<acc>
hm, sometimes the input lock for RCS and SAS is active for no reason
<acc>
ans yes, RT has connection
<acc>
s/ans/and/
<Qboid>
acc meant to say: and yes, RT has connection
<acc>
no error in the debug log
<acc>
taniwha: very nice =)
<taniwha>
acc: I get that RCS lock sometimes, too, and I don't use RO
<taniwha>
(do use PR, though)
<acc>
oh, hm. good to know
<acc>
also RT?
<acc>
under the debug menu, there is a input lock tab. should I click on clear input locks? :>
<acc>
not sure if it clears just the locks or disables all input lock modules listed below
<Starwaster>
ok so solar insolation, is that only valid in atmosphere? Or the surface of the planet? ANyone know how that works?
<taniwha>
RT?
<taniwha>
oh, remotetech. no
<taniwha>
I think it's KER
awang has quit [Ping timeout: 200 seconds]
<stratochief>
Starwaster: valid on surface. varies from region to region, and day to day
<stratochief>
Starwaster: I'm thinking about Earth specifically, since the atmosphere has a huge impact for us. are you thinking more generally, such as for other moons and planets
Qboid was kicked from #RO by *status [You have been disconnected from the IRC server]
Qboid has joined #RO
Orkeren has quit [Quit: No Ping reply in 180 seconds.]
<taniwha>
ok, not KER
<taniwha>
so that's two mods eliminated
<taniwha>
KAC?
Orkeren has joined #RO
<github>
[RealismOverhaul] pap1723 closed pull request #1606: SSTU-Remove the Upgrades from the adjustable Sizes (master...patch-1) https://git.io/v93pC
<Starwaster>
stratochief, just noticing that the RO value is 0.15, the same as for stock and wondering if it needs adjusting?
awang has joined #RO
Wetmelon has quit [Ping timeout: 204 seconds]
<stratochief>
Starwaster: can you peak at the ksp code to see what that co-efficient does? if I google solar insolation, I see a whole bundle of factors that go into solar insolation that could have co-efficients
<stratochief>
might be worth poking NK with a !tell to ask him what that coefficient does
<Starwaster>
no, I can see what it does... if 15% is the correct value for Earth then it doesn't need adjusting
Wetmelon has joined #RO
NathanKell|AFK is now known as NathanKell
<NathanKell>
o/
<pap1723>
o/ NathanKell
<NathanKell>
stratochief: the coefficient about how much solar radiation is absorbed?
<taniwha>
hi, NathanKell :)
<NathanKell>
Heya Bill
<NathanKell>
The coefficients are set up so at Earth sea level atmospheric density (1.225kg/m^3) you lose 15% of solar radiation
<Starwaster>
does anyone know whether the Saturn V third stage maintained a set orientation during coast (parking orbit) or did they maintain prograde until TLI?
<pap1723>
NathanKell, while you are on here, I had a question. Now that we have detailed mapping of Ceres and Vesta, (and I created the configs for Half Size RSS) do you think I should add them to stock RSS?
<pap1723>
Starwaster, I do not know, but it was a full orbit coast to check out equipment
<NathanKell>
Pap1723: You should, yes. The old limit was more about RAM.
<NathanKell>
I'd be shocked if they didn't try to aim prograde to the sun on the light side.
* xShadowx
looks at 128gb of ram
<NathanKell>
better to spend RCS than lose LH2
<xShadowx>
16k res texture pack when?
<pap1723>
ok, also, there is a new way to keep the Textures in the Plugins folder, it keeps them unloaded in memory when not in use, I have reorganized mine for Half RSS and think it would be useful for RSS as well, but obviously as a full version release
<NathanKell>
um...sorry? I'm confused
<NathanKell>
Is there now load-on-demand support somewhere?
<Starwaster>
NathanKell, maybe, but they may also have had minimum flux input requirements in order to maintain propulsive venting which had a set thrust level requirement
<NathanKell>
Starwaster: Ah, very true
<pap1723>
Currently, the height maps are all stored in the Plugins folder as they are only loaded on demand
<NathanKell>
PluginData I think you mean?
<NathanKell>
Stuff in Plugins gets loaded
<Starwaster>
I've found a few new documents and noticed some information in old documents that I hadn't seen or recognized the import of
<pap1723>
One of the newer versions of Kopernicus has added that support for the rest of the textures
<Starwaster>
VERY specific flux input rates through various points
<Starwaster>
something I'd been searching for a long while (for calibration purposes)
<Starwaster>
specifically look at page 10-119 and page 10-120
<Starwaster>
though I'm not sure that's actually for the SIVB but it gives me some reference
<xShadowx>
stratochief: was there a list of what mods RO is still waiting on?
<NathanKell>
Pap1723: Ah. Ok, yeah, makes sense the OnDemand system would get extended. Cool!
<NathanKell>
Starwaster: Ah, interesting!
<pap1723>
I will work on that stuff NathanKell I know there is no rush on it as RSS is version locked, so it will be Soon TM
<NathanKell>
:D
<xShadowx>
how much more moons/planets in our system arent mapped?
<NathanKell>
Sounds good! No reaon to keep 8192s around if you don't need 'em
<pap1723>
Nothing around Uranus
<Starwaster>
NathanKell, the reason I'm a bit confused here is because it LOOKS in places like they're discussing a theoretical orbital version of the S-II but the flux rates are almost exactly what you'd need to get the boiloff seen in the SIVB
<Starwaster>
I need to go over that with a fine toothed comb
<pap1723>
xShadowx, also, most of the moons are only partially mapped and the rest is guestimated based on what is there
<NathanKell>
Hmm, weird. Might they be using SIVB numbers as proxies?
<github>
[TestFlight] Starstrider42 opened pull request #159: Make generation counter specific to branch loop (dev...patch-2) https://git.io/v9WNe
<Starwaster>
maybe
<stratochief>
Starwaster: I skimmed that paper, found that they were discussing boring missions like Saturn to Polar or Saturn to GEO. I didn't see that information, interesting
<Starwaster>
were there any discussions about outfitting the SIVB with more than one J2?
<NathanKell>
Some of the MLV studies IIRC
<stratochief>
Starwaster: none that I'm aware of. in the alt history timeline Eyes Turned Skywards, they produced something like that, but nothing historical I've come across (that I recollect) has that
TM1978m has joined #RO
<NathanKell>
I thought one of the ultimate MLVs had a 2-J-2 SIVB?
<NathanKell>
or even a 2x HG3
<NathanKell>
2, 7, and then 5 F-1As
<pap1723>
Does anyone have a link to the golden spreadsheet handy?
<stratochief>
none that I recall, and none that I re-created in game. of course, I didn't come across everything. when I was recreating, I was lilting towards the Huge, and the pure hydrogen upper stages
<stratochief>
Starwaster: that section you mention actually looks interesting. I'll read it in the next few days and let you know if I find where they explain the flux being the same as for the S-IVB
<acc>
taniwha: yeah, I'm using KAC. but I don't think alarm clock is doing something with input lock
<stratochief>
xShadowx: only one, as FAR as I know. Mr FAR hasn't been around during the past week, so I'm assuming busy actual life
stratochief is now known as stratochief|away
<Starwaster>
stratochief look at those dimensions on 10-120
<Starwaster>
sweet! A Delta-IV users guide! Now all I have to do is scrape up enough money to buy one
<taniwha>
Starwaster: a guide, or a delta-iv? :)
<Starwaster>
yeah, I think I'll have to do a LOT of scraping to afford more than the guide :P
rsparkyc has joined #RO
<pap1723>
Starwaster, have you seen the Dropbox link that I shared with everyone with the Space Reference documents?
NathanKell is now known as NathanKell|AFK
rsparkyc has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
<github>
[TestFlight] jwvanderbeck closed pull request #158: bump KSP version to 1.2.2 (master...lcg/update-ksp-version) https://git.io/v9W9i
<github>
[TestFlight] jwvanderbeck closed pull request #159: Make generation counter specific to branch loop (dev...patch-2) https://git.io/v9WNe
<github>
[TestFlight] jwvanderbeck pushed 2 new commits to dev: https://git.io/v9Wxd
<github>
TestFlight/dev 40965f7 Starstrider42: Make generation counter specific to branch loop...
<github>
TestFlight/dev 9bcd193 jwvanderbeck: Merge pull request #159 from Starstrider42/patch-2...
<github>
[TestFlight] jwvanderbeck pushed 1 new commit to dev: https://git.io/v9Wpq
<github>
TestFlight/dev 15c292b John Vanderbeck: Bring dev up to date from master
<Raidernick>
anyone here who maintains the ro netkan file?
<Agathorn>
specifically? A lot of the metadata is programmaticly generated when a release is done, just like TestFlight (they stole it from me :)
<Raidernick>
Agathorn, the way tacls is installed for ro on ckan is busted
<Raidernick>
when RO was updated to not replace the tacls config but use mm to patch it
<Raidernick>
the ckan files for tacls were never fixed
<Raidernick>
and now ckan doesn't install the tacls default config
<Raidernick>
and ro tries to patch the nonexistant config
<Raidernick>
and all the tacls consumption values end up wrong
<Raidernick>
there are so many files for tacls to work around thsi old system
<Agathorn>
bleh
<Raidernick>
i have no idea how to go about fixing it
<Agathorn>
yeah sorry that's beyond me, not even sure who it would be for to be honest
<Raidernick>
but everyone using ckan to install ro and tacls has busted configs now
<Raidernick>
and to fix it you need to create a new save
<Agathorn>
maybe lamont?
<Agathorn>
someone ping me tomorrow to remind me to do a TF build and release.. I'm too tired to do it tonight
<TwistedMinds>
Raidernick, are you sure? If I compare the 0.13.0 zip file from github to what CKAN installs, it is identical. Only thing missing is the TacLifeSupport\LifeSupport.cfg but that's taken care of by installing ckan\Tac Life Support - Stock Config
<Raidernick>
yes but that's wrong
<Raidernick>
when ro is installed it doesn't install Stock Config
<Raidernick>
it tries to install TACLS-Config-RealismOverhaul
<Raidernick>
but that no longer exists
<Raidernick>
so yes i am 100% sure
<TwistedMinds>
Oh I see
<Raidernick>
you need to install RO and tacls as a recommnded of that
<Raidernick>
not tacls by itself
<Raidernick>
when you install RO it recommend tacls
<Raidernick>
and when you do that everything breaks
<Raidernick>
it only works if you had tacls installed first
<pap1723>
It has a bunch of those types of files that you had mentioned before
Daz has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds]
Hohman has joined #RO
awang has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds]
<TM1978m>
how is every one today?
blowfish has joined #RO
<pap1723>
o/ TM1978m
<pap1723>
doing well, and yourself?
<stratochief|away>
Starwaster: I can't think of any situation (within single launch missions) where the S-II would be re-light. the only orbital S-II was that which placed Skylab in orbit, and that was a strange usage of the S-II, no requirement for re-ignition
<stratochief|away>
but yeah, btu per hour. crazy old-timey units. I'll cling to my SI until I'm buried 1.8288 metres down
<taniwha>
they have their place (which is not anywhere near a rocket)
Hohman has quit [Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.93 [Firefox 53.0/20170413192749]]
<TM1978m>
not to bad
<TM1978m>
its good
TM1978m has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
TM1978m has joined #RO
<acc>
go for first manned launch :>
<TM1978m>
cool
<TM1978m>
sub orbetle hope?
<TM1978m>
hop**
ferram4 has quit [Ping timeout: 200 seconds]
ferram4 has joined #RO
<taniwha>
I'd say "hope" is appropriate :)
<TM1978m>
yeah dont kill the astronought.... the public dosnt like it,
<acc>
heh
<acc>
yeah, suborbital hop into the atlantic first, then orbit
<acc>
she survived reentry, we'll see about the chutes :D
<TM1978m>
well shouldnt you have already tested the shutes?
<acc>
recovered alive. so far: success heh
<acc>
wel... yes? :D
<acc>
no, I'm pretty cofident in chute setups
<acc>
confident
<acc>
so I skip the empty capsule tests
<acc>
but damn, forgot to do the crew reports
<TM1978m>
how do you do empty capsule tests?
Wetmelon has quit [Ping timeout: 204 seconds]
<acc>
no crew and a computer
<acc>
(avionic pack or probe core)
ferram4 has quit [Ping timeout: 200 seconds]
<TM1978m>
I look into it when when it makes it to Ckan
<acc>
we have a spreadsheet to install everything you need
<TM1978m>
yeah but trying to stay on top of manual up dates is a royal pain
<acc>
that chute secion is coverd by the LES on launch
<acc>
section
ferram4 has joined #RO
<TM1978m>
why the solar pannels....
<TM1978m>
hello Ferram
Senshi has joined #RO
<Olympic1>
Raidernick, TwistedMinds, Agathorn: PR is merged to install TACLS config again with TACLS
schnobs has joined #RO
<schnobs>
heya.
Senshi has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<TM1978m>
hello schnobs
Senshi has joined #RO
<TwistedMinds>
Olympic1, that was quick :)
blowfish has quit [Quit: Leaving]
NathanKell|AFK is now known as NathanKell|AWAY
<TwistedMinds>
Darn, forgot how ksp/rss looks meh without any visual mods
<TM1978m>
you mean like RVE? I have never tried it
<TwistedMinds>
maybe i should try RVE, been using rssve but I can't get rid of a couple of glichts with scatterer/eve, no matter which version I mix&match
<acc>
TM1978m: to decrease EC usage
<TM1978m>
guess you dont have fuel cells
<acc>
nope, not yet
<acc>
it looks rather modern, but it's 1956 in my game :D
<TM1978m>
yeah what I was thinking, besides its not going to be in orbet for more then a day at most, since thats a murcery style pod, thats almost a space craft you wear not ride in
<acc>
has not more than two days of lifesupport anyways
<TM1978m>
I was just talking about how cramped it is
<acc>
ah, yeah
<acc>
I've unlocked EVA recently, so he/she can go out for a walk :>
Wetmelon has joined #RO
Wetmelon has quit [Ping timeout: 204 seconds]
<TM1978m>
well I sure that would help a little
<TM1978m>
so you dont care for FASA Acc?
<acc>
no, I don't like FASA much, except the launch clamp and tower stuff
<acc>
I'm more into SSTU, but that's not ready for rp-0
<acc>
btw just did another suborbital hop into the atlantic. definetly need a new launchvehicle. pimping the old one with a H1 didn't work out so well
<TwistedMinds>
Either I'm reaaaally bad at reentry, or deadlyreentry is brutal and hates me
<acc>
huh?
<TwistedMinds>
I send a rocket to ±2000km and as soon as I touch the atmosphere on my way down, I explode. If I'm not _perfectly_ aligned and any part other than my heatshield it explode instantly
<acc>
what was the PE?
<taniwha>
2000km!?!
<taniwha>
that's deadly even in bone stock
<acc>
definetly a hot ride
<taniwha>
(particularly going straight down)
<acc>
yeah, that of course
<acc>
that's why I ask about the PE
<TwistedMinds>
I've tested different reentry, from 30k to -5M (straight up and down). Heatshield does fine but nothing else
<acc>
heh
<acc>
of course. everything else melts
<taniwha>
try the other direction
<acc>
and the G-meter must be breaking trough the red
<schnobs>
could you descrive the craft you try to enter (or post a picture)?
<acc>
if DR doesn't kill it, FAR will
<schnobs>
acc, I've recovered sounding rockets where the g-meter went through the roof, for several seconds.
<TwistedMinds>
hmm according to my ksp.log, there's a lot of exception concerning FAR & Procedural Parts, but I doubt that's the only reason. brb debugging :>
<acc>
schnobs: yeah, sometimes that works, if it's just for a short time
<schnobs>
F3 said 30g max. But you also get that when launching an Explorer...
<schnobs>
(IIRC it pulled 50g or thereabouts.)
<TwistedMinds>
Yeah.. g-force reached 26g on the 30k PE, ouch. I think I need to learn about reentry a bit more hehe
<schnobs>
so what I'm trying to say, pretty steep down and insane aero forces are not killers in and of themselves.
<acc>
ok, depends on the craft
<schnobs>
However, I recall having trouble with bits sticking out from behind the shield. Prefect attitude required at all times, or else.
<schnobs>
Looked well to me, but FAR found that it was not protected.
<schnobs>
That's why I'm asking for a picture.
<acc>
but I think we can agree it is not best practice :D
<taniwha>
as far as I understand it, it's the IR radiation that gets you
<schnobs>
Also, many of the avionics parts are not very heat resistant. Agena will go poof if you leave it ouside in the florida sun.
<acc>
heh ok
<taniwha>
you're sitting in a cone of air hotter than your average bar heater
<acc>
yeah
<TwistedMinds>
schnobs, only using the able avionics package. It's a "low budget" meant to reach 1.9M 'sounding rocket' but I want to save all 3 stages because I'm low on money :>
<acc>
well, good luck :3
<taniwha>
TwistedMinds: iirc, such sounding rockets all went poof entirely
<schnobs>
IIRC there was a lot of discussion last summer about how the Able just isn't protected. Use a bigger shield, or another piece to recover.
<taniwha>
(mind you, that's from reading Space, which I firmly put in the "dubious" bin)
<schnobs>
TwistedMinds: playing RP-0?
<TwistedMinds>
schnobs, yup
<schnobs>
A simple "Sounding Rocket to 300km" pays for one hell of a rocket.
<taniwha>
he's trying to progress too quickly, I suspect
<acc>
actually it's pretty easy to get lots of funds fast
<taniwha>
when you don't try too hard
<acc>
successful reentry contract can be repeated and gives 125k
<TM1978m>
holy cow 26 G? what did your asternoughs do to you? to make you want to trun them int Salsia?
<TwistedMinds>
TM1978m, unmanned :) I don't have the manned tech yet
<TM1978m>
guess you dnit like that probe for some reasion, Where you tring to recover it?
<schnobs>
If I may change the topic, I'm a bit upset how the FASA Atlas chassis have defunct avionics.
<schnobs>
They do have intergrated avionics, but those need unlocks in the flight control department in order to work.
<taniwha>
integrated :)
<taniwha>
(one r too many)
<schnobs>
Apparetly the demands have been set by first launch date. If a certain Atlas derivative didn't take off until 1975, you're required to research some very advanced circuitry first.
<schnobs>
(and now it's one n too few - shit happens)
<schnobs>
Anyhow, I wonder if this is sensible.
<acc>
it's great to be back on RSS, but I miss all the SSTU stuff from my stock install... soyuz, configurable SRBs, the pretty tanks, etc
<acc>
most of all the FGBs
<schnobs>
acc: I thought a lot of SSTU has been real-ized?
<acc>
some stuff works for RO, but has no rp-0 integration yet
<acc>
so pricing must be off
<acc>
I'll install and check. maybe I get some configuring for rp-0 done
<acc>
but first: cake time! nomz
<acc>
there are some SSTU configs in \GameData\RealismOverhaul\RO_SuggestedMods\SSTU
<acc>
and RP-0 has a SSTU_TechLimits.cfg
<TM1978m>
the altless launched befor that, thats how they put allen sheppered in to orbet
<acc>
TM1978m: launched before what?
<TM1978m>
what was befor 1965 it put all the mercury capsles into orbet, after the did the sub orbetle filights on a redstone
<acc>
yep
<acc>
as far as I remember
<TM1978m>
first flight of a mercurey atles, was on feb 20, 1963
<TM1978m>
ooops 1962
<acc>
yay! at least the SSTU tanks work so far. even the pricing seems fine. an they're not non rp-0 labled
<acc>
but diameter limits seems off
<TwistedMinds>
Hell yeah, I did it... by cheating a little :) I used a procedural battery and they give so much power I had enough to control my reentry and make sure it was perfectly aligned
<TwistedMinds>
A bit pricey for what I intented to launch, but since I landed all 3 stages it's all good
<acc>
cool. grats :)
<TwistedMinds>
Feels great. Bluhu Space Program was on the verge of bankruptcy (50$ left after the launch). Now I'm at 40k
<TM1978m>
great, what happens if you run out of funds?
<acc>
heh
<acc>
TM1978m: then you simply can't build anything anymore
<TM1978m>
hmm oh ok
<schnobs>
TwistedMinds: what did the launcher do?
<TwistedMinds>
2 missions (175km & 1900km uncrewed) and a some science (telemetry, temp&pressure). That was mostly for the 2 missions
<TwistedMinds>
Just up and down, couldn't afford anything else tbh
<schnobs>
Hmmm.
<schnobs>
I got a sounding rocket that's good for 1700km, costs 500funds. The advance on the small contract should pay for the LV.
<schnobs>
(presumably 500f is a bit expensive for 1700km -- I'm sure it could be done for much less)
<TwistedMinds>
schnobs, I'm sure I could have done way better, but I'm still learning. And considering I landed all 3 stages, it was dirt cheap. 2 stages will be reused on my next rocket (first satellite)
<TwistedMinds>
Rp-0 has been kicking my ass since I started last week :>
<schnobs>
that was part of teh point I was trying to make... how much did you recover?
<schnobs>
Sounding rockets are simple and cheap -- trying to recover them will make things a lot more involved, and if you end up recovering them at (say) 60% it may well be more expensive than throwing things away.
Senshi has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
<Starwaster>
hmmm uhmm
<Starwaster>
guessing that it's not known that kerbalCrewMass has a bug in it that causes every single part ona craft to gain the mass of the crew and not just the crwed parts
<soundnfury>
Starwaster: it's known
<soundnfury>
it's not a real bug, just a bug in KER and MJ and other such things
<soundnfury>
if you check the game's own mass reports, you'll see those are fine
<Starwaster>
no it's not
<Starwaster>
it really and truly affects craft mass
<acc>
:O
<Starwaster>
MJ does not look at PhysicsGlobals.kerbalCrewMass
<Starwaster>
therefore it is not possible that the bug affects MJ... EXCEPT by affecting part mass
<Starwaster>
it just looks at mass
<Starwaster>
you can test it by setting kerbalCrewMass to something really high and watching the mass start affecting your TWR
xShadowx has quit [*.net *.split]
egg|zzz|egg has quit [*.net *.split]
TheKosmonaut has quit [*.net *.split]
acc has quit [*.net *.split]
JPLRepo has quit [*.net *.split]
sandpiper has quit [*.net *.split]
X has quit [*.net *.split]
Senshi has joined #RO
Senshi has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
TM1978m has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Sigma88 is now known as SigmaAway
<TwistedMinds>
schnobs, total cost was 3624, not sure how much I recovered (everything except fuel). More importantly, it's ready for relaunch in less than a week :)
SigmaAway is now known as Sigma88
<Starwaster>
stage recovery mod?
<TwistedMinds>
KCT
<TwistedMinds>
Hmm yeah and stage recovery, my bad. They were splitted a while ago and I forgot I installed it yesterday
Senshi has joined #RO
BasharMilesTeg_ is now known as BasharMilesTeg
<schnobs>
TwistedMinds: not sure how it works out in RO, but in stock I find that attaching parachutes adds much cost; so much so that you have to recover it very close to KSC or you actually lose money.
<schnobs>
In RO... well I just took it as a given that recovery is rare, only for sample containers or crew. It never occured to me to attempt a full recovery.
QuantumSwag has joined #RO
<Starwaster>
dammit I need to go to bed but I have the urge to do some modding
<TwistedMinds>
Hmm, I'll take a look at the numbers, thx for pointing it out schnobs :) anyway, it was fun to do it hehe
<TwistedMinds>
but I think you were right schnobs, not worth it at all. Only my upper stage can be relaunch, both other stages were refunded only :(
awang has joined #RO
<soundnfury>
TwistedMinds: given that you can launch a two-stage aerobee for about 120 funds or some such tiny number, recovery really doesn't seem worthwhile for sounding rockets.
<TwistedMinds>
Yup. Lesson learned :/
QuantumSwag has quit [Ping timeout: 204 seconds]
<schnobs>
How high can you even get with aerobees?
<soundnfury>
schnobs: about 3-400km iirc, with two stages
<soundnfury>
(further with the XASR-1 ofc)
<schnobs>
Yeah, that's what I recall as well.
<Starwaster>
does anyone know: is skin-skin for radially attached, stack attached or both?
<schnobs>
Anything more would require some mad scientist type engineering or just a plain stronger lower stage.
<schnobs>
Starwaster: no clue, sorry.
<soundnfury>
schnobs: I did once make a triple-stick "Aerobee Heavy", but it wasn't all that great
<Starwaster>
doesnt matter too much I guess... important ones are part-part(internal) and skin-internal
<rsparkyc>
it's like a slingshot around the moon, except i'm staying on the far side
<egg|zzz|egg>
rsparkyc: in the barycentric frame, the moon moves a bit
<egg|zzz|egg>
towards and away from the earth
<egg|zzz|egg>
what's fixed is the barycentre and the earth-moon line, the earth and moon oscillate on that line
<rsparkyc>
ahh, so maybe that's really an impact
<egg|zzz|egg>
you may want to look at the moon-centred earth-direction frame
<egg|zzz|egg>
or whatever it's called
<rsparkyc>
yeah, makes sense
<egg|zzz|egg>
moon-centred earth-aligned I tihnk
<Agathorn>
missed the launch, was going to watch the video..but ... is there no technical webcast for this launch:? I can't find it :(
TheKosmonaut_ is now known as TheKosmonaut
<rsparkyc>
and boom, impact
<rsparkyc>
thx egg|zzz|egg
<rsparkyc>
i don't know if you ever saw my other comment about targeting celestials
<rsparkyc>
i remember you saying you shouldn't need to do that
<rsparkyc>
but how do i get things like ascending nodes without targeting them?
