<Bornholio>
pap filled in most of the DMagic science data, may have experiment/name columns reversed. since they use custom science animate functions is there a way to give situation and biome masks?
<Pap>
You are awesome Bornholio!
<Bornholio>
.holds up mirror
<Pap>
I think we will want to move over to the DMagic Science Animate as the way to process our experiments as well
<Bornholio>
watch out with that as it may require some fiddling to get x science and other s to work then
<Bornholio>
but yeah he did good work
<soundnfury>
Agaaaaaathoooooorn!
<Pap>
Ah true
<Pap>
Bornholio: did you get engine nozzle size for the Nerva 3?
<Bornholio>
how do you mean nerva 3?
<Pap>
Nope, nevermind, these are fictional engines
<Bornholio>
I back calculate from the appearant size and listed ISP fuel rate to get an effective chamber pressure and get all the values correct from there
<Bornholio>
is the NRV, NRV 2 just supposed to be the same as stock RO configs?
<Pap>
Actually no, the NRV is same as stock configs
<Pap>
the other 2 are definitely not
<Bornholio>
i'll install it and fiddle around, are you working on those now?
<Pap>
All I am doing is getting all of the nozzle diameters for the engines in the pack so we can rescale later
<Pap>
The NRV2 is a MUCH larger version of the NRV
<Pap>
The NRV3 is supposed to be a probe size version
<Bornholio>
all the models look horribly large because they should have a much bigger nozzlethan engine body, unlike the stock NERV that has like a 10:1 expansion nozzle instead of a 100:1 or more
<Bornholio>
I think that 116" was for either 100:1 or 150:1, the modern proposals are for a 300:1 extendable
Qboid was kicked from #RO by *status [You have been disconnected from the IRC server]
Qboid has joined #RO
Ramh5 has joined #RO
Technicalfool_ has joined #RO
<Ramh5>
my space station contract is almost complete but it is not registering the last step : keep the station in a sable orbit
<Ramh5>
anyone know of a bug?
Technicalfool has quit [Ping timeout: 201 seconds]
<Bornholio>
ramh5 post a picture of the craft in orbi t with contract open
<Bornholio>
pap the NERVA 2 SSTU is a substandard NERVA I, The NERVA SSTU is substandard stock NERV LV-N, and the NERVA 3 SSTU is about half a RD-0410 but lower ISP lighter. Do you want RO congfigs for them?
<leudaimon>
any idea why the gemini-like pod has some supplies for 15 days, and others for 1 day?
<Bornholio>
one of the two fasa ones is heavier and intended for rescue
<Bornholio>
plus the modules extend th esupplies a lot.
<leudaimon>
I'm using the K2 pod, from a mod that ads only this part
<Bornholio>
does it say RO supported?
<Bornholio>
ah yes, under JFJohnny
<leudaimon>
yep, that one
<Bornholio>
it has pretty similar TACLS to the FASA standard version
<Bornholio>
just a few hours diff at most.
<soundnfury>
well, my crewed lunar fly-by was a failure thanks to an E-1 getting Agathorned.
<soundnfury>
but after aborting to orbit, I managed to get a Space High crew&eva report, and a 7 day duration record,
<soundnfury>
so it's not a total waste
<Bornholio>
many only missing a tiny ibtof dV for flyby then
<soundnfury>
yeah, I had about 2600 left after reaching orbit
<soundnfury>
kinda frustrating really
<soundnfury>
the question now is, do I fly this Mercury-to-the-Moon contraption again, or, since I've researched Gemini, build that instead?
<soundnfury>
(the latter would be hella expensive without the J-2, of course, as I'd need a cluster of RL10s to do it...)
<leudaimon>
soundnfury, I had a similar failure in one of my TLI engines too
<leudaimon>
don't recall if it was for the flyby or the orbit
NathanKell|WORK has quit [Quit: Web client closed]
NathanKell|AWAY is now known as NathanKell
<NathanKell>
leudaimon: Probably because oxygen and water come from the fuel cell, so you only need the full quantity of food?
aradapilot has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
aradapilot has joined #RO
<leudaimon>
oh, I thought this could be the case, but not sure
<NathanKell>
also IIRC lithium hydroxide scrubs CO2 to carbon and water (and lithium obvs), so water from there maybe too
<leudaimon>
I'll have to redesign my tanks then... probably it will be possible to stretch for a 3week mission
<github>
[RP-0] smartdummies opened pull request #730: Engine identicalPArts and Entry Cost Modifiers (master...master) https://git.io/v7vvO
<github>
RP-0/master f797e74 leudaimon: fix typo in procedural avionics
<github>
RP-0/master 105d5fe NathanKell: Merge pull request #729 from leudaimon/patch-2...
<github>
[RealismOverhaul] NathanKell closed pull request #1724: [Maintenance] Trim the size and position of some plumes (master...RO-Plume-Trimming) https://git.io/vQjrs
<github>
[RealismOverhaul] NathanKell pushed 2 new commits to master: https://git.io/v7vvg
<github>
RealismOverhaul/master 13663a0 PhineasFreak: Trim the size and position of some plumes
<github>
RealismOverhaul/master d5337fb NathanKell: Merge pull request #1724 from PhineasFreak/RO-Plume-Trimming...
<Bornholio>
really can't waste money on parts you aren't using in hard mode :)
darsie has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
NathanKell is now known as NathanKell|Loading
<NathanKell|Loading>
soundnfury: you really make me want to build fatlas...
<NathanKell|Loading>
soundnfury: Oooh, hang on. Why didn't you go for the LR87-LH2? You could have made Hydratlas!
<ProjectThoth>
five-engined atals wen
<NathanKell|Loading>
Fatlas best Atlas, it's true.
* ferram4
imagines a hydra with atlas booster sections as heads
<NathanKell|Loading>
hahaha that's usually egg's job
<ferram4>
And tongues made of LR-101s
NathanKell|Loading is now known as NathanKell|Twitch
Hohman has joined #RO
Hypergolic_Skunk has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
<Ramh5>
Bornholio: I am late but I just saw your reply, picture of the contract that won't complete http://imgur.com/uWvlVrr
<Bornholio>
not sure why that orbit set is not firing
Wetmelon has joined #RO
regex has joined #RO
<soundnfury>
NathanKell|Twitch: because, as I think I've mentioned before, the LR87-LH2 feels 'wrong' to me.
<regex>
Did Altair get moved past the Castors and if so, why?
<ProjectThoth>
soundnfury: but why tho
<ProjectThoth>
It's the only engine ever run on... four different propellant mixes.
<ProjectThoth>
*three
leudaimon has quit [Quit: Leaving]
TM1978m has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
TM1978m has joined #RO
<NathanKell|Twitch>
regex: Castor is Sergeant, that which Baby Sergeant was derived from
TM1978m has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<regex>
Okay, but Castor 1 wasn't used until 190\
<regex>
1960
<regex>
Is there another rocket with the same name?
<NathanKell|Twitch>
regex: My understanding is that sounding rocket Castors did fly earlier...?
<regex>
No, Castor 1 didn't fly until it was used on Scout.
<NathanKell|Twitch>
They just were probably called Sergeants
<NathanKell|Twitch>
Sergeant, however, did
<NathanKell|Twitch>
I think
<regex>
If you're using the Castor 1 to represent Sergeant then that's confusing because Castor was based on Sergeant.
<regex>
I can dig further, just confused.
<NathanKell|Twitch>
I thought Castor *was* Sergeant
<NathanKell|Twitch>
just the civilian name for it
<regex>
Weird, Wiki says Sergeant was a 1962 development
Ramh5 has quit [Quit: Web client closed]
<NathanKell|Twitch>
which is ludicrous
<NathanKell|Twitch>
Probably reached IOC in 1962
<regex>
Right, because then they link to the Castor as a /development/ of Sergeant, and Castor 1 fly in 1960.
<regex>
Gotta go find another source, this is really fucking with me
<Maxsimal>
Looks like you did some more work on this - where did you leave off?
<Pap>
I don't think I touched it after we talked
<Maxsimal>
oh ok, maybe someone else worked on it? Or did you tag a bunch of apollo stuff as human rated?
<Pap>
!tell Born* I do not think we need configs for the SSTU NTR's right now. The models are not of his typical work and we have those spots well filled already
<Qboid>
Pap: I'll redirect this as soon as they are around.
<Pap>
Maxsimal: Ah yes, I believe I tagged almost everything that had to do with Command Modules as Human Rated
<Maxsimal>
Ok. Gotcha. Some of those should have been marked as habitable, I'll fix them
<Pap>
Really? I thought I got all of the habitable ones?
