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
<awang>
If only because it means that I get a functional profiler
<awang>
Although it also means waiting forever for mods to update, if they ever do...
<ProjectThoth>
awang: To be fair, I've spent the past several birthdays in IRC rooms.
<awang>
I hope you weren't trying to help someone debug things though
<ProjectThoth>
No, just trying to debug myself.
technicalfool is now known as tfsleep
<soundnfury>
ProjectThoth: people mainly have heisenbugs :(
<ProjectThoth>
soundnfury: I'm more of a hardware kind of guy, myself.
Moistmelon has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
NathanKell|AFK is now known as NathanKell
<NathanKell>
o/
<Qboid>
NathanKell: awang left a message for you in #RO [22.02.2018 19:21:41]: "Are launch clamps intended to count towards pad mass limits?"
<Qboid>
NathanKell: awang left a message for you in #RO [22.02.2018 19:25:41]: "Just making sure, is BackgroundProcessing compatible with the RO suite? Thought I remembered reading something about a conflict a while ago, but can't find any mention in my logs"
<Qboid>
NathanKell: awang left a message for you in #RO [24.02.2018 22:32:06]: "Ah, I think I found what you were talking about with TF string comparisons. In TestFlightAPI.GetCore(Part, string)?"
<NathanKell>
awang (and Pap): it'd be nice if they didn't, but stock KSP handles that.
<NathanKell>
awang: I haven't had any issues with background processing yet, AFAIK?
Wetmelon has joined #RO
<awang>
NathanKell: Can't just set the launch clamp mass to 0 or something?
<NathanKell>
I think that might interfere with physics.
<awang>
Oh
<awang>
I assume the same for very small mass values?
<NathanKell>
If memory serves pjf is color blind, but good luck collaring him :]
<Bornholio>
i work with color blind engineers :)
<soundnfury>
me too :)
<ferram4>
awang, the greater the difference between the launch clamp mass and the mass of the part it's attached to, the more springy and sprongy the joint is.
<NathanKell>
also: I will continue to be mostly AFK, sorry. The personal issues ended up as breaking up with Michelle last Monday, so...yeah. Not sure how much I'll be around.
<ferram4>
And I'm pretty sure everything breaks when mass = 0.
<NathanKell>
cool, guess was correct :]
<taniwha>
NathanKell: ouch :(
<soundnfury>
NathanKell: oof. Hope you're ok
<ferram4>
NathanKell, I
<awang>
ferram4: Didn't know mass affected that o_O
<awang>
And yeah, I suppose mass = 0 isn't a good idea for physics sims
<ferram4>
I'd prescribe alcohol and drunkenly singing Pink Floyd songs, but if that's not your thing, whatever. Feel better dude.
<awang>
NathanKell: :( Hope things get better soon!
<NathanKell>
Thanks folks :]
<ferram4>
awang, The physics engine is a path to behaviors some consider to be unnatural.
<NathanKell>
I'm donig ok. It had been...some time in coming, so I did a bunch of pre-processing and pre-grieving, I guess
<Bornholio>
.patsHead
<NathanKell>
ferram4: and so far, it's been more hanging with friends, online games, and today building the leog Saturn V (only 1 stage done tho, it's huge)
<awang>
ferram4: What unnatural behavior?
<NathanKell>
whipcracks I assume
<ferram4>
awang, Have you ever heard the legend of Darth Kraken the Glitchy?
<soundnfury>
NathanKell: ahh, lego SV sounds like good therapy :)
<awang>
NathanKell: How many parts is the Saturn V?
<awang>
ferram4: Ah. For some reason I read your sentence as "physics engines are a path to behaviors some consider to be unnatural"
<ProjectThoth>
awang: 1,969.
<awang>
heh
<awang>
Makes sense
<ferram4>
I am literally just Darth Plageius-posting.
<awang>
ferram4: The path thing was a Star Wars quote?
<awang>
I recognized the second one
<ProjectThoth>
NathanKell: Just caught scrollback, condolences. :(
<NathanKell>
thanks :]
<ferram4>
awang, it's part of the whole spiel, but with "the dark side" rather than "the physics engine"
<ferram4>
Although I suppose there's precious little difference between them
<taniwha>
ferram4: the dark side makes sense
<awang>
Physics engine is that bad?
<ferram4>
NathanKell, alternatively, I'd suggest getting into Factorio and losing yourself in unrestrained factory building.
<awang>
Is that Unity's faulr or Squad's fault?
<ferram4>
Unity's though most engines are that way because FUCKING EXPLICIT EULER INTEGRATION
<Bornholio>
say it again brother
<taniwha>
awang: numerical simulation
<NathanKell>
ferram4: Heh. I had opened it last weekend but didn't have the headspace to learn it
<soundnfury>
paging egg, UmbralRaptor, and other integration lords
<taniwha>
ferram4: worse, most engines just do v+=a*t; x+=v*t; which is /wrong/
<taniwha>
(frame rate dependent jump heights, anyone? :P)
<Bornholio>
Rimworl, loose self in drunken canibal tribe
<Bornholio>
rimworld^
<taniwha>
(constant field gravity acceleration can be simulated exactly, but...)
<soundnfury>
NathanKell: clearly you should distract yourself with a RIS game ;) ;)
<awang>
ferram4: So what's the right way to do the integration? Assuming there is a "right" way
<awang>
NathanKell: There's that one puzzle game egg was playing
<awang>
It involves moving things around a hexagonal grid
<NathanKell>
soundnfury: Heh. Do need to get to human spaceflight in current career so I can do that (and verify/fix Bornholio's issue)
<NathanKell>
guys the last thing I need to do is *think* :P
<soundnfury>
Heh. Keep me posted :)
<Bornholio>
I rage Quit TF today :)
<taniwha>
awang: for my example, v += a*t; x+= v*t - a*t/2;
<awang>
NathanKell: Whoops, forget I said that then
<ProjectThoth>
Collect pencils, grow a beard, that's my two cents.
