dreadicon

Members
  • Content Count

    116
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

26 Excellent

About dreadicon

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. So, had these around for about a month, was encouraged to share them by some friendly fellow modders. It's just some syntax highlighting language settings for use with Module Manager files in Notepad++. Please give any feedback, and/or feel free to make your own highlighting based on this. INSTRUCTIONS Download the xml Notepad++ language config file from here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B2WmuS1jXmpXMl82WTl5QnRXclE/view Just save it, then in Notepad++ go to Language -> User Defined Language -> Import... then select the downloaded file. Finally, restart Notepad++, load up the MM file, and then go to Language -> Module Manager (near the bottom) Note that because MM doesnt use a unique file extension, you will have to select the syntax highlighting each time you open a new file. There is also no intellisense/auto-complete either, as Notepad++ custom syntax highlighting is quite basic currently (without diving into manual XML tweaking, and even then) LICENSE If relevant/needed, license is EPL: https://www.eclipse.org/legal/epl-v10.html Think of it like a compromise between LGPL and BSD/Apache. Basically, you can make derivative works, and do as you wish, with the caveat that changes are offered upstream, and copyleft only kicks in when the source is made available. For purposes here, I am making a single addendum as follows: 'available in source code form' refers to when the creator of the derivative work allows for further derivative works of any kind, not when the source is available. (otherwise this is basically just LGPL due to the work being inherently in source code form) Let me know if the license is a moot point, or violates anything! A PM to me with the new language file would suffice for the upstream requirement.
  2. There's no problem with pointing out things that need fixed/updated or even suggestions, as long as you understand that as this is one of many things in my life, I will get to it in my own time if I can, but there is no guarantee it will ever be fixed/updated, much less when. You can be rather pushy, and I encourage you as I did in another thread to be more humble and appreciative to modders in general, but the information itself is appreciated. I receive email updates from it daily, and just to be sure I don't miss anything, check this thread every now and then anyhow. If I don't reply, I'm probably busy with wife, health, job, local friends, family, another hobby, or some recent obsession with another game or field of science. Most of my posts here are lofty aspirations and the things I would do if I had the time and energy my job consumes. Sometimes I find time, sometimes I don't. Usually I have partial work or progress on a task, but get stuck and/or loose motivation at some point. Sometimes I come back to it, sometimes I don't. But anyone wanting to continue my work in any of these aspirations is free to PM me and ask to pick up where I left off; I would always be happy to discuss things and pass on what I know. So long and short; I am still here and fiddling with mods and code. KSPI-RF config has minor issues, but is much better than before for now. TACLS-RF-KSPI is still a WIP. I am not currently working on either config, though that does not mean I won't some time in the near or far future. I have been looking into some other mods to try and help them out as they are floundering a bit, such as Kopernicus, Procedural Dynamics, and Real Heat. Each has different hangups, but I am toying with them, trying to solve problems and improve them. Feel free to report things; if/when I get back to working on the configs, this information will be helpful. As always, suggestions and bug reports are welcome, but I make no guarantees as to if/when updates and progress will happen. Unless someone was to pay me enough to quit my job, that's the best I can offer! lol.
  3. Sounds good. I started poking at the PQSMods again. I am not quite sure how to handle them, as a handfull seem to be implemented already in 2 or 3 locations, so any dynamic loading system would have to have exceptions built in to ignore them. Things get more complicated when you consider if it's an update, no-update, or an overwrite system. Because the loading is dynamic, I also don't see how I could leverage the node extensions that Kopernicus uses, and may instead have to use just stock node functions. It's kinda a mess... But I will try! PQS full configs support, imho, are the last requisite feature before Kopernicus is usable for practical purposes.
  4. rofl, 'years? bah, I'll just comment out a line here and.....done.' Overhaul looking as amazing as ever. Really glad to see development back in full steam again inspired me to head back over to Kopernicus and give PQS a second try (i'm not a major dev for it, just trying to help the real devs while they are busy). Soon as the blue haze is gone, I'll be using the overhaul all the time, personally. It's amazing!
  5. So, couple things; first, the black streaks are consistent with my experience. There is supposedly another command line option which helps with this, but I cannot recall what it is, nor can I verify that it works. Second, I tried loading up KSP with the DX11 option last night a couple times, and LOD fails to initialize. Gives the same message I get when I run in OpenGL. However, with DX9 or no command line option, LOD initializes normally. Will double check my setup this evening. Tried with and without EVE, ATM, and Texture Replacer. Windows 7 64-bit. KSP x86. @Bit Fiddler, shouldn't have to do anything special concerning DX9. KSP on windows launches in DX9 mode by default. If you don't have the full libraries you may have to install them (as per the OP), but usually that's not an issue.
  6. Interesting, I will have to check this out later. iirc, there was some issue with LOD on DX11, but my memory could be faulty. If that is the case, then yeah, this just has to be made compatible with dds files/ddsloader directly. A side note, DX11 is known to have some minor glitches, and isn't quite as lightweight on RAM as OpenGL, but it's still an order of magnitude better than DX9 for memory usage concerning graphics.
