• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by INSULINt

  1. It would really depend on how large your orbits are in the first place. Smaller orbits means that 100km is a bigger angular difference in velocity vectors. I imagine somewhere around kerbin stationary would work since even at 100km separation you would both be travelling in relatively similar directions. You could probably do a lot better using conventional engines, and easier since you would still have to negate the difference in vectors once you got closer.
  2. Tweakscale is awesome for the fact that you can have multiple parts for one spot in the vab/sph list.
  3. In relation to the FAR/NEAR issues: Do fairings help? Procedural or otherwise?
  4. Look a few posts up in WaveFunctionP's signature for a working version. You'll have to delete all the old interstellar files and freshly install the mod, but it fixes that problem
  5. I wish people wouldn't use "science sandbox". It confused me at first as well. It's sandbox (where you have everything), science (collect science to unlock parts) and career (collect science for parts while operating within the constraints of a monetary budget)
  6. Possible bugs: computer core keeps functioning in sandbox without megajoules or a reactor/gen combo. Also doesn't consume mj unless there is a reactor/gen attached......
  7. Has tree loader been updated at all in the last while? The last time I used it shortly before 0.24 it kept stalling out my graphics drivers. Wierd, I know, but the problem stopped when I got rid of it. I haven't installed the one included in the experimental version of kspi for that reason, and just stuck to sandbox. I don't think I get the tree update message either....... LOL
  8. Another thing, does the warp drive play nice with deadly reentry g force limits?
  9. Mlah: I had the same problem. Downloaded the experimental version from WaveFunctionP's signature and that worked
  10. Random question, but in sandbox are all the parts automatically the upgraded versions? I've tried searching, but this is a REALLY long thread lol
  11. acc is right, it doesn't. I used the same format as the v4 config of this fix mod to keep things standard. Actually, I forgot to change the tweakables part of the script from the anchored to the normal module type. Not sure if it makes a difference, and it will only affect anything if you have tweakables installed. Which I don't, hence I didn't notice the typo until now I was just so excited that it worked!
  12. Totally just glad I could stumble on the solution! The value for decouple force is the same as the tall radial stock decoupler btw. A little over powered on small stuff maybe, but even huge fairings push off, slowly.
  13. WORKING FIX HERE: Needs the decoupler fix mod in that thread, modulemanager, and the cfg file/text in that post.
  14. YYYYYYYYHHHHHHHHHHHEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111 Spent so much time thinking I needed to REPLACE the procedural decoupler that I didn't think until after lunch that maybe I should just ADD the x64 fix as another module. It works. It works so awesome. Im sure its too powerful or that the anchored one might work better, but this works, it works now, and I really feel the need to share it. just add this file anywhere in GameData (I have mine in the "DecoupleForX64" folder): http://www./view/olghjzm08l8kl1p obvs requires the fix dll and modulemanager. or copypasta this: @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ProceduralFairingDecoupler]]:FOR[DecoupleForX64]:NEEDS[!TweakableEverything] { MODULE { name = ModuleDecoupleX64 ejectionForce = 260 explosiveNodeID = connect } } @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ProceduralFairingDecoupler]]:AFTER[TweakableEverything]:NEEDS[TweakableEverything] { MODULE { name = ModuleDecoupleX64 ejectionForce = 260 explosiveNodeID = connect } @MODULE[ModuleTweakableDecouple] { @decouplerModuleName = ModuleAnchoredDecouplerX64 } }
  15. Got them to decouple with force, but it seems like all the fairing sides connected to a base are treated as one piece:
  16. I got PF to sortof work. Since the PF decouple module doesn't include the ejection force or node vars, I tested around adding them: @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ProceduralFairingDecoupler]]:FOR[DecoupleForX64]:NEEDS[!TweakableEverything] { @MODULE[ProceduralFairingDecoupler] { @name = ModuleAnchoredDecouplerX64 anchorName = anchor ejectionForce = 260 explosiveNodeID = connect } } @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ProceduralFairingDecoupler]]:AFTER[TweakableEverything]:NEEDS[TweakableEverything] { @MODULE[ProceduralFairingDecoupler] { @name = ModuleAnchoredDecouplerX64 anchorName = anchor ejectionForce = 260 explosiveNodeID = connect } @MODULE[ModuleTweakableDecouple] { @decouplerModuleName = ModuleAnchoredDecouplerX64 } } It sortof works. If you eject both sides (even added WITHOUT symmetry) it doesn't do anything. It detaches, but all in one piece. Now, if you eject one side, then the other, in different stages, the whole fairing shoots off to one side. Anyone wanna take a better stab at it? EDIT: even if I change to "ModuleDecouplex64" and remove the anchor the fairing sides still stick together. Ejection still has force.
  17. Adjusting the torque to max doesn't make that much difference. I'd simply go with KW until this was fixed, but I use the fuselage mode in a few things..... Which may be why torque isn't doing much?
  18. I cannot get the decoupler fix or right clicking to do anything different than by staging normally. Hopefully this gets fixed. "upgrading back to 32bit" just seems like giving up Plus I enjoy not needing ATM or even needing to think about what I have installed when it comes to textures
  19. Just tried that and it didn't work any different Great fix for the stock decouplers though!
  20. just using :FINAL seems to work in ksp 0.24 stock. 11 patches, 0 hidden. Anyone tried this with things like fairings? Not sure how KW works, but procedural seems to use its own module. Gonna mess around with it a bit now...... wish me luck Neither module works as a replacement or addition to the fairing parts. Shame. I figured this would be something that would be solved by squad......
  21. The plates are basically just a slight reskin of the 1x1 and 2x2 plates, but without mass. They are meant to be used as a starting object to build a whole, attachable, vehicle as a single subassembly. This basically just started as a personal frustration I have with creating things like probes, balancing their rcs, but then saving them as a subassembly that is properly attachable to a docking port, or even a radial decoupler. Right now if I was to create a vertically symmetrical probe with a single set of rcs ports, balancing them would be guesswork, and trial and error, even using the stock plates since they have mass. Creating that probe with 2 sets of rcs would involve saving the rcs tank wth the rcs (and whatever else) on it, then reconstructing the docking ports, tank assembly and probe body separately on the main vehicle I wanted it on. Saving the docking port with the subassembly isn't an option, since the attach point of the assembly is either JUST on the tank, or I've used the port as a parent object to the tank, and whatever the port is attached to has probably affected the rcs balance. So I copied, and edited the stock plates to have no mass, so that I can use them to create a WHOLE, complete vehicle that I can attach in one step, the way i want, and have it's rcs balanced. It's kindof a time saver (and a little easier) when you want to attach multiple of the same thing to a launcher for example. Just drag 1 subassembly over each time! One thing I also changed, is I made it so they are as weak as anything can get in this game, so they can't be used to make a massless monster of a ship. More of a balance thing I guess, but useful for creating fireworks at vehicle unpack: I haven't changed anything for the career mode placement yet, since I don't play that mode, but I might do that later. Anyways, file: http://www./download/x17hyizexb5q5sf/ Imgur gallery: