<schnobs>
would it even be possible to make a budget? For me as player, I mean.
<schnobs>
(has a look)
<schnobs>
even if I was willing to copy numbers out of the game and into a spreadsheet, I don't think I could.
awang has joined #RO
<awang>
You think it should be possible to run sims without having purchased parts?
<schnobs>
??
<Probus>
You mean tooling?
<schnobs>
nah.
<awang>
No, actual parts
<awang>
Like running a KRASH sim with a new engine to see if it's worth purchasing
<awang>
So you don't end up buying every engine just to find one that works well
<schnobs>
That might be nice.
<Mike`>
err
<Mike`>
you do somehwat have to develop an engine to be able to see how it performs?
<Mike`>
maybe not with todays computers, but back in the day? :)
<awang>
True
<schnobs>
I think saveloading will be fine to that effect.
<awang>
It's kind of annoying buying an engine, putting it on the rocket, and only then finding out that it was slightly worse than expected
<schnobs>
You need to get the parts into the editor before you can pass the vessel to krash.
<awang>
Where "slightly" can range from "maybe it could work" to "that won't get anywhere close"
<awang>
True
<Mike`>
well, but engines don't seem to be that expensive so far (except the first kerolox as i've seen :D)
<schnobs>
But I just found that I can "launch" a vessel (that is, put in in the KCT build queue) even if I don't have the parts.
<Mike`>
though i'm not playing on hard yet
<Mike`>
but yeah one could use sandbox/save load if in doubt
<Bornholio>
pods are the big expense
<awang>
Ideally, that wouldn't be necessary, though
<awang>
schnobs: There's a similar-ish bug with KRASH, where you can launch a sim when you haven't unlocked parts
<Mike`>
well, as i said i don't think it's unrealisitc
<awang>
KRASH will immediately say that you can't sim due to the missing parts, but it gives you money and flashes the "in simulation" text
<Mike`>
quite the opposite, you already get *exact* stats including reliability before even developing the engine
<awang>
So they might be related?
<schnobs>
Probably the same, in that it bypasses Squad's part check (triggers on launch button, but if you catch that event...)
<Mike`>
so you do have more precise info than you would have irl? :)
<awang>
Mike`: That's true, but I'd guess players are more used to seeing feasibility by putting the engine on the rocket and seeing the numbers MJ/KER spits out change
<awang>
Rather than running numbers manually
<schnobs>
talking about *that*...
<awang>
schnobs: Possibly? I remember looking through the KRASH code, and there is stuff that is supposed to prevent you from starting a sim if parts are still locked
<schnobs>
RP-0 approach to funding seems similar to Squad in dV. It rules all, but how much do I have, how much will I need? No telling.
<awang>
Guessing there's something similar in KCT, but something that RP-0 does causes that code to no longer work
<soundnfury>
schnobs: given that RP-0/1 is basically "Space Agency Spreadsheet Simulator" with a rocket-flying minigame, it basically sounds to me like you're complaining that the game doesn't play the game for you ;)
<schnobs>
soundnfury: and here I am, thinking that the spreadsheet stuff was a mere distraction from flying rockets. Sorry, I honestly didn't know.
<soundnfury>
schnobs: heck, half the folks in here don't even fly the rockets, they get MJ to do it for them xD
<soundnfury>
also this is just my opinion, others may disagree on the relative importance of the spreadsheets and the rockets
<Mike`>
i prefer textfiles (and ruby scripts) to spreadhseets
<soundnfury>
Mike`: Python >> Ruby
<Mike`>
nah :D
<schnobs>
Mike`: spreadsheet is what spreadsheet does, regardless of how you go about it.
<Mike`>
all hail king matz!
<Mike`>
i'm off to bed, night. :)
<schnobs>
night.
<soundnfury>
nn then
Maxsimal has quit [Ping timeout: 180 seconds]
VanDisaster has joined #RO
schnobs has quit [Ping timeout: 207 seconds]
awang has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
awang has joined #RO
QuantumSwag has joined #RO
<awang>
TIL Unity 5.4.0 isn't High Sierra compatible
<awang>
That'd explain a lot about why I can't get anything working
<awang>
Also rather unfortunate, since it means I can't profile things :(
<SRBuchanan>
Hey, when I lose avionics I also lose the ability to observer bio samples.
<awang>
NathanKell|Twitch: If you have time, reading scrollback might be a good idea
<awang>
There were some pain points being aired
<NathanKell|Twitch>
ok! Do you remember any words to search for?
<NathanKell|Twitch>
awang
<NathanKell|Twitch>
I don't have the mental energy/time to read the whole day's worth, alas
<NathanKell|Twitch>
Which is why I'm streaming rather than modding >.>
<Bornholio>
play :)
<awang>
NathanKell|Twitch: Let me see...
<awang>
NathanKell|Twitch: There was some talk about tooling/proc avionics
<awang>
And KCT
<awang>
Tooling/KCT are the ones which I remember the clearest
<awang>
Some UX things
blowfish has joined #RO
<awang>
Like showing cost of a vessel assuming all tooling has been purchased
SRBuchanan has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<NathanKell|Twitch>
awang: Ok! I'll have a look
NathanKell|Twitch is now known as NathanKell
blowfish has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Mike` has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
Mike` has joined #RO
blowfish has joined #RO
BadRocketsCo3 has joined #RO
<BadRocketsCo3>
hiii
BadRocketsCo3 is now known as BadRocketsCO
<ProjectThoth>
Not the forbidden carbon trioxide!
<BadRocketsCO>
hehe
<BadRocketsCO>
what�s up with RO these days?
