• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

9 Neutral

About Lennartos

  • Rank
  1. Hi there. SETI rebalance causes quite a bit of issues with entrycost changes. Some parts for some reason have costs which are floating point values. Like for example near future parts or Extraplanitary launchpads. (Issue: Entry cost is using int.parse and will choke on the part of it contains a floating point value) I have been replacing prices on the parts i need, since i like the current entry cost balance that SETI gives, But isn't there a way to truncate a float value to integer with module manager so we can fix this in the script once and for all instead? Like Round/Floor/Ceiling? ( i couldnt find in the docs i saw, but i never modded before :))
  2. That's exactly what i mean, if no one reports to squad that the system isn't working as intended - it wont be improved in any release.
  3. I just went through the bug list - didn't anyone report the issues with tech upgrade not working as intended - or are these already closed for next update?
  4. I would use both if i could... would make more sense to ask after 1.2 has been updated with engineer and MJ
  5. Just wanted to suggest to check out just this. The only question is if its possible to stack the change of parts by tech nodes. It it indeed stacks, then it should be relatively simple to create fake tech nodes for each part where you change its stats. KRnD has become one of my essential mods - i'm still waiting for it before before launching my new 1.2 game
  6. See the Modding notes of 1.2 there is a entire section with PartModule Upgrades
  7. Integrated into 1.2 Thx SQUAD
  8. Thats a bit of a grey area - since if handed by tech requirements that case isn't that much different from it lacking the un-upgraded part. If we take @pandaman 's idea then essentially you could get the warning that you still need to unlock LV909-C or tech xyz to fly that craft as intended...same way as how it currently tells you that a part is not unlocked yet. I only play career mode, and don't share crafts with others, so i have little experience with how it usually goes though. But you still need to have at least the same tech level as the components used to create the craft in either case. In this case if you ignore the above warnings you CAN still build & fly the craft, but it could lack critical components like antenna in cockpit, have less fuel ( fuel in wings unlocked ) or cannot endure the stress of re-entry heat due to low material tech( increased temp range for all components )
  9. Ah yes, I'm actually playing with that mod atm.. It adds a lot more value to research points, and also makes it a harder decision what to spend it on. However it is a seperate part based layer similar to tweakscale ( instead of scaling size for increased money cost, you reduce component weight etc for a cost of science points ), also it only changes basic values and isn't tied to research at all. Even worse is that since its made the same way, it has conflicts with other mods that change the parts ( tweakscale, fuel switch etc), which other mods like KSPIE depend on. But it would be a good place to start for making a tech based system.
  10. After playing KSP for quite a while ( still loving it ), it really started to annoy me that we don't have a way to handle proper upgrades through research in the game. Usually even older Parts would become more useful as new tech is researched. Upgrades could include: * Changing base values like Increasing radiator heat transfer, or engine ISP / thrust. Or decreasing weight of parts ( like fairings ) with research of better materials. * Adding/Replacing "modules" to parts, like adding / upgrading default antenna on command pods. * Adding ISRU options though unlocking more tech ( or change efficiency etc ) Some of these are already possible through clever use of module manager and a hack that involves replacing parts ( what KSPIE does ) or solved through scripting, but replacing parts is very limited in terms of modularity and worst of all the ingame GUI isnt able to explain whats happening at all. How about adding support for this in the base game, so we can see what passive bonusses im getting as well..? Advanced Enginering: All engines -5% Weight LV-T 30: +10% VAC ISP All Fuel Tanks: +5% Capacity Custom Build Fairing: Max Radius +0.5m Panel Mass: -10% Alternatively we can solve it with C# scripting, and just allow mods the ability to write TEXT similar to the above in tech screen to explain what the code will do under the hood. Any other ideas suggestions?
  11. Wercome back Sqad, and looking forward to 1.1.3 As long as the orbit fuzzyness is fixed + CTD improved it would be playable in my book. As for 1.2 ( yes i can see why thats a larger feature ) Wheels are just "Werid".. the wheel logic of determining direction has been improved significantly in 1.1, so thats already a big improvement from 1.05 ( no more spending an hour to inverse steering and motor on random wheels) but the actual physics are just... a mess... and where in 1.05 as well for that matter. Practically no ground friction, arbitrary stress calculation, wheel differences larger than what can be read by the numbers, random EVA explosion surprises etc. Though thats not really a game breaker for me at this point.. i can build bases just fine as long as i 'stop the craft and save' every few minutes or so to prevent random "wheel based,freak physics" accidents.
  12. Had same issue here, there is a workaround though - go to scansat settings and disable the "imiidiate" mode of the scanner, so it works like all the others... then you can complete the mission
  13. Great Mod! Any chance that you might add the same for inactive / target vessels ( in different color maybe )? knowing when the target will be at a specific place and its altitude would really make my day Would be especially useful for catching asteroids since getting the maneuver nodes to work on a target that is still outside the current gravity well is hell atm.. and timing science that requires alignment between several vessels... like crash!... where you need to know when target is at a certain point of the orbit + full orbit time ( lots of vessel switching done there )
  14. Looked through the code a bit Quite a lot going on, many modules taken into account. Looots of string comparissons etc, and even worse is string parsing and splitting.... you will propably need to make some more detailed profiling on where it pays off more to improve, maybe EPS indeed is a big chunk... But if its not, then i see no other way than not to rebuild the entire data 30 times a second. There has to be a way to reduce the calculation needed, and only check production and consumption without doing all the hard work of building the part tree