<egg|zzz|egg>
*whistle*
<egg|zzz|egg>
eventually the appropriate reference frames should display them
<egg|zzz|egg>
e.g. earth-centred sun-aligned should show the nodes much like LVLH@Earth does for a target orbiting Earth
<rsparkyc>
but if i can't select the target...
<egg|zzz|egg>
rsparkyc: you can select the reference frame
<rsparkyc>
ahh, i see what you mean
<egg|zzz|egg>
you can select earth-centred sun-aligned as your reference frame
<rsparkyc>
right
<egg|zzz|egg>
now, it doesn't show the nodes, but eventually we'll add that :-p
<rsparkyc>
in the mean time, is there any way to add back support to select celestials as targets?
<egg|zzz|egg>
doesn't make sense to use KSP's node display, that's based on KSP's trajectories, that you can't trust
<egg|zzz|egg>
rsparkyc: no :-p
<rsparkyc>
ok, i do use that a fair amount for launching things into the orbital plane of the moon for instance
<rsparkyc>
where i can keep and eye on my relative inclination
<rsparkyc>
what would be the proper way to go about that now then?
<soundnfury>
Agathorn: just a single webcast because they couldn't show views of the sooper seekrit NRO bits
<egg|zzz|egg>
you can look at your trajectory in the appropriate frame, and check that you don't go too far above and below the reference plane, you can also use the navball: the reference plane of the navball is the orbit of the moon in the EMB and MCSA frames
<soundnfury>
so instead there's lots of juicy S1 footage :)
<egg|zzz|egg>
s/MCSA/MCEA
<Qboid>
egg|zzz|egg meant to say: you can look at your trajectory in the appropriate frame, and check that you don't go too far above and below the reference plane, you can also use the navball: the reference plane of the navball is the orbit of the moon in the EMB and MCEA frames
<rsparkyc>
ok, but nothing that would give me a numerical readout
<Agathorn>
don't see why that would have prevented them from still doing the technical webcast. I abhor listening to some talking head who is talkig over the transmissions
<egg|zzz|egg>
rsparkyc: no; and even when we add the nodes, we won't show relative inclination (that's ill-defined in the general case), we may end up showing velocity normal to the orbital plane though
<rsparkyc>
yeah, i see the problem with relative inclination being ill-defined
<rsparkyc>
since it can change
<soundnfury>
Agathorn: *shrug* but watch it anyway, it's good
<egg|zzz|egg>
nah that's not the issue, it's more that it requires *another frame*
<egg|zzz|egg>
which is the frame in which you measure the inclination, but isn't the frame in which it's natural to display the nodes
<rsparkyc>
ahh
<egg|zzz|egg>
rsparkyc: but the velocity normal to the plane should be a useful readout once we add it
<egg|zzz|egg>
rsparkyc: but yeah, for now, use seat-of-the-pants or MJ elements display or whatever; that [WIP] tag in the principia thread isn't just for show :-p
<rsparkyc>
yeah, though that varies throughout the orbit
<rsparkyc>
haha, understood
<egg|zzz|egg>
velocity normal to the plane at the node is fixed and well-defined and doesn't depend on another frame
<egg|zzz|egg>
and it's useful in the sense that it's "how much Δv you need to get into the plane"
<rsparkyc>
ahh, velocity at the point is fixed
<egg|zzz|egg>
(not necessarily while keeping your excentricity, that may require vastly more Δv)
<rsparkyc>
yeah
<rsparkyc>
ok, another one for you:
<rsparkyc>
let's say that i set up a flight plan
<rsparkyc>
and create 2 nodes
<rsparkyc>
is there any way to go back and tweak the 1st node without removing the 2nd node?
<egg|zzz|egg>
no
<soundnfury>
egg|zzz|egg: eggcentricity?
<egg|zzz|egg>
yes.
<rsparkyc>
lol
<rsparkyc>
is that something you would eventually want to support?
<soundnfury>
(it measures how egg-shaped your orbit is, natch)
<rsparkyc>
or is it a "you shouldn't really do it that way" sort of thing?
<egg|zzz|egg>
rsparkyc: maybe, it's hard, the list of things to do is endless :D
<rsparkyc>
fair enough
<egg|zzz|egg>
well it makes some sense
<egg|zzz|egg>
but really it also makes sense to rebase a bit of the flight plan onto your actual trajectory
<egg|zzz|egg>
and pretty soon we are writing egg version control system
<rsparkyc>
cool, that way when you screw up a burn, the new flight plan will update?
<soundnfury>
egg|zzz|egg: yeah, as soon as you said "rebase" I thought "git"
<rsparkyc>
s/new/existing
<Qboid>
rsparkyc meant to say: cool, that way when you screw up a burn, the existing flight plan will update?
<rsparkyc>
haha, same here
<egg|zzz|egg>
rsparkyc: that would make some sense. but, that's a lot of work
<rsparkyc>
it sounds like you would be able to use the same sort of rebasing functionality
<egg|zzz|egg>
rsparkyc: yes that's what it is
<rsparkyc>
if i could get this to build on my mac, i would try to help :)
<egg|zzz|egg>
but rebasing is a very distant todo
<soundnfury>
hey maybe you could use darcs' conic patch algebra :P
<egg|zzz|egg>
rsparkyc: essentially nothing concerning the flight plan is coming soon :-p
<rsparkyc>
unless someone else tries to pick it up
<rsparkyc>
is that part still native code?
<egg|zzz|egg>
of course it is
<rsparkyc>
lol
<egg|zzz|egg>
nodes for planetary frames and velocity on nodes, maybe (not in Catalan, probably not in the next handful of versions either, we want to focus on improving the rendering code first)
<egg|zzz|egg>
rsparkyc: but yeah, get used to missing features and a slow dev cycle
<egg|zzz|egg>
e.g. the fact that landing on the moon is apparently broken is a much higher priority than displaying nodes :-p
<rsparkyc>
yeah, i heard
<rsparkyc>
just trying to determine if it was TODO work of if i just didn't know what i was doing
<rsparkyc>
sounds like a bit of both
Senshi has joined #RO
awang has quit [Ping timeout: 200 seconds]
awang has joined #RO
JeeF has joined #RO
awang has quit [Quit: leaving]
xShadowx has joined #RO
<JeeF>
hey guys, so how's it looking for a RO 1.2.2 official release? Most dependencies have been updated, are we only waiting on FAR?
Senshi has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
<xShadowx>
it comes when it comes :)
<JeeF>
Well... with KSP 1.3 around the corner I better save a copy of my 1.2.2 install cos it seems like this is still going to take a while =)
<JeeF>
One question. I've noticed a massive fps drop when I install RO. Same mods without RO and I have 90fps in the launchpad, then install RO and same (or similar) rocket drops me to 30fps. Normal?
<JeeF>
I've heard before it's caused by using the procedural fuel tank
QuantumSwag has joined #RO
<JeeF>
I normally ONLY use the procedural fuel tank for everything
<TwistedMinds>
I don't think I've had *fps* issue with it, at least nothing noticeable
QuantumSwag has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
<TwistedMinds>
but I must admit that proc. part is the only thing left throwing exceptions in my log
<github>
[RealismOverhaul] pap1723 closed pull request #1610: Added Test Flight Data for RD-180, F-1 and F-1A (master...master) https://git.io/v9Gqe
<stratochief>
JeeF: the more mods, the lower the FPS. if you want to determine the source, you could remove mods one at a time, take notes/video. I'd done a little of that before, RSSVE was my FPS killer
<JeeF>
yes RSSVE is definitely a fps killer, but one I'm not going to play without =/
<JeeF>
I love flying airplanes, and no clouds = no fun
<JeeF>
To be honest I think it's about time Squad adds clouds to the stock game
<TwistedMinds>
JeeF, does the current RSSVE work out of the box for you? I'm having a lot of problems with the current scatterer/eve/rssve
<schnobs>
stratochief: what would be necessary to get a biome scan before the lunar landing?