<BadRocketsCO>
can we expect an official update to 1.3 soon-ish?
<taniwha>
probably the day before 1.4 comes out :P
<ProjectThoth>
Nothing to be done.
<ProjectThoth>
Now, Didi, help me with this damn boot.
BadMobileRockets has joined #RO
<BadRocketsCO>
heh, got ya
stratochief has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
<BadRocketsCO>
welp, I am giving up on this 1.3 install. It just keeps crashing.
<BadRocketsCO>
I�ll just wait until the newest RO/RP0 is officialy out. Hopefuly that won�t be before I marry someone, heh
<ProjectThoth>
BadRocketsCO: Are you, in any way, Chris Pratt?
<BadRocketsCO>
what do you mean? :D
<ProjectThoth>
BadRocketsCO: E.g., are you actually Chris Pratt?
<BadRocketsCO>
uh, no?
<ProjectThoth>
If the answer to that is "no," it still won't change you getting married before RO for 1.3, but we could certainly negotiate speeding up that timeline a bit.
<ProjectThoth>
Damn, that's the only guy my girlfriend would let me go out with if I had the chance to.
<BadRocketsCO>
I am just a semi-lonely 18 year old nerd sadly :D
<BadRocketsCO>
I mean, I wish I was Chris Pratt. That guy is handsom.
<ProjectThoth>
I wish I was Chris Pratt.
<BadRocketsCO>
Don�t we all?
<ProjectThoth>
Apparently he's like super nice in real life, too, which does my heart good.
<BadRocketsCO>
Also he has gotten to kiss Jennifer Lawrence, so yeah...
<ProjectThoth>
Meh.
<ProjectThoth>
You know, I just spent about 75 seconds thinking about it, but I don't really think I have a thing for any celebrity.
<BadRocketsCO>
I usualy don�t either, yeah.
<BadRocketsCO>
In the end they are just people like us
<ProjectThoth>
See, I can't imagine being famous.
<ProjectThoth>
In some way, I feel like that it's inevitable, because I'm already approaching being a household name at my 66,000 person university.
<ProjectThoth>
Certainly in the engineering department...
<BadRocketsCO>
How�s that?
<ProjectThoth>
The kicker is that I'm not an engineer.
<ProjectThoth>
BadRocketsCO: I'm loud, obnoxious, and "charismatic," as someone described me this evening.
<BadRocketsCO>
Heh. Is that a good thing?
<ProjectThoth>
I'm not sure.
<BadRocketsCO>
What do you study?
<ProjectThoth>
Though someone damn near shit their pants when they saw that I had a Blackwing 602 in my breast pocket... that was kind of funny.
<ProjectThoth>
I'm a geologist by trade.
<ProjectThoth>
It's actually a surprisingly fun major. I might be a little bit more eccentric than otherwise because it *is* a fun major, and people don't tend to believe that.
<BadRocketsCO>
Isn�t it a case of "To each their own" anyway?
<BadRocketsCO>
I wouldn�t know anything about uni anyway, because I am still pretty much a kiddo.
<ProjectThoth>
babby rockets co
<ProjectThoth>
BadRocketsCO: Eh, it can be.
<ProjectThoth>
Joining clubs changes that dynamic.
<NathanKell>
!tell awang,leudaimon,schnobs you can turn off autoshape fairings (as I do). I agree with awang that maybe it should default to off. But I strongly feel you should not get free infini-fairings, they need tooling like everything else procedural.
<Qboid>
NathanKell: I'll redirect this as soon as they are around.
<NathanKell>
!tell awang,leudaimon,schnobs someone should add the max utilization to the tank descriptions :)
<Qboid>
NathanKell: I'll redirect this as soon as they are around.
<NathanKell>
!tell schnobs the boattail is an interstage base that doesn't decouple, and is therefore *much* cheaper.
<Qboid>
NathanKell: I'll redirect this as soon as they are around.
<NathanKell>
!tell awang,leudaimon,schnobs I firmly believe we should retain the A-4 / X-1 Cockpit option. Something like that was indeed considered and almost done. The X-1 cockpit is pressurized, so it won't kill the crew inside. It can't, however, survive reentry at high speeds, only very low speeds. That's where you need the X-15 cockpit.
<Qboid>
NathanKell: I'll redirect this as soon as they are around.
NathanKell changed the topic of #RO to: Welcome to the discussion channel for the Realism Overhaul (meta)mod for KSP! Realism Overhaul Main Thread https://goo.gl/wH7Dzb ! RO Spreadsheet http://goo.gl/Oem3g0 ! Code of Conduct http://goo.gl/wOSv2M ! | [15:01] <soundnfury> Straight Eight Stronk (and) RP-0/1 is basically "Space Agency Spreadsheet Simulator" with a rocket-flying minigame
<NathanKell>
awang: LOVE the "tool all" button <3
<NathanKell>
(and, made it through scrollback)
BadMobileRockets has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
<ProjectThoth>
Another topic change?
<ProjectThoth>
WITNESSED
<NathanKell>
Apprently soundnfury knows the way to my heart :]
<taniwha>
NathanKell: btw, poking at MSC again
<NathanKell>
s/re/are/
<Qboid>
NathanKell meant to say: Apparently soundnfury knows the way to my heart :]
<NathanKell>
taniwha, cool!
<taniwha>
working on the GUI
NathanKell is now known as NathanKell|Twitch
<BadRocketsCO>
btw, is there ANY way to get RP1 working on 1.2.2?
<BadRocketsCO>
Without having to do major ammounts of coding yourself, that is...