<Maxsimal>
I guess you missed the LEM ascent modules
<Pap>
Yep, sure did, they are in the EDL group and I didn't config those :)
<Maxsimal>
At least from what I was just fixing. I'm doing it all manual :P I'm sure I'll be making mistakes, but between us we'll probably get it 90% right.
<Pap>
Yep, and then we will fix as we go much like everything else, RO is too big of an adventure to get right at once
<Maxsimal>
Yeah - plus having it wrong won't break anything, will just cause some rollout costs to be wrong
<Theysen>
the overwhelming brain freeze when you install Raidernick's suite oO
* Theysen
installs RO Craft Files
<Maxsimal>
Pap: Ok I'm through to line 500, back to work
<Pap>
Theysen: yes, I have only tried his rockets once or twice, I love his probes though
<Theysen>
Hypergolic_Skunk, actually check out his signature for all http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/79433-13-soviet-probes-soviet-rockets-r7soyuzprotonzenit-6-19-17/&do=findComment&comment=3126034
<Hypergolic_Skunk>
thanks!
<Pap>
Man, SSTU is powerful and very extensible
<Maxsimal>
Yeah, the procedural satellite core sounds like it will eventually be a great improvement for our satellite bus resources.
<Theysen>
if you can patch it after it's done its things unlike some of his other stuff then yes..
<Pap>
Theysen: I am actually finding that his stuff may be a little more patchable than we previously thought, it just takes a little (LOT) more digging to find out how
<Theysen>
the cleaned up 1.3 releases might be better
<Pap>
do the fuel cells that are listed as TacGenericConverter require TACLS to work?
tfool is now known as Technicalfool
<Theysen>
Yeah
<github>
[RealismOverhaul] PhineasFreak opened pull request #1728: [Maintenance] RD-856 global config (master...RO-RD-856-Global-Config-Updates) https://git.io/v7fnf
<github>
[RealismOverhaul] PhineasFreak opened pull request #1729: [Mod Support] KTDU-35 global engine configuration (master...RO-KTDU-35-Global-Engine-Config) https://git.io/v7fn0
Starwaster has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Starwaster has joined #RO
regex has joined #RO
Senshi has joined #RO
rsparkyc has joined #RO
Shoe17 has joined #RO
regex has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
Hohman has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
NathanKell|WORK has joined #RO
TM1978m has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
borntosleep is now known as Bornholio
<soundnfury>
Sigma88: Arkady Boyarov just happens to be the name of one of my pilots
<soundnfury>
however, this pleases me because it resembles Arkady Bogdanov, from the book Red Mars
<soundnfury>
rsparkyc: I am absolutely not nagging, but do you anticipate having time for RIS in the near future?
<rsparkyc>
i know i played some last week, and i think i forgot to sync. I'll be on vacation next week, and while i'll have my laptop, i'll be up with my family, so doubt i'll have much computer time. So i guess the short answer is "no" :)
<rsparkyc>
if you guys are waiting on me, feel free to kick me, i will not be offended
<Sigma88>
soundnfury: yeah that's where my mind went when I saw "arkady"
leudaimon|work has joined #RO
Maxsimal has joined #RO
<Maxsimal>
o/
<leudaimon|work>
o/
<Pap>
\o
<leudaimon|work>
soundnfury: that was a fast transfer to Mars... I bet you'll get this first easily
<Maxsimal>
Hey rsparkyc, you around? If so, do you think you could explain how the formulas behind proc avionics work? I saw your notes in your branch but I don't think they ended up the same.
ProjectThoth has joined #RO
Wetmelon has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
<rsparkyc>
Maxsimal, when you said notes, did you mean what I put in the readme?
regex has joined #RO
<soundnfury>
leudaimon|Work: yeah, but it's a low-value one and I'll get the Leader flag :(
<soundnfury>
rsparkyc: no, it's fine, I'd only want to kick you if it were "haven't played for a month, won't be able to play for another month" or something
<Pap>
I would say that I am excited to play RIS on the new tree, but I'm not playing with you people, I'm not nearly good enough!
<Qboid>
[#623] title: Procedural Avionics | I'm working on procedural avionics for RP-0, and figured I should open up an issue to get some feedback on what I'm trying to implement.... | https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/issues/623
<Pap>
leudaimon|Work: No, that has to come from KCT I believe, that being said, Maxsimal and the Flight Implementation costs should make things betteras well
<rsparkyc>
Maxsimal, all that has been merged into master, so you should be able to read the procedural avionics section of the readme from master
<Maxsimal>
Pap|leudaimon|Work : I think NathanKell said he'd figured out a way to lower TF reliability based off of rush builds - I know he was at least considering it
<leudaimon|work>
yeah, launch costs could reduce this exploit... this TF reliability too... I guess it would have to be a serious reduction in reliability though
<Maxsimal>
!tell NathanKell: I saw magico's replies to you in the KCT issue for multipliers. That all sounds good. I think we should still do it using what he's currently got now - but I'd recommend waiting on any implementation of the 'toxic' stuff. First of all, because from I've read, cryogenic fuels are just as much of an infrastructural problem as most toxic ones, and also because 'toxic' is unitary, while actually there's a range of toxicities to various liquid
<Qboid>
Maxsimal: I'll redirect this as soon as they are around.
<NathanKell|WORK>
Maxsimal: yo
<NathanKell|WORK>
Maxsimal: I have not figured it out beyond "this is what Magico needs to add" :]
<Pap>
NK, just ninja'ed his way in here
<soundnfury>
o/ NathanKell|WORK
<Maxsimal>
NathanKell: Ok. Anyway, for now I will keep tagging but not worry about the toxic tag.
<NathanKell|WORK>
Maxsimal: Re: multipliers. I do plan to add the hydrolox multiplier when I get home for the record, but I guess we do need to wait until Magico does his thingie for prop-based and tank-type-based mults
<Maxsimal>
NathanKell: Ok. Remember that decoupler tag too.
<NathanKell|WORK>
Right!
<Maxsimal>
rsparkyc: In that readme, what's 'x' in your mass and cost curves? Utilization?
<rsparkyc>
yeah
<leudaimon|work>
soundnfury: read your advances... your science rate is really high! the diminishing returns after I reached 2/day are making me lazy in adding much more...
<Maxsimal>
rsparyc: And also I think you should either expose the cost of the tanks somehow, or something, because really strange things are happening with the costs of upper-stage modules, and I think it's due to the 'cost' of the battery tanks you're using being the dominant factor in the cost of the avionics module, which *really* shouldn't be the case.
<leudaimon|work>
yeah, I reached the same conclusion rsparkyc
<leudaimon|work>
in the current implementation I think the tank per se should have no cost
<soundnfury>
leudaimon|Work: I have been absolutely going for maximum science, ever since the start
<rsparkyc>
yeah, i thought the same thing about battery. The easy fix it just to remove the battery entirely
<rsparkyc>
but it would be nice to let you choose how much of the part is avionics vs battery or fuel
<leudaimon|work>
but is the tank cost applied just for the battery?
<leudaimon|work>
definitely would love to have this option... it's just that how it's implemented now it gets weird
<Maxsimal>
rsparkyc|leudaimon Even with a big avionics unit, you don't get much battery at all though - I just made a 2m radius, 1 meter tall avionics unit - and it gives the same amount of EC as a 300mm radius by 500mm battery - that batter is about ~100x less volume than the avionics.
<leudaimon|work>
soundnfury: I'm not far from you, probably at 2.2 or something... but I'm thinking maybe it's more worthwhile to invest this money in building upgrades... VAB or R&D
<rsparkyc>
yeah, i nerfed how much battery the avionics unit gets
<rsparkyc>
but it still needs to be independently configurable
<Maxsimal>
rsparkyc|leudaimon So it's not like the extra cost is just due to battery - the small proc battery costs ~70 - the avionics unit, whose cost is mostly due to the tank size, costs 760.
ferram4 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
ferram4 has joined #RO
<leudaimon|work>
rsparkyc: how difficult would it be to get rid of the tank size component of the price?
<leudaimon|work>
i think it could be applied only when you designate a proportion of the part volume to be used by battery/fuel (when this is implemented)... and then only at this "section"
<leudaimon|work>
it = tank size price
<Maxsimal>
rsparkyc: Btw I also don't understand this mass curve for utilization - it says -x^2 + 2x in your readme. So - according to this, at utlization of 2(200%?) the mass is 0, and at utlization of 0, the mass is 0? Is that intended?