<JeeF>
Well following the directions on their topic did the trick for me. If you want I can upload the required folders from my pc and send you a link, as soon as I get home. But yeah I have very nice clouds and ocean and terrain and both atmospheric flight and orbit, Earth looks gorgeous and I haven't seen a single glitch or bug
<stratochief>
TwistedMinds: you need an older version of scatterer I think, and a specific version of eve's plugins. the Wiki on the repo has or links to specifics, IIRC
<TwistedMinds>
Welp :/. I can follow instruction but no matter which version of scatterer/eve/rssve I mix&match, I get different issue. That's driving me crazy
<TwistedMinds>
stratochief, i've mix&matched rssve + scatterer .256/.300 and every single commit individually, same for eve. Everything I try has a different glitch :>
<stratochief>
I stll get a bit of atmo flickering during rocket ascent, other than that RSSVE is decent to me
<stratochief>
TwistedMinds: you should document your issues, at least get some value out of the suffering :P
<stratochief>
schnobs: well, I -think- there are some scansat parts configured, but possibly not the one that does biomes
<JeeF>
For the fps, I probably should have one separate install for atmospheric flight with all the goodies for it, and another with only rocketry for when I fancy that instead. But I don't ever do sandbox, only career, and I like being able to do all the contracts so that kinda sucks. I also can't live without certain part mods, and my list is always hovering around 100 installed mods. I do have a monster of a computer, but even
<TwistedMinds>
Either I get the blue ball bug (easy to fix but creates more issues), or I get no shadow/pitch black shadow. That's very annoying hehe
<stratochief>
schnobs: you could orbit the scansat part that does biome scans prior to going for lunar landing?
<JeeF>
12gb ram usage on the main menu =P. Stable as hell, but always around 30fps
<stratochief>
schnobs: if that part isn't configured, then it would need an attempt at an RO/Rp-0 config for it, and probably nudge Pap1723 in the RP-0 Issue of contracts to put a contract for a biome scanner to lunar orbit prior to lunar landing of people
<stratochief>
well, I'd kill for 30 fps. :P
<stratochief>
JeeF: check the game settings, do you have the frame-sync option on? whatever that is called, that is to stop screen tearing? locks to 30 or 60 fps, as I recall
<JeeF>
vsync always off for all my games
<schnobs>
stratochief: alright, maybe I should have provided a little more context. The scansat part that does biome scanning is called Multi-Spectral something or other.
<schnobs>
Part description lists any amount of buzzwords.
<pap1723>
schnobs, when does it become available in RP-0?
<schnobs>
So it's been listed somewhere among 80s or 90s tech.
<pap1723>
ah, that is why
<JeeF>
30fps is not bad for rockets, but for atmospheric flights, quick maneuvers and landing, it's a bit shit. And once you've played with 120fps on 120hz monitor (ksp) going down to 30 is... painful
<TwistedMinds>
JeeF, remove a layer or two of clouds when flying plane, you can easily do it through the ingame menu :)
<stratochief>
schnobs: yeah, biome scanner should probably be 1965 tech, since you want a biome scan of the moon prior to human landing. but, heavy and power consumptive enough that it will be hard to use around other planets, maybe?
<schnobs>
I'm of the opinion that ScanSat makes an excellent planning tool -- but ofcourse you need some kind of map for it to make sense. I'd love to be able to get biome scans in time for the lunar landings.
<schnobs>
Yeah, just how heavy and powerful would you like it to be?
<JeeF>
On another note, Chief have you had the chance to test the plume configs gaz uploaded for me? I tried on my install and it's not working as intended. I'll try a new install when I get home, only RO and dependencies, see if I get the proper effects. I've modified so many files on my current install that I may have screwed up somewhere.
<stratochief>
schnobs: and feel free to patch over the poor scansat description, it should simply be a Biome scanner (or something) so the purpose is clear for RP-0
<JeeF>
I'm assuming I just need to grab that .cfg and replace the one inside RO folder with it
<schnobs>
(btw, the Lunar Orbiter came at less than 500kg and could be launched on an Atlas-Agena, rather than Centaur)
<stratochief>
schnobs: maybe not super heavy, but power hungry? Lunar Orbiter did that job in history, IIRC, and it was only 390 kg, so says wiki
<stratochief>
JeeF: no, no time yet. -might- get to do some PR review this week. might.
<pap1723>
Is Starwaster our resident expert on heating and convection?
<stratochief>
Pap1723: I know some, but Starwaster knows more. and NathanKell himself did make the stock thermal system, so he knows some too :P
<stratochief>
schnobs: maybe... expensive? that might be more representative, but it also has decent sized solar panels
stratochief is now known as stratochief|away
<leudaimon>
ScanSat parts earlier on would be nice!
rsparkyc has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
<stratochief|away>
schnobs: any guess/feel for when the last Scansat parts should be available? fine altitude data, and anomolies, IIRC?
rsparkyc has joined #RO
<stratochief|away>
using anomalies for RP-0 would be nice. I imagine the historic landing sites as anoms would be cool, but that leans towards "historical recreation program", but real ones would be great, like the top of olympus mons
HypergolicSkunk has joined #RO
<schnobs>
stratochief|away: currently there's three scanners. a) biome b) low-res altitimetry c) high-res altimetry.
<schnobs>
I've always assumed the latter to be based on that Venus mapping probe (Magellan?).
<schnobs>
As for the biome thing, my preferred solution would be to just integrate it into the Keyhole camera. Data amount is so large that one can't really transmit it in the early game.
KevinStarwaster has joined #RO
<schnobs>
Doesn't make for proper reenactment (you'd need to return a capsule from lunar orbit) but then again, people have been doing *that* for quite some time now.
Starwaster has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
<pap1723>
The problem with trying to tie SCANsat parts to anything in history is how they are used in game
<pap1723>
The Lunar Orbiters "mapped" the planet, which would be considered an Altimetry scan in SCANsat
<pap1723>
Scientists were able to name the biomes of the Moon using that data, basically images
<pap1723>
The SCANsat biome scanner is representative of much later technology
<pap1723>
There is no great answer with how it is currently integrated
<lamont>
Olympic1: i’ll give it a shot
<pap1723>
The ideal thing would to have a part that does a "Low Resolution Biome Scan" that will act as a true biome map, but is worth much less science than th emultispectral scan that comes later
<stratochief|away>
Pap1723: what technology does the scansat biome mapper 'represent' ?
<stratochief|away>
and how does/would it fit into RP-0?
<leudaimon>
I think a low resolution biome scan it would work well in the place of the DMagicOrbitalScience telescope... remote transmission, not huge amount of data nor science, good tech placement
<stratochief|away>
I've never used DMagic, and I don't believe RP-0 is calibrated for the science it provides, but I could be wrong
<Olympic1>
lamont: great
<pap1723>
It is pretty much like the Landsat program that started in 1972
<pap1723>
I think it could fit well in RP-0 around the time of the Lunar Orbiters, the science just might need to be adjusted (I'm not positive on the science return at this point)
<leudaimon>
I always wondered about that stratochief|away, because the parts were added to both tech tree and were balanced in the amount of science, right?
<stratochief|away>
leudaimon: which parts?
<leudaimon>
DMagic parts
<pap1723>
leudaimon, I agree with you about the DMagic telescope, but the problem with that is that the Biome scanner provides an actual map, the Orbital Telescope just returns regular science data
<lamont>
Olympic1: NetKAN PR updated (not green yet, but should go green)
<stratochief|away>
ahh. I probably tested them, but I never played an RP-0 game with them. IMO, additional parts that give science should either be mandatory or give no substantial science, from a progression balance perspective
<leudaimon>
yeah, you are right Pap1723, I just think a scansat part with similar properties to that, providing a biome map, would be nice
<pap1723>
One option...make the SCAN require a lot of power to run (they are pretty power intensive already) that way, the player cannot just throw one satellite out there to scan the entire planet?
<leudaimon>
stratochief|away, I agree. I like to have more options for payloads and experiments, but I see it could imbalance the tech advancement
<pap1723>
there is a lot of talk about balancing science, etc, but IMO the science is only balanced up until Apollo era
<stratochief|away>
leudaimon: could perhaps be tied into a set of DMagic contracts that requirest specific experiments to specific locations, therefore adding flavour to dull repeatable contracts?