<taniwha>
(or, if you do x first, x += v*t + a*t/2;)
<Bornholio>
need burn times to show up in engines, I say, drunken kerballing
<ferram4>
awang, At least a higher-order explicit integration method. So, where Euler is techincally RK1, go for something like RK4. Even RK2 is a damn bit better.
<ferram4>
awang, That's before you get to the more complicated methods that actually obey conservation of energy, but that's something to ask the egg about.
<taniwha>
yeah, just adding a t^3 term (there's an implicit t^2 in the above) makes a huge difference
<soundnfury>
NathanKell: maybe you should try hunding warts, 'tis fun
* soundnfury
gives ferram4 a conjugate symplectic tin o' beans
<awang>
taniwha: So that's wrong because accuracy depends on framerate?
<NathanKell>
hah!
<awang>
ferram4: How much would that hurt performance, if at all?
<taniwha>
awang: other way
<awang>
soundnfury: hunding warts?
<ferram4>
Depends on the timestep.
<taniwha>
accuracy depends on frame rate because it's wrong
<soundnfury>
awang: playing Wart Hunder ;)
<NathanKell>
Messerwarts
<awang>
soundnfury: Oohhhhh, right
* soundnfury
is currently flying a Lanc over the Ruhr
<awang>
I keep forgetting that
<ferram4>
You might be able to get better performance and better accuracy with a larger timestep entirely because of the accuracy improvements in the algorithm.
<NathanKell>
Focke Warte
<ferram4>
Or it might be worse.
<taniwha>
awang: and it's so wrong that something that should be integrable exactly, regardless of frame rate, can't be
<ferram4>
You never know.
<awang>
taniwha: ...So where did the wrong thing come from in the first place?
<soundnfury>
NathanKell: those are both german, are you secretly a Wehraboo?
<ferram4>
> NathanKell
<taniwha>
awang: somebody forgetting that d = u*t + a*t*t/2
<ferram4>
> Wehraboo
<ferram4>
> Does not compute
<taniwha>
(for constant a)
<awang>
taniwha: Ah. I thought you typo'd there and missed either ^2 or *t
<NathanKell>
soundnfury: No, they're what I hund.
<taniwha>
awang: actually, I did :(
<taniwha>
(in my correction)
<soundnfury>
Ah I see
<NathanKell>
(Actually I tend to fly USN, so they'd be Zekes. But it's harder to make puns with IJN/IJAAF aircraft)
<NathanKell>
well, not in WT. Haven't done much WT. I mean "over all my simming"
<soundnfury>
:)
<awang>
taniwha: Correction?
<ferram4>
Yeah, if ou were in WT playing US you'd usually be fighting Germans
<ferram4>
And getting your ass kicked
<ferram4>
Constantly.
<ferram4>
As it turns out, big heavy planes do badly against lighter planes when both start the match on the ground.
<taniwha>
awang: "for my example, v += a*t; x+= v*t - a*t/2;" (should be a*t*t/2)
<ferram4>
Who'da thunk it
<soundnfury>
ferram4: and they'd all be flying P47s too :P
<ProjectThoth>
The Virgin USAAF vs The Chad Luftwaffe
<ferram4>
soundnfury, Right, the ones that aren't in 190 Ds.
<awang>
taniwha: Ah. Apparently my brain is on vacation
<taniwha>
so's mine :/
<ProjectThoth>
Did you know that those Lindt chocolate truffles have aluminum foil bonded to the plastic that they're wrapped in?
<awang>
soundnfury: Wait, so it seems you're writing a object-oriented database?
<awang>
And I'm looking into more traditional relational databases?
<soundnfury>
it's not exactly a DB at all
<soundnfury>
I'm not 100% sure how to classify it
Hypergolic_Skunk has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
<awang>
Database limitations are not going well with my programming mindset
<awang>
"How do I store a thrust curve? A list of keys and val -- oh wait, I can't do lists in a database"
<soundnfury>
so normalise again :P
<awang>
But a table per thrust curve is... inelegant
<soundnfury>
no, you'd have one big "thrust_curves_data" table
<soundnfury>
with foreign keys reffing the engines
<soundnfury>
a list is just a foreign key viewed back to front :P
<awang>
Hmmm
<awang>
So each row would be a thrust curve?
<awang>
Plus a column for a foreign key for the engine config
<awang>
So the entire thrust curve goes in a single column?
<soundnfury>
no
<soundnfury>
create table thrust_curves ( float key, float val, integer ei, foreign key ei references engines(ei));
<soundnfury>
then the thrust curve for engine ei=42 is: select key,val from thrust_curves where ei=42;
<soundnfury>
each row is a *point* from a thrust curve
<awang>
Oh
<awang>
Never would have thought of doing it that way
<awang>
Interesting
<awang>
So it's basically mashing all points from all thrust curves into a single table, and using the engine ID to figure out what is what for a query?
<soundnfury>
yep
<awang>
Hm
<awang>
What if multiple engines use the same point?
<soundnfury>
then there are two rows in the table that differ only by ei
<soundnfury>
or, if there are lots of shared points, you have a binding table (tci fk refs thrust_curves, ei fk refs engines)
<soundnfury>
and tcis instead of eis in the thrust_curves table
<awang>
Urgh
<soundnfury>
now you know why I'm building the other one ;)
<Bornholio>
any quick & dirty calc site that does dV and TWR for RCS on a craft from empty/full and kN & ISP?
<ProjectThoth>
Just for RCS?
<Bornholio>
well spose it counts for anything
<Bornholio>
just want to figure out an ultra lite lander thats only rcs
<Bornholio>
spose i should just make a sheet to keep
<ProjectThoth>
Hopefully that's about what you wanted.
<awang>
taniwha: Time to add Swift? :P
<taniwha>
swift?
<awang>
Apple's new language?
<awang>
Supposed to replace Objective-C
<taniwha>
bah, apple
<awang>
HmmmWhat?
