<leudaimon>
and what about mission training soundnfury ?
stratochief_ has joined #RO
<schnobs>
soundnfury: "All" contracts tab lists future missions, but not the payoff.
stratochief has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
<soundnfury>
schnobs: ah I see
<soundnfury>
leudaimon: mission training is that, proficiency training is prerequisite for starting mission training
<leudaimon>
ah ok soundnfury!
<soundnfury>
(prof. training takes a long time and lasts, mission training takes about a week and expires after landing/recovery)
stratochief_ is now known as stratochief
SRBuchanan has joined #RO
<schnobs>
and quite generally, time limits on future milestones are scary. One can figure ou how long it will take to do the research, but without prior knowledge it's hard to account for assembly, or unreliable equipment.
<schnobs>
In case of first satellite, I only take that *after* I have the parts. Dunno if intended.
<schnobs>
Then it's, uh, a few years to upgrade the tracking station.
<leudaimon>
lol, I get first sat as soon as it's available... best advance to get your program going
awang has joined #RO
<SRBuchanan>
Use the advance to get your launchpad upgraded - you'll probably need the extra mass.
<SRBuchanan>
Then blow the rest on upgrades, mostly to your VAB but some to tech.
<leudaimon>
with the long upgrade times, I also bought the tracking station and mission control with that this time... let's see how it works
<leudaimon>
still quite some money for upgrades though
<schnobs>
Sounding rockets to 300km pays for the first launchpad (it's cheap). But TS and MC require the satellite advance.
<schnobs>
And I'm not sure if that's money well spent, or if i should raher get upgrades instead.
<schnobs>
Gnerelly, it feels as if i should invest in upgrades, but at the same time i don't think I can.
<SRBuchanan>
I went for the launch pad and the VAB and spent the rest on upgrades, mostly to build rate. I'm spamming sounding rockets while I wait on new technology.
<SRBuchanan>
I can launch once a week though so I'm making a modest income.
<schnobs>
I like how the upgrades scale, though. Should take out a lot of the clicky from RP-0.
<schnobs>
SRBuchanan: sounding rockets for cash definitely sounds grindy.
<SRBuchanan>
It is.
<SRBuchanan>
But sounding rockets are kind of fun so eh.
<SRBuchanan>
It's not so much a primary income source as a way to profitably kill time while waiting on bigger things.
<leudaimon>
but VAB is 1million, what difficulty are you playing on?
<SRBuchanan>
I'm in Hard and it's only a quarter-million for the first upgrade for me.
<SRBuchanan>
This is in RP-1.
<leudaimon>
that's weird... I'm in moderate
<awang>
It was definitely 1 million funds previously on hard
<awang>
Did the cost get changed recently?
<SRBuchanan>
I installed last weekend. Cost is 225000 for first upgrade.
<awang>
Hmmm
<leudaimon>
that's weird
<leudaimon>
installed two days ago, it's 1 million on moderate
<schnobs>
same here.
<SRBuchanan>
I've got 225K on both Moderate and Hard.
<Qboid>
Bornholio: Probus left a message for you in #RO [15.02.2018 10:44:23]: "I am not using scatterer. I will keep my eyes open for error messages."
<Bornholio>
also awesome pap thansk for more contracts
<schnobs>
Bornholio: I haven't checked, but presume that RP-0 still limits tank sizes according to era.
BadRocketsCo has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
<schnobs>
Just for lulz and giggles, I tried to make that rocket work in the context of a stock career game, or at least the stock tech tree.
<schnobs>
Didn't work, of course. Airliner wings are hightech, as are large tanks. Or anything large, for that matter.
<SRBuchanan>
Whoa, Windows really fucked this one up.
<SRBuchanan>
Apparently, if you want to use the Windows Photo viewer as a default for a filetype and it doesn't show up in the short list of options, you're basically fucked.
<SRBuchanan>
Since some development team somewhere thought it would be great to reclass a bunch of default utilities as 'Store Apps,' which reside in a difficult-to-access folder and don't play nice when you try to select them longhand.
<Starwaster>
what about un-credible amounts of parachutes? Is that an option? (deadpan...)
<Starwaster>
doh, responding to something really old aren't I
<Starwaster>
guys, what is the cost on Orion's service module?