<leudaimon>
stratochief|away, that would be cool
<stratochief|away>
Pap1723: well, of course. in part because not a lot of parts exist in RP-0 beyond apollo
<stratochief|away>
and 74-90 is fairly dull in terms of launchers, at least for america and the soviets
<leudaimon>
and even without DMagic, just earth and unmanned moon science can take you pretty far in the tech tree
<stratochief|away>
sorry, not being good at being away. :P
stratochief|away is now known as stratochief|away|away
<leudaimon>
lol
aradapilot_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<pap1723>
In RP-0 the value for a Biome Scan is set at 200
<pap1723>
The science value I mean
aradapilot has joined #RO
Olympic1 is now known as Olympic1|Nomz
<leudaimon>
I guess it would be ok to give this high-value science for a later biome scanner, in the place the current one is, and leave a lower science value biome mapper in an earlier node
<schnobs>
For all I care, the science value could be very low -- the map data is it's own reward.
<leudaimon>
exactly
<schnobs>
Also, we currently don't have "low-res biome data" -- and also no truecolor picture view.
<leudaimon>
I think it would fit well in the same node as the camera, or in instrumentation (i guess this is the node name), the node where the mariner antenna is unlocked
<schnobs>
So the question is how to place the scanners we do have.
<schnobs>
leudaimon: yeah, that's what I said before and which is how I've been playing the game even in 1.1.3: keyhole also maps biome. Return data in a capsule because transmission makes no fun.
<leudaimon>
yeah, but given moon orbiter transmitted photographs in the early 60s, I think we could have a transmittable biome mapper
<schnobs>
reminds me, I have to check if later transmitters will be fast enough. Last time I tried it was 20-30 minutes to transmit a single scansat dataset.
<leudaimon>
did you implement the keyhole mapping biomes, schnobs?
<schnobs>
Just a simple MM patch that adds biome scanning to the Film Return Camera. A mission that suits one will also suit the other.
<pap1723>
I think the Multispectral Part should be moved to the 1960's circa 66ish
<pap1723>
And we should reduce the science to about 100
<pap1723>
And rename the part for more clarity
Wetmelon has joined #RO
<schnobs>
maybe...re-use it?
<pap1723>
What do you mean re-use it?
<schnobs>
I really have to look into that idea of greatly increasing data rate later on, so one can easily transmit photographs (or map data).
JeeF has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds]
<xShadowx>
all these years i never thought of it, and today i realize it, and now it irks me - fuel xfer is free, costs no power
<schnobs>
Pap1723: 250kg makes sense for photographic equipment in the mid-60s, but later I see an opportunity to do the same with a more lightweight part. The "multispectral scanner" looks at least a little like a camera and would fit the bill.
<KevinStarwaster>
pap1723 what about heat/convection?
<pap1723>
I see what you are saying schnobs as long as you and the player understand it is still the same scan, because the map and data is saved
<pap1723>
KevinStarwaster, I created HalfRSS and QuarterRSS and have had some issues with heating. One of the players took the Physics Modifiers that change the heating in RSS and moved them over to their HalfRSS install and fixed the problem
<pap1723>
I want to use that going forward, but I also understand that some changes need to be made to those values due to the different sizes of the planets and I have no idea what to change and to what values
<TwistedMinds>
x-405 - The engine can now only be ignited on the ground... darnit phineas :>
<TwistedMinds>
I just built a good rocket using the vanguard as my second stage, better launch it before i restart the game
Olympic1|Nomz is now known as Olympic1
<schnobs>
I'll be off. If camera talk continues, please leave me a tell.
schnobs has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds]
<KevinStarwaster>
pap1723 The main one is going to be machConvectionFactor and maybe machTemperatureScalar
<KevinStarwaster>
those are the ones (esp the first) that affects reentry or any supersonic flight
<pap1723>
Perfect. So I should basically take a value in the middle of Stock and Full Size RSS would make sense?
<KevinStarwaster>
yeah probably. It might not scale linearly though. What you need to look at is the typical reentry speed at the edge of space
<KevinStarwaster>
(the reentry 'interface')
<KevinStarwaster>
and scale based on that
<KevinStarwaster>
theoretically, machConvectionFactor probably should have been 1 for RSS but I guess that wasn't providing enough heating so they doubled it
<KevinStarwaster>
(though, a lot of that is the insanely high max temp values in stock... IMO)
<pap1723>
Sounds good, thank you for the details
<KevinStarwaster>
np
Thomas is now known as Thomas|AWAY
stratochief|away|away is now known as stratochief|gitgud
<stratochief|gitgud>
ooo, a ferram4 without an underscore. not sure when that changed. what timezone are you in ferram4 (assuming you're around)
<stratochief|gitgud>
does anybody want to guess how long a MM patch that put all parts in the starting tech node would take? Sarbian, Pap1723, or any other smarties?
<pap1723>
how long it would take to run, or to create?
<stratochief|gitgud>
this relates to RO Issue #485, either that would be fairly easy and worth doing, or the overhead would add much time to run and therefore isn't worth it
<Qboid>
[#485] title: After 10.2, cannot use RL10 engine configs without RP-0 | Hi, I'm playing career without RP-0. It worked (relatively) fine until v10.2. After v10.2, I cannot use any alternative enging config for RL10 engine. I suppose it's because of this change?... | https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/issues/485
<stratochief|gitgud>
Pap1723: to run
<pap1723>
Hmm, so it would basically run through every part twice? Once to add it there and once to put it where it belongs if RP0 is present?
<pap1723>
I would say it is not worth it at all for those people, imo
<stratochief|gitgud>
Pap1723: if RP-0 is present, the RO patch wouldn't run. it would have a NEEDS[!RP-0], or whatever. just once over each part, if RO is there but RP-0 (or other tech tree setters) are not
<pap1723>
So it would only really affect people that are playing RO but have no interest in career (because they wouldn't install RP-0)
<stratochief|gitgud>
Pap1723: don't neglect ignorance, it can be powerful. the issue is that some people try to play career w/o RP-0, in part because it isn't entirely clear even to veterans precisely what elements are added/modified by each element of the RSS/RO/RP-0 stack
<stratochief|gitgud>
hell, regex intends to play a Science Mode version wtih RO, and it wasn't until he talked about it that he knew he would still need RP-0 to place parts in the tech tree for Science Mode
<stratochief|gitgud>
hmm. I wonder how much of a pain it would be to have a mod that allowed you to 'retire' parts, like early game parts you no longer intend to use. rsparkyc, any thoughts on the usefulness/implementability of such a mod?
<stratochief|gitgud>
I like the idea of AutoPruner, but I'm not doing anything from a command line as a KSP player
<rsparkyc>
that's an area of modding that i've never messed with
<rsparkyc>
you gotta remember, i've only been doing this for a few months
<pap1723>
stratochief|gitgud, I use Janitors Closet for that. It still laods into KSP memory, but it hides it in th eVAB or SPH
<stratochief|gitgud>
Pap1723: thanks! I'll try that out
diomedea has quit [Quit: Bye!]
KevinStarwaster has quit [Ping timeout: 204 seconds]
Starwaster has joined #RO
<regex>
stratochief|gitgud, untrue, I knew for a fact I'd need RP-0
<regex>
It was whether I needed other mods
* stratochief|gitgud
/kicks regex for contradicting my abominable memory
<regex>
did I make some comment otherwise?
<regex>
my memory is shit too, but do remember I'm an RO contributor, i know what goes into this thing
<stratochief|gitgud>
regex: are you planning to play a more modern game in your 'science sandbox', or still 50's through 80's for the most part?
<regex>
doing the early game is much more fun without contract grinding for cash
<regex>
I very much enjoy the sounding rockets.
<stratochief|gitgud>
was it you who asked about AIES, or was it someone else? I haven't heard mention of people using that mod for a while now
<regex>
I've (oddly) been wanting to follow the evolution of Thor/Delta in the game.
<regex>
Probably me, I love their antennas and cores
<stratochief|gitgud>
regex: gotcha. if you come by some community patches/fixes for AIES, please share it on #1615
<Qboid>
[#1615] title: Compatibility of Mods - Running List | As I am working through adding parts for the RP-0 Tech Tree, I am going through the currently supported mods for Realism Overhaul. I will post my notes here and others can determine how much support (will we place parts on the Tree, etc) do we want to provide for these.... | https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/issues/1615
<stratochief|gitgud>
otherwise it is likely to end up depricated, unfortunately
<regex>
Yeah, I might dig around. The stock probe cores/busses look terrible.
egg|zzz|egg is now known as egg|nomz|egg
Daz has joined #RO
<stratochief|gitgud>
hmm. I worry that moving some engines to being only ground-lightable because that was how they were used is a big conversation to have
<stratochief|gitgud>
I know at least one person already commented on RO #1623. opinions?
