All Activity

For these two im not saying why 225204272024

I've read a lot from the discord server, by trial and error have written a .patch file that does not upset the log. While the patch 'should' change the capacity, starting charge, and charge rate for the 3.75M RTG, testing shows no effect at all.

I'm not trying to argue. Just legitimately confused. People seem to come up with fantastical stories of what the game is and is not rather than listening to the official word. It has been a huge factor in the community going all sorts of negative directions unnecessarily. Nothing good comes from doomsaying over assumptions.

"It looked more friendly from over there!" Being an F-14 Tomcat RIO.

Granted. ... ... ... I wish I could come up with creative things to comment in forum games.

P 7

Here's both of your shaved ices. I'd like a pancake, shaped like a waffle.

Some of the Tantares textures for Soyuz were updated in the latest release and the old files referenced by that part are no longer part of the currently shipping mod. You can fix by downloading an older version of Tantares, copying the necessary texture files to a personal patch folder inside GameData and then modifying the part config to point to those new file paths (either directly or with a ModuleManager patch). The relevant texture references are in GameData/BuranOrbiter/Parts/Buran_airlock.cfg at lines 39 to 43.

I'll update DOE with a new version of KSPe.Light that would had mitigated the problem for DOE anyway. I should had done this sooner, anyway - but, then, you would not had reached me and would be with a sabotaged Auto Actions, so... I really hate injecting such gambiarras on the main stream, but the sad true is that this Scene, salvo really rare exceptions, don't give a rat's cheeks about safety and do things the absolutely easy way completely disregarding the consequences - and then blame the poor stand-up guy that ends up being hit by the crap when things goes South. I think I need to think on something to be put in the KSP.log to help the next fellow Author to detect this problem - what can also be another source of vitriol as I got early this year on reddit - it's incredible how some authors really goes the extra mile to fight anyone and anything that could prevent problems happening on the field. On a final note, this PD-Launcher stunt is absolutely terrible. The damage this piece of crap is causing on the Scene is beyound imagination. How hard would be do add a "No Launcher please" option and just go straight to KSP if the user asks for it? Thank you for bringing me this issue to my attention in a constructive way.

While I’m also unhappy about KSP2 progression this post does absolutely nothing. You gave no finer details besides “the game is still no different to KSP 1.” You provided zero insight, didn’t mention any features that you feel are lacking or any ideas to improve upon, fix or implement. Have you provided any bug reports? What was the goal here? What if a developer decides to read this post, what do you expect to happen? “Oh OP99 is unhappy, let’s get the ball rolling right now!” This is not the way… Also you compared this to a game that’s not even in the same category, has entirely different gameplay etc. move along, you won’t be missed.

While I continue on the long grind for the F-14B, I am having an attack aircraft with a talisman (that I got by pure chance) take its place to save backups in Air Arcade matches, speed up the tech tree research, and also gather crew points for when I finally get the F-14B. Also, last weekend, some new friends I made at the Air Force Museum wanted to check out the Memphis Belle II. It felt right that I make a replica of that plane next. And so, without further ado, here's the F-105 Thunderchief. The F-105 Thunderchief on display in the SPH. I included the aka in the craft name since it was a popular nickname for the plane and so plane enthusiasts who know it can find it. I tried to add the airbrakes in the back. According to War Thunder and pictures I found on the internet, the real Thunderchief’s afterburner could open up and function as an airbrake. However, I decided to scrap that idea since my attempts to add them proved useless. At least I included a drag chute (but I didn’t really test that part). The air intakes were a rather interesting challenge. They were not only positioned right where the wings were attached to the fuselage, but they were angled to go outward. To maintain aesthetic, I chose a Panther engine for this craft. However, part of me wanted to go with a Whiplash for performance since most of my other replicas that used Panthers did not do so well. The Thunderchief ascending to cruising altitude at quite a steep angle. It was approaching Mach 1 when the pilot decided to speed up his ascent. The sad part is that, unlike its real-life counterpart, this plane never made it past Mach 1. Settling at a cruising altitude after the initial ascent. Historic footage of the famous F-105 named the Baikerbanur Bombshell II cruising over Kerbin’s desert. It is currently on display in the Super-Cool Aircraft Museum. The original Baikerbanur Bombshell was a B-17 Flying Fortress that participated in the Second Imperial Wars - and is also on display in the Super-Cool Aircraft Museum. However, the F-105 did not get nearly as much fame as the B-17. Just like in real life, the Baikerbanur Bomshell II could carry more bombs than its namesake predecessor from the Second Imperial Wars. The Thunderchief ending its test cruise after approximately 43 minutes of flying at full throttle and only 30 fuel units left. The KSP replica's cruise performance stats were as follows: Altitude: 10.9 km (~35.8k ft; Class Alpha airspace) Starting Velocity: 290 m/s (~649 mph) The cruise ended at 320 m/s (~716 mph) Recommended Throttle: 100% Flight Time: ~43 minutes Expected Range: 760 km Old photograph of an unknown pilot walking out of his F-105 after landing. I've noticed a pattern in my planes' performance when it came to the Panther engine. Specifically, even when it was in wet mode, the plane did not fly supersonic to start. If it did go fast, it would be within the last five minutes of powered flight before landing. Any ideas why that's the case? Anyway, until I get that issue resolved, I might want to stick with the Whiplash for supersonic planes. Replicas Remaining: 201

