• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by SchildConstruct

  1. GitHub issue: Reddit thread:
  2. You can also right click a tank, and drain the oxidizer out of it in VAB.
  3. Incompatible: AIES Aerospace – Can't attach parts to bottom stack attach nodes. Mostly compatible: NavHud - Cosmetic issues, and the camera changes create motion sickness. Editor Extensions - Icon doesn't appear, but other functionality is present.
  4. Yes. No. Maybe. Would breaking old stuff create better new stuff? If you want to know whether I, personally, care about backwards compatibility: Nope, I don't care until KSP has gone gold.
  5. Wing shape, rather than leading/trailing edge shape, from a top-down / bottom-up perspective. NURBS / B-Splines. You know, curves!
  6. It works in 5.3, but not 5.4. That confused the heck out of me. I suspected ModuleRCSFX to be to blame at first, because the RealFuels Stockalike config now pulls this in as a dependency on CKAN.
  7. Would curved leading edges be possible, for a more 'organic' look? Or does KSP's engine not allow for curves? I'm certain there'd be all kinds of attachment issues, too.
  8. From the first post: TL;DR: As long as you say who started this (Bodrick), don't sell the mod or any derived works (IANAL, ask one), and use the same license, you can modify this.
  9. Killer feature: Mirror symmetry relative to parent part (booster separation!). No idea if I can do this with the stock editor, and my head hurts from trying.
  10. Breaks CKAN's dependency tracking, and makes Toolbar complain about an incorrect install.
  11. The forum software. It's a mess of PHP and SQL that is difficult to maintain, administer, and use, unlike other forum software, which are usually messes of SQL and PHP, but are impossible to administer, maintain, and difficult to use.
  12. Ah, the good old days of MSDN-AA, eh? Or whatever they calls it now, probably BizSpark somethingorother.
  13. No worries. It doesn't have to be 'just' bends. Think the octagonal strut piece in stock, but in a variant that fits better with larger / smaller structural pieces on the one hand, and that provides 45 deg angle adjustments on the other. Make it look somewhat knobbly (like the adapter pieces you are working on), and it could serve as an aesthetically pleasing part, too, when breaking up long truss pieces.
  14. Not a pretty crane. Also not level with the ground. This would only get worse when adding IR parts for usefulness, instead of mocking. Up. Mocking up, I mean. Now, I have no idea if KSP's parts allow for angled attachment nodes, but here you go (I could live with 'cut outs' for things like this, even, for radial attachment). P.S.: Stupid vBulletin rich text editor failing on Chrome. Gah. So no embeddening of images, I guess.
  15. Try to angle the stock girders, and make 'em look nice. That's where things like that come in. I'll see if I can magic up a screenshot that describes the problem (To visualize: consider arched structures made out of steel. Using angled sections akin to the Roman arch makes things like that easier.). It's easier to build a ramp than a skycrane for me. Fiddling with "Control from here" and such to keep heading and thrust aligned is error prone. Least amount of fuss considering how temperamental the VAB/SPH is with attachment points, and how fiddly it is to get vertical alignment juuuuust right. Mind you, a ramp would be easier if there were more flusher hinges available or something like a piano/continous hinge, with programmable stops (Another reason I used to 90 deg rotated hinge: That way, the stopping point aligns with 90 degrees perpendicular to the base platform without having to file a feature request with IR or, heavens help, read the manual) to control grade. Couple that with a ramp-like telescoping arm, and Wernher von Kerman's your uncle.
  16. Kinetic Kill Vehicles are your friend. Nothing'll ruin your day quite like a soda can hitting you at 6-7 km/s. Cheap, virtually invisible, and difficult to dodge, too. Just seed all the orbits you don't want to ever use again with 'em, and Kessler's your uncle. Logistically (amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics!), smaller ships are easier to deploy, faster to manufacture, but more difficult to service (fuel, repairs, life support, &c.), however they have way smaller heat signatures. In LEO to MEO, that'll be an advantage due to all the noise in lower orbits (natural and man made). Large ships, however, are less fragile (more room for redundancy, and more room to let that KKV's plasma evaporate, like turret skirt armor for tanks), and require less support crew to service the ships, but they are far more intensive in construction. Way bigger heat signatures, too, so whoever is looking at the right spot at the right time with the best sensors wins. Heat also eliminates any kind of weapon that is energy intensive, since water (the natural material with the highest specific heat, making for the best heat sink, is also danged heavy if you want to fire a weapon more than once). No lasers, no rail/coil guns. Missiles, maybe, but those are trivial to intercept at long ranges (and in space, everything is long range). Bomb-pumped lasers might work, being stand-off weapons, but are far-future sci-fi for now. Ground based assets (including fighter/bombers like the F-15 Strike Eagle) with ASAT missiles, or ICBMs will also ruin your day. Contrary to what you think, nuclear weapons would be contact weapons, as there's no atmosphere to transmit the effects of a nuclear explosion. If it'd hit, though, you'd be dead. I think sub-on-sub-warfare comes closest: He who sees the opposition first, wins. But it's far more difficult to pull that off, space having no places to hide (unless you like cooking your crew or fry your electronics. Thermodynamics are over-rated, anyway!).
  17. Throw in some 45deg and 90deg angles, and I'll be a happy camper. Like so? (Stock, plus structural rework, and IR, obviously)
  18. RemoteTech 2 support is missing. Is that intentional?
  19. After actually using the structural parts, a little wish list: * More diameter choices, please. It doesn't have to go from .625m to 5m, but a more thorough line of structural parts would be just great. Currently, attaching the Gigantor solar panels looks odd due to z fighting (flipside: The Gigantor bases look like they were fused together, giving a more integrated look. YMMV.). That said, the amount of lengths feels spot on, especially with the available adapters. But I feel a lack of 'station size' parts. * Some ready-to-slap-on-your-rocket-or-SSTO subassemblies would be nice, too. Things like ramps, fold-out rovers and solar panels, &c. Those could serve as a quick showcase for the whole robotics mod, too. * Naming of the square and round pieces, especially the adapters, isn't wholly intuitive. Don't make me think, darn it. I <3 this. P.S.: I don't know how, but you've managed to make the IR hinges, rotatrons, &c. stand out far less already. Very nice.
  20. How 'bout doing it like "GameData/[Rework|Dev]MagicSmokeIndustries"? That is easily identifiable, and can be used for MSI dev and stable releases, both. Question would be one of how KSP/Unity loads files, though, to avoid name collisions. That's up in the air, given Unity's idiosyncrasies.
  21. Calling the folder "_Rework_Structural" may come back to bite you. It'll make upgrading from pre-release to final release a bit of a hassle, unless you maintain the name indefinitely (well, close enough to that, anyway). I know, it *is* a pre-release / preview, but we all know that users don't make distinctions like that.
  22. Good point, but of little educational value to me. I figured you would.
  23. That sounds good. Would need some nifty icons for the types of manoeuvres (launch, decoupling, ascending an orbit, descending an orbit, plane change, etc) for ease of use, but it is definitely doable, ideally as a simple drag and drop thing.