Gaming The Kerbal Space Program - Version 1.2.x

[jangofett287]

So in the future sun-diving might actually melt your craft?

 

[N_Molson]

From what Harv' said, seems there is a good chance. And the necessity to bring cooling stuff would make those missions to Moho (Mercury-like barren planet) or even Eve (Venus-like atmosphere) more specific and interesting. Who says cooling also says energy needs and since electricity is already implemented, we could have a very nice and interesting interaction between all that.

 

[HarvesteR]

From what Harv' said, seems there is a good chance. And the necessity to bring cooling stuff would make those missions to Moho (Mercury-like barren planet) or even Eve (Venus-like atmosphere) more specific and interesting. Who says cooling also says energy needs and since electricity is already implemented, we could have a very nice and interesting interaction between all that.

Yeah, that's the sort of thing I'm thinking about. Of course, before doing anything we need to add in a good way to visualize this heat process... If you don't provide feedback, it just looks like the game decided to randomly start exploding bits of your ship off.

In fact, instead of having parts explode from overheating, I'd like to have them assume a burned-out state of sorts, which makes them inoperable, but still physically there. That way, you get a better notion of what's going on, and you might even be able to go out on EVA and fix it.

These are all just ideas at this point, but I think it could be fun.

Cheers

 

[mojoey]

Yeah, that's the sort of thing I'm thinking about. Of course, before doing anything we need to add in a good way to visualize this heat process... If you don't provide feedback, it just looks like the game decided to randomly start exploding bits of your ship off.

In fact, instead of having parts explode from overheating, I'd like to have them assume a burned-out state of sorts, which makes them inoperable, but still physically there. That way, you get a better notion of what's going on, and you might even be able to go out on EVA and fix it.

These are all just ideas at this point, but I think it could be fun.

Cheers

What about a dialog box that says "Oh hey, your ship is freaking melting! *click here to highlight the afflicted parts*"

 

[Urwumpe]

Or what about making the connections between parts softer by heating? Gradually degrading the function should also give some clues of course.

 

[goaowonk]

Or what about making the connections between parts softer by heating? Gradually degrading the function should also give some clues of course.

That would be really nice, but will make lots of computers explode, including mine :facepalm:.

 

[astrosammy]

Oh, BTW, about exploding computers: Are there any news about oceans? Will they be changed to make them more framerate friendly?

Having alot of fun with the new rover parts right now :thumbup:.

 

[Ark]

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/24148-3-metersZ-Pinch-fusion-rocket

Does anyone know how I could modify this to burn regular fuel+oxidizer like every other liquid engine? I love the engines but I'm really not digging the propitiatory fuel that doesn't work as well as regular fuel and limits you to only ever using one fuel tank.

I've tried swapping over the models, effects, assembly values etc to a regular engine, but the farthest I get is an engine that just sits on the pad and refuses to actually move, despite giving all appearances of thrusting and burning fuel.

I'm gonna ask on the KSP forum, too, but it seriously takes like 10 minutes to load every single page there. Those guys seriously need to upgrade their servers; once your game is on Steam you need to be able to handle more than 5 people at a time.

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/24148-3-metersZ-Pinch-fusion-rocket

Does anyone know how I could modify this to burn regular fuel+oxidizer like every other liquid engine? I love the engines but I'm really not digging the propitiatory fuel that doesn't work as well as regular fuel and limits you to only ever using one fuel tank.

I've tried swapping over the models, effects, assembly values etc to a regular engine, but the farthest I get is an engine that just sits on the pad and refuses to actually move, despite giving all appearances of thrusting and burning fuel.

I'm gonna ask on the KSP forum, too, but it seriously takes like 10 minutes to load every single page there. Those guys seriously need to upgrade their servers; once your game is on Steam you need to be able to handle more than 5 people at a time.

:shifty:

youre askin the wrong people :lol:. Of course if you wanted this in Orbiter, I can help you out with coding a mesh :lol:. I swore I would never develop KSP add-ons a long time ago.

 

[HarvesteR]

We're having issues with our forum/spaceport server now. It's getting fixed, but might be a while yet before it's back to normal.

As for the question there, if that engine there uses a standard Engine module, you can change the propellant types on the part.cfg file for it, so that it pulls normal fuel+oxy instead of whatever it is that it uses now.

If it's using its own engine module though, then whether or not you can do that depends on how the author coded the module.


The standard engine module looks like this on the cfg file:

MODULE
{
	name = ModuleEngines
        // some more parameters
        PROPELLANT
        {
                name = LiquidFuel <- this is what you want to change
        	ratio = 1
		DrawGauge = True
         }
}

Cheers

 

[MaverickSawyer]

Ok, that's why I've been getting dumped and http 500'd. ETA for getting back online, if you have one?

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

We're having issues with our forum/spaceport server now. It's getting fixed, but might be a while yet before it's back to normal.

As for the question there, if that engine there uses a standard Engine module, you can change the propellant types on the part.cfg file for it, so that it pulls normal fuel+oxy instead of whatever it is that it uses now.

If it's using its own engine module though, then whether or not you can do that depends on how the author coded the module.


The standard engine module looks like this on the cfg file:

MODULE
{
	name = ModuleEngines
        // some more parameters
        PROPELLANT
        {
                name = LiquidFuel <- this is what you want to change
        	ratio = 1
		DrawGauge = True
         }
}

Cheers

Another DDOS attack maybe?

By the way, would you mind checking your inbox for the PM I sent you earlier? I would still like to do that interview on the history of KSP with you if you're interested.

 

[Ark]

// Kerbal Space Program - Part Config
// 1X-2000 ZPFTR Liquid Fuel Engine Cluster
// 

// --- general parameters ---
name = leucome_1X-2000_ZPFTR_Fuel_test
module = LiquidFuelEngine
author = leucome

// --- asset parameters ---
mesh = model.mu
scale = 1
rescaleFactor = 1.25
ThermalAnim = glow

// --- node definitions ---
node_stack_top = 0.0, 4.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0
node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -4.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0


// --- FX definitions ---


fx_exhaustLight_blue = 0.0, -2.40, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, active

fx_exhaustFlame_blue = 0.0, -2.40, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, active


// --- Sound FX definition ---

sound_vent_medium = activate
sound_rocket_hard = active
sound_vent_soft = deactivate

// --- editor parameters ---
cost = 2000
category = 0
subcategory = 0
title = leucome 3 METERS ZPFTR
manufacturer = Leucome nuclear space industry.
description = A 3 metre diameter Z-pinch fusion termal reactor engines , with good fuel consumption but nuclear polution.

// attachment rules: stack, srfAttach, allowStack, allowSrfAttach, allowCollision
attachRules = 1,1,1,1,0

// --- standard part parameters ---
mass = 19
dragModelType = default
maximum_drag = 0.2
minimum_drag = 0.2
angularDrag = 2
crashTolerance = 60
breakingForce = 25000
breakingTorque = 25000
maxTemp = 6000
// --- liquid engine parameters ---

maxThrust = 1850
minThrust = 0	
heatProduction = 600
Isp = 312
vacIsp = 890

thrustVectoringCapable = True
gimbalRange = 0.55

This is the config file. Would LiquidFuelEngine be a custom engine module?

Even if it has it's own engine module, I don't understand why I'm having such a hard time stealing the model and FX and just transplanting them into another liquid engine. All I wind up with is an engine that sits on the ground, burns fuel, and doesn't move.

 

[RisingFury]

Or what about making the connections between parts softer by heating? Gradually degrading the function should also give some clues of course.

Yea, that's a great idea. There's no way hypersonic planes will fall apart in mid flight.

 

[Ark]

I think I may have figured it out. There is no thrustTransform object in the model's file, so the game has no idea where to put the thrust line, therefore I have no thrust.

Looks like I got Garry's Modded. An update broke the mod, and the author is long gone and not fixing anything. Damnit.

 

[Hielor]

I think I may have figured it out. There is no thrustTransform object in the model's file, so the game has no idea where to put the thrust line, therefore I have no thrust.

Looks like I got Garry's Modded. An update broke the mod, and the author is long gone and not fixing anything. Damnit.

Yeah, the last update on that thread was like five months ago.

Maybe see if the author has posted anywhere else on the KSP forums recently?

 

[Ark]

Nothing since January, it looks like.

Like I said, a familiar Garry's Mod occurrence. Anyone can make an addon, but few people really stand by stuff like that in the long term. They get bored, disappear, and then an update breaks it. It happens.

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

Nothing since January, it looks like.

Like I said, a familiar Garry's Mod occurrence. Anyone can make an addon, but few people really stand by stuff like that in the long term. They get bored, disappear, and then an update breaks it. It happens.

Its one of the reasons not to develop for KSP, since the updates break things so often. I would find it really tough to develop for Orbiter if I had to update every few months or so too. The long breaks between Orbiter versions are actually a good thing too, since projects like IMS, Graphics clients, UMMU/UCGO would never be able to keep up at that pace. Everyone wants the next Orbiter version released until they actually start to develop. Then they start to dread new versions :lol:

 

[orb]

Its one of the reasons not to develop for KSP, since the updates break things so often. I would find it really tough to develop for Orbiter if I had to update every few months or so too.

It's rather that KSP doesn't have a "stable" release yet, and it's still in active development state, where new features are massively added and different things may be changed. Orbiter has betas released from time to time (usually a couple of betas in a row), but it's a long time between "stable" / "featured" releases and add-ons are released only for those, and not for betas, unlike for KSP.

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

It's rather that KSP doesn't have a "stable" release yet, and it's still in active development state, where new features are massively added and different things may be changed. Orbiter has betas released from time to time (usually a couple of betas in a row), but it's a long time between "stable" / "featured" releases and add-ons are released only for those, and not for betas, unlike for KSP.

Well I think most people would agree that KSP has been stable for quite a while now, at least since 0.18. I was impressed with the optimization done for 0.19, as the program finally ran without massive lagging.