ProjectThoth has joined #RO
aradapilot has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
aradapilot has joined #RO
<Bornholio>
finally have 1kN thruster! Time for landings
<soundnfury>
Bornholio: lunar landings? Far easier with RCS thrusters (they're throttleable :)
<Bornholio>
Main Descent Engine
<ProjectThoth>
Who needs thrusters when you can just load up a ball full of explosives and scatter medallions all over the place?
<ProjectThoth>
ussr_irl
<soundnfury>
ah, I usually have a crasher stage that does most of the Main Descent
<SRBuchanan>
'Crasher Stage'
<SRBuchanan>
That's a promising name.
Rokker has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
<SRBuchanan>
Man, love that initial upgrade from the WAC-Corporal to the XASR.
<soundnfury>
XASR kick stages tend to be a staple of my program well into the lunar probes era :)
<soundnfury>
it's just a great little engine, and there's not much that can replace it
<schnobs>
Hmm. My second stage tells me it has no ignitions remaining.
<schnobs>
If I reorder staging and make it go on the pad, it works.
<soundnfury>
schnobs: all engines have ignitions left while on the pad
<schnobs>
Lauch it and try to stage after 1st stage is done: no ignitions remaining.
<soundnfury>
that is a change I made a while back to support non-airlightable engines like the LR105
Rokker has joined #RO
<schnobs>
XASR?
<soundnfury>
Aerobee engine config unlocked by first rocketry node
<schnobs>
You just told me you use them as kick stages... or do you mean kick at take-off?
<soundnfury>
I use them as vacuum kick stages
<soundnfury>
and, they are (or should be) airlightable
<schnobs>
mine won't light at 35km.
<soundnfury>
should have 1 ignition
<soundnfury>
at 35km, dyn pres is probably too high, so TF'll fail ya
<schnobs>
It worked in the sim...
<soundnfury>
well, TF is probabilistic, you know
<schnobs>
Hold on, TF?
<soundnfury>
Test Flight
<schnobs>
That should give me some text in it's window, shoudn't it?
<soundnfury>
yes
<schnobs>
none there.
<soundnfury>
hunh.
Shoe17 has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
<Pap>
schnobs: Pressure fed tank?
<schnobs>
That would prevent it from working on the ground, as well.
<soundnfury>
in right-click on the ground, does it say "Ignitions: 0"?
<SRBuchanan>
Air-lighting the XASR is tricky.
<schnobs>
test regime on the second stage that doesn't work:
<schnobs>
move launch clamps to the top of the queue
<SRBuchanan>
The method I've found to work the best is to ignite the engine first, then decouple while the stage below still has a second or so of burn time.
<schnobs>
stage the clamped-down rocket until the point where it fails in flight
<schnobs>
see that it wrks.
<Pap>
yes, SRBuchanan has the best plan, that is the only way I have ever done it
<soundnfury>
oh yeah, it could be ullage
<SRBuchanan>
That way the vehicle never fails to have acceleration acting upon it.
<SRBuchanan>
Because the XASR is really, really particular about ullage.
<schnobs>
uallge would say "vapor in fuel lines". I get "no ignitions".
<soundnfury>
do you have MJ? it will try to relight, so you'll get both
<schnobs>
seeing as I also get the first stage's full running visuals before it's even ignited, let me just restart KSP...
<schnobs>
(wasn't there a new DLL somewhere...?) thanks awang!
<SRBuchanan>
On the topic of sounding rockets, has anyone else found that low spin rates give better stability?
<soundnfury>
yes, don't overspin
<SRBuchanan>
High-rate spins always seem to develop wobble.
<soundnfury>
else you'll get precession
<SRBuchanan>
Getting the spin rate low with the fins is a royal pain in the ass.
<soundnfury>
yes, it is
<SRBuchanan>
The method I use now is to clip a Sputnik antenna through the fin in the VAB and use that to gauge how true the fin is.
<schnobs>
yeah, wanted to ask about that, too. Even the slightest tilt on my fins gives me insane rpm, and trouble.
<SRBuchanan>
You have to make the tilt about as low as you possibly can.
<schnobs>
did that
<SRBuchanan>
Use smooth rotation in the editor and move your cursor as far away as possible so you can tweak really precisely.
<soundnfury>
^
<schnobs>
I've given up on fins, using tilted ullage motors on the second stage instead.
<SRBuchanan>
I get most of my sounding rockets below 100 rpm that way.
