kimiko
-
Posts
100 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by kimiko
-
-
21 hours ago, CliftonM said:
@kimiko, I've started work on the fire extinguisher, and when I finish that, I'll see about doing the sprinklers:
That looks absolutely amazing!!!
Can't wait for it! : D
-
2 hours ago, Azimech said:
I see I can give my parts a custom configuration, that's great! Is there already a possibility to add custom resources as well? For example ... all my ships run on HeavyFuelOil because LiquidFuel had a flow rules problem. I also wonder if it could be possible to create explosions without destroying the part but disabling all present modules (ModuleResourceConverter and ModuleGenerator for example).
There are no option for custom resources yet, it's something I intend to do as soon as things get more streamlined, I.e. if the current game-play mechanics works properly and is somewhat satisfyingly balanced. I'm still having a play-through of my own, and I expect some will raise their if something is dissatisfying. If not, that probably means it is...
There are ways of having things influence other modules yes, as well as making events such as fake explosions. KKS has some nice, "built-in" instructions on how to write that type event-style add-ons based on damage sustained by the KKS add-on. Not sure yet that is within the scope of this add-on at the moment though.
-
23 minutes ago, Andem said:
What if it used dry mass to determine the potential it could hold, and then checked if it
A- Had crew capacity. If so, add 10 more units of potential seawater storage.
B- Was in structural. If so, divide amount of seawater by 10 or something.
etc., so it'll automatically do that. I'll try, but my code will be a horrible abomination FYI.
Well that's one more way of doing it, it doesn't mean it's going to be accurate, and would still have to be tested with the majority of parts to be somewhat accurate. So, if it has to be tested with the majority of parts then may as well do individual configurations. I have tried numerous way of automation, including calculating from mass, but it simply doesn't scale well. And relying on "flags"/tags for determining the type of part, just ends up with more flags than practical, I.e. individual configs is even less work. However, if you do have a properly working algorithm for doing it automatically or other suggestions, I am all ears though : D
-
On 07/04/2016 at 10:31 PM, Andem said:
I know this is designed for boats, but why don't ALL parts get a seawater resource? I want the danger of a plane going down from BDA gunfire sinking and needing to save the pilot. I would make a config if I could, but I can't for a few days. Please?
The problem is to figure out how much seawater every part is going to hold. It's sort of the same dilemma with a damage system. There aren't really any smart way of creating an algorithm that can realistically add a proper amount of seawater to every part (at least none I can think of). For example if one uses the volume of the collider it would not function well with a "girder" type part. Essentially you would have to make individual configurations for, as well as test, every single part in the game. On top of that you'd have to do that with every single other add-on as well if you'd like it compatible. I neither have the time nor motivation for such, so only boat parts. The rest of the parts I'll leave to the built in buoyancy. Though, if someone would like to do it, I would be more than happy to include it in the mod! : D
-
On 07/04/2016 at 9:22 PM, Azimech said:
Totally missed the update!
This is a 1.0.5 release only right? No problem. I'm currently building Real Ships to a debut release in 1.1 ... your mod is really going to shine even brighter when you see a big battleship on fire :-)
Can't wait! : D
On 07/04/2016 at 9:29 PM, CliftonM said:Would you like me to make you a couple models? I'd be happy to assist.
It would be awesome if you could do that!! Every time I open up Blender I need to print out 10 pages of shortcuts to hang on the wall just to get started... hahaha
-
On 06/04/2016 at 4:01 PM, Toonu said:
Thanks for reply! I saw one similar problem where u said you need photos....
Nope, when I armed it and fire with AG it still made effect but didn't work. With clearance check it didn't work too even armed. Firing with fire button is unreal due to limitations of camera....
I'm sorry, I'm really not sure what could be the problem here, but to try clear up some things about how it works:
The VLS has to be a children of the part it is trying to clip, this means it has to be directly attached to that said part, and the missile has to be directly attached to the VLS as well.
The conditions for clipping are having the specific missile selected through the Weapon Manager window as well as having it armed. This is just because of how the mod and BDA operates. Preferably it would be better to not have a global clearance check, an individual would be more practical for these sort of situations, but that's up to Bahamuto.