<NathanKell|Twitch>
sure, just find the last commit before I came back
<NathanKell|Twitch>
and get someone to give you the 1.2.2 RF and KCT dlls
<BadRocketsCO>
NathanKell|Twitch: and that would be the one with the new tech tree and everything?
<NathanKell|Twitch>
It's close to identical to what I'm playing, and 99% of the changes since then are just cfg and can be backported
<BadRocketsCO>
ah, nice.
schnobs has joined #RO
NathanKell|Twitch is now known as NathanKell
<schnobs>
hullo.
<Qboid>
schnobs: NathanKell left a message for you in #RO [17.02.2018 06:19:39]: "the boattail is an interstage base that doesn't decouple, and is therefore *much* cheaper."
<Qboid>
schnobs: NathanKell left a message for you in #RO [17.02.2018 06:16:56]: "you can turn off autoshape fairings (as I do). I agree with awang that maybe it should default to off. But I strongly feel you should not get free infini-fairings, they need tooling like everything else procedural."
<Qboid>
schnobs: NathanKell left a message for you in #RO [17.02.2018 06:17:20]: "someone should add the max utilization to the tank descriptions :)"
<Qboid>
schnobs: NathanKell left a message for you in #RO [17.02.2018 06:22:47]: "I firmly believe we should retain the A-4 / X-1 Cockpit option. Something like that was indeed considered and almost done. The X-1 cockpit is pressurized, so it won't kill the crew inside. It can't, however, survive reentry at high speeds, only very low speeds. That's where you need the X-15 cockpit."
<schnobs>
Noted.
<NathanKell>
There was a lot of scrollback to read and respond to :)
Senshi has joined #RO
<schnobs>
I wasn't angling for infini-fairings, though. More a general amnesty for parts below size X.
<NathanKell>
Yeah. But the sounding rocket era is all about training the player. And I think that's a fine time to train the player in tooling :)
blowfish has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
fishbowl has joined #RO
ferram4_ has joined #RO
ferram4 has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
BadRocketsCO has quit [Quit: Nettalk6 - www.ntalk.de]
BadRocketsCO has joined #RO
BadRocketsCO has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<schnobs>
Regarding tanks, a hint of why and when I might want to use Service Module would be nice, too.
<NathanKell>
Yep! The description should be better, then. Idea is for EC, life support, and the Payload resources (it's the only proc tank that does those)
<NathanKell>
It also preserves LH2, for fuel cells.
<schnobs>
So Tank-I holding sounding payload is an aberration / stopgap measure until the first service module?
<NathanKell>
Correct
<schnobs>
Regarding tooling cost, what is it based on?
<schnobs>
Will especially tall and spindly tanks be extra expensive or somesuch?
<NathanKell>
Sadly they're actually cheaper to tool
<NathanKell>
Tooling costs are mostly based on diameter, with length a bit of a factor
<NathanKell>
argh, gotta zzz, sorry (spaced out)
<NathanKell>
cheers!
<schnobs>
No prob. G'night!
<NathanKell>
And good to see you again :)
NathanKell is now known as NathanKell|AFK
ProjectThoth has quit [Quit: +++out of cheese error+++]
fishbowl has quit [Quit: Leaving]
qwertyy_ has joined #RO
qwertyy__ has quit [Ping timeout: 182 seconds]
BasharMilesTeg_ has joined #RO
BasharMilesTeg has quit [Ping timeout: 207 seconds]
<Probus>
Is there a problem with a vacuum being at sea level?
<Probus>
I just had a kerbal die of asphyxiation on the runway.
<taniwha>
Probus: suit is sealed. no different to having a plastic bag over your head (when your O2 supply runs out)
<schnobs>
Makes sense, I guess. Though I bet it came without warning...
<Probus>
Yep
<schnobs>
Proc nosecone: 577kg. Similar shape from proc structure, 424kg.
<schnobs>
One would expect both to use the same algorithm...
<schnobs>
independent tooling, too.
<Mike`>
tooling depends on part i guess, different part, different tooling
<schnobs>
yeah, and it#s very strict about it. From what I see there's no carry-over at all.
<Mike`>
i think the tank versions have some carry over/are supposed to have some carry over
<schnobs>
I only checked between german and standard conic fairings, and TankIII vs. Balloon. No carry-over in these two cases.
<schnobs>
Also, untooled fairings are expensive, easily doubling the cost of a LV. Wow.
<schnobs>
Hand-whittled from solid chucks of ivory, I guess.
<Probus>
That's why SpaceX wants to recover them, I guess :)
<schnobs>
"costs approximately $5 million on its own or roughly 10% of the cost of a $62 million expendable launch, "
<schnobs>
hold on a sec while I adjust some assumptions.
<Mike`>
:D
<awang>
schnobs: No tooling carry-over between Tank-III and balloon tanks makes sense, in my opinion
<Qboid>
awang: NathanKell left a message for you in #RO [17.02.2018 06:16:55]: "you can turn off autoshape fairings (as I do). I agree with awang that maybe it should default to off. But I strongly feel you should not get free infini-fairings, they need tooling like everything else procedural."
<Qboid>
awang: NathanKell left a message for you in #RO [17.02.2018 06:17:20]: "someone should add the max utilization to the tank descriptions :)"
<Qboid>
awang: NathanKell left a message for you in #RO [17.02.2018 06:22:47]: "I firmly believe we should retain the A-4 / X-1 Cockpit option. Something like that was indeed considered and almost done. The X-1 cockpit is pressurized, so it won't kill the crew inside. It can't, however, survive reentry at high speeds, only very low speeds. That's where you need the X-15 cockpit."