<schnobs>
I know how little one tiny notch is. I don't give it any more than that. result is still insane (fairings being visibly pulled apart &c)
<SRBuchanan>
Hmm.
<soundnfury>
maybe your fins are just too big?
<SRBuchanan>
Well, my sounding rockets never have fairings.
<SRBuchanan>
So I can't say as I've seen that issue.
TM1978m has joined #RO
<SRBuchanan>
How many times does it rotates in a second? A good guess is fine.
<schnobs>
too fast to make any guess. The fairing thing may as well be a rendering issue, though.
<SRBuchanan>
Mine are so shallowly tilted that they appear straight even to close examination.
<SRBuchanan>
I have three of the Aerobee fins in radial symmetry at the base of the rocket.
<schnobs>
awang: the button is there, and I like it.
TM1978m has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<SRBuchanan>
My rockets never get close to even two revolutions per second that way.
<SRBuchanan>
Hmm... my first attempt at recovery is not going well.
<SRBuchanan>
Thing is blowing up the moment it touches down even though it's only falling at 6.5 m/s
<SRBuchanan>
Looks like it was some sort of terrain clipping bug.
BadRocketsCo has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<SRBuchanan>
Some day I'll be able to close KSP without having it freeze in the process, but today is not that day.
<schnobs>
yeah so, those engines not igniting?
<schnobs>
I believe it has somethign to do with being close the the fairing base below them.
<schnobs>
Perhaps air pressure pushes them into the base or somesuch, and the game considers them stowed.
<schnobs>
At any rate I can get ignite them when I seperate first (yay for overengineering).
<SRBuchanan>
Well, I gotta go rest up. Hopefully I'll be able to go orbital this weekend.
<SRBuchanan>
Night folks.
SRBuchanan has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<schnobs>
night.
<Pap>
As far as the over spinning on the Rockets, NK said something about using trim instead of angling th efins?
<Bornholio>
a few clicks of Alt-E
<schnobs>
if you have control surfaces, instead of plain old fins...
<schnobs>
srry afk-ish
<soundnfury>
well if you're gonna do that, why not just attach tabs to the trailing edge of the fins, and tilt those rather than the whole fin?
Mike` has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
Mike` has joined #RO
ProjectThoth has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
BadRocketsCo has joined #RO
<BadRocketsCo>
Hullo
* schnobs
waves
<BadRocketsCo>
So uh
<BadRocketsCo>
Can anyone walk me through tooling?
<schnobs>
sure. Hold on a sec.
<BadRocketsCo>
I honestly feel like I am missing something.
<BadRocketsCo>
Mods wise
<schnobs>
There's a buttn on the toolbar, letter f with a wrench through it.
<schnobs>
Click, find tooling, see a list of all untooled parts.
<schnobs>
Crawl over vessel, get context menu on every part, tool it.
<schnobs>
The idea is to funnel the player into (re)using a limited set of proc-part sizes, rather than building hand-tailored rockets for every mission.
<schnobs>
So every proc part you pull out of your hat is made more expensive, unless and until you tool it.
<BadRocketsCo>
Yeah, I'm missing something. I don't have the thing on my toolbar
<BadRocketsCo>
I downloaded the RP0 master file from github and just transfered the RP0 file. Should I transfer something else?
<schnobs>
which ksp version?
<schnobs>
put differently: was master a deliberate decision, or could it be that you want Development instead?
<schnobs>
but really, I'm out of my depth here. I got something kinda-sorta working on ksp1.3.1, with lots of input from Bornholio. I don't feel as if I have much knowledge to pass on.
<BadRocketsCo>
1.2.2...
<schnobs>
in that case, you couldn't you just pull the whole shebang off CKAN?
Wetmelon has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
<BadRocketsCo>
I thought that it wouldn't give me the "correct" RP0 version but the one that gave me the old tech tree and everything
<BadRocketsCo>
But I guess I should test it
<BadRocketsCo>
May just be a case of "RTFM"
Addle has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Addle has joined #RO
Wetmelon has joined #RO
stratochief has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
BadRocketsCo2 has joined #RO
BadRocketsCo3 has joined #RO
BadRocketsCo2 has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
qwertyy_ has joined #RO
BadRocketsCo3 has left #RO [#RO]
qwertyy has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
probus_ has joined #RO
Probus has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Probus__ has joined #RO
probus_ has quit [Ping timeout: 207 seconds]
schnobs has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
TM1978m has joined #RO
TM1978m has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
stratochief has joined #RO
ProjectThoth has joined #RO
leo has joined #RO
leo is now known as Guest30844
Guest30844 has quit [Client Quit]
leudaimon has joined #RO
<BadRocketsCo>
Howdy stratochief
ProjectThoth has quit [Quit: +++out of cheese error+++]
<Starwaster>
did anyone every do any effects / realplume configs for Porkjet's part overhaul parts?