<awang>
s/Hmmm//
<Qboid>
awang meant to say: What?
<awang>
Urgh
<awang>
Databases and weak typing
<Bornholio>
ooh
<Bornholio>
danke ProjectThoth
<ProjectThoth>
Bornholio: de nada!
<ProjectThoth>
I speak French, too!
<ProjectThoth>
(this dumb joke not intended to offend any Francophones in this channel)
<ProjectThoth>
(if you have any concerns or comments, please direct them to the toll free line at 1-800-328-7448)
<Bornholio>
.smirk
<soundnfury>
am i reading that number correctly, is it telling me to eat something? xD
<ProjectThoth>
soundnfury: Ill-gotten gains from a misspent youth.
<taniwha>
how do you get gains from a misspent youth? :)
<soundnfury>
by being ill, apparently
<ProjectThoth>
I was, indeed, a sickly child.
<awang>
soundnfury: You're too right :(
<awang>
I keep on wanting to think about this problem in a programming style instead of database style
<awang>
Would using a proper database offer any real advantage?
<soundnfury>
not unless the dataset gets huge
<awang>
Over basically reimplementing KSP's cfgs in a less verbose way
<soundnfury>
databases are basically for (a) performance on big datasets and (b) concurrent access & modification with fine-grained locking
<soundnfury>
and I don't think we need either of those things
<awang>
Yeah
<awang>
Hm
<awang>
Well, back to TF for me then, I guess
<awang>
You probably got the Python stuff down
<awang>
Unless you want me to start on stuff for RO
<soundnfury>
heh, well I will need help
<soundnfury>
there is a lot of data to enter :)
<awang>
Combining the two seems like a good idea to me at the moment
<soundnfury>
you think we should store the engine configs (performance etc) in the same system?
<awang>
Well
<awang>
More like have engine configs as their own objects
<soundnfury>
we certainly _could_, but it'll take longer to get to first-release that way
<soundnfury>
I'd say do rp-1 first, then consider it
<awang>
And have RP-0 engines just reference those
<awang>
I mean, it's the RO suite release cycle
<awang>
Taking longer to release probably isn't an issue :P
<soundnfury>
pfft
<Bornholio>
.shakesFist
<awang>
I mean, it makes sense
<awang>
Given NK works at Valve
<awang>
Guess some of the culture is infecting us
<soundnfury>
shit, the current KSP version number has a 3 in
<soundnfury>
no wonder we can't release rp-1!
<awang>
:O
<NathanKell>
^_^
<awang>
Just hope we never get to RP-3
<awang>
Er
<awang>
RP-?
<soundnfury>
RP-fnord
<ProjectThoth>
RP-GOTO10
<soundnfury>
RP-elocution
Wetmelon has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
<Bornholio>
playing without TF is SOOOOO much smother
<Bornholio>
move one of the o's
<ProjectThoth>
Playoing without TF is SOOOO much smother?
<Bornholio>
yes
<Bornholio>
also this thothian sheet is par excelance
<ProjectThoth>
Thank you!
<ProjectThoth>
I hope I included enough bodies.
<Bornholio>
yes, i'll be using it elsewhere since the TWR thingy and the dV Doodad worked well
Mike` has quit [Ping timeout: 182 seconds]
Mike` has joined #RO
TM1978m has joined #RO
qwertyy has quit [Ping timeout: 207 seconds]
Shoe17 has joined #RO
blowfish has joined #RO
<ProjectThoth>
Yay!
TM1978m has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
ProjectThoth has quit [Ping timeout: 198 seconds]
<blowfish>
How do we like to handle engine parts that are one specific config of one of the default engine types? Copy the stats and remove ModuleEngineConfigs altogether, or remove the other configs after they're added?
<Bornholio>
destroy and replace :P
<soundnfury>
is that a cross between "search and replace" and "search and destroy"?
<soundnfury>
(not so much "search and rescue"...)
blowfish has quit [Quit: Leaving]
schnobs has joined #RO
<schnobs>
rebuilding a fresh RP-1, which KCT should I get?
<schnobs>
spreadsheet says "new release or master and replace DLL"
<soundnfury>
yeah you need to download the latest release, and then use NK's special DLLs
<schnobs>
"latest release" means CKAN is OK?
<soundnfury>
yup
<soundnfury>
should be
Probus has joined #RO
<schnobs>
nah, isn't on CKAN.
<soundnfury>
'k, you'll have to go to their github then
<Probus>
Is CKAN working now?
<schnobs>
Worked for me a few minutes ago. If you have SSL issues, get the newest ckan.exe.
<Probus>
Dang... Mine isn't working. I will try the new one.
<Probus>
Yay! The last few days have felt like a part of me was missing...
<Sarbian>
o/
<soundnfury>
sarbut
<Probus>
\o
<schnobs>
Hmm. WildBlueTools brings it's own CommunityResourcePack folder. how should I treat that?
aradapilot has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
aradapilot has joined #RO
schnobs has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
schnobs has joined #RO
leudaimon_ has quit [Ping timeout: 207 seconds]
qwertyy has joined #RO
<Sarbian>
Badly
Hypergolic_Skunk has joined #RO
<taniwha>
hi, Sarbian
<Sarbian>
Hey taniwha ! How do you do ?
<taniwha>
quite well. you?
<Sarbian>
As I just said in the other chan I am in dire need of vacation :)
<Sarbian>
Aside from that I am doing fine
ProjectThoth has joined #RO
leudaimon has joined #RO
ProjectThoth has quit [Quit: +++out of cheese error+++]
Shoe17 has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
<schnobs>
I'm wondering if science could be done in a different way.
<schnobs>
The whole "unlock nodes and have scients work at them one after the other" thing feels so kludgy.
<schnobs>
Especially now that there's even more nodes. Having 20+ entries in the KCT list is normal, I believe.
<taniwha>
probably should have a science work pool based on the number (and quality?) of scientists in the astronaut complex and distribute that work over the nodes
<schnobs>
I think what bugs me is the disconnect between interaction with the tech tree and when things finally happen.
<schnobs>
Maybe just turn it around? Science data + time gives research points; research points can be used on the tech tree.
<schnobs>
unlocks happen immediately, so after having put in the time frst you get the toys when you click the node on the tree.
<schnobs>
No need to go back and forth (where am I?), or to come back again once more to purchase parts.
<Mike`>
schnobs, but things unlocking instantly is unrealistic, i prefer how it is now
<Bornholio>
you have the power. and can change anything
<taniwha>
Mike`: the whole science tree is inherently unrealistic :P
<Bornholio>
right its missing randomly cutting funding and placing it in things you don't want
<Bornholio>
nuclear thermal rockets, that isn't being done in california, .Squash
<taniwha>
well, there's that
<schnobs>
Mike`: you'd still put in time in order to get at your unlocks.
<Bornholio>
what the Tree/KCT combo is doing now is putting the tech into a timeline that you have some control over. Also you can change most every thing you mentioned
<schnobs>
But frankly, my suggestion is not really a superior system. Only a workaround for som UI quirks.
<Bornholio>
for instance checkpox no need to purchase parts then reduce payouts
<Bornholio>
box
<schnobs>
Which we shouldn't need in the first place... I think science can and should be done differently.
<schnobs>
That I can't think of anything better doesn't change the fact that the current system is not even wrong.
<Pap>
schnobs: I think most of us would agree that the science system needs an overhaul. I nominate you, "Be the change you want to see in the world!"
<schnobs>
Bornholio: in principle, I like part purchases. It's just that we don't have a UI to handle them properly.
<Bornholio>
you can purchase them in VAB if you don't hide them by default
<Bornholio>
and even then a search shows them
<schnobs>
That's what I do.
<schnobs>
Didn't know about the search though.
<Bornholio>
not saying though that it can be improved
<Bornholio>
like a litte button that you squash
<schnobs>
Using JanitorsCloset to hide what I don't want to see.
<schnobs>
I for one have problems making the part description stick. Usually takes me several tries until I can finaly move the mouse to the purchase button.
<schnobs>
Your little button would go a long way, or multi-selecting in R&D.
<schnobs>
Well.
<schnobs>
Taking one step back, what disturbs me is
<schnobs>
a) that you build up a very long queue
<schnobs>
b) scientiests tackle it one at a time.
<schnobs>
Side effect is that KCT list view becomes the most important research interface.
<schnobs>
b) is a distraction, I think. Having several teams working in parallel wouldn't really change a thing.
<Mike`>
in theory you don't have to build that queue by just waiting to unlock nodes :S
<zilti>
Soo now let's see how my moon rocket works out...
<Bornholio>
the que is part and parcel of having a reasonable delay to the tech and still have the use in control of it
<Bornholio>
user
<Mike`>
yep
<schnobs>
I agree.
<schnobs>
So, it's "only" a problem with the KCT list view?
<Bornholio>
if you want tweak the KCT settings and just play differently. Personally the oragne highlights made it just what i want till i see better. These magicians come up with cool shit
<Bornholio>
like bill and his weird tanks
<schnobs>
You just lost me.
<schnobs>
Orange highlight?
<zilti>
Ah yeah, good ol' "Oh, this engine ignites up to five times? Let's ignite it five times in one second, and then execute the node burn wrongly!" feature
<Bornholio>
with NK's changes you see the techs you picked in science window with orange inner icon instead of the oldway of not seeing what you had qued up
<schnobs>
Yeah, that. Got used to it immediately...
<taniwha>
I finally got EL's vessel work net working the way I want :)
<taniwha>
(one step closer to proper background building)
<taniwha>
Learned a lot about VesselModules in the process :)
<Bornholio>
cool
<zilti>
Goddamn it. Time to play something else for a few weeks. Good grief...
<Bornholio>
sounds like MJ has frustrated you :P
<schnobs>
and, Mike`: not unlocking techs until shortly before you actually want to research them would be a good way of keeping the queue tidy. I'd be totally willing to do that. If it wasn't for the KCT upgrades...
<Mike`>
yeah that really could be changed
<Mike`>
either make upgrades depend on actually researched stuff, or on science points
<Mike`>
not on "nodes unlocked in tech tree"
<zilti>
Bornholio: I don't use MJ anyway except for displaying a few things. That "flight computer" got me. Plus a couple other quirks. After having spent 10 minutes to create a flight plan using the clumsy Principia interface. Eh well...
<schnobs>
dumdi dum.
<zilti>
I wish I were smart enough to write a kOS script that calculates the flight plan for me
<schnobs>
One doesn't create flight plans in principia. The official modus operandum is to bring enough dV and make things up as you go.
<schnobs>
All the ordinary tools (like kOS) assume patched conics. They won't help you in principia.
<zilti>
Well, kOS assumes nothing at all basically. Whoever makes a transfer-calculating algorithm has to assume some stuff
<schnobs>
Not even sure how much data displays are still useful, like relative inclination when angling for a rendezvous.
<Bornholio>
flight computer needs a couple seconds of pre RCS to do you right zilti
<Bornholio>
personally i use a small amount of man plan, and lots of node editor and smart A.S.S.
<schnobs>
same here.
<zilti>
Bornholio: Oh I did give the flight computer that. Actually I gave it five minutes. It still screwed up big time with the maneuver node created by Principia
Shoe17 has joined #RO
<schnobs>
zilti: I try to use the RT computer as little as possible.
<schnobs>
Leave the pointing to MJ. Do the RCS ullage push manually (don't need a connection for either)
<Mike`>
it works if you dial in the amount of m/s for a burn and let mechjeb handle orientation towards nodes
<schnobs>
RT computer controls staging and throtttle, though. What Mike said.
<Mike`>
too bad RTs rcs control is so bad. :(
<Mike`>
also annoying that throttle defaults to 0%.
<Mike`>
i question the sanity of whoever implemented that :S
<zilti>
Well if it defaults to 0% that also explains why it used up all five ignitions...
<egg>
principia?
* egg
meows
<zilti>
@egg yes
<egg>
mrow
<zilti>
I think I lack the maths needed to do more serious stuff in it using kOS ^^
<egg>
tis a silly place
<egg>
so FYI I'm working with lamont so that his algorithms can properly talk to principia to actually eggsecute the flight plan
<zilti>
Also, I at times question the sanity of the KSP devs
<egg>
oh there is no need for questioning
<Sarbian>
well
<Sarbian>
I AIN T MAD !
<egg>
:D
<zilti>
I mean, especially when you switch to a probe, and it looks all effed up. Except when you timewarp, then it looks normal for the timewarp duration.
<awang>
Something I've been intending on working on for forever
<awang>
taniwha: ^
<awang>
Mike`: ^
<awang>
I think multiple research queues make sense, but only if they are in different "areas" of R&D
<awang>
e.g. development of engines shouldn't prevent development of scientific instruments
<awang>
Maybe with cost depending on how many teams are active at once
<schnobs>
awang: I guess my rant is mostly down to KCT list view.
<awang>
zilti: Is the Principia interface that bad?
<schnobs>
not only is it cumbersome to rearrange the list,
<schnobs>
it also requires you to know which node name has which contents.
<awang>
I had the impression that issues with the Principia UI were similar to those with the stock maneuver nodes
<awang>
Something like PreciseNode/PreciseManeuver notwithstanding
<awang>
And I wouldn't rely on the Principia maneuver node, since it doesn't behave like stock maneuver nodes
<awang>
Just use it to figure out where to point
<awang>
Or what schnobs said
<awang>
RT computer is pretty bad
<schnobs>
IIRC Principa makes "better" nodes in that it takes burn time and increasing TWR into account.
<awang>
zilti: Yes, everyone here questions the sanity of the KSP devs
<awang>
Especially those who do lots of mod work
<egg>
awang: note, in the process we also become insane
<egg>
albeit differently
<egg>
(in extreme cases modders may become first insane, then KSP devs)
<egg>
!wpn Sarbian
* Qboid
gives Sarbian a Kerbal/noodle hybrid
<schnobs>
Not so sure how the node MJ points to does correlate with what principia has in mind.
<awang>
schnobs: Yeah, the KCT list view is not the best
<awang>
Wonder if I can at least get it showing in R&D...
<schnobs>
That would help.
<awang>
schnobs: Yeah, Principia's finite burns are quite helpful
<awang>
IIRC MJ will point in the direction Principia indicates
<awang>
Things tend to not like the delta-v countdown not "working", though
<schnobs>
awang: Using the Toolbar mod, I can get scansat in R&D. So it shouldn't be impossible to make KCT available as well.
<awang>
egg: Wait, modders going insane before the KSP devs?
<schnobs>
awang: Toolbar seems mandatory, though, as the stock toolbar is not around.
<awang>
schnobs: I was just about to ask about that
<awang>
Does KCT have Toolbar integration?
<schnobs>
yes.
<awang>
Clicking the button just doesn't do anything?
<schnobs>
Hold on. There's a "Use Toolbar Mod" button which has no immediate effect. Restart needed perhaps?
<schnobs>
clarification: KCT General Settings provide said button.
<schnobs>
and yes, it works. Using the Toolbar mod, I can have KCT in R&D.
<awang>
Ah
<awang>
Guess I don't need to do anything then
<schnobs>
(scene change required for the KCT setting to take effect)
<awang>
Ah
zilti has quit [Ping timeout: 186 seconds]
zilti has joined #RO
<leudaimon>
wow schnobs that is the best QOL news in a long time
<Mike`>
I think multiple research queues make sense, but only if they are in different "areas" of R&D << indeed
<schnobs>
Mike`: I posit that utlimately, several queues would give us nothing but UI hassle.
<Mike`>
the UI doesn't need to be a hassle, plus it does give you something: more realisitic research
<schnobs>
For what values of "realistic"?
<leudaimon>
I would guess it's not implementable in KCT, at least this proposal of having queues for different areas
<schnobs>
We do X research in Y time. Adding parallelization into the mix only means you have to think harder about scheduling.
<Mike`>
actually it's the opposite
<Mike`>
in a certain way
<schnobs>
Nope. Factors will be adjusted so you won't do Sputnik in 1952.
<Mike`>
think if you had unlimited queues, that means you can't even schedule at all
<Mike`>
more quues with shorter lists are easier to schedule than one queue with a huge list, imo
<leudaimon>
well, I actually made my first sat in 1951 in the current playthrough
<Mike`>
leudaimon, psshh, you shall not beat my 52 sat. :(
<leudaimon>
haha
<leudaimon>
I had a moon orbit in 1952
<Mike`>
:|
<Mike`>
with the 60t pad i suppose, and pre orbital rocket engines?
<leudaimon>
for the sat yes, pre-orbit
<Mike`>
i mean moon orbit
<Mike`>
hm
<leudaimon>
no, moon orbit I did on the first orbital node
<Mike`>
so you had orbital by 52? looks like research is a little too quick :S
<schnobs>
Mike`: maybe strict ordering, that is, research is automatically scheduled on a "cheapest node first" basis?
<schnobs>
If you want to make great advancements in one field, this comes at the price of not even unlocking anything else.
<Mike`>
one could even think about something like that, although it would take away that kind of control/decision making
<schnobs>
The more I think about it, teh less hateful I find the idea.
<leudaimon>
my moon rocket is a 20in probe with a solid separator for orbital insertion, aj-27 with an upper stage avionics for TLI and RCS for mid-course correction, and a 3 stage orbital rocket: 1 RD-108 -> LR105 -> AJ10-37
<schnobs>
Mike`: It would benefit from additional research teams, and would give you a reason to not unlock things you're not interested in.
