• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by technerd89

  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!
  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?
  16. That's a very nice looking psuedo-ICPS. I recognize the KW tanks and parts, but how did you manage the 2.5 -> 1.25 adapter section with the mono tanks?
  17. Well I am sorry to hear about the untimely accidents. Admittedly it makes me feel a little bit less of a plebe to hear that you shared a similar difficulty in launching your drive section while full. *Edit: While completing the merger of my pressurized and drive sections (if its not clear this thread has inspired me to build a Kron-alike), and strengthening the structural integrity with KAS/KIS struts, my vessel suffered a rapid unplanned dis-assembly. I think it was a wonky physics thing caused by strutting two hard-docked vessels together? Its possible that some kind of weird KAS bug was what destroyed Kron 4-Alpha.*
  18. How on earth did you get your propulsion and energy module in to orbit? I built a similarly sized drive section using Near Future parts and LiqHydrogen/Ox tanks, it weighs almost 160 tons, barely fits in to a P-fairing. I did an asparagus 5-meter launcher with 67,000 thrust (the exhaust blew the launch pad apart) and still could not get out of the soup.
  19. @YANFRET, to piggy-back on this, do you have any intention on doing as you have with previous releases and putting out a "lite" version containing only the parts to build a functional Orion MPCV and launcher? Frankly I dont even care about the launching system, as long as I get the stack from the LES down to the ICPS lol.
  20. I cannot help but feel like this particular release is a step backwards in certain areas. For one it seems like the scale and fit of certain parts needs a lot of polish, particularly in the area of command pods and the things that are designed to attach to them. The Mk16 (1.25m) parachute is laughably small and does not fit the 1.25m pod. The Mk1-2 pod seems to be slightly to small relative to its corresponding hardware, particularly in the area of the 2.5m heatshield having a noticeable seam. Also the Mk16XL and standard Clamp-o-Tron are poor fits. What happened to the Clamp-o-Tron/Parachute hybrid? Admittedly I am somewhat spoiled by the SDHI setup, and am loath to use a Mk1-2 pod that doesnt have a port/chute any more. I do like the new escape shell cover, but again without a useful piece of hardware for the top of a 1-2 pod, it is doomed to crater. Please forgive my somewhat harsh criticism, it is meant to be constructive and of course subject to interpretation.
  21. You know, I think sumghai had something going in his SDHI Service Module that involved a decoupler that could only be fired via action group. Perhaps you could consult with him on that. Also now that attachment nodes sense orientation, these little buggers shouldnt be nearly as difficult to attach any more.
  22. You know, I've recently had a similar issue with the new stock service bays, so I would be willing to bet that this is a KSP thing.
  23. I really like how the heavy 3.75m engine resembles an RS-68 used on a Delta IV Heavy, kudos for that. I do have two questions. First, does your MM patch for the fuel tanks affect third-party tanks such as KW's? Frankly the stock tanks are fugly and I'll phase them out as soon as better modded tanks catch up to 1.0. Second, and the dumber of the two, what exactly the is the ...appeal of using these engines. Maybe I am a little plebeian, but theyre more expensive, and require considerably more fuel to get the same dV. Is high ISP their sole redeeming merit or is there something else to them?
  24. I hate to ask such a question because it almost seems insulting to your work and original intent for these engines, but would you consider writing an optional config for using standard LF/O?
  25. Like most part mods, chances are this will need a rework of dV/TWR for its engines, a check of its nodes, and since this mod includes shrouds/fairings, they will all need appropriate heat configuration and aerodynamic features added.