
look at Agathorn closing all those NK issues
<Agathorn>
Pap1723: I wrote TestFlight and try to keep it up and running, but I don't play KSP anymore, at least not at present
<Agathorn>
so basically I do the bare minimum to keep it running and useful
<Agathorn>
Part of the problem with the RO issues as I see it is there are a lot of tickets that call for sweeping changes or fixes to what can amount to hundreds of parts, but with no tracking to ensure they all get covered
<Agathorn>
so the issues just languish forever because no one can ever say if its "done" or not
<Raidernick>
Agathorn, was this ever turned into a pr? #1105
<Qboid>
[#1105] title: Agena flight pack balancing | So there are two flight packs defined in the FASA configs. One for an Agena-B flightpack and one for the Agena-D.... | https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/issues/1105
<Agathorn>
Raidernick: I was looking at that and I'm actually not sure
<Agathorn>
I need to dig into it
<Agathorn>
I'm thinking no at the moment
Wetmelon has joined #RO
<stratochief>
No, I don't believe it was ever PR'd
<stratochief>
Agathorn did excellent research, but nobody did the last little bit to make it a PR. We all failed you Agathorn :)
<Agathorn>
or I did
<Agathorn>
but generally i'm bad with MM shit
<Agathorn>
so I usually prefer others that are better with it to do the fixes
<stratochief>
Agathorn: you're included in 'we', but the failure to do Everything isn't really a failure
<Agathorn>
lol
<stratochief>
Agathorn: don't worry about doing MM shit poorly, that is what reviewing and testing by other people is for. if you make a mistake, we're there to help you fix it and avoid the same mistake in the future
<Olympic1>
tip for PR's: if a PR is referencing an issue use "Closes #<PR-number>" to close them on merge
<Olympic1>
because I see jwvanderbeck closing issues refering to a merged PR
<Agathorn>
stratochief: what do you think about #254
<Agathorn>
thinking it can be closed, but there is a query on there that wasn't answered
<Agathorn>
hmm forgot how to make new labels
<Agathorn>
we should add a Help Wanted - Coding label
<Agathorn>
ahh figured it out
<stratochief>
Agathorn: that one still has a hanging "To Do" of extracting the LH2 and LO2 volumes/masses from a press document, converting them for RealFuels, then re-jiggering the Gemini fuel cell to work correctly with the new values
<stratochief>
Agathorn: not critical, but not done either. best left as open IMO
<stratochief>
Raidernick: please don't close Issues straight away. Apply the tag, and state your reasoning. Best to let two sets of eyes hit something before it is closed
<Raidernick>
stratochief, i didn't even need to apply the tag
<Raidernick>
i did that before i realized that it definitely wasn't an issue
<Raidernick>
and see!
<Raidernick>
i close one issue and get yelled at
<Raidernick>
lol
<Raidernick>
this si why i don't do this
<Agathorn>
stratochief: frankly if the issue is a year or more old and deals with part problems, it is most likely no longer relevant
<stratochief>
I asked you to do something a certain way, you agreed to do it that way, then proceeded to not do it that way...
<stratochief>
Raidernick: ^
<Agathorn>
Best thing to do is close them with comment, and if the issue really is still valid they can be opened anew
<Raidernick>
stratochief, i see both you and Agathorn closing issues made by others with no comments
<Raidernick>
why should you be excluded from that rule
<Raidernick>
if the issue is definitely not a problem anymore
<stratochief>
Raidernick: and you've got to be the most sensitive little thing if something from a canadian that starts with a Please is yelling in your book
<Raidernick>
uh?
<stratochief>
[15:32:25] <Raidernick> i close one issue and get yelled at
<Raidernick>
well i did
<Raidernick>
and i made a point earlier of why i don't close issues when you asked
<Raidernick>
and that's why
<pap1723>
Agathorn, in Test flight you show the amount of fuel used by an engine in the Engine GUI, how easy would it be for me to include the percentage of each?
<Agathorn>
I do?
<Raidernick>
regardless that issue was talking about making realplume a separate mod
<Raidernick>
realplume is a separate mod
<pap1723>
Shit, I thought it did
<Raidernick>
don't need to be a genius to see that it's not an issue
<stratochief>
Raidernick: Agathorn and I didn't agree to proceed that way with handing the closing of Issues, you did. If you want us to tag it and leave it, you'd need to talk to us about it and get our agreement...
<Raidernick>
fine ill open the fucking thing again
<Raidernick>
and i'll just leave all the issue handling to you
Raidernick was kicked from #RO by stratochief [Kindergarten is elsewhere!]
Raidernick has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<Olympic1>
stay calm guys
Raidernick has joined #RO
<Agathorn>
<yoga interlude>
<pap1723>
On a separate note, how do I get Procedural Avionics in my RP-0 game?