BadRocketsCo has quit [Quit: Bye]
<leudaimon>
I read something about relay capabilities being now restricted to some types of craft or antenna in RT. Does anybody know how this is implemented in RP-1?
BadRocketsCo has joined #RO
<BadRocketsCo>
Hi
<Probus__>
o/
awang has quit [Ping timeout: 207 seconds]
awang has joined #RO
<awang>
BadRocketsCo: Tooling is part of RP-0 dev
<awang>
And Rp-0 is currently on 1.3.1
<BadRocketsCo>
Hmm, okay
<awang>
leudaimon: IIRC RT added a feature that allowed relay capability to be disabled for some antennas
<awang>
So RP-0 disabled relay for all antenna except certain ones
<awang>
Or at least that's the plan
<awang>
If it's implemented, it should be in a cfg somewhere
<leudaimon>
cool awang, that's what I expected... I'll look it up then
<awang>
leudaimon: Apparently it's still a WIP
<awang>
It's on the todo list
<awang>
RP-0/issues/812
<Qboid>
[#812] title: RP-1 todos for release | I'm holding off actually releasing the rest of the constellation since RP-1's changes are so far-reaching they may require changes in other mods. But AFAIK the remaining work is pretty much all RP-1, or at least closely tied to it.... | https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/issues/812
<leudaimon>
so right now there are no relays in the game?
<awang>
I think everything is relay-enabled right now
<awang>
Hasn't been a patch to disable relays yet, from what I can see in the logs
<leudaimon>
I see... from NK's comment I understood everything had relay disabled by default
<awang>
Oh?
<awang>
Oh
<awang>
Derp
<awang>
Never mind, I guess relays have been disabled by default
egg|wfh|egg has joined #RO
<BadRocketsCo>
Strange. Module manager doesn't do anything on load.
<awang>
I thought the patches would be in the RP-0 repo, but looks like I was wrong
<leudaimon>
yeah, would make sense
<BadRocketsCo>
Also AVC is telling me that it's version 0.1.3...
<BadRocketsCo>
Ugh...
<Maxsimal>
I'm actually wondering why relay antennas should exist at all. It seems more like the capacity to save and retransmit a signal should be part of the core, not the antenna.
<taniwha>
yeah
<Maxsimal>
Though I could understand an antenna not being able to both emit and receive at the same time.
<taniwha>
I'm not certain, but that might be core related
<leudaimon>
from a implementation standpoint, it seems simpler to define it for antennas than cores... (especially with procedural avionics)
<awang>
Maxsimal: I think it's actually defined for each core
<leudaimon>
and at the same time, a small low-gain antenna shouldn't be relay capable, no matter what is the core, right?
<awang>
Since it's a change to RT's ModuleSPU
<Maxsimal>
awang: Ok gotcha. Sorry I thought it was going to be like the base games version of relays
<awang>
Maxsimal: Nah, no need to apologize
<awang>
To be honest, I saw the same thing until I saw that the RO patches were being applied to probe cores
<Maxsimal>
awang: Cool:) I really gotta start playing again this weekend - hopefully I can get my 1.3.1 game working with enough mods to make it worthwhile.
<Pap>
o/
<leudaimon>
o/
<taniwha>
o/
<Maxsimal>
o/ all.
<Pap>
taniwha: Up late?
<taniwha>
not particularly. 23:10
<Pap>
OK, so after pushing the PR's and working through some of the issues with RO RP-1 yesterday, can anyone tell me where we stand as far as what needs to be completed for release? I want to help and get it pushed out this weekend
<Maxsimal>
But your mach will depend on your altitude... or am I wrong? I don't mess with planes too much.
<taniwha>
my Mach will decrease as I lose altitude
<taniwha>
because the air temperature will rise, thus raising the speed of sound
<awang>
Pap: Look at RP-0/issues/821
<Qboid>
[#821] title: RP-1 : pod naming in the "training" tab | for the first time I want to use the MK2 pod in my RP-1 campaign. But this name is not visible in the courses tab. There is a "Apollo", wich I suppose to be it, it probably regroups different type of "Apollo" pods from different mods. It could also be the apollo ascent pod.... | https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/issues/821
<awang>
Er
<awang>
RP-0/issues/812
<Qboid>
[#812] title: RP-1 todos for release | I'm holding off actually releasing the rest of the constellation since RP-1's changes are so far-reaching they may require changes in other mods. But AFAIK the remaining work is pretty much all RP-1, or at least closely tied to it.... | https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/issues/812
<Maxsimal>
Yup. Do the same principles as the real world apply to building a good glider? Long, thin, narrow wings?
<taniwha>
yes
<stratochief>
BadRocketsCo: o/
Shoe17 has joined #RO
stratochief has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Senshi has joined #RO
leudaimon has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
<Senshi>
Hey, gents. Random question: Does anyone know where to find fairly detailed blueprints/technical drawings of spacecraft and/or launch systems? I want to adorn my atrocious hobby room door and walls with some inspirational prints :)
leudaimon has joined #RO
aradapil_ has joined #RO
aradapilot has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
aradapilot has joined #RO
aradapil_ has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
schnobs has joined #RO
Maxsimal has quit [Quit: Web client closed]
BadRocketsCo has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
<schnobs>
awang: the button works!
<awang>
schnobs: \o/
<awang>
Wonder if NK will accept a PR with that wording
<schnobs>
psssssst
Maxsimal has joined #RO
<schnobs>
Are there still issues with stacking proc parts?
Probus__ is now known as Probus
<Probus>
What were the issues? I haven't seen any.
<schnobs>
They'd slip into each other on vessel load, unless you put at least one non-proc part inbetween.
<schnobs>
or rather, on loading in VAB, then remain that way on rollout.
<awang>
I thought those were inconsistent problems
<awang>
Like I saw similar-ish things on one of my rockets, but could never reproduce it after deleting the rocket and recreating it from scratch
leudaimon has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
leudaimon has joined #RO
<schnobs>
IMO, tooling should be a lot more coarse-grained.
<schnobs>
Like, only apply to tanks and fairing bases; and also give more leeway in terms of length.
leudaimon has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
leudaimon has joined #RO
<schnobs>
And/or not be as noticeable in terms of construction time (which is the true reason why I bother about it so much right now).
<schnobs>
Sounding rockets want me to loft 60u to high altitudes or 500u to low alt; the concept of rocket families doesn't really apply here.
<schnobs>
it might get better later on, but IMO tooling doesn't play too well with sounding rockets.
<awang>
schnobs: Might want to mention that next time NK is on
<awang>
Or !tell him
<awang>
Or make an issue on github
<awang>
idk how closely he reads scrollback
<schnobs>
probably the latter.
<awang>
What is affected by tooling besides tanks, fairing bases, and fairings?
<awang>
I agree that tooling doesn't work too well with fairings, but that's more because players have little control over their dimensions, unlike for tanks
<schnobs>
nosecones, though they might be classed together with fairings.
<schnobs>
(KSP relaoding right now, will check soon)
<awang>
Ah, right, those and structural parts
<schnobs>
yup.
<awang>
Tooling is alright-ish with sounding rockets, as long as you're ok with sometimes wasting a ton of capacity
<awang>
But you do have a point
<leudaimon>
about fairings, I think it would make sense to make their shape not automatic by default
<leudaimon>
it's a nice touch to have to tool a given size fairing and use it regardless of payload
<schnobs>
^ didn't think of this that way, but agree.
<leudaimon>
btw, is there a documentation on tank types somewhere? just unlocked service modules to find out their max utilization is 50%
<awang>
leudaimon: Yeah, that'd work a lot better with tooling, but idk how well it'd work given how proc fairings is built
<awang>
leudaimon: idk if there's explicit documentation anywhere. The max utilizations are in the config files though
<schnobs>
There is a button to lock fairing size.
<awang>
Non-service-module tanks go from 88 to 92 to 95 to 97% utilization, I think?
<leudaimon>
I put my tooled fairing with fairing base in a subassemly
<awang>
Balloon tanks are 100%
<awang>
schnobs: Right, but you still can't set dimensions manually, right?