<awang>
Balloon tanks are quite different from your average tank, after all
<awang>
In that case, though, idk why balloon tanks need the Tank-III designation though
<awang>
Since there's only one level of balloon tank
<awang>
German and standard conic fairings are the same shape, right?
<awang>
Different toolings for the same shape sounds like a bug
<awang>
Albeit one that may not be too easy to correct
<schnobs>
Just payload fairing sides, used on an interstage.
<schnobs>
Can be jettisoned seperately.
Probus has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<Mike`>
ah okay
<schnobs>
Shedding the sides is helpful if the standard interstage somehow interferes with whatever comes next.
<Mike`>
damnit, how often do these early aj10s fail?
<Mike`>
i wonder if the max data limit of TF isn't a little low at 10k.... :)
<schnobs>
AFAIK AJ-10 had lots of teething troubles.
<schnobs>
In old RP-0, I just skipped the very first version. Same with Agena.
<Bornholio>
I've seen statistics on fails lately that are high compared to what is shown in the configs, especially on ignitions. Ignitions appear to be using the zero data failure rate.
<Bornholio>
of course thats stats, maybe i'm just that unlucky
<schnobs>
I, too, just had tree ignition failures on four flights. Wrote it up to tough luck.
<Bornholio>
but i did 40 runs of a triple lr89 (first config) with three engines my triple had one ignitions about 48% of the time
<Bornholio>
ignition failure
<schnobs>
I need a break. Rcovering from a week of night shifts, severe jetlag :(
<schnobs>
see you.
<Bornholio>
sleep well
QuantumSwag has joined #RO
QuantumSwag has quit [Client Quit]
<Mike`>
same here, i had like 4 ignition failures out of 6 engines
<Mike`>
with max 10k data
<Mike`>
wtf? :)
<taniwha>
MSC is actually almost usable
<Bornholio>
probably should start an issue, awang was peaking at it made me dlls to get logging data, but i could not get them to work
<Bornholio>
MSC?
<taniwha>
modular storage container
<taniwha>
essentially MFT-NG
<Bornholio>
point me at it :)
schnobs has quit [Ping timeout: 182 seconds]
<taniwha>
it will allow assigning volume to crew capacity and other things
<taniwha>
I haven't pushed tonight's work yet, though
<Bornholio>
k i'll watch then
<Mike`>
ignitionReliabilityStart = 0.70 cycleReliabilityEnd = 0.92 // even on its best day, not a reliable engine.
APlayer has joined #RO
<taniwha>
Bornholio: the idea is that RF would create its own container types
<Mike`>
seems its just a terribly unreliable engine compared to the others
<Mike`>
:\
<taniwha>
(ContainerResource is pretty brain-dead)
<APlayer>
Hi there!
<taniwha>
hi, APlayer
<taniwha>
got your router taped down?
<APlayer>
Put it in a bucket of water to prevent further fires
<APlayer>
Works like a charm
<APlayer>
Anyway, is lamont around here?
Bornholio has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
APlayer has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
APlayer has joined #RO
<APlayer>
Well, that was /not/ my internet
<taniwha>
heh
Bornholio has joined #RO
<APlayer>
This was a rather long chain of problems. I reverted to launch in KSP, this overloaded some part of Windows so that Explorer crashed and restarted, and this caused HexChat to crash
<taniwha>
ah, good fun
<APlayer>
Well, then...
<APlayer>
!tell lamont On that launch vehicle guidance you explained to me a while ago... You said I should use an optimization algorithm to fine-tune the initial pitchover angle. How would the optimization algorithm figure out in what direction to adjust, though?
<Qboid>
APlayer: I'll redirect this as soon as they are around.
<APlayer>
!tell lamont Because I can easily figure out whether I am in orbit or missed it, but I cannot easily say whether I missed it because the first stage pitched too little and the second stage had not enough dV, or the first stage pitched too much and the second stage could not pull out of the suborbital trajectory in time
<Qboid>
APlayer: I'll redirect this as soon as they are around.
<awang>
Bornholio: Are you using my TF dll?
<awang>
Mike`: ^
<awang>
I added some logging to see what TF is using internally to calculate failure rates
<Bornholio>
yeah but never got logging
<awang>
Hmmmm
<awang>
Bornholio: Want to know why there was no logging?
<awang>
The implementation for Log() is commented out >_<
<Qboid>
awang: I'll redirect this as soon as they are around.
<Bornholio>
testing a bit later :)
<APlayer>
awang: Why'd you comment out the single most important line?
<Mike`>
:D
<awang>
APlayer: I didn't, it was like that
<awang>
Blame Agathorn :P
<APlayer>
Heh
<awang>
Yep, there's a commit disabling logging
<awang>
Why :(
<Bornholio>
probably cause its noisy
<awang>
TF has a in-game debug setting though
<awang>
!tell NathanKell What should the threshold between high speed/low speed be for X-1/X-15 cockpits?
<Qboid>
awang: I'll redirect this as soon as they are around.
<APlayer>
Mach 1?
<awang>
!tell NathanKell Can we keep the wording for the "tool all" button? :D
<Qboid>
awang: I'll redirect this as soon as they are around.
<awang>
soundnfury: Can you explain what "straight eight stronk" means? Slightly clueless here :(
<awang>
!tell NathanKell Why do balloon tanks have the "Tank-III" part? Sort of implies that there should be balloon tanks for other levels too
<Qboid>
awang: I'll redirect this as soon as they are around.