<Agathorn>
love how stratochief just goes "agreed" then closes it anyway :D
<Agathorn>
typical Canadian passive aggresivness
<Agathorn>
love ya man
<Olympic1>
:P
<stratochief>
Agathorn: comment unclear, still doing yoga
<Agathorn>
:)
<soundnfury>
hey stratochief, tell us how you feel about the Avro Arrow ;)
<stratochief>
soundnfury: it would be best if it hadn't been hacked to pieces? museums can has plane bits too?
<soundnfury>
stratochief: I imagine it could be summarised as "the same way soundnfury feels about TSR.2" ;)
<TwistedMinds>
Pap1723, should be under Pods, right from the start
<Agathorn>
how hard is the math to determine required ∆v for direct ascent a given orbit if you assume 100% efficiency, IE no penalties for gravity, steering, etc
<Agathorn>
prefeably something that can be applied to different bodies other than just Earth
* xShadowx
hands out yellow happy pills
<soundnfury>
Agathorn: basically hohmann transfer
<Agathorn>
from the surface?
<Agathorn>
how does that even work
<soundnfury>
on the surface you have an orbital velocity v0, right, from rotation
<soundnfury>
add a velocity vp to put you on elliptic orbit 0 × target
<Agathorn>
huh never thought of it that way
<soundnfury>
then at apogee, add a velocity va to circularise
<Agathorn>
makes sense though
<soundnfury>
and that's your ideal transfer, Δv = |vp| + |va|
<soundnfury>
obviously if you want things like inclination (maybe even inclination lower than launch latitude) it gets way more complicated,
<soundnfury>
and sometimes there are more efficient transfers like bielliptical (especially if there's a plane change involved), but the basic approach is the same:
<Agathorn>
yeah i'm trying to keep things as simple as possible
<Agathorn>
don't think I will even have issues like inlcination in the game
<soundnfury>
find a series of impulsive burns that gets you to your target orbit, then sum them.
<soundnfury>
that's how most of the delta-V charts you'll see are computed.
<soundnfury>
a key word if you want to look this stuff up, "vis-viva equation"
<Agathorn>
I recall encountering that before
<Agathorn>
though I forgot about it
ThisDay has quit [Ping timeout: 190 seconds]
TonyC1 is now known as TonyC
SigmaSemi is now known as Sigma88
<github>
[RealismOverhaul] PhineasFreak opened pull request #1611: RD-100 global engine config (master...RO-RD-100-Global-Engine-Config) https://git.io/v9ZJk
<rsparkyc>
anyone working on contracts that want to also integrate with principia:
lijat has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
lijat has joined #RO
riocrokite has joined #RO
Probus has joined #RO
<acc>
hm, KCT simulations are glitchy. can't move cam and zoom. also KCT window shows now simulation time and can't be moved
<acc>
s/now/no/
<Qboid>
acc meant to say: hm, KCT simulations are glitchy. can't move cam and zoom. also KCT window shows no simulation time and can't be moved
<soundnfury>
acc: the KCT beta builds for 1.2.2 don't even have simulations in any more
<soundnfury>
he decided they were too buggy or something and ripped them out
<acc>
oh, ok
taniwha has quit [Ping timeout: 201 seconds]
riocrokite has quit [Ping timeout: 204 seconds]
taniwha has joined #RO
Senshi has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
jclishman is now known as jclishroadtrip
Thomas is now known as Thomas|AWAY
Probus has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Probus has joined #RO
Wetmelon has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
<stratochief>
back!
<stratochief>
acc: yeah, what soundnfury said. I use KRASH for simulations now
<stratochief>
which will need to become an RP-0 recommend or require. probably Require, eh?
<soundnfury>
I've just git gud enough that I don't need to simulate any more
<soundnfury>
(except for planes, so I can only do them in sandbox now, because fsck planes)
<stratochief>
so gud that you 'know' that every element of your craft will work perfectly as you imagine it?
<soundnfury>
stratochief: more like so that I have enough margin, safety features etc that a fsckup doesn't necessarily mean LOM
<stratochief>
soundnfury: better than me, I stole all my plane designs from waerloga and made them rocket assist-launch
<soundnfury>
also I tend not to do all-up testing, and not put crew on an untested rocket, etc.
HypergolicSkunk has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
<stratochief>
my issues are usually with fairing bases not wanting to decouple from parts unless I jam a dedicated decoupler in there, or the fairings not being stage-able, as many fairing parts are wont to do in 1.2.2 for some reason
<stratochief>
also, the shadows for some fairings are all crazy. but nothing game-breaking there, and a complaint I don't intend to look deeper into until an actual release, since it could just be me
<waerloga>
heh
<waerloga>
and I suck at plane design :p
<soundnfury>
stratochief: I think interstage fairings (the PF ones) work differently now. The top decoupler only decouples when the fairing base is staged, not (as it used to) when the fairing walls have all been staged away
<soundnfury>
however, I *have* noticed that PF does spam a lot of NREs, which is sad
<Agathorn>
sheet 90% of my playtime when last I played was in simulation lol
<Agathorn>
did KRASH ever integrate with TF? He had contacted me about it and I showed him the API to do so
<pap1723>
someone posted better KRASH values to be used with RP-0, anyone know where those are located?