<leudaimon>
problem with cost is that sometimes later nodes are cheaper than earlier ones
<schnobs>
ouch.
<schnobs>
eg first hydrolox?
<leudaimon>
I don't know... but in many cases the "era" nodes are more expensive than the other next ones
<schnobs>
You'd still have the dependencies to take into account (something KCT currently doesn't)
<schnobs>
This should take care of the weirdest effects.
BadRocketsCo has joined #RO
<Mike`>
leudaimon, okay...my rocket was similar, just in 54 :S
<leudaimon>
;)
<Mike`>
not exactly sure though what it was that i waited for
<leudaimon>
the trick (as I see it) is to take contracts early... the advances from first sat, and then from the 3 lunar contracts allow you to have a huge jump start
<leudaimon>
probably mission control + tracking station upgrade?
<leudaimon>
I get those with the first sat advance, to make sure I'll have them for the moon shots
<Mike`>
those were done aswell, yep
<Mike`>
i think it was tech i waited for though, but not sure
<leudaimon>
and also, mission control lvl 2 allows you to get many contracts at once
<Mike`>
maybe less hungry avionics and/or solar power
<leudaimon>
so the lunar antenna
<Mike`>
no, i didn't wait for the antenna :)
<leudaimon>
hm, that's what I waited for...
<leudaimon>
now I'm thinking how much I'll wait for the lunar lander... hydrazine should help a lot
<awang>
leudaimon: How do you even get to lunar orbit that fast
<awang>
I've found avionics to be the limiting factor for me
<leudaimon>
I'm using procedural...
<awang>
And how heavy was your rocket?
<leudaimon>
less than 60T, even though I had the lvl 3 pad
<leudaimon>
something very close to 60 though
<Mike`>
nice
<awang>
leudaimon: Yeah, I was using proc avionics though
<leudaimon>
the RD-108 + LR 105 combo is very good, hadn't used that before
<awang>
It was waiting for them to unlock
<awang>
Er
<awang>
The probe core proc avionics
<awang>
Hm
<awang>
I've been using RD-108 + RD-0105 or RD-108 + X-405, IIRC
<leudaimon>
I didn't wait for that, went with upper stage for the TLI stage that makes course corrections...
<awang>
Upper stage for the TLI stage?
<awang>
Sorry, not quite parsing that
<Mike`>
avionics
<Mike`>
instead of probe
<leudaimon>
^
<awang>
Ah
<Mike`>
i did that aswell
<awang>
What'd you use for lunar insertion, then?
<awang>
I was using probe avionics for lunar insertion
<awang>
Upper stage for orbital insertion + TLI
<Mike`>
but i guess by taking contracts earlya and investing that money into research upgrades you can...research quicker :S
<leudaimon>
exactly Mike`
<awang>
I'm always nervous about taking contracts early because of the chance of getting Agathorn'd
<leudaimon>
just a small 20in probe with a solid separator for insersion
<awang>
leudaimon: What about orienting for insertion?
<awang>
Did you use your TLI stage for that?
<Mike`>
i guess his upper stage did that, that's how i did qanyway
<awang>
Hm
<Bornholio>
tli stage then spin
<Mike`>
yep
<awang>
How that I think about it, maybe the problem for me was that I was trying to go for lunar impact + orbit at the same time
<awang>
So I had to have some form of attitude control on the part that goes into lunar orbit
<Mike`>
:)
<leudaimon>
that is an issue... I planned to use the TLI stage, spin and separate, but then got a weird bug that makes my decouplers have max force regardless of what I set in the VAB...
<Bornholio>
still easy to do just have a seperator fire off a aerobee core at teh right time
<awang>
I've found spin kind of difficult to do, since it's hard to design something that is stable for long-term spin stabilization
<awang>
i.e. pancake-ish rather than long and thin
<Bornholio>
use trim
<awang>
Well, hard to design something that fits in the fairing, at least
<awang>
leudaimon: Maybe try to use really small decouplers?
<leudaimon>
I haven't had much issue keeping spin stabilized... PR has been tricky lastly though...
<leudaimon>
mine was like .3m, and its force was enough to mess totally
<awang>
Bornholio: So the separator provides the impulse needed to have the orbital part avoid impacting the moon?
<awang>
leudaimon: PR?
<awang>
Hm
<leudaimon>
persistent rotation
<leudaimon>
especially because my orbiter is so light
<awang>
I've been using 0.250m decouplers for probes, and haven't had issues with impulse
<awang>
Ah
<awang>
How has persistent rotation been messing with you?
<leudaimon>
I think it's not keeping rotation without reference body as it should
<awang>
Oh
<leudaimon>
just pointing at the maneuver node...
<awang>
Oh, are you using Principia, btw?
<leudaimon>
nope
<awang>
Ah
<leudaimon>
my computer does not manage that
<leudaimon>
neither my brain haha
<awang>
Principia apparently messes with vessel orientation while it is taking care of planet axis tilts
<leudaimon>
I see...
<leudaimon>
but my next tech is for proper probes, and then I don't need to worry about spin stabilization anymore
<awang>
Yeah, takes a bit to get used to principia
<awang>
I like it a heck of a lot more than the stock system though
<awang>
And it doesn't kill performance for me as long as I don't have too many things in orbit
<leudaimon>
yeah, at some point I might give it a try...
<awang>
Which is why I've been so insistent on impacting those TLI stages
<leudaimon>
hehe, it would have been very neat if the orbiter + impactor I was planning had worked...
<awang>
I highly recommend trying it!
<awang>
What were you planning?
