Rohaq

Members
  • Content Count

    131
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

25 Excellent

About Rohaq

  • Rank
    Rocketeer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. How will this affect people who may have already installed the mod in its previous state? Does CKAN note that the metadata has changed, and the mod should be redownloaded and reinstalled?
  2. Both of these pull from Spacedock, I'm guessing something might be up there?
  3. The NetKAN file for this mod is configured to pull from Spacedock. No errors on testing the zip directly from there. Looks like it's already been reported in the CKAN thread, so I guess we'll have to wait.
  4. @Icecovery Hmm, something's a bit odd getting this off CKAN: CKAN.InvalidModuleFileKraken: ComfortableLanding V1.6: C:\Users\<my username>\AppData\Local\Temp\tmp72B1.tmp has length 10959456, should be 10959281 at CKAN.NetModuleCache.Store(CkanModule module, String path, String description, Boolean move) at CKAN.NetAsyncModulesDownloader.ModuleDownloadsComplete(NetModuleCache cache, Uri[] urls, String[] filenames, Exception[] errors) I also noticed that the last commit on the git repo has the README.md updated, but no other files committed/updated?
  5. Yeah, the .netkan file uses SpaceDock as a reference to pull this information down. It's possible it could be patched there, but the preference is generally to use references to a primary source that the author updates directly, to avoid them having to remember to manually update the netkan alongside it.
  6. Ah nice, maybe I'll have a play with this; though I'd be a little pained to patch a stock part with additional attachment nodes; what happens if someone uses it, builds a craft attaching parts to the nodes, then removes the patch and loads their save?
  7. So I was looking to fit a stacked Size 0 science part, and ended up needing to use an Size 1 cargo bay just to stack a single module nicely with the other Size 1 parts on my ship, wasting a ton of space in the cargo bay. What I thought would be interesting to see would be a cargo bay with Size 1 attachments either end for stacking, a "fat" centre to allow for space, and four stacked attachment points inside, allowing multiple Size 0 parts to be attached neatly in the final design. Here's a mockup using tweakscale to slightly increase the size of the cargo bay, using some procedural structural parts for smooth size changes, and a plate adapter for attachments. I'm pretty certain it's doable, but I'm no modeller/modder. Can anyone else weigh in? Or can possibly suggest an existing part mod that does something similar?
  8. I do, is that likely to be the cause, or is it a prerequisite? I'll see if I can muster together some logs.
  9. Two issues in 1.4.3.1: 1. Procedural Fairing upgrades show up in the part list, despite not being usable. 2. All but the smallest stock Airstream Protective Shell parts have disappeared, and resizing that one (via Tweakscale I assume) leads to the base becoming stupidly oversized. I'm guessing these two might be related? Maybe it's patching the wrong fairing part, hiding the Airstreams, rather than the procedural fairing upgrade parts?
  10. First of all, I love Octosat, it makes for some beautiful satellites! I'm having an odd issue with the gargantuan dish though; when activated, the opening/closing animation just keeps repeating. It still seems to be working, at least. I've got a bunch of other mods installed, and I may be able to test this with them removed later, but was just interested to know if anyone had seen the same problem. Video:
  11. Reported this in the Mk2Expansion thread, since they should probably fix their version numbering to avoid future headaches
  12. Just a small thing; your version numbering is a bit off Version numbers aren't treated like floats; 2:1.8.1 shouldn't be a newer version than 2:1.8.02 to 2:1.8.06, since naturally sorting those minor versions results in ".06" being treated as the same as ".6", while ".1" isn't treated like ".10". If you meant to release this as ".10", it should have been "2:1.8.10" as the version string, so programs like CKAN can figure out the correct order of release. This also means you can use 3 digit minor version numbers, should you ever need to. It thankfully doesn't cause issues at the moment, since the Compatible KSP Version is different, but if you make a release across the same KSP versions in the future, it might cause issues with people installing older versions of the mod, and reporting already fixed problems in the thread
  13. Just a minor niggle; your version numbering is a bit off. Version numbers between periods are considered numbers in their own right when it comes to software versioning; the entire version string isn't treated like a floating decimal number, for example: 0.5 is the latest version of your mod, but you've got an older versions of v0.14, 0.13, and 0.12 - Because 12, 13, and 14 are all higher than 5, they're considered "newer" versions by applications like CKAN. If these were versions 0.1.2, 0.1.3, and 0.1.4, it wouldn't be a problem, or alternatively if the latest version was 0.50, it would detected it as a newer version. As it is, this isn't the case
  14. Dang, it could be Kopernicus, I've been disabling a bunch of other visual mods, including Scatterer, EVE, and associated packs for it, but I've only been seeing a few more FPS in performance. I'll keep an eye on Kopernicus' updates, and maybe see if there's some configuration changes I can make there.