INSULINt

Members
  • Content Count

    229
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by INSULINt

  1. Even as an option this would be great for some science only depth, especially with all the added biomes. So much more science out there
  2. Honestly, a setting for this would be WONDERFUL!!!!! I say this having just started a science save, and was all like WHAT?!?!?!???!!!5-stars???????? It could even fit into all the save styles and difficulties, on by default in easy, off for normal->hard
  3. cube = less math Thanks for this btw. It's a really nice standalone from Intersteller, looks great in it's own right, and I don't have all the extra headache from WasteHeat/MegaJoules/etc.
  4. Marvtobi, also note my post about having the pod as the root part altering the symmetry somewhat. The advantage to the octagonal is that you can build, copy, flip and place the other side, but you do lose the t-800 tank and such for balancing with the SAS modules. All in all, I am glad my posts have been somewhat helpful Most of it was done on about 3 hours sleep (and thanks to Echo, I may not get any ever again!)
  5. I am just all about ksp today apparently...... started working on my amphibious vtol again. Needs less draft:
  6. some quick tests: seems that the root affects the symmetry..... pod->cubic->tank, keeping the root as the pod: Centered up the tanks on the top of the tank as: then moved the mouse so they flipped to the side. Rotated once with Q. The really strange part is that the part seems to have more snap points in the middle and is easier to center on the edges of the end of the mk2 tank since more points means that moving the mouse a little actually moves the part your attaching instead of it staying centered, so rotating it into the mk2 tank seemed like a better option I know this probably seems a little ranty by now LOL. I did not expect this much of a difference in the editor from them combining the VAB and SPH scenes...... Last edit, promise: It seems as though switching the root part from the pod to the mk2 tank, etc, is the key to getting the right symmety. You basically have to build one set of side tanks without the mk2 adapters, then symmetry them with the pod being root. The following was the result of pod > cubic > mk2 tank > place 1 t-800 tank > set root to mk2 tank > place cubic/gear/intake on symmetry and "center" without node attach > set root to pod > pick up t-800, re place with symmetry, add/balance cubic/2x torque. Then engine+cubic assembly is on the mk2 tank symmetried while the pod was the root: and all of that was done without flipping the craft around at all.....
  7. the part/ship relativity only works for radial. It's basically for if you want to add something at 4x sym on a part that was attached with 8x, or a similar situation. I haven't tested it, but I imagine that 2x sym on an 8x part wouldn't lead to 16x sym, but something like the (old) sym bug where you would go to attach a part to a sym'ed part and it would attach 2(or more) to just that part instead of distroing the new part amongst all the sym copies. I've tried a couple of different methods of building the spectre and the one that shows promise is starting with a command pod, attaching a cubic to the front, attaching a mk2 tank radially to that and rotating the tank to hide most of the pod. You end up having to use a cubic strut to build the octag+cubic assembly cus symmetry screws up, attaching 2 cubics to one side of the octag. I also include a cubic to the bottom for the engines. Seems to work well. Just leave the space between the mk2 adapters so you can fuel line from them to the octag and fuel flows from the 4 outer tanks evenly first, then the main mk2 tank. Starting with the tank as root doesn't let you easily get the pod centered but I haven't messed around with the root select thing, so maybe changing the root part to the tank after building the pod/cubic/tank would make the symmetry work for the end caps, which would make it less of a pain placing everything one by one. Balancing the craft with the counterweight torque modules is ....ty cus you can't really slide things up or down anything without them showing, but maybe adding the 1/2 length tanks to the cubics on the end caps would make that work. Maybe even adding RCS tanks with flow shut off for ballast? I know torque>unusable fuel...... Just some thoughts/experiences from this morning.....
  8. Still works in 0.90! Just don't put the beacon or drive as the bottom part cus it'll fall through the pad causing explosiveness
  9. I may have found a way to get around the symmetry issue using octagonal and cubic octags: the symmetry is for each side, so you build 1 side, zoom in, alt-grab-duplicate the main octagonal strut, and place on the other side. You'll have to rotate it to get it in the right orientation, and holding alt while placing stuff really helps! For some reason there is almost a ghost node or something since you can put the mk2 adapter tanks with a space between them, or not. I haven't tested to see if it affects fuel flow, or even what fuel issues there are, but I hope this helps somewhat.
  10. It seems as though symmetry is now applied from the perspective of the part now? For example you use to be able to orient a mk2 fuel tank with the top facing the sph exit and place something on the ends of that tank. Now when you try that it doubles up the part you're trying to place at one end of the mk2 tank. The old method was great for faking center snapping. illustrates the old method really well!
  11. Ok. What the hell did squad do???????? Just tested and it appears that symmetry is now applied from a part perspective instead of from the perspective of the building? Edit: started this - http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/103646-Bring-back-building-perspective-symmetry-application
  12. Ok, I literally just re watched the master class part 2 and you should be able to build exactly the same as that in place mode. The way radial symmetry happens should still be based on your orientation in the hanger, with stuff attaching to the sides facing the 2 walls without the flag
  13. Huh. Sounds like I'm gonna have to do some testing :/ the way symmetry seemed to work in .25 and earlier was that in the sph the parts slid forward and back, and snapped to an angle up/down. This meant that if you positioned your centre part with the top facing forward you could essentially center snap along the horizontal axis and slide vertically. If you build a rocket vertically in the sph with the top facing up instead of forward you should be able to get easy vertically snapped 2x symmetry for asparagus staging, although you would have to rotate the craft 60° twice. All this obviously only really applies for 2x mirror symmetry unless you want stuff off center or facing the wrong direction. I don't really see how this would've changed even with a dedicated rotation mode...... As for the key binding to switch symmetry modes: alt-r? Or [mod]+R for a more general, non windows specific definition
  14. Or you could just do what I do and sub to all the mod threads and get it e-mailed every day or week. Looking at the title of the thread is usually enough to see if it's been updated especially if you keep all the mod zips in one place
  15. I put the sound files in a separate IonEngineSounds\Sounds folder and just changed the folder path in the config to keep mod things separate from stock, but it totally works Now I can have sounds again for those 10 hour burns
  16. Cool You ever consider doing a "part mode" option like engineer? Just out of curiosity
  17. Absolutely amazing! I can barely design a craft that has enough dV to do an orbit tour of Jool/moons and return, that can actually launch in the first place
  18. Anyone else having physics issues with the computer core? It just falls thru the pad. Wierd thing is it disconnects from the decoupler stack attached to it, but remains attached to the pb-nuk on it radially. It swings beneath the pad like a clock pendulum!
  19. I noticed there is a cfg with the following in the folder: @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand]]:FOR[Trajectories] { MODULE { name = TrajectoriesVesselSettings } } Just wondering what this does, because I modified it to only add that module to specific parts yet I can still access the interface without those parts. Just toying with the idea of making some probe cores "flight computers" and such.
  20. I must be blind cus I can't find them EDIT: LOL I really was blind. Was looking for examples on the sparse wiki page, not the test page full of cfgs Anyways "stringvar ^= :$:stuff to add:" works wonderfully
  21. Can the += operator be used on string values like name and descriptions?