<awang>
Er
<awang>
With the orbiter/impactor
<leudaimon>
after TLI and final adjustment + spin of the orbiter, separate and change route for an impact of the TLI stage
<leudaimon>
but the as the decoupler fucked it up I had to wait until being very close to the moon to decouple
<Bornholio>
I use a very low pe insertion and eject a small probe core out the back, slight raise to main orbiter PE and lower the impactor to the dirt
<awang>
....That makes a lot more sense than what I was doing
<awang>
Which was aiming for impact first, then raising periapsis of the orbiter after separation
<leudaimon>
that was the only way I thought to have an uncontrolled orbiter and an impactor in a single launch
<awang>
Makes sense
<awang>
I'll need to try that next time
<awang>
Although I suspect I'll be quickloading/saving quite a bit
<leudaimon>
well, I'm shameless in this sense... I only don't load if I was agathorned or something like that
<awang>
To each their own
<awang>
I wonder why I'm even playing with TF
<awang>
Since I reload upon failure
<Bornholio>
burn time limits
<leudaimon>
hahaha
<awang>
There's so little margin in the missions I've been doing that there's pretty much no way to salvage missions
<Mike`>
reload upon failure?
* Mike`
slaps awang
<Mike`>
:)
<leudaimon>
I'm a lot less agathorned than I expect actually
<awang>
So with TF failures I reload instead of waiting a few months and working through a launch again
<leudaimon>
my first orbit rocket had a stage with 7 aj-27s and I had very few failures
<awang>
!slap Mike`
* Qboid
forks the source code of Mike`, replaces all semicolons with greek question marks and submits a pull request
<awang>
leudaimon: Are you playing with the updated dll that re-enables ignition failures?
<awang>
Since that seems to be affecting people a lot
<leudaimon>
I guess so, I've been having ignition failures at least
<awang>
The probabilities are definitely not nice, especially with many early engines
<leudaimon>
those, in the first stage, are the most simple ones... just roll back, edit, roll out again
<awang>
Oh wow, the AJ10-27s are a lot more reliable than I thought
<leudaimon>
At some point I wondered if TF was working properly, because I have a lot less failures than the numbers in the cfgs
<awang>
Only 15% chance of at least one ignition failure
<awang>
For 8 engines
<leudaimon>
hmm... so it was fine
<schnobs>
What I'd wish for TF would be a table giving me the current chance for an engine to still be working at (ignition +5s), as well as 50-100-125% rated burn time.
<awang>
Yeah
<awang>
leudaimon: Apparently the AJ10-27 has 98% chance of ignition success with max data
<schnobs>
MTBF is such a dry number. though maybe after some time of lokking at said tables I could make more sense of it.
<awang>
And 05% with minimum data
<awang>
schnobs: I was actually considering implementing the math for that to help with the performance issues
<leudaimon>
I had it maxed out very fast with 8 engines in my rocket haha
<awang>
Then NK said that those checks aren't the really expensive things
<leudaimon>
also it borrows many points from the XASR
<awang>
schnobs: It should just be something like the integral of the failure curve to that point, right?
<schnobs>
awang: I don't have the slightest.
<awang>
egg: Integrators!
<awang>
Although I suppose integrating a bathtub curve isn't really what the Principia integrators were meant for
<awang>
schnobs: At least based on a quick glance through a few Wikipedia articles and my limited stats knowledge, looks like that's the case
BadRocketsCo has quit [Ping timeout: 198 seconds]
<awang>
Lots of this stats terminology is going over my head though
<leudaimon>
one other useful way to show the info, would be ignition failure probability, + the time for cummulative 1%, 5% and 10% failure (if he is working with probability distributions this should be easily found)
<awang>
Hmmm
<awang>
Looks like it's a piecewise integral of bezier curves?
<awang>
So cheap to compute, in theory
<awang>
I guess it would make failure calculations easier, too
<awang>
Pick a number between 0.0 and 1.0, and fail when the area under the failure curve exceeds that number
<egg>
meow?
<awang>
TF might gain integrators!
<awang>
Or just evaluating the integral of polynomials
<Starwaster>
So porkjet's overhaul never had the 303 gimbal fixed nor heat emissive animations added by anyone? Confirm? Deny? Is there a pack out there that does these things?
<Maxsimal>
can anyone point me at the krash .dll that ignores tooling costs?
<awang>
Still waiting for LGG to merge those PRs...
<awang>
Should help a lot with costs though
<awang>
Especially early on
<awang>
Also, please give feedback as to whether showing the vessel cost as KRASH sees it vs the vessel cost KSP reports would be useful
<awang>
I had it when making the PRs, but wasn't sure if it'd be useful to players in general
<schnobs>
KCT is soo broken.
<awang>
schnobs: In what way(s)?
<schnobs>
Combining pre-built booster & payload comes at a horrific premium. But re-equipping my WAC with pressurized tanks is free.
<Maxsimal>
awang: Thank you!
<awang>
schnobs: Ah, yes. Guess it wasn't designed for subassemblies/configs?
<awang>
Maxsimal: No problem!
BadRocketsCo has joined #RO
<schnobs>
In principle, KCT allows for pre-building LVs and later combining them with payloads.
<schnobs>
It tends to be rather more expensive than building it in one go, though.
<schnobs>
Also, error-prone in that you have to reroot the payload, save it as subassembly, then re-root again once on the rocket. Triple-check your staging.
<schnobs>
It's easier to build&scrap the LV, then add *that* from a subassembly. Rebuilding from already-owned parts is quite cheap and fast, but that kind of "integration" is costly, too.
BadRocketsCo has quit [Ping timeout: 182 seconds]
<awang>
schnobs: Any idea how much more expensive?
<awang>
I've been building my rockets by creating the payload and then creating the booster around it, since the booster is approximately the same for all the rockets
<awang>
Yeah, subassemblies are sort of annoying...
<awang>
And there's that proc parts freeze with rerooting, too
<awang>
Do you have ScrapYard installed?
<awang>
I think I remember either Pap or NK saying that it messes with balance
<awang>
Since it allows you to launch early sounding rockets significantly faster than without
<awang>
Or my memory could be broken
<schnobs>
awang: It's been a long while since I last tried.