<leudaimon>
I think it would be nice if this was not defined by actual use, but by the feasibility of lighting it in-flight
<leudaimon>
some ignition systems demand ground lighting, right?
<stratochief|gitgud>
leudaimon: well, any engine could 'feasibly' be light in flight, with a different ignition system I think. I don't really know what engine property would stop an engine from being lit in the air with an appropriate ignition system
<stratochief|gitgud>
leudaimon: not that I'm aware of. I mean, some systems use a ground specific ignition technique like the external sparker, but not out of necessity as far as I know
<leudaimon>
hm, I see... this could be implemented as a decrease in reliability for in-flight ignition for those engines designed for ground-lighting instead of forbiding it.
<Qboid>
[#1615] title: Compatibility of Mods - Running List | As I am working through adding parts for the RP-0 Tech Tree, I am going through the currently supported mods for Realism Overhaul. I will post my notes here and others can determine how much support (will we place parts on the Tree, etc) do we want to provide for these.... | https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/issues/1615
<leudaimon>
stratochief|gitgud, However, there are not a lot of cases in which you would want to use an engine designed for a first stage in upper stages, right?
stratochief has joined #RO
<stratochief>
stupid lightening, killing ma power. did you say anything since "[15:53:47] <leudaimon> some ignition systems demand ground lighting, right?"
stratochief|gitgud has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
<leudaimon>
hm, I see... this could be implemented as a decrease in reliability for in-flight ignition for those engines designed for ground-lighting instead of forbiding it.
<leudaimon>
stratochief|gitgud, However, there are not a lot of cases in which you would want to use an engine designed for a first stage in upper stages, right?
<stratochief>
sure, but that choice should still be up to the user, IMO
<stratochief>
and I agree that ground ignition should be more reliable than an air ignition. that would require a change to TestFlight or RO's TestFlight profiles
<Starwaster>
arent there already sufficient limitations in place on ignition without placing hard limits based on whether or not the craft is on the ground?
<stratochief>
Starwaster: possibly, but that is open to discussion. I'm open to different opinions
<Agathorn>
stratochief: fully supported by TestFlight
<Agathorn>
its just your watered down RO config thingys limiting you :)
<stratochief>
you say 'watered down', I say 'straight-forward enough not to require a degree in TestFlight to implement' :P
<Agathorn>
pfft
<Agathorn>
good things come to those who learn
<Agathorn>
accesability has its place in a community project, I won't argue that
<Agathorn>
but there is so much more that TF can do that is being left unused because of the RO config :(
<stratochief>
I configured a couple of engines using the regular TestFlight system, I got headaches :P
<Agathorn>
it really isn't that complicated. Its just that there is a lot to setup
<stratochief>
Agathorn: well, that is fair. the wrapper/adapter could be updated to include more. just need to recruit someone with the time and ability
<Agathorn>
can you mix and match?
<Agathorn>
can you use the RO config wrapper then add more customied config on top?
<stratochief>
Agathorn: no idea. you could do... experiments?
<Agathorn>
I don't even have a working install of KSP anymore
<stratochief>
I mean, I've done similar things with the adapter that RealPlume has
<stratochief>
lol, well, then you'll have to continue not knowing
* stratochief
makes another copy of his 1.2.2 install, so he can test another new mod PR without corrupting his career game
<TwistedMinds>
here's my non-knowledgeable-about-engine opinion, I am not a fan of hard locking options. I am okay with harsh penalties for doing 'things' parts were not designed for, but if the only reason for hard locking something is "it was never used for it, even though it would have been possible" seems too much. Then again, I don't even know if the goal of RO/RP-0 is trying to recreate history, or allow us to recreate it
<TwistedMinds>
wall of text, sorry!
<Agathorn>
Generally there shouldn't be any restrictions outside of just the operating parameters of the engine. RO is not a recreation simulator
<stratochief>
Agathorn: but... ma Recreation Overhaul
<Agathorn>
That's how you choose to play it :)
<Agathorn>
it is sometimes a hard line to walk, because by making parts as real as we can they tend to fall into those historical slots on their own
<stratochief>
Agathorn: yeah, I'm must joking. I recognize my play style (recreation, then tight alt-history) isn't the only valid one. it 'would be nice' to use the stock part upgrades system to allow people to invest in making engines diverge from their historical specs. that would also take a considerable investment of some configer's time, and I haven't even seen how the upgrade system works in stock yet
<stratochief>
TwistedMinds: (see, that is a wall of text) :P
<Agathorn>
stock parts upgrades?
<Agathorn>
is this something new?
<stratochief>
something 'new' in 1.2. SSTU uses it, IIRC
<Agathorn>
interesting
<TwistedMinds>
Yeah it was added in 1.2. I don't think the stock game use it, but porkjet's part overhaul uses it
<stratochief>
capability built into stock, utilized by SSTU, not sure what else
<Agathorn>
I was going to do somethign with TF once upon a time to be able to ugrade engines but never did
<stratochief>
TwistedMinds: ahh, porkjet uses it too? good to know. another thing for me to experiment with in stock
<pap1723>
stratochief, with the way the engines are currently handled in RO, the PARTUPGRADE system does not really help
<stratochief>
Pap1723: how so?
<pap1723>
Essentially, the PARTUPGRADE system is the same idea as what is implemented in TF/RO already
egg|nomz|egg is now known as egg
<pap1723>
So let's say I have the H-1 that I unlock
<pap1723>
Here is how it works in stock PARTUPGRADE:
<stratochief>
o/ his oval-ness egg
<pap1723>
There is an UPGRADE {} added to the part CFG file that has new stats for the engine with a node where that unlocks
<pap1723>
Once the upgrade is researched, you cannot use a less upgraded version of that part, it always has the new stats now
<pap1723>
The way it is currently handled in TF/RO is better IMO
<stratochief>
upgrades/configs in RO are purely a function of RF, I think. TF links into that to apply failure/data/reliability
<stratochief>
there may be a programatic way to generate UPGRADE {} nodes, within reason? although that would be a mess for engines that already have 3+ configs
<stratochief>
or, just use UPGRADE to make an infinitely lightable varient available, cost: Your Soul :P
<stratochief>
but, gotcha Pap. upgrade nodes are pre-defined by the mod maker, so not really of immediate use to us
<Agathorn>
what I had wanted to do was go beyond static defined engine configs, into more of a dynamic system that simply let engines you use alot get progressively better. The system would have let you essentially trade in data units to get increases in things like thrst, isp, rated burn times, etc
<stratochief>
Agathorn: that wouldn't be particularly hard, as an RO alternative. I mean, we already use such a system for ISP upgrades
<TwistedMinds>
The more I use TestFlight, the more I appreciate it, but the 'stock upgrade' could maybe used to replace all the Starting->Early->Etc.. part and declutter the inventory. That might require a lot of work though
<pap1723>
That makes sense to me Agathorn basically the more you use an engine, the more refined it gets and the more performance you can squeeze out of it up to a certain point
<stratochief>
sorry, I mean we already use the 'generation' system for RCS upgrades, and RCS allows you to unlock and select new fuels
<egg>
stratochief: you rang?
* stratochief
waves at egg
<pap1723>
TwistedMinds, another issue of the stock upgrade system is that you have to do it by a part level basis, so you cannot just have a global config for all engines of the same type
Wetmelon has quit [Ping timeout: 204 seconds]
<stratochief>
Agathorn: like, the E-1 would effectively be the maximum upgrade of an H-1 class engine, vs an F-1 class engine requiring a new tech node to be researched and payed for
<Starwaster>
couldn't figure out why my config change had smashed my ships list testing with RSS... then I noticed the stray semicolon at the end of a line in the config... oops.
<rsparkyc>
haha, nice
<TwistedMinds>
Pap1723, yeah the stock upgrade seems a bit basic. I just thought it could be used for parts like Avionics 1m. Instead of multiple versions of it (starting, early, mid...), you just have Avionics 1m, then upgrade it. As a side effect, TestFlight could (probably?) keep its data for that particular part
<Qboid>
Agathorn meant to say: you're several days late on that one :)
<pap1723>
TwistedMinds, for the Avionics, that would actually make good sense I think, there is NEVER a reason to use an old avionics
HypergolicSkunk has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
<Theysen>
Agathorn, gotcha. fail
<Agathorn>
:)
<Agathorn>
it is very nice though
<stratochief>
regex: Agathorn: plenty of pretty parts here, if you're interested in looking/testing. PhineasFreak is configging for RO: http://imgur.com/a/zqmK0
<stratochief>
Agathorn: I poke you, because I recall you were modelling the Boeing satellite bus core.