<Pap>
rsparkyc: I could be talking out of my ass here, but would it be possible to treat the Procedural Avionics like a Modular Fuel Tank? The player gets say x Liters to use and depending on how much Avionics they put in there, that is the cotnrol authority they have?
<rsparkyc>
Maxsimal, utilization of 2 would be -2^2+2*2, which is 4+4, hence 8
<rsparkyc>
Pap, i felt weird about treading avionics control as "fuel"
<rsparkyc>
since technically that would mean you could transfer it between connected tanks
<rsparkyc>
that was an initial suggestion though
<Maxsimal>
Ah right, sorry :p
<rsparkyc>
leudaimon, the tank size component comes from the base procedural parts stuff, i wasn't going to try to override whatever that's doing
<Maxsimal>
Wait, no, that's (-x)^2 +2x, not -x^2 +2x
<Maxsimal>
-x^2 +2x with x = 2 is -4 + 4 = 0
<rsparkyc>
i had assumed that the -x would take precedence over the exponent
<rsparkyc>
just like -5^2 is 25, not -25
<rsparkyc>
but i could see where that's ambiguous
<Pap>
rsparkyc: If you created a new tank type, I am pretty sure you can set it so taht it cannot transfer, but I am not positive
<Maxsimal>
Pretty much EVERY order of operations sequence for math functions is PEMDAS - Parentheses, Exponents, Multiplication, Division, Addition, Subtraction
<Maxsimal>
And tbh, if what you intended was (-x)^2 + 2x, I don't see why you put the - there at all.
<rsparkyc>
give me 5 mins and i'll look at the code
<Maxsimal>
Sorry, whoever wrote this little forum post reply is stupid. It's not 'programmers choosing whatever's convenient'. It's the entire math world saying "this is how we notate formulas' - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations
<lamont>
1 - x^2 and - x^2 + 1 need to give the same result and while the unary minus might seem ambigous in the latter, the former has to be clear
<Qboid>
lamont: egg|work|egg left a message for you in #kspacademia [20.07.2017 09:21:12]: "so we're going to start the release process for Cayley tonight/tomorrow, what with the new moon being on the 23rd. That means your Makefile changes won't make it into Cayley; can we try getting them in for Чебышёв (the solar eclipse release)?"
<Maxsimal>
What's proceduralMassLimit in that? I guess it's set by config, because the only things I see setting it otherwise are failsafes
<egg>
rsparkyc: uh, -5^2 associates as -(5^2)
<egg>
(as Maxsimal said)
Rokker has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
Shoe17 has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
<rsparkyc>
Maxsimal: procedural mass limit comes from the slider
<egg>
also lamont's point
<lamont>
and mentally you have to be able to replace it with + c_n x ^ n where n = 2 and c_n = -1
<lamont>
otherwise you kinda fuck up the quadratic equation
<egg>
yeah, you want to be able to write polynomials in general without shoving parentheses everywhere
<Maxsimal>
rsparkyc: The controlled tonnage slider? Ok. And also what's cachedVolume? That's the volume of the avionics tank?
<rsparkyc>
yeah, there's some reflection that goes on sometimes to retrieve that, but yes, it should be considered the volume of the tank.
<github>
RP-0/master 5bcec8a Ryan Caskey: Made procedural avionics readme a bit more clear...
<rsparkyc>
no prob, i also updated the readme to make things a bit more clear
<rsparkyc>
as you can see :)
Rokker has joined #RO
<Maxsimal>
Ok so yeah - I think the formula is not quite what you wanted - having the mass of the avionics go down as your utlization goes down certainly wasn't. The tank's own mass & cost were covering for the fact that the formula was probably not quite what you intended.
<rsparkyc>
that formula should be correct for 0-100%
<Maxsimal>
I would suggest you use instead use a formula that gives you a nice inverse graph with an easily defined Y intercept and rate of decay - something like Mass = A/(x + b) where A and B are tuning constants (A = 2, B =1 is a good start point)
<Maxsimal>
Really? You want massmultiplier = 0 when utilization = 0%, and massmultipier = 1 when utlization = 100%?
<Maxsimal>
I thought you wanted mass to be higher the lower the utilization - maybe I'm misunderstanding the utlization slider.