  7. correction: dream of this and ddsloader working together on directX 11 and/or OpenGL with stock dx9, ddsloader just speeds up load times and reduces the space on your disk; there is no sizable benefit to RAM use over ATM (for this or for ddsloader) without directX 11/OpenGL, unfortunately. None the less, it's a great step forward for KSP for those who are not running more than a few modpacks and a step in the right direction for KSP optimization in general.
  8. The plane parts look awesome! Have you considered giving them small lift values? Not enough to get them off the ground wingless or anything, but planes with shaped bodies like these often have a small degree of lift from their own shape alone. Just a thought Will have to check it out later!
  9. Hey, just wanted to drop by and mention a couple things: First, thanks for accepting my pull request. I am happy that my work seems to have been of use! Second, take your time with the next update; I would like to state that I noticed some of the configs I submitted could use some tweaking. They are definitely much better than nothing, or even the previous configs, but MM is displaying (far as I can tell harmless) errors on them; specifically the config for KSPI, and a couple engine configs got added to Raptor's configs appropriately, and should probably be removed from the KSPI-RF config. Which leads me to... Third, between an upswing in work and recent oral surgery, I have been out of development for a few weeks, and do not know when I will be able to continue updating the configs. I have not had the time to find the problems in the configs mostly; if someone could identify where they error or at least which part fails to be updated in the game (for those who don't know MM), and let me know in my thread or via PM, I will be much more likely to find enough time to fix the configs. I apologize for the lack of support for the configs I provided. Finally, Northstar, while I appreciated the feedback provided at times for my modding endeavors, please do not push an issue with mod devs. This is our hobby, not our obligation. If a modder don't answer your post regarding a change to their mod, it's likely not because they missed your comment, but because they are either undecided on the subject and want to think it over, or are too busy spending their free time modding to engage in debate and discussion when the decision is ultimately theirs how they build and manage their mod. Once you have added your voice, give the modder a few months if they don't respond before following up. I do not speak for any other modders, but having been a part of several modding communities for some time, this is how they tend to feel. I apologize if I have offended you or any other modders in this statement; if so, please accept my humblest apologies. -Dreadicon
  10. W00t! You added partial support for RetroFuture! Thanks so much for it! I know maintaining/expanding a mod is no small task ( I've done it before myself). So I appreciate any and all work I can't wait to go try out the new AJE parts!
  11. I just wanted to drop by this thread as well and give a real heartfelt thanks for rescuing my KSP dreams. I recently hit the point where even ATM plus -force-OpenGL mode were not enough to prevent memory crashes. But once I used Lilleman's conversion tool on the entire gamedata folder, using -force-opengl pulled my memory use down to 2.3 GB! My RAM worries are completely gone! At least, compared to the 3.7 GB I was hitting before, which insta-crashes once I try to go into the VAB/SPH. (Before anyone says this is impossible, I have done tests. For whatever reason, dx9 gains no RAM benefit from pre-converting textures to dds, but dx10, dx11, and openGL all display a massive reduction in RAM usage, on the order of about 35% for me)
  12. Regarding the idea of Jet Engines as their own parts, this sounds like a great idea to me personally. It would be a step towards modular/procedural engines, as you now have 3 parts of an engine to choose: intake, engine, and nozel. Even if the Nozel does little to nothing generally, it's still a factor in the overall implementation of the craft.
  13. BahamutoD's "B Dynamics Pack", found here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/82341-24-2-B-Dynamics-Retracting-vectoring-engines-etc-v1-1-1-%28Aug-11%29 The engines are beautiful and sleek, even if there are only 2 jet engines in it. Concerning the X-51's technical specifications and performance (theoretical and otherwise): (starting at slide 10) https://www.aiaa.org/uploadedFiles/About-AIAA/Press_Room/Key_Speeches-Reports-and-Presentations/RMutzman_and__JMurphy_X-51_Development_2011.pdf I know it's not exactly a clean data sheet, and definitely still in prototype phases, but those are the real-world test results from the X-51A (a second flight has been made seince, but I could not find good data on it). This is a whitepaper by Lockheed from 1987 that has more information about propfan engines than I think anyone would ever want: http://cafefoundation.org/v2/pdf_tech/Noise.Technologies/NASA.1987.Prop.Noise.PropFan.pdf And a much more recent and performance-oriented document from 2010: http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/58080/639280401.pdf?sequence=1 Let me know if you need more info, and I can go digging. Or if it's just not feasible at this time to implement (too much work/time/effort). And thanks for at least considering these engines!
  14. hey! thanks for the idea of using the 747 as a reference! And the picture provides a great reference for fuel contents! After re-checking my numbers, I am not sure where I was going wrong. But the numbers all make sense now. I am having trouble tracking down the volume of the 747's wing itself though (not the fuel capacity). I could theoretically just base it off the weight, but.....not preferable.
  15. Just wanted to drop back in and inquire briefly if Hypersonic engines are being considered, and to give a big motion of support for utilizing engines from more mods, such as Retro Future and BahamutoD's pack. The two shortfallings I have encountered so far functionally are the lack of propfans and SCRAM jet engines, despite real world statistics being available for both. And graphically, the mod could really use some variety....