danfarnsy

Members
  • Content count

    246
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

301 Excellent

About danfarnsy

  • Rank
    Rocketeer
  1. Those are old textures. As for CRP, TACLS used to have its own resources defined, but those definitions were redundant and had potential for conflict when playing with other mods, which most users seem to do. If you make your own limited resource definition for TACLS, and you later decide to expand your library with other mods that use CRP, the overlapping resource definitions might cause issues.
  2. @SQUAD: I'm a longtime repeat customer. By "repeat," I mean I bought four copies as gifts for friends, beyond the first for myself. This expansion/DLC, "Making History," looks like it will be fun. The mission design and sharing tools, along with the packaged missions and parts, will fit great. Since this DLC is going to include new parts, while you're at it can you please give a pass over the existing rocket engines and finish the project started by Porkjet? While that wouldn't be part of the DLC, clearly, since those parts are in the base game, it is the sort of aesthetic touch the base game still needs, which in turn makes it easier for me to be a repeat customer for future expansions/content. Thanks for continuing to improve KSP!
  3. Snark's got the sum of it. The feedback is useful for Squad, I'm sure, since even the "Squad should do a thing" comments can be translated as, "as a customer, I'm interested in paying money for a thing." Or that you're not interested. But there's not much persuasion (or respect) in "I want these features for free." Everybody's got some mental checklist of things they wish were better, or that "should be" better. I find things go more smoothly when I let go of "should" and acknowledge what "is." For example, I hate the 2.5m rocket engine aesthetics. They're awful. I have rocket parts packs, and I cringe every time I discover that the Mainsail is the best performance for a payload, because orange and hazard stripes don't match anything else in my rocket wardrobe. I had high hopes for Porkjet's overhaul. In my mind, we should have received that overhaul, finished. We should have had a coherent design aesthetic in stock. Right? Bac9's stint at Squad was a step in that direction, too. The high turnover at Squad has been murder for a coherent aesthetic. That's just an example, and I've got a few more things on my wishlist for KSP, yet I'm happy with where the game ended up. I'm happy with where the modding community ended up. Wherever I think KSP should have gone is irrelevant to the reality of where KSP is and where Squad is. We're nearly two years past 1.0, and Squad is on the tail of a long sales curve. Forget my concept of whether that should have been 1.0, or how things should have been done differently. How can I, as a customer, as a user who still plays KSP in periodic bursts after over four years, persuade Squad to make KSP fit my wishlist even better? There's only one way: by telling Squad what I'm willing to pay to have.
  4. Sounds like fun. I bought the game prior to April 2013. Any way I can still pay for the expansion?
  5. important

    So... it's cancer? I know how to cure cancer! My friend knows this doctor who does this thing with this herb... Heh. You're right, of course, but it's a little entertaining to see some folks going through the stages of grief over some forum pages. It's not cancer. We can relax. It is a significant amount of work gone, but it's nothing any of us can fix. You know what you can do? Watch trailers for the new Mass Effect game a few more times. Figure out why you stink so much at combat in Elite: Dangerous. You know, important things.
  6. important

    No.
  7. This is a great idea. Hatches aren't the central point of the mod (though they're cool).
  8. Real one is 1.2 mN/kW, which is maybe a factor of 20 worse than ion engines. Not saying you need this here. Scaling to reasonable gameplay is a great idea.
  9. But if Squad staff are going to tease us by suggesting Kerbin has axial tilt inspiring Kerbal celebrations, you can forgive us for salivating a bit. Throw in some snow, some wind, some Ferram Aerospace, n-body mechanics, maybe some relativistic length contraction and time dilation, and if we want to get really wacky, multiplayer... There's actually a really good mod out there called Real Life, where everything obeys physics, economics, and getting into space is really hard. You get to play as an astronaut candidate and work for years as a pilot, engineer, or scientist before NASA chooses somebody more qualified than you to send into space instead. Maybe you start up your own small company living from one DARPA and ULA contract to the next, spending countless hours submitting grant proposals.
  10. Kerbin has axial tilt and seasons? Are we announcing something? KSP 1.3: "RSS Becomes Stock"
  11. That's odd. Spam appears to be fixed in my save with 0.5.8. I was definitely getting it in 0.5.7. Edit: Nevermind, it only fixed it in pre-launch status. This is why I try to double-check before I run my mouth.
  12. I sometimes add a filler, like xenon, use the 45/55 LFO button, then remove the xenon. It works, but is clunky. It could be useful to have an LFO tank option.
  13. @Nertea You're doing great, man. Manually throttling reactors is more than fine, as tuning PID controllers for even simple systems often breaks as soon as external assumptions change. As a physicist who understands how fast a "simple" problem can become very difficult, you've got my vote of confidence. Sorry there are so many armchair critics. It's understandably frustrating. I've been around long enough to get a sense for whose comments and insights are valuable, and I haven't seen anybody with a solid track record who also had bad things to say about your work. Hah, maybe that's circular: whether forummers approve of your work has become my litmus test for whether they have sound judgment!
  14. Any spacecraft with multiple parts with heat capacities and emissive radiation (scales as 4th power of temperature, so it's a nonlinear differential equation, which very few even have analytical solutions), some types of radiators which lose effectiveness with distance from source, conduction to adjacent parts, heat input from the sun, potential convection issues in atmosphere, the cutoff temperatures at which radiators throttle (therefore pulling less heat per second from cores)... yeah, that's messy. It's much easier to do numerically, but as Nertea said, that has issues with time warp (the larger your step size between calculations, the more unstable numerical approximation becomes).
  15. Politas created the necessary configs, but they're waiting for RoverDude to release a version of CRP he says is compatible with KSP 1.2.1. Now it's just a dependency versioning issue and the peculiarities of how CKAN works (or in this case, doesn't work). They're clearly aware of the issue, and I wouldn't ping either of them. Previous advice still stands: Manually install for now.