I have not yet tested firing using action groups, but it does work (for me) using mouse-hold.
The ModuleColliderIgnore and ModuleClearanceCheckDisabler are two separate things and does not need to be used together.
-
On 06/04/2016 at 5:57 PM, Andem said:
@kimiko Might I suggest that you add a small "Fire" symbol to the extinguisher part? Just to differenciate it a little. My kids got quite frustrated trying to figure out why the RCS Tanks they had put on weren't stopping constant fires.
I'm not intending to make any custom models or textures until 1.1. Since, in my experience, memory is the main culprit to all crashes, and 1.0.5 can hardly handle anything more than the base game. Also I'm just not very good at it, so I need some practice first : p
13 hours ago, Beetlecat said:This is really cool!
What's TOTM?
Yay : D
-
Update Beta 0.1.6
Check first post for download.
Updates/changes etc:
- Re-made the risk/fire potency system to more mimic reality - in addition to a risk level, which will determine the chance of having a fire, there is now a potency level which will determine how fierce the fire is and how hard it is to extinguish. Fires and risk are now more dependent on what you're doing and which type of part you use. G-forces, dynamic pressure, etc, plays a more significant role now.
- Engines risk level and potency depends on how much you throttle them.
- Parachutes and fairings along with decouplers may now engage when on fire.
- ISRU, fule cells etc. will now have risk and potency depending on whether it's being used or not.
- New fire effects.
- New smoke effects.
- New sound effects.
- Made all important variables accessible through the config file (rename the txt file).
- Replaced the "bending" detection system with regular crash-tolerance detection (this caused most incompatibility and bugs).
- Fixed issue where the engine would catch fire instead of the part that it was firing at.
- Added an experimental water-hose which can be mounted on a separate vessel, and will cool down whatever part its aimd at.
- Added hard core mode. At a certain risk level (200 by default) there is a 50 percent (default) chance the part may catch fire. USI-LS, TAC-LS and Snacks are now supported, and will increase the chance of having a fire.
- Fixed various bugs.
- Various tweaks.
- Various rebalancing.
- Slight performance improvement
- Fixed folder hierarchy in the zip file
- Loosing a part will now almost certainly cause a fire (default)
- Fire spreads more easily now (default)
- Fire burns long now (default)
With hard core mode turned on you'll have to keep an eye on your ignition risk at your ships max q, and when turning fiercely, it has a tendency to get hot!
-
On 02/04/2016 at 7:29 AM, T.Lago said:
I just came here to say that my fairings have already popped. I had a chronic urge to switch on. That is all.
Hahahahaha
-
On 17/03/2016 at 10:58 PM, Azimech said:
Most excellent! You're a wizard!
Yay : D
On 17/03/2016 at 11:37 PM, colmo said:That needs to become standard in BDA.
Not sure if it's possible without messing up other mods...
On 17/03/2016 at 11:44 PM, Azimech said:Agreed. And weapon systems should consume resources as well.
I'm writing a lengthy PM to start a talk with all the mod devs (weapons/damage/water/fire) to think about a unified architecture.
Hope it will work out! : D
On 17/03/2016 at 0:04 AM, colmo said:Perhaps @RoverDude is worth adding - aside from being a prodigious mod plate spinner and dev, damage could become an extension of resources?
Not sure it would be of much interest. Though resources is a nice idea and (probably) not really a big deal to make (I think), there are, however, a lot of other things which may become an issue though.
On 22/03/2016 at 4:35 PM, Toonu said:Tl;Dr: VLS doesn't work, I tried everything, tried this mod to solve it, found bug....