<leudaimon>
but what is the point of the service module tank?
<schnobs>
So basicall, build LV, put on a dummy payload of X dimensions, lock fairing size, save as subassembly.
<leudaimon>
no, just tick the fairing auto-shape button, and voila
<leudaimon>
you can set all dimensions
<leudaimon>
(it's on the fairing base part)
<schnobs>
yes, that too.
<schnobs>
I really think that anything under (say) 1m should be exempt from tooling.
<schnobs>
Would not only cover sounding rockets, but probes as well. Tooling should be big-picture stuff in my opinion.
<soundnfury>
schnobs: tooling for small stuff is really cheap, though
<awang>
Oh, you can shape fairings manually?
<awang>
I stand corrected
<soundnfury>
awang: well it doesn't always work, I think there's a bug in PF
<leudaimon>
yeah, I had never used it much... but now it's very useful
<awang>
Oh
<soundnfury>
(sometimes the sliders don't appear when you untick auto)
<awang>
Huh
<soundnfury>
you can workaround by saving and loading the ship
<leudaimon>
wow, even the boattail base must be tooled!
<awang>
leudaimon: Yep, it's just another fairing base to the game
<awang>
I think it'd be pretty cool to see some kind of tooling stats
<awang>
How frequently you've used parts with a particular tooling, how much you've saved, how much you've spent, etc
<schnobs>
soundnfury: it's not only the cost, as such.
<schnobs>
soundnfury: on sounding rockets, it has a huge impact on costruction times. (which is basically cost-related, I guess)
<soundnfury>
schnobs: I meant the cost to buy the tooling
<soundnfury>
(it doesn't take any time to set up the tooling ;)
<leudaimon>
yeah, for sounding rockets it's all about speeding up construction
<schnobs>
And later on... I guess one could make a point that standardizing the dimensions of monoprop tanks would be a good idea, but really I don't think it's worth the player's attention.
<leudaimon>
btw, anyone knows what is the function of SM tanks?
<awang>
leudaimon: Holding different payloads, as far as I can tell
<soundnfury>
leudaimon: for Payloads, ElectricCharge and Life Support
<awang>
e.g. sounding/weather/commsat payloads
<leudaimon>
oh, I get it...
<soundnfury>
(EC _can_ go in batteries, but consolidating more things into one tank is better for tooling porpoises)
<leudaimon>
if proc. avionics were a simpler system I would tell it to go there too
<leudaimon>
it could become a full fledged procedural probe
<awang>
A proc probe in a single service module tank?
<soundnfury>
ehh, do it the other way round, let a proc avi part contain an SM tank :P
<leudaimon>
yeah soundnfury, that was one of my suggestions to rspakyc
<leudaimon>
I was suggesting this utilization mechanic could be deactivated from proc. avi for now, given it's broken, and then to allow for flexibility in part size, the "unused" part of the proc part could become a SM tank
<soundnfury>
mmm but tbh I think current proc. avi design is actually fine (just make the part smaller ;)
<leudaimon>
the problem is that utilization is broken
<soundnfury>
how so?
<leudaimon>
there is a declination point where the trade-off between weight and cost brakes...
<leudaimon>
so that for higher lower utilization it gets more expensive instead of cheaper
<schnobs>
that huge case ist costly...
<leudaimon>
s/higher lower/lower
<Qboid>
leudaimon meant to say: so that for lower utilization it gets more expensive instead of cheaper
<leudaimon>
this "optimal" point can even be higher than 100%
<soundnfury>
yeah it's 'cause of the battery cost isn't it?
<soundnfury>
I usually just set the util. to where the cost minimises, anyway, unless I really want to save mass
<leudaimon>
exactly... but there is no point in having this arbitrary inflection point, that I don't even know what it depends on
<leudaimon>
oh, crossfeed should be set as enabled by default in boattail bases
<schnobs>
What does the boattail thing do that I can't get from an upside-down insterstage?
<leudaimon>
I have no idea... haha
<schnobs>
I like the squad idea of coupling it to a thrust plate for additional attachment nodes.
<leudaimon>
actually it also needs to be upside-down
<schnobs>
Or, quite generally, I'd like to build all my interstages top-down so I don't need to tweak the gap to the last millimeter.
<awang>
schnobs: I think the boattail is actually duplicated from the interstage, so...
