Errol

Members
  • Content count

    1002
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

229 Excellent

1 Follower

About Errol

  • Rank
    Junior Rocket Scientist
  1. [1.3.1] Probe Control Room Recontrolled

    I realize the point of this mod is to make it look like you are controlling a probe from far away, that is not what we were discussing here though. What I am talking about is how to handle the situation in which you are controlling the probe with a signal processor from another vessel from a Remote command point. I also understand that if the IVA's don't match, it would seem inconsistent, hence my proposal of creating a new part, to house the IVA for vessels that are controlling probes locally. It could be a copy of a stock my 1 passenger fuselage with a computer station on the wall inside. The IVA would still be on the probe itself, it's just that if the controlling vessel has the signal processor part this alternat IVA is used. Part of my thinking with timing it to a part is that if you want to be able to see your probe from the perspective of the controlling craft there are two ways it could be done. By somehow having control of the probe while the IVA is in the controlling vessel, which I'm going to guess is not actually possible in the game. This would allow you to simply look out the window....but then we start getting into the miss match IVA problems too. So make it a camera instead. I mean the part. You have to attach a small part to your controlling craft, along with the signal processor, which either looks like a window or a camera, but regardless acts like a camera in that it feeds a POV to a screen in an IVA that either looks like a monitor on the wall of some craft, or looks like a window on the wall of some craft. The if you are controlled from the signal processor instead of the ground, you see the ship control point IVA instead. I don't know if having a camera on a vessel that is not focused is problematic. Just trying to brainstorm here.
  2. KSP Weekly: Godspeed, John Glenn

    Here here! Top notch move on updating the demo.
  3. [1.3.1] Probe Control Room Recontrolled

    It could be tied to a part. Make a small, radial attach part like a probe control antennae or console or something. Then it can have it's own custom iva that is used when you want to control from a vessel. In fact, if it were a window, or "camera" with an antenna, that would be a reason to have an external view in the the center of this iva.
  4. [1.3.*] Biome Corrections

    So much this. I second this motion!
  5. Yeah, it's a pretty personal thing, no one can tell you if you need to update besides yourself. Check out that list, see if there are things on there that you don't understand and look up information on them. Etc.
  6. See for yourself: Improvements to large bases coming off rails is something I am really looking forward to.
  7. ... Yeah, I like 20%....every once in a while a little fuel happens to be touching the pump intake or something..... Did a little testing with 1.3.0.3, seems to work as expected (hypergolic tank is still in the mod though). Can't wait to try the orientation code. Out of curiosity, I noticed that the mod shuts down an engine when ignition fails. You can also ignite the engine by simply throttling up, if it is already activated. This can lead to a little bit of confusion sometimes. Could you either make it so that the only way to ignite the engine is to activate it again or stage/activate it for the first time (not by simply moving the throttle up from zero)? Then we just have to remember to bind the engine to an action group, so that we can use that key to retry. That, or make it so that the engine doesn't get "shutdown" when ignition fails, so that you can just hit "z" over and over to retry. I realize that this is probably a silly seeming idea as that is likely how the mod works. But what about setting the throttle to zero instead of shutting down the engine. The reason is if I cut engines with "x" and want to try to fire them up again, I would want to just be able to keep hitting "z" or at least some other single action group key to do so.
  8. I thought that no ignition in space was the expected behaviour (I'm not a rocket scientist, just learning about this stuff myself). I also thought orientation was accounted for in the old mod, my mistake. I did try firing an LV-T 45 sixteen times in orbit, and got no ignitions. I will say I definitely read it as 80% chance of success. Also, I did notice that electrical consumption for ignition is working. Test craft require more battery than is available in a command pod. Just a thought, you could look at the orientation of the engine relative to the prograde vector.
  9. So I've been testing. The simulations appear to be working from what I can tell, but there is a bug with the PAW display for the simulations. It basically will only display "stable" or "unstable (chance: 80%)" even if you are in orbit and the actual chance of ignition is zero (again, the mod does this correctly, I got no ignitions in space, just failed ignition sparks). It also incorrectly displays the 80% chance thing when failing straight down with the craft pointed upwards, even though ignition won't happen. Also I noticed some nullref spam in the console while I was cheating myself into orbit that looks like this: https://www.dropbox.com/s/l9czmtwaucu8hqf/Screenshot 2017-09-28 23.35.02.png?dl=0 EDIT: The spam was there before cheating into orbit, I just didn't bother capping it until after I was already there, and figured it would be useful to show that PAW in orbit anyway.
  10. The additional hypergolic tanks seem to work, but I would honestly rather have that whole part of this mod truncated out. Adding an additional resource only slows down those of us on older machines. From both gameplay, and realism points of view, both the ignitions and the hypergolic fuel seem to be used to track the same thing, which is how many times you can re-ignite your engine. Similar to the logic used by roverdude when designing his LS mod and comparing it to TAC-LS I remember him saying that he didn't see a point to tracking a bunch of things when at the end of the day the user is just going to bring another tank or whatever. Except in this case both things are tracking the same thing; how much reactive fuel you have left....
  11. From what I remember, the ignition count did not increment at all before. Now it increments erratically. In my tests it would go from 4/4 to 3/4 on the first ignition, then stay there.
  12. I just tested that version you posted a link for with 1.3.1 and there seems to be some peculiar behaviours here and there, but it generally works. First, the bugs: - fuel stability simulation appears not to work at all - ignitions remaining in the PAW does not seem to count correctly, however engines do seem to stop igniting after the intended number of ignitions (test the LV-T 30, with an additional hyperbolic fuel tank, and it only ignites 4 times) So the hyperbolic fuel logic seems to be working fine, however as I have mentioned before; I think it is redundant to have an abstract count of available ignitions and also a hyperbolic fuel resource.
  13. *Jumps with glee* I have been away from KSP for a while. This was the thing I was stumped on last time I was in the loop. I am still interested in having some limited throttle range definitions for stock engines, as an additional layer to this mod's addition to the game's difficulty. I made an MM config with new minThrust definitions for the stock engines, but this solution messes with betterburntime. I think it is time for me to download 1.3.1 and get back into things...
  14. [1.3] Kerbal Krash System (0.4.2) 2017-07-20

    Is there a complete changelog for this somewhere?
  15. I feel like this is an interesting thing to just leave here.....