Yes, I am using that trick. Forgot to mention that. This is the first time I'm bothering with steam, thought it might be convinient for track time spent in game, but there is also a mod for that I can just use. Just tested launching KSP directly instead of through steam, and what do you know, fixed my issue with DOE and Auto Actions. I'd read that using that PD launcher killing trick could break steam interface elements, I was unaware it could mess with things in game as well. Thanks for the speedy and helpful responses!

@Scidleee merged your report

External Pressure isn't part of the game. Just atmo-temp.

P 6

Alright here is a 92 second run. I realized that a canard style stabilator was another way to get the nose high enough to give the wings lift.

Coding stupidity - I should be to sleepy when I wrote that code, I was literally overwriting the good contents from the file with default values meant to be used when there's no file. I'm prone to these facepalms mistakes regularly. Yes, it is. I think I know already what's happening. I will check your log and edit this post with the findings. --- -- - POST EDIT Yep, you are using Steam: [LOG 06:22:12.124] AssemblyLoader: Loading assembly at C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\Kerbal Space Program\GameData\ModuleManager.4.2.3.dll And I'm guessing you are using that dirty trick in the Launcher to avoid the PD Launcher, I'm right? That trick causes too much collateral effects (even KSP gets screwed, you will find a lot of files in the wrong places, as the settings.cfg and the screenshots, a mess).

Is anyone else having an issue with the OV-100B Payload Docking Adapter showing up without a texture? Link to my KSP Log

The problem is, no manmade spacecraft would be able to reach the core in one piece due to the pressure. And since it's not really simulated, the only thing that could stop the craft from getting too low is temperature. Buuuut on Jool it's not exactly reliable. Not to mention, the entire reentry profile is borked, but apparently it's not a bug .

Vall too. This will be my last one for a while, if not ever. I considered getting the master circumnavigator, but I'm not driven enough to circumnavigate the missing planets. Actually, I started a Mun circumnavigation months ago, but I gave up one quarter of the way. Same for a Tekto circumnavigation. The thing is, I've been playing this game 4 years, I've done all I really wanted to do, I haven't found any new interesting challenge to try after

im gonna do the whole depot thing, send me the manifest id.

And besides, isn't Jupiter theorized to have some kind of solid core and if so, why not also Jool?

I have been unable to find the reference documents, so I'm missing key information: Once I have dumped my text assets and identified a .json file and parameter within that file, how do I format a .patch file to change that parameter? If I want a patch to change the Ec generation rate in "generator_3V_thermoelectric_radioisotope.json", and address the "ResourceSetting" "Rate" value, or change the "UseDecay" parameter to false? If I want a patch to change the ISP range in "engine_3v_hydrogen_swerv.json" to something other than 320 to 1450, how do I address this specific value range? This looks like it should be simple enough. How does the patch file encode the .json file (as seen in the text asset dump) and specific parameter? Without the wiki reference data I'm unsure how to get started.

We never had an answer to if it's intentional, a bug, or just not possible to remove because of how they made planets.

Agree with most of this except a few points: I much prefer the ksp2 way, it saves you from one click when you want to pick a different part (which happens a lot). I usually delete either by selecting the gap between the parts or by just hitting the "del" key, and I don't find this inconvenient comparing to the ksp1 way. Not against the idea, could be nice (depends on the implementation). Although, if you didn't know this, you can select the mode by right clicking on the button, no need to cycle through each one: I very much disagree on this, maybe a hot take idk. The only problem with this is it's riddled with bugs, but when it works, it's way better than the ksp1 way. Don't know if this could be considered a bug or not. However, this is in fact, not possible in ksp1: