Stoney3K

Members
  • Content count

    551
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

176 Excellent

About Stoney3K

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer
  1. Are your controller Arduinos powered off the 1-Wire? That could be messing things up, because it could send them into brownout detection mode if the message is too long. You could get the power from the motor wires via a voltage regulator and use optocouplers on the Arduino's outputs.
  2. IMO, there should be an added difficulty feature on TweakScale that allows it to be used in career or science mode without becoming too much of an exploit: Only allow certain scale steps up or down once specific science nodes are unlocked. So suppose you don't have the "Heavy Rocketry" tech node yet, you can't cheat your way into building a Skipper or Mainsail by just up-scaling a Swivel. Conversely, unless you have "Precision Propulsion" or "Miniaturization" unlocked, you can't scale down anything or only scale down specific parts, so a shrunk Terrier can't be used as a makeshift Spark engine. The same would go for fuel tanks, another option in that case would be to nerf the part's efficiency to such a point that it becomes impractical to use, so you would be able to scale up a fuel tank, but the fuel inside would not scale up proportionally with the mass (so the bigger the tank, the more dry weight it has). This would still make TweakScale a good tool for building realistic replicas and good-looking craft but it would not be possible to use it to cheat your way into tech that you haven't unlocked yet anymore. Maybe the mechanism can be dependent on the difficulty setting, so in Easy mode there may be no restrictions, but scaling parts only becomes a useful option when there's no other real choice if you play Hard mode.
  3. My idea is that users (and quite possibly other users, not just me) could mix and match from mod groups which go together, instead of just individual mods.
  4. That will export everything you currently have installed (which may vary according to your style of play). That may also cause conflicts with mod dependencies which are not available yet for a new KSP version when it comes out. You could cheat by submitting 'dummy' mods which are nothing but dependencies on other mods, though, but I'm not sure if they will be allowed in the repository. For example, if you want to install everything from Near Future Technologies, or anything that has to do with RSS, you now need to select each mod individually because not everyone may want to have all mods installed.
  5. Feature suggestion: Allow users to make certain pre-sets of mods which they can install in one action. For most installs, I have sets or blocks of mods which I generally install together depending on the game types I play. It would be nice if I could save these sets and select them to install/uninstall them, especially when KSP gets an update.
  6. Do keep in mind that (especially for aircraft), pitch and roll does not have to equal flight path angle (the angle between your horizontal and vertical speed, or the surface prograde vector) That is only the case where zero pitch will cause your aircraft to remain straight and level. If you want to make it more generic, a 'flight path angle hold' feature on SAS would be great. That means that pitch adjusts according to airspeed (pitching down when the craft speeds up, and pitching up when the craft slows down) to maintain the correct vertical speed. I am very much in favor of a feature that can maintain FPA since it is very useful for any mode of surface flight.
  7. I can confirm, a search will return HTTP 500 after waiting for about half a minute. Might be a wonky connection from the search script to the database?
  8. Airbrakes are fine, as well as the use of lifting surfaces as cosmetic panels. As long as the lift of the airfoils is not the thing that keeps the craft airborne. @Torquimedes I commend your screenshots in the May 4th theme but sadly enough, the return trip needs to end at the spot where you started, so you will be 1000 points down. On the other hand, I don't see any excessive part clipping, so you can drop the 250 point penalty, making your total 600 points. I'm still not out of the woods on the emergency chute thing since it can be exploited, but for now, it's fair.
  9. Should be easy enough to implement, I don't know if there are mods that already offer an inline cockpit, but there are no restrictions in the game mechanics as far as I know. Control points can be mounted radially, although you do need to keep in mind that the reference point for the navball may not be in line with your craft's center. Which would make sense, because your pilot's viewpoint is offset as well. Radially attached parts can just clip inside the part they are attached to, so your IVA space would just be modeled like that (with a box around it). If the IVA space should stick out, you'd have a box sticking out the other end.
  10. I believe they are, since there are other addons that do it (MechJeb, Pilot Assistant, Atmosphere Autopilot), they override the stock SAS.
  11. Is it really so much more challenging than an abort system that can ditch a crew pod? In terms of mass and size, it's not that different.
  12. This is done for the simple reason that Kerbals do not face certain death when their cabin is not pressurized and they go into space. The light, 'unpressurized' cockpits would be at a major advantage in terms of mass while having no drawbacks.
  13. Which raises my question: Why choose that ratio instead of, for example, 2:1, 3:1 or 4:1? I understand the need to get at Apoapsis while Kerbin completes a full revolution, which would be a 'half' orbit on your own.
  14. I would like to see the calculations that @Kryxal used for this. An orbital period of 216 minutes is not resonant to KEO, which has an orbital period of exactly 6 hours (one Kerbin day). You'd expect a 1/3 resonant transfer orbit into KEO to have an orbital period of 120 minutes, so something else is going on here.
  15. Not if you read the background of it. Of course in KSP it doesn't matter, but in real life, a Nerv that comes crashing down or explodes in mid-air will cause a serious radiation hazard. You're basically lobbing a nuclear power plant skyward, and you want that power plant to return safely to Earth (or in this case, Kerbin), under any circumstance. Self-destructing the Nerv is not an option if it was a real scenario. The rocket is pretty harmless if you blow it up, because it's nothing more than pieces of titanium, hydrogen and oxygen which may cause a big bang, but won't spread any radioactive gunk over populated areas. A Nerv is crammed full of radioactive nuclear fuel (enriched uranium) and you don't want to be within miles of it when THAT goes. Yes, it means there is some role-playing and imagination involved here, just think of the Nerv as very precious and fragile cargo that can never be destroyed.