Hello kimiko,
I've encountered one big problem...I'll start from the beggining...I installed BDA(with MalFunc and others)+other mods, then I tried to build a Zumwalt class destroyer, I've made nice ship, but when I after many explosive launches finally get it to water with working everything I started testing weapons and other things. So I tested and all worked. Then I wanted to launch missile from VLS(RIM-162 or 67). I push fire button(Acton group) and it didn't work. So I r-click missile and click fire, and it fired! Then I searched forums and everything and found many sollutions for that problem. But only clearance check off helped. So I finally have working VLS! Then I started with one of my previous bombers and go bomb that ship...and what happened, bomb destroy my plane in air because clearance check was off. So I again searched and writed on forums and then I found your mod. It looks great, sinking ships, other great stuff....So installed it and launch ship, choose missile and fire! VLS opened, smoke&fire effect appeared, but missile was still in silo. And the effect of smoke&fire was permanent. Plus missile won't fire if clearance check is on... I searched this topic again, searched configs. Look at problem many times in SPH and find that all missiles have isTubeloaded False. So, how make it tubeloaded, or can you add switch to make it manually tubeloaded? In configs I couldn't find any code for that... I tried search in source code and foundsome tubeloaded thingy, but I can't edit it...and in configs isn't any ..
I also tried make this, but nope
@PART[THERIM-*] { MODULE { name = ModuleClearanceCheckDisabler } }Permanent effects...after "firing" missile which won't fire
Even making new VLS + missiles won't repair it...
Found this code too....but 1) Don't know how edit and what edit
2) can't compile it into dll rivate void setup() { if (this.part.parent != null) { if (this.part.parent.name.Contains("MK41VLSINGLE") || this.part.parent.name.Contains("MK41VLSQUAD")) { defaultCrashTolerance = this.part.crashTolerance; isTubeLoaded = true; launcher = this.part.parent; setupFx(); if (this.part.parent.parent != null) { hullcollider = this.part.parent.parent; } this.part.crashTolerance = this.part.parent.crashTolerance; this.part.breakingForce = this.part.parent.breakingForce; this.part.breakingTorque = this.part.parent.breakingForce; if (this.part.Modules.Contains("MissileLauncher")) { var pp = this.part.Modules.OfType<MissileLauncher>().Single(); pp = this.part.FindModulesImplementing<MissileLauncher>().First(); pp.boostClipPath = "NANA/SinkingAbout/Sounds/LaunchSound"; pp.boostExhaustPrefabPath = "BDArmory/Models/exhaust/largeExhaust"; } } } }
But I like very your mod, other features....thanks for it!
Looking at your picture, the issue seems to be that you're using action groups. It was not designed to be used with action groups, you have to select and arm the thing using the weapon manager menu. Only this will turn off the clearance check, and enable clipping mode for the missile. When you disarm/select none, the clearance check will enable again.
On 02/04/2016 at 10:26 AM, cavilier210 said:I've been looking, but I don't understand how I'm supposed to get rid of the water that ends up in the ships. How am I supposed to do that?
I'm planning on making a pump at some point. But nothing yet.
On 03/04/2016 at 8:54 PM, XOC2008 said:@kimiko: What would the rear attach node be for the PEW P-800 Oniks missile? Giving your mod another shot on a new install and want to add it to the list.
I got no idea. If you add ModuleSize using a cfg file and module manager to your missile you can somewhat determine the bounding boxes, but to be honest that doesn't really work that good. I suggest you just do the old trial and error.
-
On 02/04/2016 at 5:34 AM, slotter said:
The mod looks great. I haven't had the time to test it but I bet I will enjoy it.
I was wondering, do the explosion blasts in fuel tanks change in size accordingly to the amount of fuel they have?
Does the blast produce a force on nearby objects? Could this be implemented?
Yay : D.There are no custom explosions. There may be a way to implement it, but I don't know how without interfering with functionality with other mods (I haven't tried yet).
On 02/04/2016 at 7:14 AM, Enceos said:@kimiko I LOLd at the "Early Testing" gif : D
Cool stuff!
xD Thanks! : D
-
EDIT:
False alarm, sorry, it was something entirely different that caused the issues. Any moderators around can lock this if they want!
I'm working on an add-on, Wildfire, where parts run checks on its connected parts to determine whether the part should catch fire or not. However, while setting up a small base using Kerbal Attachment System I encounter a massive amount of throws, and I suspect it's related to attaching objects to the planet's surface and the module trying to check its connected part, which in this case would be the planets surface (or whatever is in between, depending on how KAS works).I tried looking through the KAS source, but (since I only have limited knowledge with all this), I couldn't find anything useful. Therefore I'm wondering is there any convenient way figuring out whether or not a part is connected to the planet surface (and/or other static objects) using KAS? That way I can just have it being put in an exclusion list. -
On 21/03/2016 at 2:46 AM, Sequinox said:
I think it would be cool if this mod also showed the fire texture during reentry.