<awang>
I also think there's a cost benefit to the interstage or something, too, so there is a reason or something
<awang>
idk how significant it is though
<Starwaster>
Oh.... ok so there's a lab penalty for homeworld... but does that apply to orbit as well? If I ship some science up to an orbital station does it give me more Science! ?
<schnobs>
Starwaster: In stock, that works.
<awang>
schnobs: I usually end up making my interstages in 2 parts, so I can put ullage engines on the fairings and drop them after
<schnobs>
Collect science on the ground and during ascent, then your lab will have a first charge as soon as you're in space.
<leudaimon>
tooling made me realize why they made that weird contraption for the bumper-wac
<leudaimon>
haha
<Starwaster>
It's bad luck to launch whenever Kerbol, Mun and Minmus are in alignment.... double eclipses are frightfully bad luck
<Starwaster>
true story
<Starwaster>
that's the real reason RO is so popular. Players are afraid of the double eclipse
<awang>
leudaimon: What weird contraption?
<Starwaster>
Fine, don't believe me
<leudaimon>
awang the tiny and thin wac rocket on top of the A-4, totally mismatched
<awang>
leudaimon: Oh right, bumper
<awang>
I was thinking of the WAC-corporal, for whatever reason
<Starwaster>
lamont, your guidance program doesn't like me setting inclinations.... when I do it insists on plunging me into the ocean
<schnobs>
90d for sounding rocket contracts feel quite short -- maybe I'm doing it wrong, but I can't come up with a two-stage thing that takes under 50d to assemble.
<schnobs>
So, either build rocket and hope you will have a contract to match at rollout
<schnobs>
Or, back-and-forth between buildings.
<schnobs>
Or, receive punishment if you don't suffer an engine failure.
<schnobs>
s/dont//
lamont has quit [Quit: lamont]
<leudaimon>
maybe you are behind in upgrades?
<leudaimon>
my bumper-wac is taking 10d
<leudaimon>
also, rush building is quite strong now that most of the cost is rollout cost
<leudaimon>
for my crewed rocket I always rush the 5 times possible
<schnobs>
I put most of my upgrades in to science because that's what ultimately gets me ahead.
<schnobs>
Sounding rockets mosty so that I don't just sit there and timewarp.
<leudaimon>
oh well... VAB upgrades increse your income/time and allow you to buy more upgrades
<schnobs>
1 million funds and there's other upgrades I need first.
<leudaimon>
no, I'm referring to build rate upgrades
<schnobs>
yeah, those go mostly to science.
<schnobs>
I'm not that fond of sounding rockets that I want to lauch 20/yr.
<leudaimon>
hehe, It's good to get science too
<schnobs>
Though possibly that would be the way to go, grind sounding contracts for an income stream, funnel that into research.
<schnobs>
Only that i consider that to be make-work.
<leudaimon>
yeah, it works quite well
<leudaimon>
also, going for human sub-orbital on an A-4 like rocket is very powerful... bunch of money in records
<schnobs>
Realism Overhaul, I get t.
lamont has joined #RO
<leudaimon>
it was actually considered...
<awang>
leudaimon: I think that's going to get patched out
<awang>
Or something like that
<leudaimon>
what, the records?
<awang>
Early cockpits won't be able to make suborbital hops
Probus has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<awang>
Although now that I think about it A-4-like rockets don't preclude later cockpits
<leudaimon>
oh, really? but is the x-15 cockpit that different from the x-1?
<awang>
I was just thinking that by the time you had suborbital-capable cockpits you could do better than A-4
<awang>
I have no clue
<awang>
Thermal-wise, maybe?
<awang>
idk about survival-wise
VanDisaster has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
<leudaimon>
idk... to me it looks like the x-1 would survive
<awang>
Maybe?
<awang>
What's the limiting factor for suborbital hops anyways?
<leudaimon>
idk... the pilot would be using a pressure suit and oxygen mask anyway... no need for pressurized cabin
<awang>
Still need the equipment to support a pressure suit/oxygen mask
<awang>
Although that's a heck of a lot easier than a pressurized cabin
<leudaimon>
yeah, I would think (based on nothing) that all these supersonic test planes had oxygen supplies
<soundnfury>
even wwii planes had oxygen
<soundnfury>
the pressure is the hard part
stratochief has joined #RO
<awang>
Apparently Chuck Yeager didn't wear a pressure suit for his supersonic flights
<awang>
They were also intended for emergency situations only at first
<awang>
First time a pressure suit was actually used was 1949 Aug 25, where a X-1 cockpit depressurized
<leudaimon>
ah cool
VanDisaster has joined #RO
<schnobs>
Summer 1951. Some three years until I have orbital rockets, i can asssemble about 7 sounding rockets per year.
