technerd89

Members
  • Content Count

    64
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About technerd89

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Nertea, I nearly fell out of my chair when I saw this update. And I am tingling at the idea of using it for exactly what you very clearly intended it for...
  2. I have found a little hiccup in what I assume is the attachment nodes for the side fairings. Its a very minor thing, but something I spotted quickly so I assume others have too, and I know that with your attention to detail @sumghai you'll want to adjust it. There's a gap in the seam between the two fairings, enough that you can see through it.
  3. Congratulations to Necro and SpaceY for its mention in the KSP Developer blog! http://kerbaldevteam.tumblr.com/post/128583461488/modding-monday-spacey-expanded
  4. I regret to inform you that this particular issue is a game-breaking bug for career mode. If you attempt to fly, or load a craft file, using the stock Aerodynamic Nose Cone, during a phase of your game where you do not have the CST-100's parts unlocked in the tech tree, your game will bug out and your craft become corrupted, due to it attempting to load a part you do not yet own. Please publish a build with the fix for the "name=noseCone" issue as soon as possible to prevent the hysteria of broken crafts. Thanks
  5. A quick fun fact before someone complains about it: After some testing, the weight of pretty much any 7.5 meter stack will almost invariably cause the E4 Emu engine to become stuck to the surface of the launch pad, wasting almost half of your fuel before the TWR changes sufficiently to release it. Use those launch clamps folks!
  6. I dont have the slightest clue how to write a MM patch, but for someone who can, or for those of you brave enough to manually edit the config for the heatshield, here are the changes needed to bring this in line with the stock 1.25m heatshield in 1.0.4. Change thermalMassModifier = 0.001 to thermalMassModifier = 1.0 Change MODULE { name = ModuleAblator ablativeResource = Ablator lossExp = -9000 lossConst = 20 pyrolysisLossFactor = 10000 reentryConductivity = 0.01 ablationTempThresh = 500 } to MODULE { name = ModuleAblator ablativeResource = Ablator lossExp = -6000 lossConst = 1 pyrolysisLossFactor = 600 reentryConductivity = 0.01 ablationTempThresh = 500 } Fair warning, these are untested changes that im implementing myself as I write this, but the values make it identical to the stock heat shield, exception being that the Corvus heatshield has a slightly higher maxTemp due to the additional weight of the pod vs a Mk 1. Good luck, pilots. Edit: Just tested the above on a smooth re-entry from Minmus (initial Pe of 20km, speed on atmo entry 3250m/s) and it held up quite well. Lost about 35 ablator. Works great.
  7. I think the decoupler config for the 3.75m adapter might be a little off in 0.4. I just used it and it sent my CSM into a spin.
  8. I've seen a lot of discussion and debate about the scale of the pod, and just to add my 2 cents about it, I think that the pods scale should be determined by a plausible IVA capacity. If you intend to cram 7 kerbals in to this thing, then it should look big enough to fit 7 kerbals inside it. Simple as that. I definitely have high hopes for this mod and I definitely see it as a front-runner in the competition against SDHI (which I love dont get me wrong) for a complete spacecraft system. Im not quite willing to throw it in to my install in its current state but I will definitely follow this.
  9. Hey folks, anyone (Nert) know anything about "MarkIVSystem/Parts/RCS/mk4rcsblister-2"? It pops up in my career tech tree but doesnt show up in the part chooser, presumably because of its category assignment of -1. Its also missing a texture, unless it pulls from the same .dds as the other included RCS part. Are these vestigial remnants of an incomplete part?
  10. Would you consider making some hubs and gangways that match the full profile of the other modules? As nice of a form profile as these parts have, it seems a shame to have to break them up using 1.25m tubes.
  11. A question I pose to those of you who use this mod. I understand that the author currently lists this mod as not career-friendly because of possible pricing and balance issues. That being said, surely some of you have thrown caution to the wind and given it a try? How is it measuring up so far, do you feel comfortable throwing it in there? Id like to hear some opinions before I install.
  12. Bug Report: Heavy RCS Blister floats far outwards from the surface of attachment in both angle snap and free placement modes. Bug Report: Noticeable seam on Mk4 Dual Adaptor (perhaps a slight scale issue) Bug Report: Texture mis-alignment and slight z-fighting on service bay front and back (nodes?)
  13. A bit tragic about the noticeably visible docking port issue. Still impressive.
  14. No texture issues noticed so far. Nodes on the propeller-based engines need orientation adjustment. And of course a great many part flavor texts remain unwritten.
  15. Is that something that we simple users can fix in our installs?