To expand upon that idea, I've always thought that both the look and sound of reentry is disappointing. When some sort of debris burns up in the atmosphere in Realism Overhaul, it always catches on fire first. I wish this was something that could happen during reentry.
I'm honestly surprised that no one has ever tried to make reentry sound better. Is that possible? Because right now reentry sounds like: *AGGRESSIVE BREATHING*____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Anyway, that's my thoughts. Would it be at all possible for you to add the fire to the reentry sequence?
Hmm animated textures of some sort huh? Not sure if that is even possible. Haven't seen anyone else doing it yet, but worth looking into nevertheless.
Aggressive breathing, lol. Darth Vader will not be pleased..
It's possible, though for some weird reason particle effects seems to behave strange at high altitudes and high speeds. Not exactly sure why yet, but if I can figure that out, decent fire trails during re-entry may be possible..
On 29/03/2016 at 11:00 PM, InfiniteAtom said:I need to alert the creator of this mod of a serious issue: This mod crashes my game every time I use it, thus I cannot use your mod. Also I have a question: If I have ignore max temperature on, will my stuff still catch on fire and explode when it overheats?
Could you please elaborate on this?
I don't think it will explode if you ignore max temperature.
3 hours ago, sal_vager said:Congrats @kimiko, this is pinned for Aprils TOTM
Whoa, didn't even know this was a thing. Thanks! : D
Now all of the sudden I feel a tingeing sensation of performance anxiety hahaha.
Better go finish up the next update fast! xD
2 hours ago, Sequinox said:Congratulations @kimiko!
You deserve it!
Yay! Thanks : D
-
N.A.N.A. Fairwell
Warning this is a WIP
Not sure this is the best timing to be releasing something new, considering what day it is...
That aside:
Fairwell automatically deploys your (stock)fairing when reaching a specific altitude. Just right-click any fairing(base), adjust altitude and toggle. Now you can sit back and wave fairwell as your rocket undergoes metamorphosis in fully automated glory. Fairly easy eh?... get it? fair... ha - ha - ha... never-mind then!
If you're anything like me, who plays games half-AFK, or has a chronic urge to switch on Mechjeb and go make tea as soon as the simulation time indicator stops showing green, then this could come in handy!
Requires: ModuleManager (not included)
Licence: Reserved
-
4 hours ago, insert_name said:
wow only one warning from a moderator on a complaint thread this long
More economical to just have one thread where people can let go of their frustration, it's easier to monitor and reduces the risk of many other similar threads popping up and turning this into a widely spread issue no? Minority suppression 101 : p (on top of that, non-concerning people will know exactly what thread to ignore - kind of like how the slums work).
-
I've been following this thread for a little while now and it's quite interesting to see how much anxiety this "pre-release" has caused.
Obviously (or at least very likely) this so-called "pre-release" is nothing but a marketing move in order to generate enough WOM prior to 1.1 and, the more important console releases, thus having higher sales rate on release.
Why am I so certain? First, of all is the reasoning for bug fixing. I do a bit of for-fun programming and I made a couple of mods for KSP, and to be fair, most bug reports I get are most likely useless. They usually consist of: "I was doing this and this, and then this happens, please help." Sometimes I'll get a bit more information, but usually it's only that - and all honesty, that doesn't really help with anything. Proper bug testing require accurate reproduction, and an in-depth explanation to be able to solve anything. This does not seem to be the case as @DuoDex said in a previous post. It is inconceivable that Squad doesn't know this, which leads me to assume this pre-release is not really intended for bug fixing (at least not as the main reason for publishing a pre-release which may end up costing additional bandwidth and lots and lots of extra management work for their staff. I.e. it cost more money than it's worth).
