00:52 <awang> Ahhhhh

00:53 <awang> RealFuels why

00:53 <awang> literalZeroIgnitions

00:56 <awang> Sum types would be the best solution

00:56 <awang> But why not use negative ignitions for unlimited

00:56 <awang> Instead of 0 ignitions for both zero and unlimited

00:57 <awang> Hmmm

00:57 <awang> Half curious

00:57 <awang> Does anyone use F# in the KSP modding world?

01:13 <awang> Is RFSettings.Instance supposed to hold game/save-wide settings?

01:13 <awang> Or is it per-part?

01:14 <Bornholio> not using negatives can keep sloppy progamers slightly farther from overflows

01:15 <Bornholio> what i really want is tanked TEATEB so i can pick ignition number

01:19 <soundnfury> awang: ahh, that one is partly my doing (literalZeroIgnitions)

01:20 <soundnfury> I added it because negative already meant something like "use value from techlevel"

01:21 <soundnfury> silly people in the past used valid values as flags instead of having a _proper_ flag, so I had to add a flag so I could use the valid value as a value -_-

01:22 <Bornholio> snark inception

01:23 <awang> Grrr

01:23 <awang> Y'all need sum types

01:24 <xShadowx> except using 0 for 0 and unlimited makes resetting the value tricky :|

01:24 <xShadowx> cant check if its ment to be 0 and thus not reset

01:24 <awang> soundnfury: Ah, I see now

01:24 <awang> ConfigIgnitions, if ignitions is negative then ignitions = techLevel + ignitions

01:27 <awang> Also, this split between ModuleEnginesRF and ModuleEngineConfigs is annoying :(

01:29 <awang> Also, do any of you think that having engine TWR displayed somewhere be useful info?

01:46 <Bornholio> I don't think so but newer players may find it useful to compare engines

08:39 <awang> What's a good way of getting the sea level acceleration of the home body?

08:39 <awang> Planetarium.fetch?.CurrentMainBody?.GeeASL seems to be the closest thing, but I have to multiply by 9.81 or something?

08:40 <awang> Is there a way that takes into account the possibility that other planet packs would use a different constant?

08:42 <awang> And this is for the RF right-click engine config window, so I don't think PartModule.vessel.geeForce would work?

08:43 <awang> Or PartModule.vessel.gravityForPos or PartModule.vessel.gravityTrue?

08:53 <awang> I guess the best alternative is Planetarium.fetch?.home?.GeeASL

08:53 <awang> But I'm not sure exactly what to multiply by?

08:53 <awang> 9.81 or 9.80665?

08:54 <awang> Something else?

08:54 <awang> Is there a way of getting that programmatically?

12:53 <Bornholio> awang is there not a global g0 (gravitational constant) value that is acurate out to a double? Also sure you need g not G (6.673×10−11) or μ=GM https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth#Estimating_g_from_the_law_of_universal_gravitation

12:58 <Bornholio> unless i'm not reading deep enough the planets are defined by only a few things gravParameter = and radius =

13:04 <awang> Bornholio: idk, I haven't been able to find one, but I'm not sure if I'm looking in the right place

13:04 <awang> And yeah, I'm sure I need g. Trying to calculate TWR

13:17 <Bornholio> how about https://docs.unity3d.com/ScriptReference/Physics-gravity.html

13:26 <Bornholio> awang maybe a public static float globalGravity is defined and you can divide or multiply using that more accurately I see it in some other code snips for unity 3d

14:31 <awang> !tell Bornholio idk if Physics.gravity is right, since it's a Vector3 and g should be a scalar.

14:31 <Qboid> awang: I'll redirect this as soon as they are around.

14:32 <awang> !tell Bornholio I'd imagine that it'd be a KSP-specific thing, since Unity in general wouldn't deal with surface gravity

14:32 <Qboid> awang: I'll redirect this as soon as they are around.

14:32 <awang> !tell Bornholio Or so I think

14:32 <Qboid> awang: I'll redirect this as soon as they are around.

15:32 <awang> Ullage seems strangely nonfunctional to me

15:32 <awang> Staging during a launch at around 60km and ~2000m/s, apparently propellant remains "very stable" for at least 10 seconds

15:32 <awang> After burnout

15:33 <awang> lamont: Is PEG supposed to try to go to a heading of ~135 when trying to launch into the plane of the Moon from the Cape?

15:33 <awang> Seems to try to go to 135 degrees, then gradually move towards 90

15:33 <awang> But can't turn as fast as it wants due to limiting AoA

15:39 <awang> Also, do you think that it would make sense to have booster pitch rate be calculated from liftoff TWR?