<Mike`>
seems i can't enter a manual LAN into mechjeb can i
<Mike`>
(PEG)
<awang>
I think lamont disabled that at some point
<awang>
idk if it's been re-enabled though
<Mike`>
apparently not, i think it would be useful though
<awang>
I think it was disabled because it was buggy
<awang>
Or was causing buggy behavior
<awang>
Something about FREE_LAN
<awang>
Don't remember if it was because specifying a LAN was buggy or not specifying a LAN was buggy
Probus has joined #RO
<Probus>
Well that was rough. Had to replace a fan on my GPU. One of the fittings holding to the board broke and let the fan wobble until it killed itself.
<Probus>
Sounded just like a mouse.
<Probus>
Looks like it took me just under 2 hours. The video was only 20 minutes long...
<APlayer>
"A fan on my GPU"? How many fans are on yours?
<Probus>
3
<APlayer>
o.o
<Probus>
3 little'uns.
Probus has quit [Quit: Leaving]
APlayer has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
APlayer has joined #RO
<awang>
!tell NathanKell What exactly is max utilization a percent of?
<Qboid>
awang: I'll redirect this as soon as they are around.
BasharMilesTeg_ has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<awang>
!tell NathanKell if proc fairings have locked shapes by default, should that patch go into RO or RP-0?
<Qboid>
awang: I'll redirect this as soon as they are around.
<APlayer>
When Nathan returns ad gets all those messages, their IRC client might crash
<Mike`>
awang, RO wouldn't make sense would it
<Mike`>
if not for tooling i like auto shaped fairings
<awang>
Mike`: That's true
BasharMilesTeg has joined #RO
<Bornholio>
anyone trying KIS/KAS in RP-1 yet?
<awang>
Bornholio: I have it installed, but haven't actually used it yet
<awang>
taniwha: Is adding something to GameEvents alright if that something doesn't derive from MonoBehaviour?
NathanKell|AFK is now known as NathanKell
<NathanKell>
o/
<Qboid>
NathanKell: awang left a message for you in #RO [17.02.2018 15:51:57]: "What should the threshold between high speed/low speed be for X-1/X-15 cockpits?"
<Qboid>
NathanKell: awang left a message for you in #RO [17.02.2018 15:54:07]: "Can we keep the wording for the "tool all" button? :D"
<Qboid>
NathanKell: awang left a message for you in #RO [17.02.2018 15:56:01]: "Why do balloon tanks have the "Tank-III" part? Sort of implies that there should be balloon tanks for other levels too"
<Qboid>
NathanKell: awang left a message for you in #RO [17.02.2018 18:10:52]: "What exactly is max utilization a percent of?"
<Qboid>
NathanKell: awang left a message for you in #RO [17.02.2018 18:14:54]: "if proc fairings have locked shapes by default, should that patch go into RO or RP-0?"
<Bornholio>
lol
<NathanKell>
awang: X-1 stuff is already taken care of with the plugin. No worries there.
<NathanKell>
awang: I haven't seen the tool all button yet (I need to pull and stuff) so...?
<NathanKell>
awang: Utilization is a percent of the volume of the part that is available to tanks. A 3m x 5m cylinder has a volume of 1.5^2 * pi * 5, so if its utilization is 95 then it gets to use 95% of that volume
<NathanKell>
awang: There's a difference between Locked Shape on fairing pieces (which IMO should never be turned on) and Fairing Auto Shape on bases, which currently defaults to on, but must be turned off so you can manually create fairing shapes.
<awang>
NathanKell: Oh, how was the X-1 stuff taken care of?
<awang>
NathanKell: Well, I haven't made a PR yet, since I think it might be buggy, and I wasn't sure about the wording
<awang>
"just tool it all, fer crissakes", courtesy of schnobs :P
<awang>
Ah, ok, so I'll get the utilizations added to descriptions. Just wanted to make sure that my understanding of utilization matched what the actual definition was
<NathanKell>
Ah :D
<Sarbian>
Hey, a NathanKell
<awang>
Oh, locked shape is distinct from auto shaping? TIL
<awang>
Looks like I'll need to look at the proc fairings code again then
<NathanKell>
And yep! That's all it is, a measurement of "no, you can't fit a capsule tank in a cylinder and get 0 wasted space"
<NathanKell>
Hey Sarbs!
<NathanKell>
and yep, they're different. Locked shape just means the fairing sides won't change their shape, no matter what attached to. Autoshape being off means you can manually set the max width and barrel height
<NathanKell>
(and the length before the barrel)
<NathanKell>
You can watch me use it in my streams actually...
<awang>
NathanKell: Also, is there a way to have German and conic fairings use the same toolings?
<NathanKell>
It lets you shape the fairing volume just like any other proc part
<awang>
Since they're the same shape?
<awang>
(I think)
<awang>
I should really watch your streams sometime
<Bornholio>
ooh whats minimum antenna i can get by with on mars flyby.
<NathanKell>
Yep, just make sure their tooling type matches in cfg
<NathanKell>
but since PFFE exists we should just ditch RO's fairings, tbh
<awang>
Hmmm, tooling type?
<awang>
That's new
<awang>
What does PFFE do nowadays?
<awang>
I remember someone asking that a few days ago
<awang>
Bornholio: There's an antenna whose range is good enough for Mars to sometimes be in range
<awang>
I don't remember what the model is, but it mentions being able to be good for Mars flybys with good timing
<NathanKell>
PFFE lets you swap textures on a fairing side
<Bornholio>
a shoot i'm gonna miss my next mars, cause i don't have an antenna
<NathanKell>
so no point in having different fairings that differ only in texture
<awang>
Ah, ok
<NathanKell>
Yep, there's at least one if not two dishes that work at conjunction but not opposition
<awang>
So probably better to get PFFE working properly than fix tooling types?
