• Content Count

  • Joined

Community Reputation

148 Excellent

1 Follower

About Corax

  • Rank
    Junior Rocket Scientist

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. As I said, I haven't looked into the files you released, just at the code snippet. It all depends on how your actual PART definition looks like before the patch; if it doesn't have an INTERNAL to begin with, then all is well. Which it probably is, I just instinctively assumed you were reusing another part, like copying Squad's, and modifying that, which would already come with an INTERNAL. Only in that case would you either need to modify the existing internal, ie. {… @INTERNAL{ and @%+ stuff here} …}, or remove and add a new internal, ie. {-INTERNAL{} INTERNAL{…new stuff here…} }. What you're doing, at least what it looked like to me, is just the second half of the second case, ie. adding an(other) INTERNAL{}. If you're in fact providing a part without an INTERNAL in the first place, then all should be fine, and I apologize for wasting your time with a false alarm.
  2. Just a random thought, and only half joking... what is it with the radiation warning signs? Ignoring the fact that anyone coming even close would bloody well know that there is a nuclear device, down to its precise location: As long as the engine is cold, it shouldn't matter much, and once it is hot and you're close enough to make it out (provided you're "lucky" enough to actually approach from the side where you *can* see it), it isn't going to make a difference any more, is it? ;) Love the stuff you're doing. No, seriously.
  3. That's how bowdlerization works. The forum doesn't like certain letter combinations, no matter the context, and it doesn't tell you when it "fixes" your transgressions. You may count yourself lucky that this doesn't affect your social rating. Yet. /s
  4. FYI, the "download from CKAN" is just a pointer to the file it needs, in this case it is referencing one on Github. The CKAN is basically just a big database of where to find things to download and how to install them, it does not host any of the actual files.
  5. Never heard of that, sounds interesting to say the least, I'll have to look it up.
  6. Without looking at any of the files, and unless I misunderstood what this mod does, I'm fairly certain you'd need to remove the provided IVA first in both instances @PART[thePart]:NEEDS[whatItNeeds]{ -INTERNAL{} INTERNAL{… otherwise you end up with two IVAs, and I don't think KSP acts favourably in that case...
  7. I don't know Ace Combat, or how it models its physics and flight controls, so it may well behave very differently from what you experience in KSP. How the aircraft reacts to rudder will depend on its design. Basically, the farther away the rudder is offset from the longitudinal axis (the higher up it is), the more roll it will induce in addition to yaw, to the point where it acts more like an aileron if it is far enough. Which is actually one way to think of the rudder, as a single, asymmetric aileron. When your aircraft rolls because you applied rudder, what I think happens when you release the rudder is one wing will create more lift, and depending on the design, roll the plane back towards the starting point. You can either apply opposite roll at the same time you apply rudder to lessen the reaction, or you can apply roll afterwards to stop the plane from rolling back on its own. You'll probably also need to apply some pitch at the same time if you want to keep the nose pointing in the same direction. This also ties into the sideslip technique mentioned above by QF9E to reduce your airspeed. All of this is significantly more difficult if you're flying with keyboard controls, but it is definitely something one can learn. Use short, small taps on the keys, observe how the aircraft reacts, and repeat until you get a feeling for it. Of course, you need to turn off SAS (you really shouldn't have it on to begin with) or it will simply mask your inputs with its attempts to counteract.
  8. ...and even more so when you're in a game that gives you nearly none of the visual clues like buildings and trees like you'd have in real life. Originally as postscriptum to my previous post: I'm not too familiar with miles per hour, but I think a good quick approximation there should be multiplying by 2.5 (add a zero to the end, and divide by four), and for extra precision, again subtracting ten percent. And for knots: times two, less five percent. For km/h, the conversion is correct; knots and mph are just my estimates, without sources–don't use them where your life depends on it, like for real aviation, or in maths exams. For a quick reality check, and definitely for use in a game, they should be good enough.
  9. One thing I see over and over again is new players calling something difficult or impossible, and then mentioning they're just trying to land going no more than 200... or their rover flips and crashes at only 100... you really need to burn that into your brain to automatically and instinctively convert those m/s into the system you're familiar with, be it kph or km/h, or whatever else that may be. For me, it's km/h, and there it's as simple as taking any speeds KSP throws at me and multiplying them by four. Usually it's close enough if you even leave off the last one or two digits and only consider the tens and hundreds. That doesn't take more than a moment. If you really need to know the exact value, you can simply take ten percent off that and you're spot on, but that precision is rarely needed, and even then, it's a simple calculation anyway.
  10. Thanks! The obvious workaround of moving or symlinking the directory from where it is installed to where OhScrap expects it to be seems to work for me. Proceed with caution, YMMV, etc. pp.
  11. Only so they have something they then need to postpone, because of budgets, politics, subcontractors, the weather... ;)
  12. In an alternate timeline, where a young Egon Musk founded WeltraumX as a spin-off from MBB in 1982...
  13. Actually I think I would, desire that is. Maybe it's just the way I'm used to how window focusing works with my window manager (Focus follows mouse, but not required to click, I think I've also seen it called "lazy focus" in other places). IMO it speeds up the workflow considerably, which is especially helpful in situations like KSP, where you might need to quickly give input focus to your main controls, and the additional click may take just that fraction of a second too long.
  14. If you look at the first image in the OP, there's that crane icon on the toolbar that opens the upper one of the two visible windows. On that window, there are two buttons on the bottom row: "Quick Apply" and "New Parts". The first one tries to replace all the new, unused parts you have on your vessel with eligible parts from your inventory, while the other one basically does the opposite.
  15. Welcome back, hope you had a pleasant vacation. I like that idea; currently, KerbalConstructionTime awards (or at least can be configured to) Science for constructing vessels, which I always considered a bit odd, although I have to admit, not entirely unwelcome ;) Awarding Science for testing makes more sense IMO; I'd definitely prefer that over construction. Don't know about Rep though. I can see it on either side of the coin.