15:39 <awang> Or liftoff TWR + first stage burn time

15:39 <awang> Or some other combination of factors

15:40 <awang> Also, is it just me or did MJ stop compensating for engine spool up time?

15:40 <awang> It definitely worked at some point

15:56 <awang> lamont: More correctly, seems PEG wants to go to a heading of ~150 first

15:57 <awang> Gradually decreases during the flight though

16:23 <awang> Hmmm

16:23 <awang> Something appears to be sucking all my electric charge up instantly

16:23 <awang> 5000+ EC gone before physics loads

16:45 <awang> Anyone here familiar with the proc avionics code?

16:46 <awang> Got a fun bug I'd like to track down

16:46 <awang> https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/issues/793

16:46 <Qboid> [#793] title: Changing proc avionics tech level changes tech level for *all* proc avionics parts | I have a rocket with two proc avionics parts, both set to the "upper stage" type. The one corresponding to the TLI stage should stay on the `avionicsPrototypes` tech level, since its stage is only ~1.5t and the `avionicsPrototypes` tech level has a minimum avionics mass of 3t compared to the mini

16:46 <Qboid> mum of 5t for the `earlyAvionics` tech level. This allows the `avionicsPrototypes` part to be smaller and lighter.... | https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/issues/793

16:46 <awang> Also, I'd really love it if proc avionics had lower min supported masses

16:55 <soundnfury> awang: eh, it's already possible to build some ridiculously light probes compared to historical analogues

16:56 <soundnfury> and, I think I've also seen the bugs you report; the other one is really annoying when trying to test a vehicle in Sandbox

16:58 <awang> Oh, really?

16:58 <awang> Guess I need to learn more about historical probes then

16:58 <awang> Yay, glad to hear I didn't break something

16:59 <awang> Is the "other one" the reseting to most modern?

16:59 <awang> s/reseting to most modern/"resetting to most modern" issue/

17:00 <Qboid> awang meant to say: Is the "other one" the "resetting to most modern" issue?

17:01 <awang> I'm doing way more dev these days than actual playing...

17:01 <awang> It's play for a few minutes, notice something annoying, go bug hunting, repeat

17:01 <soundnfury> yes, that's the 'other one' I meant

17:02 <soundnfury> for historical probes: just comparing to the Ranger cores is instructive

17:02 <soundnfury> e.g. my early Venus & Mars probes tend to be much lighter than Mariner ≤ 4

17:07 <awang> How much lighter?

17:07 <awang> Sorry, haven't progressed that far, so I don't have a point of reference

18:11 <soundnfury> awang: while you're being spectacularly industrious: the Tree/RFTechLevels.cfg looks wrong, the PARTUPGRADE for RCS TL2 isn't in the tech that actually unlocks it

18:11 <soundnfury> (idk which one is correct)

18:37 <awang> soundnfury: Could you explain a bit more? I don't get it

18:47 <soundnfury> awang: line 31 of GameData/RP0/Tree/RFTechLevels.cfg reads "%TLTECH2 = earlyDocking"

18:47 <soundnfury> whereas line 144 has "techRequired = improvedFlightControl"

18:53 <awang> Ohhh

18:53 <awang> I missed line 31, saw line 144

18:53 <awang> Wondering what was wrong

19:50 <awang> Hmmm

19:50 <awang> Does RP-0 really need to get all proc avionics configs every frame/tick/whatever?

19:50 <awang> It spams the log like nothing else

20:58 <QuantumSwag> Hi

20:59 <QuantumFalcon> .nextlaunch

20:59 <Bornholio> o/

20:59 <Qboid> Bornholio: awang left a message for you in #RO [19.11.2017 14:31:35]: "idk if Physics.gravity is right, since it's a Vector3 and g should be a scalar."

20:59 <Qboid> Bornholio: awang left a message for you in #RO [19.11.2017 14:32:30]: "I'd imagine that it'd be a KSP-specific thing, since Unity in general wouldn't deal with surface gravity"

20:59 <Qboid> Bornholio: awang left a message for you in #RO [19.11.2017 14:32:36]: "Or so I think"

21:02 <xShadowx> isnt gravity vector3 to denote direction, and g_force the amount? (havent toyed that area for like 2 yr ;x )

23:00 <awang> xShadowx: I have no clue

23:00 <awang> Would that even work in the VAB?

23:30 <xShadowx> i wouldnt think so o.o