Which conveniently takes me to the second issue, of Steam-only release and bandwidth. KSP already has its own update tool, thus their servers are suppose to already be able to handle a lot of load. Obviously the initial impact may be quite large as everyone wants to get their hands on the pre-release. However, I sincerely doubt every single user is going to continuously update every day for the latest of the latest release, especially when the game is at its current state. I consider myself a typical casual gamer. I tried the pre-release twice now. Both times it almost immediately unexpectedly crashed to desktop, and I am not going to sit there and update it everyday in hopes of it getting better. I'll happily be playing 1.0.5, while waiting for the proper release. Thus, I have a hard time believing that bandwidth is the primary issue for a Steam only release. However, I do not rule out the possibility. (companies like EA for example, knows that server load is only going to be horrible at launch, thus never bother to do anything about it as it will eventually stable out soon after)
My conclusion is therefore that this "pre-release" is nothing but a marketing tactic. It's hardly playable, despite the impressions you get on youtube, as youtubers will not risk low view-rating and thumbs-downs by including all the (game)crashes. However, since that's the case, a pre-release will fuel the hype-fire since it looks better on video than actually playing it. It also helps with Steam sales and will probably help smooth out the relationship with them, as they are the main publisher. Thus people are probably way better off without the pre-release.
And lastly, even though it may just be a simple marketing gig, I don't think people should be upset about that either. That's just how the video-gaming industry works today, and we (you) as consumer(s) are the one accepting this by fuelling the hype of upcoming/untested/unfinished products. Squad needs to get paid as well, so it's a perfectly acceptable tactic considering today's environment.
-
Not sure about you, but lately I've been thinking about trains. More specificity: Space trains. Although, to my astonishment, despite all the hype trains, there aren't really any train mods out there (perhaps something to do with the lack of tracks and so on...).
Therefore, just get the idea out there, as a sort of suggestion/request:
How fitting wouldn't it be with an MK3 cockpit modelled after one of the Japanese bullet trains?!
They already look amazingly "futuristic".
Some pictures for reference.
500 series (some add-on cockpits already look similar...)
300 series (this just screams "authority")
700 series (looks like a shoe...)
0 Series (looks very plane-ish)
Maglev (With the Kerbal Founderies pack this would be perfect)
Galaxy Railways.... (for inspiration...)
-
On 14/02/2016 at 7:27 AM, Azimech said:
This is the effect I get when I switch on "ignore max temperature" in the cheat menu. A much more realistic spread of fire, almost engulfing the ship after a while. Without it, everything just explodes until just a debris field is left.
I have a few suggestions, it could make your mod even more interesting, I would certainly promote it for use in WW2 Warships and make fire control a central part in future multiplayer gameplay.
* Instead of parts blowing up fairly quickly, which still isn't realistic when looking at steel beams or any part without a pressurized resource, there could be a max to the temperature increase (like it is in real life) and instead have a prolonged fire, depleting any part of any resource except a user defined one (for example my mod uses the resource water which increases when the hull takes damage, decreasing buoyancy). A KKS leak in a fuel tank could increase the risk of a fire with 100-1000%, the magnitude of the fire based on how large the leak is and the type of resource. Rockets are a different deal but airplane fuel tanks filled with kerosene usually just burn, tanks filled with avgas might explode when almost empty.
* The ability to render specific part modules in specific parts inoperable ... a spotlight might burn, not explode but it won't be functional until repaired. Same would be interesting for BDA weapons manager, SAS etc.
* More configuration options would be terrific. Another nice one would be options to set the ignition temperature at a different level, for simulating different materials. For example my hull plating uses a very high thermalMassModifier to simulate armor against BDA damage. But I'd like some parts to start burning at 20% instead of 70%.
* If at all possible, fire and smoke effects should be directed away from a planet surface if atmospheric pressure >0.
* I'd like the possibility to exempt exhaust damage from the system, I use my own method of fire suppressing: I use ModuleEngineFX with a negative exhaust heat value. That's right, a modified rocket engine with a cryogenic blast. The log still shows it as damage though.
* Bug report: using Hyperedit to teleport ships causes some parts to overheat and explode, other parts start burning.
It actually does consume resources when on fire, just not very much at the moment.
I think for making things inoperable and having repairing ability will require dedicated damage system, which is a bit of a long step considering the scope of the add-on (at the moment at least).
