All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Rover 6428

    Bugs and KSP

    What? The treads have been merged? I haven't noticed at all. BTW, did his thread get absorbed my mine or vice-versa?
  3. Because you're not posting logs or the right information.
  4. I get the same errors, but I think it may be due to an interaction between KCT and another mod, but I havent figured out which one yet.
  5. Absolutely, Let's install @DMagic's Basic DeltaV to accomodate to the UI enhancement and keep setting up new crafts in a sandbox.
  6. Rover 6428

    I Am Groot

    I am Groot, or I am not Groot. that's the groot
  7. now i definitely have to wait for 1.6 to continue my career. who wants to shoot up old rusty parts?
  8. Yes, but having one Mod with all Launch towers maintained by one person is definitely better, also @AlphaMensae's work is looking better so far (already the screenshot from Wings3D looks better than the finalized version by sciencepanda). Sciencepanda's Towers are scaled for KK's SpaceX pack, granted, anyone can add Tweakscale via an MM Patch (which i did, i rescaled both KK's Launchers and Sciencepanda's Towers to fit better with Stock), but if it's in one place, better btw. @AlphaMensae if you ever have to make a SaveGame breaking update, would you consider changing the Part names: "name = SaturnLightningMast" to something like "name = AM_SaturnLightningMast" - this would make it easier to write MM Patches (like adding tweakscale to all parts)
  9. GRS

    Ban the user above you!

    Banned for using lower lines and being a space creature.
  10. Joal ban Kluane

    [1.5.x] Pathfinder - Space Camping & Geoscience

    I thought I needed to state it (rather than just liking your posts, as I usually do): I love your work on the WBI mods and esp. Pathfinder at the moment. I must say I am also eagerly waiting to see @Space Kadet using all these new shiny toys in his Youtube series (which is great)
  11. Dnarbnellih2

    [1.5.x] Stockalike Station Parts Redux (Nov 22)

    I thought I had the latest version that wasn't 1.5, I'll check and make sure though, thanks @B-STRK.
  12. The_Cat_In_Space

    whats UP with kerbal??

    If this is just a random thread with no point, maybe it should be closed? @Vanamonde
  13. The_Cat_In_Space

    Ban the user above you!

    Banned for having a three letter username
  14. Azimech

    Chrysler Victory Air Raid Siren Replica

    If you have some sound files, I'll be glad to add them. The sirens themselves can be placed on any craft, changing pitch is done by changing thrust. The mod should be compatible with the most recent versions because I made it through part file edits and a legacy module. No custom models were used but this might change.
  15. The_Cat_In_Space

    Prioritizing Bugs in the Bugtracker You need to register an account, which I've shown via the link :)
  16. @AlphaMensae There is already a working Launchtower-Pack for SpaceX: Perhaps this can help you.
  17. There is only the Laztek one. There is no other realistic one.
  18. Scotius

    2mm hole in ISS

    Whoever made that hole, is now (or at least should be) sweating bullets. Let's hope not literally.
  19. I have 1.4.5 and it's there too. I think the 1.4.5 compat could work within a 1.4.x environment. Also, in any case, generally no harm in trying, right?
  20. MaverickSawyer

    2mm hole in ISS

    Yeah, as soon as I heard that the samples were going to the FSB, I knew that this was political. What the end goal is that benefits Putin, though, isn't quite so clear at present.
  21. The_Cat_In_Space

    Sideloading Mods?

    Welcome to the forums, @jocalco. Modding games on an Xbox One is impossible, except for games with dedicated mod support (like Fallout 4, Farming Simulator, and Skyrim). I know this as I have an Xbox One, I tried modding KSP, GTA V, and others, and there are systems in place to stop it. It isn't possible, unless the developers release official modding support for Enhanced Edition (which I doubt they will). IMO I believe that sometimes it's good to have a stock game, and not any mods. I play KSP on PC as well and with so many mods it becomes a nightmare sorting through thousands of parts, the loading times, and crashes associated with it. Hope this answered your question! :)
  22. passinglurker