<NathanKell>
PFFE does work properly
<NathanKell>
It's just yet another thing I never got around to doing (porting over the RO textures to PFFE) :\
<NathanKell>
(and sorry for being such a slacker here, just streaming--going through some personal stuff and I don't have much headspace left :( )
<awang>
No need to apologize, real life > modding for fun
<awang>
As much as I wish that weren't the case
<NathanKell>
:]
stratochief has joined #RO
<awang>
Uh
<awang>
Are service module tanks I and II supposed to have the same max utilization?
<Bornholio>
yes
<awang>
NathanKell: Also, do you happen to know why the proc stack decoupler has a pill shape instead of a regular cylinder?
<Sarbian>
modding is fun ? ;)
<Bornholio>
they are filled with spere and othe rsimilar shapes, so packing fraction should be 50-60% max
<Bornholio>
spheres
<Bornholio>
sarbian, you get the beat down from all your groupies not sure you count :)
<awang>
Sarbian: Sorry, I meant "slaving for forumites"
<Sarbian>
:]
<Sarbian>
lamont, the orbit intercept test is fixed in dev. hopefully it is all that s needed
<NathanKell>
awang: I believe they should yeah. And as to proc decouplers, because swamp_ig chose that?
<NathanKell>
Dunno
<Bornholio>
decouplers add texture code hard? .wanders off to look
<awang>
NathanKell: What would you think about making stack decouplers cylindrical?
<awang>
I have that on my local install, but haven't really done much beyond that
<awang>
Actually requires a RP-0 change, too
<awang>
cfg change, though
<awang>
Also, do you know what would a pill would look like with a edge radius of 0?
<Bornholio>
see proc tank with 0 corner radius
<NathanKell>
crap gtg, back later
NathanKell is now known as NathanKell|AFK
<Bornholio>
awang do your have US prbes pack running?
<awang>
Bornholio: I'd check myself, but KSP takes ages to boot for me
<awang>
Pretty sure I have US probes working
<awang>
Why?
<Bornholio>
just browsing RO folder
<Bornholio>
wondering what can be pushed to 1.3.1
<Bornholio>
also someone go push my ISRU fix .sigh
<awang>
Ah, ok
blowfish has joined #RO
blowfish has quit [Quit: Leaving]
Maxsimal has joined #RO
<Maxsimal>
o/
* APlayer
minimizes Maxsimal
<Starwaster>
goddamit people using spaces in part names again...
<APlayer>
Well, it's a game about space after all
* APlayer
turns off silly mode
<lamont>
Sarbian: cool! yeah if anythign else is busted its probably more mundane shit where i don’t understand how to use the optimizer…
<Qboid>
lamont: APlayer left a message for you in #RO [17.02.2018 14:58:21]: "On that launch vehicle guidance you explained to me a while ago... You said I should use an optimization algorithm to fine-tune the initial pitchover angle. How would the optimization algorithm figure out in what direction to adjust, though?"
<Qboid>
lamont: APlayer left a message for you in #RO [17.02.2018 14:59:49]: "Because I can easily figure out whether I am in orbit or missed it, but I cannot easily say whether I missed it because the first stage pitched too little and the second stage had not enough dV, or the first stage pitched too much and the second stage could not pull out of the suborbital trajectory in time"
<APlayer>
Woops, didn't realize that'd be such a block of text
<lamont>
the real way to optimize it is very difficult graduate level calculus of variations math
<APlayer>
lamont: I was thinking to use a regular hill climbing algorithm
<APlayer>
Or some sort of binary search or so
<lamont>
yeah, so MJ already has some of those algorithms in it
<APlayer>
I just need to detect if I overshot of if I undershot
<APlayer>
And I have no idea
<lamont>
the full ascent problem is pretty gnarly
<lamont>
IDK if you can throw gradient descent at a simpler gravity turn and get good results
<APlayer>
Why couldn't it?
<APlayer>
Its a smooth function, isn't it?
<APlayer>
There is no random wiggle in it
<lamont>
its sensitive to initial conditions and i think it has issues around the edges (the spots where you start to fail to make orbit)
<lamont>
and if you add inclination changes it is likely to get real weird real fast
<APlayer>
What kind of issues?
<lamont>
optimizers tend to fail to converge to anything sensible
<lamont>
i’m currently experimenting with the full calculus of variations problem using matlabs solver and any time i throw inclination changes at it i think i break it
<APlayer>
Humm, I'll just have to try and come up with something, I guess
<lamont>
anyway reduce the degrees of freedom that the optimizer has to wander around it, and simplify the problem and you should be able to use a more naive optimization approach
<lamont>
but i can’t really tell you where in the middle it starts to go wrong
<APlayer>
But still, how do I figure out if I overshot or undershot?
<lamont>
typically you’re trying to minimize the time to orbit, or maximize the weight to orbit
<APlayer>
I was thinking of time
<lamont>
so that’s your cost function, and your optimizer needs to figure out the gradient in order to take the next step
<APlayer>
So there is no way to determine this in a sort of heuristic way?
<Maxsimal>
Your cost function could also be gravity losses + steering losses.
<Maxsimal>
Minimizing those should work best, because sometimes you don't want to maximize payload OR care about time to orbit, just as long as you land in orbit with the most remaining dv
<lamont>
yeah, “maximizing vac dV in orbit” would do that and probably be more accurate
<lamont>
if you’re full thrusting though, minimum time to orbit should be maximium mass to orbit (and really maximum mass is minimizing burned propellant)
<APlayer>
I am currently not planning to throttle
<Maxsimal>
that's true lamont, if you're not having the possibility of a coast phase.