All major variables will be available through the config file for the next update.
Fire and smoke will go upwards in the next update.
Exempting ignition types will be available for the next update.
Bug is related to structural damage detection, and is fixed for the next update
On 14/02/2016 at 5:03 PM, Andem said:I agree with @Azimech, The fires don't really spread very well. It would be better if the chance of spreading was way higher than it is now. I have tried to test it several times, and the fire puts itself out before any actual damage happens. That, and also ALL of the engines seem to spontaneously catch on fire when launching without the fire suppresion systems... I don't think a poodle and a fuel tank should just sppontaneously ignite on the launch pad...
Fires will be more sensitive to contents in the next update which should resolve the poor spreading.
The poodle exploding is due to the structural damage detection function (which is removed for the next update).
On 18/02/2016 at 9:43 PM, ThatOneBritishGuy... said:With all of it?
On 20/02/2016 at 2:07 PM, Bluejay0013 said:If Youre trying to use this mod with BD Armory, the n you will have a difficult time launching missiles as for some reason, the missiles launch but don't engage their engines. But guns and other stuff work fine just not missiles.
Fixed in the next update.
On 25/02/2016 at 11:01 AM, BrutalRIP said:Was just going to drop this in my bd armoury install its a shame they dont play nice together seams like a match made in heaven,just going to have to wait and hope it gets sorted
Fixed in the next update.
On 25/02/2016 at 1:56 PM, Bluejay0013 said:yeah well hopefully the developer will find a way to fix this, as im using Wildfire, Kerbal Krash System, and BD for amazing results
Fixed in the next update.
On 06/03/2016 at 1:28 AM, Bluejay0013 said:A) They don't set your ship on fire seeing as they don't generate enough heat in a short amount of time.
B) And they pretty much run out of fuel or collide and explode before they could actually set things on fire.
Also, why make your own missiles when there is a great weapon mod already, just check out BD Armory. But I have a feeling you already know about it
I've actually been thinking of cooking up some sort of firebomb for Sinking About, since it sort of goes well with this add-on... we'll see : p
On 17/03/2016 at 2:27 AM, Claw said:@kimiko Wow, I love this concept. Nice job, and keep it up!
Yay! : D
The next update will (hopefully, but very likely) play nice with all other add-ons (at least with my add-on box).
It has updated visual and sound effects.
The structural damage detection has been replaced with stock crash tolerance (since this was the main culprit in causing add-on incomparability).
All major variables (almost everything) are available through the config file.
Risk factors are more dependent on the type of module the part has (e.g. engines are more risky the more you throttle them), as well as dynamic pressure and g-forces etc.
I've rewritten the whole risk/fire-effect system loosely based on the "fire triangle", (i.e. if one component is missing there will be no fire), although I have to re-test and re-balance the whole add-on again which is currently the biggest hurdle. I just need to find some time and motivation. : 3
-
On 16/03/2016 at 3:58 AM, Acea said:
And here it is, the NAS adapting patch. I've made it as simple as possible.
@PART[NAS_BB_*]:NEEDS[NAS] { MODULE { name = ModuleSinkingAbout hull = true damageable = true sponge = false hydroExplosive = true flowRate = 8 critFlowRate = 25 breachTemp = 0.75 critBreachTemp = 0.9 } RESOURCE { name = SeaWater amount = 0 maxAmount = 0 isTweakable = false hideFlow = true } } @PART[NAS_CL_*]:NEEDS[NAS] { MODULE { name = ModuleSinkingAbout hull = true damageable = true sponge = false hydroExplosive = true flowRate = 2 critFlowRate = 8 breachTemp = 0.75 critBreachTemp = 0.9 } RESOURCE { name = SeaWater amount = 0 maxAmount = 0 isTweakable = false hideFlow = true } } @PART[NAS_CA_*]:NEEDS[NAS] { MODULE { name = ModuleSinkingAbout hull = true damageable = true sponge = false hydroExplosive = true flowRate = 3.2 critFlowRate = 12.5 breachTemp = 0.75 critBreachTemp = 0.9 } RESOURCE { name = SeaWater amount = 0 maxAmount = 0 isTweakable = false hideFlow = true } } @PART[NAS_DD_*]:NEEDS[NAS] { MODULE { name = ModuleSinkingAbout hull = true damageable = true sponge = false hydroExplosive = true flowRate = 1 critFlowRate = 5 breachTemp = 0.75 critBreachTemp = 0.9 } RESOURCE { name = SeaWater amount = 0 maxAmount = 0 isTweakable = false hideFlow = true } } @PART[NAS_TP_*]:NEEDS[NAS] { MODULE { name = ModuleSinkingAbout hull = true damageable = true sponge = false flowRate = 1 critFlowRate = 5 breachTemp = 0.5 critBreachTemp = 0.75 } RESOURCE { name = SeaWater amount = 0 maxAmount = 0 isTweakable = false hideFlow = true } } @PART[NAS_AA_DD_*]:NEEDS[NAS] { MODULE { name = ModuleSinkingAbout hull = true damageable = true sponge = false hydroExplosive = true flowRate = 1 critFlowRate = 5 breachTemp = 0.75 critBreachTemp = 0.9 } RESOURCE { name = SeaWater amount = 0 maxAmount = 0 isTweakable = false hideFlow = true } } @PART[NAS_AA_SC_*]:NEEDS[NAS] { MODULE { name = ModuleSinkingAbout hull = true damageable = true sponge = false hydroExplosive = true flowRate = 0.8 critFlowRate = 4.2 breachTemp = 0.75 critBreachTemp = 0.9 } RESOURCE { name = SeaWater amount = 0 maxAmount = 0 isTweakable = false hideFlow = true } }Excellent! Thanks a lot! : D
On 17/03/2016 at 1:54 PM, colmo said:There's a plethora of damage systems now in play - now if this and others could combine with @EnzoMeertens KKS and @BahamutoD's BDA into a single, unified damage system, which covers progressive loss of lift, structural strength, buoyancy, melting, leaking, sinking, fire etc., all with visual scorching, denting and actual structural bending (transforming nodes and surface attachments), that would be very, very good.
This isn't exactly a damage system per se (more like a "damage event" add-on), but I do hope for some sort of unified damage system which can incorporate everything in some sort of balanced way.
On 17/03/2016 at 2:11 PM, Azimech said:I'm not so sure about exploding turrets. I certainly wouldn't use it.
On 17/03/2016 at 2:22 PM, Acea said:In fact it's common to see turrets on WWII warships explode after getting breached and rolling into water, you can find quite a few examples.
Personally I guess this'd be interesting, and I've tested it, which works well and looks quite realistic.
On 17/03/2016 at 4:34 PM, Azimech said:Hmmm ... couldn't find any examples at all actually. It's also counterintuitive. Most likely it was the magazines exploding underneath the turret.
On 17/03/2016 at 6:40 PM, Acea said:Yes that's the fact but we don't actually have a magazine simulated... so this is a replacement
On 17/03/2016 at 6:58 PM, Azimech said:Let's hope we can find a solution for that ... probably most warships found their demise due to boiler/magazine/fuel explosions.
Since it's a hot topic, i've included an experimental module for this. I haven't had time to test it yet, so go ahead and try if you want. Just edit and stuff the parameters bellow into an ammo box config-file.
@PART[myAmmoBox] { MODULE { name = ModuleExplosiveStorage resource = myAmmo // name of the resource blastRadius = XX //the usual from BDArmory (per unit) blastPower = XX blastHeat = XX } MODULE { name = BDExplosivePart BDExplosivePart blastRadius = XX //per unit blastPower = XX blastHeat = XX } }The last module is built into BDArmory to make things explode (you may not need to assign the blast radius/power/heat for this), the first one attempts to calculate the amount of ammo and multiply them with the in-putted stats. When it explodes it will explode with the power of everything inside, and surely rip the vessel apart...
-
New release
Beta 0.1.5
Added configuration files for NAS (made by @Acea)
Fixed taking on water detection.
Added experimental module for explosive (magazine) storage (no config yet). -
44 minutes ago, XOC2008 said:
I have missiles in the tubes, and they don't say they are tubeloaded. (I'm on my laptop, no log or pictures at the moment, so I'm going to try and explain as best I can.)