<schnobs>
At about 5min per launch, that will be...
<schnobs>
(fast-forwards 18 months, cheats hmself into 100k funds)
<Mike`>
schnobs, i didn't have any trouble with tooling and sounding rockets... if you have a diameter, changing length is very cheap, both to use and retool
<schnobs>
Half of my gripe is that I have to, in the first place.
<leudaimon>
and tbh, even retooling some parts you still make money from the launch if you complete a contract
<Mike`>
yep, that too, contracts pay well
<schnobs>
RP-0 is UI hell, and more often than not I find myself wondering if all that interaction is really worthwhile.
<Mike`>
well, with the tool all button, even that's simple?
<schnobs>
That one helps a lot.
<awang>
schnobs: I did the timeskip + cheat funds things too, except with X-planes contracts
<Mike`>
i think i like tooling, because in my earlier games, i really did build a unique rocket for every payload kinda.
<awang>
Typically because I was waiting for a rocket to build, so I couldn't use sounding rockets in the meantime
<Mike`>
now, with tooling, i actually reuse rockets/launchers
<schnobs>
I still find myself designing different rockets, tooling them all so I can compare them, then saveload and go with the one design I liked best.
<awang>
schnobs: You don't use the UI to see how much parts would cost before/after tooling?
<Mike`>
errr...
<awang>
Or just don't want to sum them up?
<Mike`>
only tool *after* you decided which you like best? :D that's what i do.
<awang>
Guess I could add something that says what the total cost is after tooling all untooled parts
<awang>
Since I'm already accessing that info anyways
<schnobs>
Then pick up a calculater and figure out the gross total? Nach, just tool it all and let the editor do the work.
<Mike`>
well, you are correct that the tooling UI could display a sum of the total vehicle if everything would be tooled
<Mike`>
that would be cool, true.
<schnobs>
Incidentally. Have a look at the tech view in KCT, then tell me (quickly) how long you will need to get to the last one still visible in the window.
<awang>
schnobs: All right, all right, I'll add a way to get the total cost after tooling :P
<leudaimon>
talking about RP0 gui, a nice thing would be for the training courses to generate a KAC alarm or to appear in KCT somewhere...
<Mike`>
on the other hand...yes... as long as you restrict yourself to certain sizes, just tool everything also kinda works, if you know you will use a certain size anyway in the future...
VanDisaster has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<awang>
Mike`: Sticking to integer meters seems to be a good way to reuse certain sizes
<Mike`>
for example
<schnobs>
KCT needs to be available in R&D as well. Reordering research is a PITA even when you know what you want, at least one shouldn't need to go back&forth between scenes
<awang>
So far, I think I have toolings for 0.380 meters (aerobees), 0.5, 1, 2, and 3m tanks
<Mike`>
although i did actually calculate numbers for me :D
<schnobs>
(not everyone has the tech tree down pat, y'know)
<Mike`>
well, so far it hasn't really been a problem for me, but KCT just needs to enforce correct ordering
<Qboid>
[#174] title: Techs can be unlocked out of order | If you have a tech A which is a prerequisite of B, and you queue both up, you can then re-order them on the R&D pane of the KCT GUI such that B unlocks first.... | https://github.com/magico13/KCT/issues/174
<Mike`>
:)
<awang>
Opened by our own soundnfury :D
<soundnfury>
awang: I usually use 0.3, 0.8 (maybe), 1.5, 2.4, 4.8
<soundnfury>
they're mostly nice round numbers of feet xD
<soundnfury>
Straight Eight Stronk
<awang>
lol imperial
* soundnfury
is of glorious British Empire
<Mike`>
:D
<Mike`>
i also grin every time nathan just dials in the perfect feet-diameter :D
<Mike`>
btw, has anybody tried Kopernicus 1.3.1-6? I got totally messed up orbits recently and upgraded kopernicus and principia.... reverted kopernicus and no trouble since then.