<Maxsimal>
ugh I hate the ksp runway
<Bornholio>
yes
<awang>
Maxsimal: I've seen some other people saying that they use Kerbal Konstructs runways
<Maxsimal>
hrmm, will take a look at that, thanks again :)
stratochief has joined #RO
VanDisaster has quit [Ping timeout: 182 seconds]
Shoe17 has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
<Maxsimal>
anyone use kerbal constructs with RP-0/RP-1? have some tips on getting a better runway with it, just adding it didn't do anything
Shoe17 has joined #RO
<Maxsimal>
Wish KCT would let you pick ships to build from its UI, without going to VAB
<schnobs>
yeah.
<schnobs>
As long as you've got one lined up, you may clone it. But once that's gone...
schnobs has quit [Ping timeout: 383 seconds]
Grayduster has joined #RO
<Grayduster>
Hmm, I don't suppose there's any way to get balloon tanks to pair with early AJ-10's? Not enough pressure it seems (ullage separatrons don't help :) )
VanDisaster has joined #RO
<awang>
Grayduster: Yeah, balloon tanks don't support high pressure
<awang>
So you can only use them with pump-fed engines
* Grayduster
sniffles :)
<Bornholio>
yes
<Bornholio>
if you don't care to bee cheaty
<Bornholio>
use a HP tank and the balloon tank at the same prioroty, preferably attached to the engine
<Bornholio>
honestly tho not worth the cost from baloon III to Tank II HP
<Bornholio>
tank III HP
<Grayduster>
It's mainly the lack of delta-v - 9.3 with an upper stage balloon tank with AJ-10, only 7.9 with a Tank-I
<Grayduster>
(first stage is an LR-79) - first orbiter
<Grayduster>
(so none of the wonderful niceties of later AJ10's :)
<awang>
Bornholio: That's evil :P
<Bornholio>
early AJ's don't have the run time to take advantage of a balloon tank mostly. Thats why the lr105 is so common for first orbit
<Bornholio>
you may also try a RCS third stage using HTP
<awang>
Does anyone use the Gamma 2 or 8 for orbits?
<awang>
Or does the lack of an upgrade path discourage that?
<Bornholio>
sure, you can so a 20t to orbit launcher with them
<Bornholio>
the 8 makes a good early side booster
<Bornholio>
and i've used the 2's in stupid early HE111 death machines
<Grayduster>
For the third stage, I'm just using one of the tiny aerojet kick motors for 800 delta v :)
<Grayduster>
Haven't unlocked the baby sergeants yet :P
<Starwaster>
what version of Unity should I be using for KSP 1.3.x?
<Bornholio>
pretty sure 5.4.0p4
<Bornholio>
but i'm a bad guesser, awang has fiddled with that recently
<awang>
Yeah, it's 5.4.0p4
<awang>
Or at the very least 5.4.0p4 works
<awang>
idk if 5.4.0f<something> works
<Bornholio>
think that version at least to KSPedia things and anything 4 or better just to mash parts
<awang>
Bornholio: Do any contracts allow for a 20t launcher after the first one or so?
<awang>
Since the payload has to be stupid light
<Bornholio>
for orbit thats hard, need a few nodes of engines to pull it off, probably a mix of us and russian could do it. 60T takes you a long way tho
<awang>
Yep, I'm getting to Mars/Venus with 60t + Russian engines
<Starwaster>
christ... for a few strange second I was reading that as 60+ russian engines...
<Bornholio>
sounds russian
<Starwaster>
that's not even N1... that's not even Nova. That isn't even BFR
<Starwaster>
lol
<Starwaster>
trying to fix these stupid part overhaul parts... I fixed the 303 gimbal but they're all lacking heat animations and I can't find any releases that fix that. And it vexes me.... I cannot rest until I rectify the problem
<Bornholio>
Komrade let us bolt together 30 Kayushka's then as second stage 18 Kayushkas, then 8, then 3 then finally 1, to orbit
<Bornholio>
get gregorski drunk, wait, already drunk, firts kosmonaut
<Starwaster>
Sounds like there's a bad 'You see Ivan...' meme in there
<Starwaster>
'You see Ivan, when of bolt many many motors onto small rocket...'
<Bornholio>
so my pole vaulter Lunar lander build fast eough that my launch tempo is 3 days between mission end and the next one launching
<awang>
Bornholio: pole vaulter?
<Bornholio>
silly name for a silly rocket
<Bornholio>
E-1 first stage, Lr105, 11d33M (orbit and good portion of TLI), AJ10-104 for TLI, Capture and most of landing RCS for remainder
<awang>
Ah
<awang>
...I'm going to have to look up E-1/11D33M
<awang>
Haven't unlocked those yet
<Bornholio>
E-1 isn't good in the long run since there is no upgrade path, but its one large engine
<awang>
I see
<Bornholio>
itt never flew
Starwaster has quit [Quit: Leaving]
Shoe17 has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
<Mike`>
shouldn't the F-1 be the logical upgrade path?
<Bornholio>
it is the next engine but the E-1 itself has no derivatives or upgrades
<Bornholio>
since it was designed to be a quad on saturn I and was superceeded by 8 H-1's
Maxsimal has quit [Quit: Web client closed]
blowfish has joined #RO
<Grayduster>
Note to self - remember to upgrade from Tank 1 to tank 3. Orbit -much- easier :P
* Grayduster
mutters about Tank-1 being made from lead or something
<Bornholio>
upgrade engines also :P
<Grayduster>
Only just unlocked LR79 and AJ-10, no unlocks yet :)
<Bornholio>
you can literally fill them with lead
<blowfish>
awang: is there any point in keeping ModuleEngineConfigs around though if there's only one config?
<Mike`>
well, the E-1 has an upgraded config? at least it's in the engine configs
<Mike`>
the h-1 has a more modern/reliable upgrade, truwe
stratochief has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
Senshi has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]