Daniel Prates

Members
  • Content count

    160
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

41 Excellent

About Daniel Prates

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer
  1. NK cyberattack now targeting ksp players!
  2. Ok that picture of a green TKS made it clearer to me. I didn't know the TKS had separate engines and RCS blocks. From other images I have seen, i assumed they had multidirectional thrusters embeded in the same mounting as the main engines, since (in the tantares version at least) they use the same fuel. It is i who really wonders, can't you think of a mouting with both a big thruster and small RCSs in other directions, since they all use the same resource? Spacey Heavy Lifters have two of those, check it out and wonder no more!
  3. The small monoprop orbital engines.... how are they supposed to go in the TKS? I know the TKS didnt have your standard big engines in the stern, they were placed along the hull somewhat like where you would normally place the rcs. But the parts here in the mod intended for that purpose (as I understood it) only propell in one direction! Shouldnt it be more like an engine block, with the thrusters pointing in several directions? Or am I missing something? Its a great book even translated into portuguese (my native language), an OK 1970 movie and an absolutelly, apalling, discusting recent remake - something to really stay clear of!
  4. Oh cool, the warbird is an entirelly new cockpit! Great! Edit: consider editing the inugural post to incluse some pics of it.
  5. Wonderful. This adds the IVA only, right? One still must have the actual part loades from the original mod, correct?
  6. I am kinda guessing this applies to 1.2.2 as the fundamentals are the same, right?
  7. Great new adition, @linuxgurugamer It can be used to take proper pictures, like with the telescopes of Tarsier, or it only provides an science experiment?
  8. I too think this is the way to go, in order to produce a lot of cockpit choices. Radial cockpits, which you simply put over fuselages or fuel tanks. Much of the pilot remains hidden inside the fuselage anyway, with only the glazing protuding above the fuselage line. The STRIKER mod has three of those parts, one looking like a bf-109, which I am assuming was much easier to do part than a full-fuselage part. What the game needs is some more optional bubbles, windows and turrets, just for the cosmetics of it. Many 1940s planes could be emulated if such parts were available, even if they did not have the crew capacity. Think, for instance, if you razorback had an alternative 'glazed' looks to it, specially the drop-looking ones. You know those dorsal observation windows the PBY Catalina had? If your razorback had a glazed version, they could imitate those somewhat. Same thing goes for turrets and bubbles. We have so many aerodinamic nose cones, why not a glazed nose cone, to look like a bombardier station?
  9. Oh ok! Didnt know that! Thanks!
  10. great little plugin! Question: can I 'unselect' with it too? It is a hateful thing to unselect a vessel you just rendezvouzed with, since in orbital view both vessels will appear too close to eachother to allow the mouse cursor do differentiate!
  11. I am experiencing something that has happened to me since the old versions of bda. When I toggle freefall bombs from my weapons manager, after turinng on master arm of course (but selecting no weapon module) a green circle appears to show where they are going to hit. So far so good. The problem is, it only appears when I am under 200 meters of hight. If I climb above that, the aiming circle disapears. So I am wondering: am I doing something wrong, or is this a bug/issue? It would be nice to drop bombs from a high altitude (meaning, above 200 meters!) without guesswork. EDIT: i read elsewhere, in a post by someone having the same issue, that the answer was to toggle the "inside bombay" option for the ordnance, but that doesn't do it for me.
  12. Point taken. I guess we're all just trying to improve the game somehow, within our possibilities. As Zizek himself have put it, "the measure of love is, that we can insult each other" or something of a sort!
  13. Hehe @Mako just to be clear, and regarding the 'resistance' comment, I am only posting these comments in the intention of contributing somehow to the game's development. I mentioned resistance because, if you check some of the responses I got, some are silly platitudes like "not everybody plays the game in the same way" or "if you don't like the game you don't have to buy it", or even "its not a contract generator because it is not meant to be a contract generator". Well duh, you guys! Those comments are all either obvious or useless statements. Some are even rude. All I am saying, if that is not clear enough already, is that if Squad is developing a mission-builder system to be used elsewhere in the game, they COULD (and I am not holding a gun in anybody's head, even if I could do it which I can't) contemplate the possibility of implementing a mission-builder in career mode, science mode or sandbox mode (or all of the above). In all my programming ignorance, I imagine it would be an easy thing to do since the mechanism, interface, GUI or whatever would be probably 90% the same anyway.
  14. Well the game already does this, more or less. By bodies. The farther the body, the more it pays. Maybe on the mission customization, you could start by selecting the target body. All bodies would pay a fixed ammout for the simplest of misisons (flyby, perhaps). Then changing or adding goals would pass the value by a multiplier. So assume I am creating a mun mission. I would select "mun". Ok, the mission already is "do a flyby by mun" and pays 10.000 (for instance). If the "land" goal has a multiplier of 1.5x (again, for instance), when I change goals the prize automatically goes to 15.000 and so on. In that logic, instead of changing, I could be adding goals. So suppose I added both "flyby" and "land". It pays 25.000. When I am good and ready, I click "genetate mission" and voilá, a 25.000 prize for a mun flyby plus landing has just appeared in mission control. In my mind, adittional buttons would tweak deadlines, science gathering etc. This is how I envisioned a career-oriented mission builder. It seems like a reasonably easy thing to implement, since the basic interface is already under development (albeit for another purpose). I quite frankly cant understand all the resistance to the idea that I've seen here. Why not?!?!
  15. Granted. And that has been said above already. The thing is that it could be. And probably should.