<rsparkyc>
if utilization is 0, there's no avionics to even have mass
<rsparkyc>
at 100%, you're stuffing as much avionics in as possible, so that's going to be the most massive
<leudaimon|work>
rsparkyc: I also understood it the other way round
<rsparkyc>
feel free to submit PRs to make it more understandable :)
<Maxsimal>
Ok fine, but what you're saying is that say, utilization of 10% is awesome - having a big, low density tank of avionics means your cost is low, your mass is low
<rsparkyc>
ok, gotta hop on a real work meeting
rsparkyc is now known as rsparkyc|away
<Maxsimal>
Ok later
<leudaimon|work>
at 200% mass is the smallest, so that you have the best efficiency, at -> 0% you have infinite mass
<leudaimon|work>
yeah, I'm confused now
<Maxsimal>
Leudaimon: That's what I would have expected too - that utlization was some sort of tradeoff between mass-efficiency and cost-efficiency
<leudaimon|work>
yeah, and I thought he had explained it to me
<Maxsimal>
Really what's happening is that in low-density avionics, it's the cost of the weird carried-over-from-procbatteries-but-nerfed-EC batteries that dominates the cost of the part
<Maxsimal>
And because you made upper stage avionics very low density, the whole cost of the upper stage avionics is mostly controlled by the cost of the battery tank
<leudaimon|work>
I see
<leudaimon|work>
but even for boosters it should be a problem... in my RIS gameplay optimal price is at 120% utilization
<leudaimon|work>
^for boosters
<leudaimon|work>
what makes me confused is that probe cores, at least afaik, work as I expected
<leudaimon|work>
thinking about gameplay and utility, I think it would be nice to get rid of this utilization mechanic for now, and change that for a slider of how much of the part is avionics... and that would give you controlled tonnage... the remaining working as a SM tank
<Maxsimal>
I guess you're at a later node than I'm at - do the booster avionics also get lower density as the tech increases?
<leudaimon|work>
i'm in the "old" tech tree... that was configged by rsparkyc...
<Maxsimal>
Leudaimon: That would be a good start. I still like the idea of being able to trade cost for mass in some way, but I think getting a good baseline and then adding a cost for mass tradeoff function would be a good way to approach it.
<leudaimon|work>
for density, I chose one value for each type of avionics, based on the values used by him in the older configs
<leudaimon|work>
yeah, that's what I had in mind Maxsimal
<leudaimon|work>
and imo the ability of adding a tank to the avionics part is more essential
<leudaimon|work>
especially for probe cores
<Maxsimal>
Really? Why's that?
<leudaimon|work>
flexibility for battery + RCS
<leudaimon|work>
kind of a satellite bus
<Maxsimal>
Ehh, tbh I don't care about that - I'm happier having my battery and RCS tank seperate that trying to add more tuning issues to just one part. I don't mind the idea of reducing part count the way SSTU might where you figure out all those things seperately and just add them together, but trying to balance a part that does too many things at once leads to what we have already :P
<leudaimon|work>
actually, all the non-procedural probe cores have that
<Maxsimal>
leudaimon: I know, but it seems kind of pointless, since I'm always adding tanks to my probes anyway.
<leudaimon|work>
yeah, I don't disagree... but then for a given tonnage you would have a single part volume possible in a given tech level... that would make tweaking it a little complicated
<Maxsimal>
Leudaimon: It's just one more thing to remember to fill up
<Maxsimal>
Leudaimon: Ok. well, I think you and I are pretty much on the same page. See if rsparkyc would be ok to switching it to SM tank for now, and removing utilization, just having the avionics take a fix amount of the tank up based off of tech and controlled tonnage - we can discuss formulas for adjusting cost vs mass after.
<leudaimon|work>
yeah, I think that would be a nice first step
<leudaimon|work>
in the current setup, just by adjusting the sliders already present, with utilization fixed at 100%, it would automatically generate the volume available... it is just a matter of setting it so that the part is generated like that
<Maxsimal>
Yeah. Anyway, I gotta run for a bit, I'll be back later
Maxsimal is now known as Maxsimal|Away
<Bornholio>
nathankell|work what button do you use to seperate a part off of a merged rocket in VAB
<Qboid>
Bornholio: Pap left a message for you in #RO [20.07.2017 12:43:57]: "I do not think we need configs for the SSTU NTR's right now. The models are not of his typical work and we have those spots well filled already"
Niemand303 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<NathanKell|WORK>
Bornholio: Shift
<rsparkyc|away>
Maxsimal, it sounds like the consensus is to not let you adjust your utilization and trade off mass efficiency for cost efficiency. Rather, you're just saying how much of the part is reserved for avionics, vs other things (like fuel, battery)
rsparkyc|away is now known as rsparkyc
<rsparkyc>
honestly, i don't know when i'll have a lot more coding time to implement it like that, but i'm not opposed to someone taking that on
<Bornholio>
thanks
rsparkyc has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
SirKeplan is now known as SirKeplan|AFK
schnobs has joined #RO
<leudaimon|work>
!tell rsparkyc I don't think it's a matter of one or the other, it's just that given the mass/cost trade-off is not currently working, maybe removing it by now would make things easier. Then once we have a streamlined system without it, it might be easier to implement the trade-offs later
<Qboid>
leudaimon|Work: I'll redirect this as soon as they are around.
Theysen has quit [Quit: Leaving]
B787_Work is now known as B787_300
rsparkyc has joined #RO
leudaimon|work has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds]
rsparkyc has quit [Client Quit]
<Rokker>
i really wish people would stop saying explorer I launched on a jupiter C
Maxsimal|Away has quit [Quit: Web client closed]
<Bornholio>
Explorer launched on a Juno Epsilon 14
Senshi has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
<NathanKell|WORK>
Rokker: It did tho. They just rebadged it and put a fourth stage on :P
<NathanKell|WORK>
It's not like Juno and Jupiter C were different in any meaningful sense, no?
<Rokker>
NathanKell|WORK: well I am if the mindset that adding another stage deserves at least some kind of differentiation
leudaimon has joined #RO
<NathanKell|WORK>
It was a battleship stage in Jupiter C anyway, as I recall
<NathanKell|WORK>
I'd have to go back and look, but I thought the stage was on Jupiter C just in battleship (i.e. boilerplate but for stages) form, and replaced with a live stage for Juno
SirKeplan|AFK is now known as SirKeplan
Ramh5 has joined #RO
<Ramh5>
I never played with infernal robotics in stock KSP, and I don't see it being suggested by RO, but is there a mod with parts to allow more advanced deploying payload?
<Bornholio>
IR is on the golden spreadsheet for RO with a note to make sure you get the correct KJR
<Ramh5>
the golden spreadsheet is like the main to do list?
<Ramh5>
so right now it would be weird to use it>
<Ramh5>
?
NathanKell|WORK has quit [Quit: Web client closed]
TM1978m has joined #RO
<Bornholio>
I know some had it working for 1.2.2 but i never was able to. THey have a 1.3 release :/
<Rokker>
stratochief_: FUCK YES
<Rokker>
1ST AND 2ND ON THE FIRST RACE OF THE SEASON
regex has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<ProjectThoth>
Toroidal tanks are kind of a pain in the ass to fabricate IRL, right?
<Rokker>
ProjectThoth: the ruskies do it
<Rokker>
somehow
<Rokker>
ProjectThoth: not as easy as tubes in the end
<ProjectThoth>
Rokker: Yeah, but not one that's 12+ meters across, right?
<Rokker>
i dont believe so, no
<ProjectThoth>
So, kind of a pain in the ass/
<ProjectThoth>
?
<Rokker>
prolly
<ProjectThoth>
I'm having trouble fitting engines on the underside of this little project of mine without the vacuum rated ones jutting out of the heat shield 2-3 meters.
<ProjectThoth>
I'm assuming that supersonic retro probably makes that moot.
<ProjectThoth>
Since, well, F9 doesn't have a proper heat shield.
TM1978m has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<Bornholio>
Use a section of shielded tank at the bottom
<Bornholio>
unless you are using a fixed F9 tank
<Bornholio>
even then a proceedural shielded tank can be used at a mars or sub leo heatshield and thermal buffer
<ProjectThoth>
Bornholio: IRL I'm assuming that base heating would be low enough to be tolerated by a pretty broad brush of materials.
<ProjectThoth>
Sadly can't find any papers on doing it from orbit.
ferram4 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
ferram4 has joined #RO
egg is now known as egg|zzz|egg
<Bornholio>
papers from orbit are pretty heavy, the basic principle is that a ceratian amount of energy ( the sum of the kinetic and potential energy) needs to be disappated. with fundamental problems being absorption and G-loading