<Agathorn>
yeah I had a greybox model, never got around to finishing it though because I couldn't figure out how to get the solar panel animations into Unity, and then I drifted away, and then I heard rumour that SSTU was being stopped, so I really just never got the momentum to finish it
<stratochief>
Agathorn: yeah, fair enough. there are some pretty satellites & satellite parts in this pack that made me think of you, though :)
<Theysen>
yeah shadowmage was quite mad when he heard about that expansion somehow, or do you mean an earlier breakdown of his? He has them regularly after developing for a few weeks haha
<stratochief>
yeah, I take modder freakouts with a grain of salt. sometimes they just take a break, or dial down for a bit, as everybody should
<stratochief>
even a decent looking Surveyor. this will be nice to have in RO/RP-0 :)
<acc>
nothing specific yet. after discovering you're working on it too I want to talk to you first, so we don't do work twice
<pap1723>
sounds good
<pap1723>
I will post what I have identified as well as completed on the Git and link you to it
<acc>
first thing I found was the diameter limits don't work right for the tanks
<acc>
great, thanks
<acc>
did you fix that yet? seen your posts in the SSTU thread
<acc>
if not I would start there
<acc>
I need them so badly. they just look so much better than the pTanks :D
UmbralRaptor is now known as GalacticRaptor
<Theysen>
acc, "schtu" is king :D
<acc>
aye
<acc>
it's also awesome for stations. builkt the entire ISS
<acc>
-k
<Theysen>
but those are not even configured a bit for RO. I tried that during my mars series I tried to record to do along the way but I had 0 clues about reasonable gameplay balancing
<Qboid>
[#1625] title: SSTU Modifications for RO | I will post about issues I have found and what needs to be / should be fixed. I will include some check boxes so that I can show you what I have completed.... | https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/issues/1625
<pap1723>
So, in my game acc I decided to eliminate all limits of sizes for the procedural SSTU tanks
<pap1723>
After talking with stratochief that is not the right path going forward, so they will need to be set correctly
<acc>
thanks
<acc>
well, we could simply just remove the uprades, so the old method will work again
<acc>
upgrades
<pap1723>
acc, I did that exact thing, but I closed out the Pull Request after talking to them. Here are the files and the changes already done for you:
<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
<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
<acc>
and what was wrong about that plan?
<acc>
majority wants the upgrade method?
<pap1723>
stratochief, made the argument that you shouldn't be allowed to make 10m tanks from the beginning of the game because it just wasn't really possible to do that in RL, it was a valid point
SirKeplan is now known as SirKeplan|AFK
<acc>
no, I mean the plan to use the old techlimit method
<acc>
so, when we just remove all new upgrade stuff and keep that old conig everything should be fine tech-wise
<acc>
config
<regex>
Sweet, the Coatl guy is into accurate Fregat RCS.
<acc>
always good :)
<regex>
Nothing wrong with the way he's modeled them now, I'd just like to have the accurate as options.
<regex>
because AFAIK he's the only one who's done them
<acc>
ah, ok heh
aradapilot has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
aradapilot has joined #RO
blowfish has joined #RO
* Starwaster
writes on the chalkboard 100 times: "I will not accidentally assign a value of 90 to emissiveConstant ever again"
aradapilot has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<xShadowx>
Starwaster: could be worse......i once typo and put an extra 0 on thrust when setting up an engine cfg once....tested on an already-too-small-for-its-engine craft, expecting 3-4 twr....not 40....i almost felt bad for mr jeb ;3
aradapilot has joined #RO
<xShadowx>
there needs to be a thread "kerbal config bloopers" with videos showing results
<Starwaster>
lol too much work for me to do videos
<Starwaster>
but I'm sure I'd have some beauties
<Starwaster>
so many times I've jumped out of my seat clutching my chest because the speakers were on too loud when I accidentally overheated something and 69,105 parts simulataneously explode
<Starwaster>
ok, small exaggeration
<Starwaster>
ok, getting more reasonable boiloff rates on my S-IVB testbed. I think all this time I've been overestimating the effectiveness of the foam insulation
<Starwaster>
but those values were probably when the boiloff rates were way too high and I was choosing to err on the side of caution
blowfish has quit [Quit: This computer has gone to sleep]
<acc>
complicated things being complicated :3
<Raidernick>
Pap1723, are you around
<Starwaster>
ok, so I know that engines were putting out too much heat before but it seems like we've totally nerfed any real heat production....
<stratochief>
Raidernick: didn't you create a fregat, or have access to one in one of your mods?
<Starwaster>
by that I mean that not a lot is being conducted out of the engine to adjacent parts... or is it just me? Anyone else seeing that?
<Raidernick>
my r7 pack comes with a fregat
<regex>
importantly with seperate RCS clusters.
<stratochief>
Starwaster: indeed, I see the same thing. IMO, a good thing. perhaps not accurate, but easy for players
<acc>
I would love to see radiators needed :>
TM1978m has joined #RO
<Raidernick>
stratochief, i know that pap is making that list of ro mods that may need to be removed
<Raidernick>
he added kk launchers stuff to it, which is not correct, I redid the configs for the ula pack pre-emptively
<Raidernick>
i made note that those configs should not be touched but incase it slips through the cracks
<Qboid>
[#5447] title: FASA dependency - | FASA requires RealChute Parachute Systems for correct parachute function, but this dependency isn't noted in CKAN. | https://github.com/KSP-CKAN/NetKAN/issues/5447
<Raidernick>
Olympic1, i wasn't aware fasa requires realchute
<Raidernick>
infact if i recall correctly realchute caused big problems with fasa and you had to remove the realchute configs for it to work correctly
SirKeplan|AFK is now known as SirKeplan
<Olympic1>
bthylafh says that they work together, so I maybe can add it as a suggestion or recommendation
<Olympic1>
your call
aradapilot has quit [Quit: Leaving...]
aradapilot_ has joined #RO
aradapilot_ has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
aradapilot_ has joined #RO
<stratochief>
Raidernick: yeah, that ULA mod is an odd one, those will stick around because they should work fine when the mod is released (whenever that is)
<Raidernick>
stratochief, i know he is free to make a list but since he doesn't have access to the mod he doesn't have enough info to make an informed decision on that
<stratochief>
Raidernick: what about that comment about the KK Atlas? will oldschool fairings be removed from it, or will oldschool fairings be updated, or ?
<Raidernick>
I worked very hard on this confgis
<Raidernick>
i JUST finished them
<Raidernick>
and i don't want them deleted
<Raidernick>
there is no OSF for it
<Raidernick>
and never was
<Raidernick>
i don't know where pap came up with that
<Raidernick>
OSF is a separate download and config you can get for the stock pack
<stratochief>
Raidernick: he's not making decisions, he is stating opinions. he also suggested removing K2, which was just recently added to RO :P
<Raidernick>
stratochief, In RO i do non-procedural fiarings differently
<stratochief>
and you're free to give him new info to help update his opinion/impression, as you did for a few things like ULA
<Raidernick>
if it has an OSF partmodule i remove it
<Raidernick>
add the regular decoupler back
<Raidernick>
and add solid fuel and an invisible thrust transform
<Raidernick>
it allows the fairing to separate properly
<Raidernick>
without OSF
<Raidernick>
all kk's fairings have this
<Raidernick>
i also use the same thing on all my aprts
<Raidernick>
parts*
<Raidernick>
I think he is confused by the fact that the configs reference mods that no longer exist
<Raidernick>
you can't download the kk atlas, delta or vulcan
<Raidernick>
he redid the models from scratch and is including them in ULA pack
<Raidernick>
HOWEVER, a lot fo the part names are the same
<Raidernick>
this means for anyone who kept a backup copy of the old rockets
<Raidernick>
it conflicts
<Raidernick>
I replaced the original configs with the new ula ones
<Raidernick>
so i already removed support for the old rocket packs you can't get anymore
<Raidernick>
and ula is fully supported once it releases
<Raidernick>
i just wanted to make sure those configs aren't touched I thought this lsit was a list being made of things that were definitely going to change
Probus has quit [Read error: -0x7880: SSL - The peer notified us that the connection is going to be closed]
DormantDex is now known as DuoDex
Snoozee is now known as Majiir
Theysen has quit [Quit: Leaving]
regex has quit [Remote host closed the connection]