<APlayer>
And no coast either
<lamont>
coast phases are awful though, that’s when you really need to know what you’re doing with the optimizer
<APlayer>
Very low TWR upper stage
<lamont>
i’m neck deep in trying to decipher the papers that cover how to optimize ascents with coast phases and “its hard”
Probus has joined #RO
<Maxsimal>
So simulating PEG in matlab?
<Maxsimal>
*Are you simulating PEG in matlab, I mean?
<lamont>
not exactly — using the algorithm that PEG kinda approximates
<APlayer>
lamont: But what I was thinking, if I see that the upper stage dives into the atmosphere, is that not a sign that I overshot the pitch? And if it does not dive into the atmosphere but still fails to achieve orbit, is that not a sign that I undershot it?
<lamont>
aplayer: so if pitch is your only free variable, you need to take a guess and then figure out your derivative and then take another guess.
<lamont>
aplayer: yeah, you probably want to feed it a guess first which is known working
<APlayer>
Sorry?
<lamont>
give it a guess which you know achieves orbit
<APlayer>
But I don't have such a guess
<lamont>
then for failures use some incredibly high or low cost
<Maxsimal>
APlayer: Does it matter? If you take a guess, and then give it an episilon in either direction, shouldn't you be able to till which direction got you closer to orbit? Maybe that's the problem, you can't currently tell what 'closer to orbit' means
<lamont>
heh, yeah, take random guesses until you find one? but yeah, if burns up without ever hitting space that is clearly too flat
<Maxsimal>
You could just monte carlo a bunch of guess... yeah what lamont is saying.
<APlayer>
The main problem is, I am working with kOS
<lamont>
it may still burn up in the atmosphere but make space which might be too lofted
<APlayer>
And kOS is /slow/
<lamont>
yep
<APlayer>
One gravity turn simulation takes about 20 - 30 seconds, I think
<lamont>
i got frustrated with kOS and kRPC for various different reasons, then i started building my own autopilot, then i just started hacking up MJ after i realized i’d wind up copying 90% of the guts of MJ
<APlayer>
I can't just throw a bunch of guesses there and hope that it works
<lamont>
so “the first guess” is a big issue in optimization problems
<APlayer>
I can afford 5, maybe 6 guesses for the optimization algorithm, and if it does not achieve an orbit which is "good enough" by then, I can forget it
<lamont>
generally you want something that more or less works, but is not efficient and optimized, and let the optimizer fix it
<lamont>
if its all broken to start with, then the optimizer will have a much harder problem (good optimizers will accept any bad guess and make progress to the goal and converge, but they’re still faster if you’ve got a better guess).
<Maxsimal>
Can you increase your step size for your solver, to get it to run faster?
<Maxsimal>
Might be able to find a reasonable guess by doing some low-rez simulations first
<APlayer>
Maxsimal: I don't think so
<APlayer>
I am pretty much on the brink of what gets wildly inaccurate
<Maxsimal>
Hrmm... can you drop portions of your simulation then? I'm just shooting in the dark hear, but you could ignore aero forces for the majority of an ascent, for instance.
<APlayer>
Uh, worse than I thought
<APlayer>
I just benchmarked the time, simulation runs about as fast as a real launch
<APlayer>
Pretty much exactly as fast, even
<lamont>
yeah simulations in kOS is a bit laughable its slow
<APlayer>
Well, I am willing to generate guidance in kOS anyway, because I only need to do it occasionally and can re-use the data
<APlayer>
So I can let it run for half an hour and use that
<Maxsimal>
Why use KoS at all if you can't use it real time? You can do your sim somewhere else and feed your program variables to KoS to run the guidance on launch.
<APlayer>
Might be an option, but I have already implemented that in kOS. Also, this is part of a larger project which I intended to fully program in kOS, so...
<APlayer>
As a bonus, I can get certain initial data straight from KSP, which I could not do if I used JavaScript (which is the only other language that I am really fluent in and can use to write useful things)
<Maxsimal>
True.
<Maxsimal>
you could see if Lamont would expose PEG calculations to KoS? KoS has some stuff for talking to other addons. That'd solve your problems for you :P
<APlayer>
That would require not only lamonts work, but also that of the kOS devs
<APlayer>
It would be absolutely awesome if it worked, though
<APlayer>
Although I can see how people may say that it defeats the purpose of kOS. I think about 50% of all kOS programs are for rocket launches :D
<APlayer>
I need to go for today
<APlayer>
Thank you lamont and Maxsimal for your advice, I'll have to go through this stuff and see if I can make anything reasonable
<APlayer>
I'll also need to see how close the pitchover simulation I implemented is to KSP reality
<APlayer>
So, that's enough stuff to do tomorrow
<APlayer>
See you!
