Starwaster

Members
  • Content count

    7498
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1983 Excellent

3 Followers

About Starwaster

  • Rank
    Defender of the Sandbox

Recent Profile Visitors

3667 profile views
  1. Somewhere in there you're getting the dot product of the viewing angle and the normals, right? Are you using the absolute value of that? If not that could be why you're getting those results.
  2. It's too dark where the normals aren't angled right at the camera, or away from it. Spots like that should still be getting light though it would be mostly blue due to scattering.
  3. For future reference, submit logs for sessions that have run only long enough to demonstrate the problem. There are almost 800,000 'look vector zero' messages in there and it slows me to a crawl trying to process that log. (admittedly that's partially my fault because I tried to delete them to make finding the real error easier to do and it locked up Notepad++) I'll let you know when I find something. @bertibott Looks like you're missing textures. You needed to download those separately. Look at the first post again, you have a choice of different resolutions to choose from.
  4. I need to know more about what parts you used, what engine, what tank, etc. One thing I can tell you is that 45km periapsis is an awfully shallow reentry. Your shield will do a slow bake and deplete itself long before you can brake enough to matter. Try lowering the pe to 20km. I can guess about the rest but like I said, without knowing specifics about your craft design it's just that. A guess. Stock conductivity is extremely high. I'm currently engaged in a reentry of a craft similar to what I think you're using and right now the engine is conducting into the tank at a rate of 5.73 kW/m K. If you're not familiar with conductivity expressions, that's 5.73 kilowatts per square meter per degree difference Kelvin. For comparison, aluminum has a conductivity of 250 W/m K. Not many materials have conductivities that are in the kilowatt range, at least not as far as common structural materials. So what's probably happening is that your tank is transferring that heat into your decoupler and from there into the heat shield. If it's that much of a problem I might have to look into lowering the global conduction factor. (which I've actually done in older versions of DRE; it was a simple way of increasing the deadliness of a reentry since parts couldn't easily get rid of the heat that they accumulated)
  5. Interesting. Did any of the round robin code survive? (basically cycled crew to the back of the list after they were recovered to ensure that every Kerbal had a chance at flight experience)
  6. @PickleBranston actually it was worse... they were hitting double.MaxValue
  7. The author hasn't even been by in half a year. I'd say this is stillborn.
  8. The main one being that I want to change how DRE implemented damage works. i.e. fire damage. Currently, the skin itself gets damaged from being on fire and if damage reaches 100% then the part gets destroyed outright. What I want to happen instead is that the more damaged the hull is, the more heat is let through into the interior. Thermal radiation flux and convective flux would be admitted directly into the interior. (because it now has a big freakin' hole in the hull) The easiest way to do that is that if there's a hole in it then there's a hole in it... in every direction. A little more work is involved in doing it the way it should be done, which is directional. So... it's the front part that has a hole in it. Or the aft part. Or portside.... I actually have a rudimentary form of that already but there is no visual representation of that so the player will have no way of knowing that there is a hole in their ship.
  9. Because there are changes I wanted to complete before an official release. They haven't been completed so there hasn't been an official release. (though I did take the last release out of pre-release status so it will show up on CKAN.
  10. As long as they are in the GameData folder or one of its sub folders it will be read by Module Manager
  11. I put together a proper release for Procedural Parts on my Github repository so that people don't have to mess with dropping the dll in. If you already grabbed the one from my dropbox link then you don't need this. Also notified linuxgurugamer so he can update CKAN https://github.com/Starwaster/ProceduralParts/releases/latest
  12. You're right, I wasn't aware there was a dev of KJR out there anywhere
  13. Correct, just copy and paste it out of my message into the ModuleJettison in the config.
  14. As far as collider issues, it's a matter of using multiple simple parts (rectangles or squares) for the collider, but that's probably not useful to you dealing with someone elses model. About disabling the fairing, can you clarify please? You mean as in having the shroud disabled without having to disable it in the VAB? Or do you mean something else? If you mean to hide it from the start, try shroudHideOverride = True If you want to leave it on but disable decoupling, try decoupleEnabled = False
  15. It was 'fixed' because of a few players (actually maybe as low as one player) complained that jettisoned fairings were destroying their craft. IIRC they insisted on jettisoning in a way that would jettison the fairing at the same time as they decoupled (there was actually a choice in the matter at that time) which naturally resulted in the fairing bouncing back into their engine. I think it was isFairing that controlled that and if it's set to false then it USED to stay with the engine until jettisoned and if true then it would detach with the decoupler instead. I don't know if it is still possible to do that; for instance I don't know if it was only fixed in the configs or if they actually changed that functionality in the code as well.