    KSP Loading... A closer look into Update 1.6

    @StylusHead thanks again for responding its good to have a dev who'll provide insight into his work Way I see it this is backwards I'm afraid. While its good that you can detail panels like porkjet at this point or rather since you started revamping the adapters onwards your style has turned into "panels for panels sake" there doesn't seem to be consideration paid to why there are panels especially those symmetrical rings of tiny panels your team seems fond of. For example why is say the C7 cone fabricated and assembled the way it is instead of just being formed as a single piece? it serves a purely structural function, and no plumbing runs through it so there is no need for an access hatch and its quite a small part so there would be no need to break it up into even smaller pieces for transport. half the active forum users here you could probably feed an untextured cylinder and they'd receive it well you should see the stuff they used to praise and defend before you got here... as for the other half which are more discerning speaking from my perspective the FL tanks were the first to at least tick the mandatory checkboxes, and taking in allowances for creative liberties they could have gone either way, but things have gone a bit panel happy since then. I'd now say they've gone the wrong way if they're acceptance is being used as evidence to support this creative direction. My only concern here is the porkjet nosecones the rest you could have just scrapped and started fresh honestly I never cared for seeing old meshes recycled as you already know. My concern here is you've basically made it so they can only be paired with thier usual accomplices, and they'd look terrible anywhere else (the C7 cone for example now only goes with the NCS adapter as part of a complex spaceplane, and instead looks out of place when used as part of a cheap sounding rocket whereas before it could do both with reasonable versatility). The advanced nose cone meanwhile I've basically just seen for rockets and rockets can mismatch nose and body styles with industrial impunity so I'm not sure what you were trying to pair it with. Still its not as bad off as the C7 is with the paneling gore but I hate how loud it looks now. I try and imagine a whole vessel incorporating these, and I think its just gonna look extra busy especially if you keep changing other porkjet parts to match these tastes. Wouldn't you agree that part of a good whole vessel design is giving player some options for subtler structural and fuel pieces so the can control what on a vessel grabs attention instead of making everything the same degree of attention grabbing?
  23. SHORT VERSION: FULL VERSION: I'll be honest, as much as I love the look of the new revamped parts, I kinda feel sad that SQUAD is killing off the old part's junk-like art style. I mean, I understand all of KSP's rocket parts had mis-matched styles and designs, since rocket parts were added/implemented at different times during the game's development, but I feel that worked in the game's favour. The way rockets were assembled using mis-matched parts gave the impression that Kerbals just dug up some random junk and just slapped some bits of metal together into something that resembled a rocket (hell, the item descriptions for several parts state they came from a junkyard or were found by the side of the road). Much in the same way players would build rockets through trial and error (at least before DeltaV tools and mods were available), it felt like the Kerbals knew nothing about space flight either, and were just putting something together in the hope it'll make it to space. As for the new art-style, it's sleek and modern. The colour palette and designs are consistent, and it gives a very professional NASA-esc vibe. Now, if you like the new revamped rocket parts, that's perfectly fine, but I feel the style of these modern revamped parts don't fit well with KSP (I mean, KSP is SQUAD's IP, they can do what they want with the art-style, but to me the new style doesn't feel right). Like, maybe this is just me, but I cannot envision the Kerbal-race designing something professional or sleek like the Saturn V. They're very clumsy/primitive (if the game's trailers/writing is anything to go by), so - to me - slapping something together using scrap seems like the sort of thing they'd do. As a result, it feels weird to me that SQUAD would switch to a more realistic/sleek new style (although A. that's just my thoughts, and B. for all we know SQUAD might be moving KSP towards a more serious/realistic tone). This brings me to my suggestion: In the future (perhaps after a few bug-fix updates/patches, *cough cough*), I think there should be a new skin group for most rocket parts emulating the game's original inconsistent junk-like style. I'm a bit iffy about whether to say that a "junk" rocket part skin should used by default in Sandbox/Science, but players can still switch to the three newer skins if they prefer them. Heck, there could be a game mechanic included in Career mode (preferably one you can enable/disable in the game's options) where all rocket parts use the Junk skin by default and you can pay Funds to upgrade parts to use the more professional/sleek skins. That way, you start off career mode with rockets that look like they were assembled from random scrap, then progressing to shinier modern-looking rockets. Obviously, it's a bit early to be discussing this, since not all of KSP's rocket parts have been revamped to the new style, but I'm thinking this suggestion could be implemented after the release of 1.6, or further into the future. Just at a point where more than half of the game's rocket parts (at least, the ones that need to be redesigned) are revamped. ... I just complaining about something that doesn't matter? I don't know. What do y'all think about this suggestion? Do you think it's stupid/a waste of precious development time or...?
  24. Today
  25. It’s really difficult to make nuclear reactors plug-and-play, especially if we limit ourselves to those aft cargo bins. Aside from needing an angled shadow shield, you’ll have major trouble disembarking if the reactor has been used recently (in the last century). Furthermore, keeping the reactor on a stick (which, BTW, is ultimately an option here) is nice because the surrounding vehicle structure would otherwise backscatter the radiation at the crew despite the shadow shield. Radiators are even more of an issue, TBH, since they're another source of backscatter yet presumably they’d also be mounted in the bins. A multimegawatt plant would need a whole damned lot of them, though - or operate at obscene temperatures for the entire trip. Bottom line is, space nuclear power and aerodynamic vehicles don’t mesh well. Those huge flying girders are much handier, which makes the overall ITS concept ultimately handicapped.
  26. Probably not exactly like the SS Tank, because the 2.5m tanks are too small. Maybe something like the Delta 4 Heavy sidebooster nosecones. What would be better is orange varients of the 3.75m tanks and a tankbutt for every tanksize
  1. Load more activity