<lamont>
there’s the PEGAS implementation in kOS
<Maxsimal>
see you
<lamont>
really kind of wish kOS was less of a game-within-a-game and more of a kerbal programming language ot make it easy to write your own mechjeb
<lamont>
(which kRPC is not—once you wind up needing to make too many calls across the interface)
<soundnfury>
awang: "Straight Eight" refers to the Delta 1000 series, which was 2.4m dia. all the way up (= Eight feet) instead of having a ~5ft upper stage like previous Thor/Deltas
APlayer has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
<Pap>
RP-0#835
<Qboid>
[#835] title: Communications Satellite contract has unreasonably high payload requirements | Payloads are a bit of a pain early on since the utilization of service module tanks is so low (this is kinda cool, forces huge satellites early on to look like Telstar). However, this doesn't seem to let up at the point where it should. Once advanced avionics is unlocked, you gain access to the cube sa
<Qboid>
tellite bus, which can hold 1500 units of payload, which *should* enable a lot of contracts. However, at that point the payload requirements for the Communications Satellite contract jumped up to **six thousand**. At this point the only other way to hold this is in a Service Module II tank. To store 6k units of payload in a tank that could fit in a period appropriate fairing (e.g. Agena upper stag
<Pap>
When we designed the contracts, the max usable amount of the tank was much more than 50%
<Pap>
How easy is it to allow those payload resources to be put in other tanks?
<soundnfury>
uh, I don't think we want to do that
<soundnfury>
I think we just need to reduce the payload numbers in the contracts, maybe by a factor of 2 or so
<soundnfury>
(or maybe reduce their growth rate into later contracts / more techs unlocked)
<Pap>
If we do that then the weight no longer works
<Pap>
That is one of the most important parts of the contracts is having different weights to force different launch vehicles
<soundnfury>
ok, then increase the density of the ComSatPayload?
<soundnfury>
biab; gotta run before the shop shuts
Wetmelon has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<Maxsimal>
Well, I think the comsat and sounding rocket density and weights were calculated correctly given historical satellites - but they were based off of looking at the size of the component and the weight - when you then say that half the component needs to be empty, it throws everything off
<Maxsimal>
So yeah - doubling the densities and cutting the liter-requirement in half should fix things.
<soundnfury>
^
<Bornholio>
need to make sure that the tankage requirement isn't also part of the historical weights. since service module is heavy
<Maxsimal>
I know I consulted real-world payload fairing and mass sizes to set the requirement.
<Maxsimal>
yeah that's true bornholio,
<Bornholio>
maxismal, request for a new sounding contract type. Reentry test, needs specific renentry speed similar to the various dive tests for RV and reentry pod testing. Just wish list :)
NathanKell|AFK is now known as NathanKell|
NathanKell| is now known as NathanKell
<NathanKell>
o/
<soundnfury>
\o
<soundnfury>
and Bornholio, I like that idea :)
<NathanKell>
Pap: Since utilization went down, mass needs to be recalculated, since the effective payload mass is higher now
<Mike`>
o/
<NathanKell>
(x liters of tank + x liters of payload, the mass of x liters of tank went up)
<Maxsimal>
Bornholio: Yeah that's a good idea. When I get my 1.3.1 build going I will see about redoing all the sounding rocket contracts. NK put in a temp fix to limit how profitability at higher tech levels but I'd like to do a better fix for more variety
<NathanKell>
Concur :)
<Bornholio>
plus maybe add recovery requirements in the mix :)
<soundnfury>
btw I find that there's a bit of a gap between First Satellite and the "launch me a satellite to do X" contracts, because the latter basically require controllable sats
<soundnfury>
(or BIG sats in the case of Comms)
<Maxsimal>
Yup. Really I'd like to extend the sounding contracts to go to MRBM/IRBM/ICBM development so that the requirements give a smoother transition to full orbital, rather than a big period of boring grind. we'll see - it's still hard to get something super interesting out of ballistic launches
<soundnfury>
so maybe there needs to be a contract between those "launch me a sat with XYZ, but I don't care what the orbit looks like"
<NathanKell>
^^^
<NathanKell>
There were a lot of earth-science sats launched with low perigees
<NathanKell>
Well, fairly low. Like 3-400km
<soundnfury>
maybe more things like the Atmospheric Analysis Sat contract
<Maxsimal>
it's more the control requirement than the perigees that makes comm sats a big jump from just 'launch a satellite to anywhere'
<soundnfury>
y'know, "get a Geiger counter into orbit"
<soundnfury>
yeah, perigee requirements are fine, just have a longer coast before kick stage (and a bit more gravy loss ;)
<NathanKell>
Maxsimal: Yeah, the eccentricity requirements are even worse
<NathanKell>
(ecc or period, that is)
<NathanKell>
Any orbit -> high perigee (requiring either an insane boost or two kicks) -> fine orbital control (requiring RCS/guidance)
<NathanKell>
But there should be contracts that have <400km perigees and no ecc/period requirement (well, except maybe a *min* ecc)
<NathanKell>
anyway, gotta go grocery shopping, o/
NathanKell is now known as NathanKell|AFK
<Maxsimal>
later :)
<soundnfury>
maybe the answer is just to have a repeatable with the same params as the First Satellite contract
<soundnfury>
so you have something to do while developing probe cores etc.: launch more sputniki
<Maxsimal>
soundnfury: Agree. Maybe with some variety in inclination or some minor payload requirements (10-100kg or something)
<soundnfury>
Mmm.
<Maxsimal>
Contract building is rough with CC though - the feedback on errors is often bad, or somethings non-existant, and you have to reload the game to test the smallest fix.
<soundnfury>
that's just KSP modding you've described -_-
<Maxsimal>
lol true.
<Maxsimal>
I would love to build a KSP 2 that handles all of this a little better. Having something that functions like MM but is integral to the system would get rid of a lot of this, for instance.
<soundnfury>
Maxsimal: and this is why open source is better than moddability.
<Maxsimal>
soundnfury: Ehh full open source games are rare and usually kinda terrible, the lack of a profit motive - adding moddability to a paid game has clearly been the winning solution from that perspective.
<soundnfury>
I didn't say it was a perfect world ;)