I unzipped the NANA folder into Gamedata, as I do everything else, and nothing seems to function. The tubes clip into the Large Boat Parts Pack hulls fine without explosive consequences for me, so I don't need the function in the generalpatches file. But the missiles don't say they are tubeloaded: true, and don't fire. (If I remove that portion of the config file, they work fine.)
The 5" gun I'm referring to is from the MTW(Master Tech Weapons) mod, and destroyed the hull completely in one shot.(The gun itself may be too powerful, so that one is likely on me.) I added some heat tolerance, but instead of taking on water, they just took 3 shots instead of one, and then exploded and were completely destroyed.
I reloaded the default hull config file from NANA and changed to a mk 45 deck gun. It took 6 shots and then simply exploded and was destroyed, but never took on water.
The alarm didn't make any noise at all.
I have not checked missiles yet, since I am reloading the game after a crash. (And dealing with a fussy baby!)
I really want this to work for me, I think it will add a great deal of fun into my game, I just hope it can be figured out.
Warhead and guidance switching work fine.
About the VLS issue, it's a bit of a mystery at the moment. At least you don't need the clipping functionality : D
About the sinking part, when you right-click a boat part there are supposed to be a number of "SA: [some text]: true/false" are any of them true? If everything is false or if there is nothing is coming up when you right-click, I suggest you re-download and re-install the add-on.
-
15 hours ago, zacharii said:
Seems to not appear in-game, nor in the parts file within the mod. Am I missing something like an maritime patch?
Did you install Module Manager and the Maritime Part pack?
12 hours ago, Acea said:It's time to write a patch file for NAS. I'd send you full content once I finish it.
Awesome! That would be wonderful : D
3 hours ago, XOC2008 said:So I was intrigued by this mod and gave it a shot. But now all the missiles I have in my VLS tubes (long and short. Quad packed ESSMs in the short ones, Tomahawks in the long ones.) are rendered useless. I can't select 'istubeloaded' to make it true, and so the VLS's open, but nothing fires. My SeaRAM as well, has been rendered useless, nothing fires. What have I done wrong? Everything else seems to have applied correctly, so how can I fix this?
Edit: I should add.. if I re-do the missiles, the same thing happens. New placement of VLS tubes with new packed missiles results in being unable to use the missiles.
Edit 2: Removed the clearance checks and general patches configs, and things are back to normal. As an addendum, one shot from a 5" gun obliterated the entire Trimaran hull. (It immediately disappeared.) I think that's too nerfed, if you ask me.
From your description it doesn't sound like you're doing it any different from what I have done. isTubeloaded should be true if any missile is attached to any of those two launchers. Perhaps you've encountered some sort of bug? Do you have a log, or a picture? Perhaps that could clear things up a bit.
Removing the generalpatches file removes the clipping functionality, yes.
Which 5" gun are you referring to? I may have to take a look at it. I've nerfed the hulls in reference to stock(BD) weapons and stock(Squad) parts, as well as a few other mods, since I assume most mod-makers uses the same reference point. It can take a whole barrage of ESSMs already(which I still think is a bit too much). You can of course go in the patch file for Large Boat Parts and increase the temperature.
-
New Release
Beta 0.1.4
- Added all major parts from Martime Pack.
- Added moding flexibility (check out description).
- Fixed some alarm warning issues.
-
1 hour ago, Azimech said:
Yeah, me too. My pc can hardly handly 400+ parts. My mods need way to many parts for 1.0.5. But I always build for the future. Apparently there are those having no problem with 1500 parts and really want to use my carrier & battleship designs.
Unbelievable....
At least I have many cores, but that doesn't really help with anything in KSP...
[1.10.1+] Contract Configurator [v1.30.5] [2020-10-05]
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted
Hey, using the spawn vessel behaviour, is it possible to spawn vessels relative to positions of other vessels? Say for example I have parked a vessel at a random position (on ground or in orbit). Then after I accepted the contract I could have another vessel spawn in nearby. Think of Elite Dangerous when meeting up with someone for a trade in a random place in space.