lodestar
-
Posts
251 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by lodestar
-
-
7 hours ago, Nertea said:
You might want to post your log. Usually missing texture = broken and won't load part though, not white.
I looked into the log and found out all parts with white textures have an error like this:
[ERR 19:22:47.010] PartCompiler: Cannot replace texture 'Nerva003' as cannot find texture 'Squad/Parts/Engine/liquidEngineLV-N/model000' to replace with
It works when I whitelist that. Thanks.
For linux players, I used this command line to generate a whitelist from the KSP.log file:<KSP.log grep "to replace with" | cut -d"'" -f4 | rev | cut -d"/" -f2- | rev | sort | uniq | sed -e 's/$/\//'
-
What an amazing job you guys did. It's a really great mod. I would have paid for this, and would be more satisfied than when I paid for the making history expansion.
I have a few modded parts appearing without textures, and I'm trying to come up with the whitelist for them, but I think I'm doing something wrong. For example, the two mass drivers from the Stockalike Mining Extension mod are rendered with some white parts, which I assume are stock textures missing, even though the part directory seems to have copies of the stock textures.
MODEL { model = MiningExpansion/Parts/Size1Driver/Model texture = Mainsail2, Squad/Parts/Engine/liquidEngineMainsail/model002 texture = Size3AdvancedEngineDiffuse, Squad/Parts/Engine/Size3AdvancedEngine/Size3AdvancedEngineDiffuse texture = ksp_s_processorSmall_diff, Squad/Parts/Resources/MiniISRU/ksp_s_processorSmall_diff texture = TriBitDrill, Squad/Parts/Resources/RadialDrill/TriBitDrill }I created a MiningExpansion.restockwhitelist file like this:
Squad/Parts/Engine/liquidEngineMainsail/ Squad/Parts/Engine/Size3AdvancedEngine/ Squad/Parts/Resources/MiniISRU/ Squad/Parts/Resources/RadialDrill/
But it doesn't seem to have any effect. -
On 2/2/2019 at 12:55 PM, Boamere said:
I made one for myself actually. Probably should have posted it here
Here it is: Beans
I'm not too sure how bays work with USI so It may not be 100%
Thanks! Just one minor thing. The entry for the PPD-24 has a misplaced closing brace, so the config wasn't being applied at all.
-
//PPD-24 Itinerant Service Container
-
@PART[utility-pod-25]:NEEDS[USILifeSupport]
-
-
}
-
{
-
-
I'm experiencing a strange glitch whenever I place the 4 bay core between other parts. When under thrust, the core is compressed like a spring, and oscillates non-stop when thrust is cut-off. The whole ship is tore apart by the oscillations.
KSP 1.5.1, US2 1.6.0.9
-
Is anyone else experiencing this problem where no other stack decouplers appear in the VAB or SPH when the procedural decoupler is loaded? They appear in the R&D center when I research the nodes, but they are missing from the parts list in the VAB or SPH. After I deleted the cfg for the procedural decoupler, they appear correctly.
-
The "Land at target" seems to be broken. What I usually do is:
1. Pick the target
2. Enable the "Land at target"
3. Let it run the deorbit burn and wait until it goes into warp or goes jittery.
4. If there's no atmosphere and you have TWR>2, at this point you can just disable the "Land at target", enable the "Land at somewhere" and it should get you very close to the desired location.
5. If there's an atmosphere, or you have low TWR, disable the "Land at target" and set Smart A.S.S. to SVEL-. Every few seconds, enable the "Land at target" function again and check if it's in the braking phase, with a target speed. If it is, let it run. If not, disable, wait and try again.
I just landed a dozen containers on Duna within a 100m radius using this method.
-
Looking great. My video card fried and I'm waiting for the new one, but I'll check the new version next week.
-
3 hours ago, TiktaalikDreaming said:
Well, it's now even textured.
I'm running through some config tweaks (fixing the masses, making a mono only service module, changing descriptions etc) and then I'll upload the current progress.
That's really nice. You just made my day. I've wanted something like that for a while.
-
4 hours ago, TiktaalikDreaming said:
I was going to do an engine until I noticed the poodle works quite nicely. It's by no means an integrated heatshield though. I'm personally a bit dubious about heat shields with engines in them unless there's a door or engine cover type arrangement. And re-entry heatshields work best as a single blunt surface. I'll consider. If you check out the NAR MEM, there's one solution, but the re-entry atmo effects from Mars are significantly less than an Earth type body. And, it requires building a craft around that capability. I'll check how they did it in KSPX or RLA SA.
And, a truncated aerospike makes perfect sense. But, I'd just like to take a moment to wonder why I always end up modding truncated aerospike engines.
Well... this is what I'm talking about:
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/surfaceorbit.php#plugnozzle
Or this:
http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/surfaceorbit.php#rombus
And the bottom left engine here is the one from RLA-SA I mentioned. Obviously, the nozzles are much larger on this one, but it's the same idea.
-
That would be great with a truncated aerospike engine doubling as a heatshield. I think KSPX or RLA Stockalike had one like that, but it was 2.5m and doesn't scale well.
-
So, I just captured an asteroid that has weird pink lines, like scratches, all over the surface. Is that a glitch, an easter egg, a feature, or what?
-
On 8/17/2016 at 6:23 PM, bokrif said:
I got this mod installed via CKAN (Bahamuto Dynamics Parts Pack and BahamutoD Animation Modules). I grabbed the animatin module .dll from the above linked Quiztech pack, but still the parts doesn't function as they were originally.
Most likely I'm missing something, but what? Can you give me some hints?
I would really like to use the XT Landertron for smart rocket aided landing with the animation.
You don't really need that. There's a new version of the XT Landertron that uses the BD models with generic animations. I think it's this one. Take a look: https://github.com/Kerbas-ad-astra/XTLandertron
-
15 minutes ago, stub said:
I think the mass driver's raison d'etre is for pushing asteroids around, and it should be much better at it than the alternatives. I also agree they are greatly overpowered for general use. This is why I was thinking a mass increase could be a better alternative to only lowering the Isp or thrust. An extra 20t of mass would make them totally impractical for other uses, and turn getting them into place a logistical challenge. But once hooked up to a big asteroid, the extra mass is insignificant and they can shine in their role.
(Just guessing at the 20t - I haven't done the math)
If you want to balance it by increasing mass, the engine has to be at least three hundred tons. That's how grossly unbalanced it is. By merely increasing it to 30t it would still be greatly overpowered and far above even the best engine from NFP.
-
26 minutes ago, DStaal said:
I haven't gotten around to capturing an asteroid with this yet - I haven't had any good candidates in a while - but as an option to balance could the fuel be bulky and dense? That is: you don't get many units of fuel in a tank, and it'll weigh a lot to do so. Do that with an increase in EC usage, and you get an engine that'll be a lot harder to abuse, while still being useful for it's intended purpose.
AFAIK, tank units are based on volume, not mass, and Isp is impulse per unit weight of propellant, so what you're saying is to lower the Isp. That's an option too.
As for the point of this discussion - well I think as interested players we want the part to suit the role RoverDude designed it for and to feel balanced. You seem to feel at least part of that equation is off, so the question is how best to fix it.
(And whether that's just your opinion or if it actually needs a fix.)
Fitting the role and being balanced are different things. I think RoverDude doesn't care much about balance with respect to other mods. He's generous enough to make his work available, and we're free to choose how we want to play.
The engine is unbalanced with respect to the stock and NF engines. That's a mathematical fact, not an opinion. Being unbalanced makes the game less fun for me. That's an opinion.
-
4 hours ago, goldenpsp said:
Well that is a good point. It's been awhile since I have used it. I knew the K+ tanks are not fillable but did not remember the others. Of course you could just not fill the tanks and capture an asteroid, which is what I've always done.
I'm OK with roleplaying when it's a workaround for some problem that can't be easily fixed. For instance, I hate how parachutes disappear on landing, which makes it way too easy to design unmanned landers. That's not easy to fix, so I roleplay that, and I always design to avoid the parachute landing on top. An unbalanced part is something easy to fix in my own game, there's no need to roleplay around it.
Even if you have to capture an asteroid to get the fuel -- which doesn't make sense, as it's just throwing disposable mass away -- it's still too easy, because the engine is insanely overpowered. Capturing an asteroid isn't a challenge at all once you learn how to do it, and then you have plenty of fuel for an engine that's 100 times better than any realistic engine available in the stock game or mods.
Frankly, I don't see the point of this discussion. If you like it as it is, go for it, but it's grossly overpowered, that's a fact.
-
2 hours ago, goldenpsp said:
If it feels like cheating don't use it?
Or fix it, which is what I did.
2 hours ago, goldenpsp said:I know I'm bad at KSP but catching an asteroid, bringing it back, and mining it just for the fuel is not a minor undertaking. @RoverDude's K+ engines are seriously OP as well, but getting the fuel for them is a serious challenge.
Yes, but you don't have to catch an asteroid to use the Mass Driver engines. You can fill a Rock tank at the VAB. That's the problem. You can't fill a K+ tank at the VAB, getting the fuel is a serious challenge, so that kind of balances it out.
-
10 hours ago, stub said:
However, lowering the thrust further would make it even harder (and less fun) trying to capture even medium asteroids.
Fun is subjective. I don't have fun when something is so easy it feels like cheating.
How about if instead the engines become much heavier, eg. by bolting the ISRU model to the top of the engine model to represent the complex machinery required to transport and convert raw unprocessed solid material into something suitable for being blasted out of the back of a rocket in real time. Heavy enough that a rock powered engine can't be used to take off from Kerbin for sure, or maybe even Minmus. Keep the ISP, but get the TWR in line with ion drives. It should make using them less practicable than nuclear engines, unless you have an asteroid attached for its fuel supply.
The engine is unbalanced by two orders of magnitude in comparison with other electric engines. If you want to make it balanced, you have to adjust its parameters to bring it in line with the others. As I mentioned above, I did it in my game by adjusting TWR and Ec/s by a 10x factor. If you think reducing TWR by 100x works better for you, go for it.
-
5 hours ago, sarbian said:
Congratulation. You killed my will to help with that issue.
That was sarcasm. I'm not that stupid.
-
This is awesome @RoverDude. Looks like the rover from The Last Days on Mars. Great job.
-
7 hours ago, Padishar said:
That isn't how this mod works. This mod only increases the calling of the garbage collector, it forces a collection at the specified interval but, if lots of garbage is being created then the collections will still be run by Mono automatically.
So, my theory is wrong, but it still helped somehow.
7 hours ago, Padishar said:While it would be very nice if this did directly affect the random crashes, the nature of random crashes (especially ones that appear to be multi-threading related) is such that any change in internal program behaviour can have a significant effect. Two people with subjective reports are certainly not statistically relevant so please don't do anything that will flood this thread with people looking for a fix for the crashes.
Too late buddy. I already posted it on reddit as "The solution for all random VAB crashes". Prepare to be boarded!
-
@sarbian I experienced some stuttering, but I'm used to it and it doesn't bother me. The mod doesn't help with that, but setting the interval to 10s helped with the random VAB crashes I've been experiencing since the 1.1 update, which seems to be GC related. This bug.
I noticed how right before the crashes there was a short pause. No crash report and nothing on the logs, but sometimes I'd get a memory related error on the terminal, like *** Error in `./KSP.x86_64': double free or corruption (out): 0x00007f83328ef200 ***. I think there's something wrong happening if the GC cycle runs while you are removing a part that has staging, and setting a long interval makes that more unlikely.
-
I realized the USI ART Mass Driver engines are grossly overpowered, and I'm trying to write an MM patch to reduce thrust and increase Ec consumption ratio by 10x each. This patch reduces thrust, but Ec consumption is unchanged. Any idea on what I'm doing wrong?
Spoiler@PART[HA_MassDriver_250]:AFTER[UmbraSpaceIndustries]
{
@MODULE[ModuleEngines]
{
@maxThrust /= 10
@PROPELLANT[ElectricCharge]{
@ratio *= 10
}
}@MODULE[ModuleRCS]
{
@thrusterPower /= 10
@PROPELLANT[ElectricCharge]{
@ratio *= 10
}
}
} -
On 5/10/2016 at 8:05 PM, njmksr said:
Does anyone know where I can get the spacetech escape pod anymore? I was hoping to update/retool it for 1.1.
This is the original release. I think I have a version fixed for 0.90 or 1.0.5 somewhere in my Windows partition, which I haven't used for a while I'll try to find it later.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/15095346/Escape_Pod_V1.8.zip
-
Someone mentioned how the Mass Driver seems overpowered. That's an understatement. I was building a large transfer ship for a Duna mission and just for fun I decided to add the Mass Driver with rock tanks and check if it would work, and it was insane. It was outperforming the Colossus MPD engine from NF Propulsion, which requires almost 2000 ec/s! It's so overpowered it feels like cheating. I did some back of the envelope calculations comparing with a few other electric engines and it outperforms them by two orders of magnitude, considering thrust power over Ec ratio. It's clear it was supposed to be a low thrust engine, so I decided to balance it for myself by increasing Ec consumption ratio by 10x and reducing thrust by 10x.
(And whether that's just your opinion or if it actually needs a fix.)
[1.12.3] Restock - Revamping KSP's art (Feb 25)
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted
There seems to be some incompatibility with the RealChute mod.
I just started a new game with the mod and I couldn't get my first manned ship into orbit. By the time I decoupled the first stage, almost 2000m/s dv spent, I was still below 100m/s. I looked into Mechjeb's ascent stats and drag losses were over 1000m/s. I tried again with the aerodynamic overlay on, and the packed MK-16 chute on top of the Mk1 pod was dragging during the whole ascent. The same problem happened with the radial chute. The problem is gone after removing the RealChute mod.
Is anyone else experiencing this?