The Mechanic

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

25 Excellent

About The Mechanic

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I'd think so but it did show up and then failed only after switching to an active vessel (so either on launch or when switching to a plane on the runway for example). Maybe @nightingale has an idea what's going on there? Also, since the contract is only supposed to show up for R&D levels 1 and 2 it might be more in the spirit of the contract pack to do it this way (hopefully I got it right how this works ) : REQUIREMENT { name = Facility type = Facility facility = ResearchAndDevelopment minLevel = 1 maxLevel = 2 }
  2. First of all, this is a great contract pack. However, I had an issue with the first barnstorming contract. Whenever I accepted it, it would automatically fail on launch. Since I didn't find anything about anyone else having this issue before I did some digging through the log and managed to track down the cause. [LOG 12:25:35.936] [INFO] ContractConfigurator.FacilityRequirement: Contract Wright-Barnstorm: requirement Facility was not met. In the file for the contract (Wright-Barnstorm.cfg), it said this in the relevant section for the facility requirement: REQUIREMENT { name = Facility type = Facility facility = ResearchAndDevelopment minLevel = 3 invertRequirement = true } I'm not sure what this is supposed to do but it doesn't say anything in the contract text about the level of the R&D facility. Mine was still level 1 and it's an early contract so a level 3 facility requirement doesn't really make sense? I assume "invertRequirement = true" should turn this into any level but level 3? I changed this to: REQUIREMENT { name = Facility type = Facility facility = ResearchAndDevelopment minLevel = 1 // invertRequirement = true } This stopped the contract from automatically failing on launch the next time I attempted it.
  3. Personally I like this one. It is not the most practical or manoeuvrable plane but I think it looks quite good. Originally it was designed as an entry for the Strategic Bomber Challenge but since it wouldn't have been much better than it's predecessor, the Wraith, I decided not to use it for the challenge. Still, it is one of my favourites.
  4. My few pennies on this: I don't really see Toolbar dying. I think it doesn't really need anything but updates for each new version since it has all the features it needs. The functionality of MechJeb will probably not be included into stock in the next few years. And to be honest, stock SAS can't compete against Smart A.S.S. when it comes to attitude holding. At least from my experience stock attitude holding burns through RCS like a Mainsail through a toroidal fuel tank. Is that just me or can someone confirm that? MechJeb is more than delta-v display and Smart A.S.S., even KER is not in danger from stock delta-v displays because it can do much, much more. For example displaying torque and don't let me start on the customizable HUDs. That depends on what the new aerodynamics will look like. If Squad does something somewhat but not really realistic FAR will still have a place. I don't know any details but considering that the new model can be completely disabled the changes a mod can do will probably be much more extensive. Maybe someone who is more into that knows more about that. Again depends on what stock will be like. My guess would be that there will still be something like Deadly Reentry for a more realistic take on reentry that what stock will do. That could very well happen, I give you that. But if the stock system is horrible... Now there is Filter Extensions which basically brings some for the functions PartCatalog had (for example filtering by mod which PartCatalog had or do I mix things up?) Isn't the stock ISRU system coded by RoverDude as well anyway? I remember reading that somewhere... So to sum things up, I think that except for Procedural Fairings none of these mods is in danger because they very well will be able to improve on stock and if some things are really replaced by stock completely isn't that actually a good thing? I mean, this would probably mean that stock significantly improved. But mods like FAR will always have their place because the realism crowd is there and quite active.
  5. @wossname I like what you did there no that flying wing. Placing the cargo bays at an angle allows the craft to be considerably more compact. @Aanker For "Worldwide Coverage" you might like to specify that the circumnavigation takes place within the atmosphere unless you want to count SSTO into that sub-challenge. Since you are now including space challenges...are rockets (jet-rocket hybrid SSTO? Nuclear engines?) allowed? It may be an idea to make something like bonus and penalty for the LV-N. Like a penalty for maintaining the LV-N but also a bonus that gives you some extra points so that you can use one or maybe two while still having some more points. LV-N special maintenance: -20 pts per LV-N Going nuclear: + 30 pts. Just an idea though. With those new sub-challenges you introduced I maybe try my hand on a new entry. Considering that I don't get anything nice done with the Mk.3 fuselage system (it feels just awkward when placing wings and stuff, especially on those adapters) I'll have to settle on doing something really fancy based on the Mk.2 system. Also, how about making a separate scoreboard for modded entries, of course with the requirement that the mods are somewhat grounded in the stock system, if you get what I mean? SXT, KAX and the Mk.4 fuselage system for example contain some nice stock-alike plane parts. I just wanted to throw that idea into the room. Now, while I'm at mods: Is it okay for a VTOL-ing entry to use something like Vertical Velocity Control? It doesn't help if the craft is unbalanced but it is really helpful for landing and hovering with VTOL crafts because you don't have to fight against the throttle while trying not to crash . It does have some problems with jets but works well enough for flight assistance. I'm asking this because you don't mention non-part mods in your challenge. Depending on your answer I may do the flying in a more stock-ish install in case I do a new entry. Not sure if I can design something good at the moment.
  6. I'm not complaining, after all I switched to alternate because default was burning away struts, batteries, docking ports and similar stuff. And huge wing assemblies without struts are just horrible. I was only able to add it to the post after deleting and recreating the album. When I placed it in a spoiler it was black with some residues of the imgur GUI but no images. Now it appears to work though, no idea what was going on there.
  7. Indeed, it is much, much more forgiving. To be honest, it is so forgiving that I'm not even sure it behaves like it should. On a side note: Is it just me or does embedding albums from imgur not work with spoiler-tags?
  8. I took your challenge as reason to finally build a flying wing like aircraft. To be more precise it is based on the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit. However, I unfortunately forgot a screenshot showing the fuel in the bombs before dropping them. I made some screenshots afterwards in the SPH and on the flight back showing that crossfeed is disabled on the jr. docking ports and the fuel tanks are full. Because of this, I leave it to you if you want to accept this entry since some proof of accomplishing necessary tasks is indeed missing. Also, I have quite a lot of mods installed but this plane only used stock parts from the Mk.2 fuselage system, some 1.25m stuff, wings, intakes, docking ports, ladders and tons of struts. Even though I forgot those screenshots I still want to show you the Orion Technologies Wraith. The Wraith is actually the first armed plane I ever build and probably would be better suited for carrying cruise missiles or something like that but I think it looks pretty nice and since I wouldn't have build it if I hadn't seen the challenge it somewhat belongs here. In case you accept the entry: Swift payback: 0.1pts*160 = +16pts Engine maintenance: Four turbojets, therefore: -4pts*4 = -16pts Part maintenance: -0.02pts*263 = -5.26pts Service ceiling: +15pts (Unless it doesn't count. It did cruise above 12km after all.) Such stealth, very sneak: +2pts (I guess it can be argued that the shape of the aircraft resembles that of a flying wing, right?) In summary: 11.74pts (Not many points anyway but this plane was build more for looks than maximizing points anyway.) I tried to reproduce the 11G turn around KSC at a lower altitude to achieve the airshow manoeuvrability, but that didn't really work out. If I'm in the mood I'll attempt field rearming (should be possible because the bombs are mounted using docking ports, only problem could be the ground clearance of the plane) and field refuelling sometime later. On a side note: DRE made my time much worse. I tried to go higher and faster with previous prototypes but the heat burned the struts. Use (imgur) and (/imgur) and replace () with [].
  9. Is the OX-HEX supposed to be so easily breakable in the atmosphere? Maybe I'm wrong here but I assumed that it was supposed to behave like the OX-STAT panel because it is always deployed. The OX-HEX also has the "Panel Strenght" line in the VAB/SPH which the OX-STAT does not have so KSP treats it like a normal, deployable panel. I took a look at the part.cfg of both parts and found a slight difference in the "ModuleDeployableSolarPanel" (which strangely is also used by the OX-STAT). Here is the "ModuleDeployableSolarPanel" in the part.cfg of the OX-HEX Panel. MODULE { name = ModuleDeployableSolarPanel sunTracking = false raycastTransformName = Cube_001 pivotName = Cube_001 animationName = solarpanels resourceName = ElectricCharge chargeRate = 1.5 powerCurve { key = 206000000000 0 0 0 key = 13599840256 1 0 0 key = 68773560320 0.5 0 0 key = 0 10 0 0 } } This is the "ModuleDeployableSolarPanel" in the part.cfg of the OX-STAT Panel. MODULE { name = ModuleDeployableSolarPanel sunTracking = false raycastTransformName = suncatcher pivotName = suncatcher [COLOR=#ff0000][B] isBreakable = false[/B][/COLOR] resourceName = ElectricCharge chargeRate = 0.75 powerCurve { key = 206000000000 0 0 0 key = 13599840256 1 0 0 key = 68773560320 0.5 0 0 key = 0 10 0 0 } } I added the line "isBreakable = false" to the part.cfg of the OX-HEX. It stopped breaking in flight and the "Panel Strength" line in the VAB/SPH is gone, too. So it behaves like a bigger, hexagonal OX-STAT now.
  10. Throttle Controlled Avionics could be what you are looking for. It also has a "kill horizontal velocity function". Only problem is that it doesn't work with jet engines, because of their reaction time when it comes to adjusting thrust output to the throttle.
  11. The Mechanic


    Didn't see it. How about the fan of the PSU?
  12. The Mechanic


    Mainboard? This "my outer rim runs marathons" sounds like some sort of fan though. Or at least something that is physically moving. EDIT: Ninja'ed. So it is a fan of some kind. CPU fan?
  13. It is from KSC++ (scroll down a bit). This is also where the trees and some of the additional buildings are from, the rest of the buildings are Kerbin-Side. The track continues to the hills west/south-west of KSC and sometimes the train moves around. This and the moving trucks add a bit of life to KSC, I think.
  14. So while searching for something better to stabilize my VTOL jet I found this here and, as I hoped, electric ducted fan engines are a perfect replacement for vernor engines. And also much better for my mileage. It could probably hover on those fans, but I reduced their thrust to zero and only use them as RCS because they would probably go through electric charge faster than vernor engines through LFO. And since I'm not good at deleting parts, I'll surely find a use for the other stuff as well. More good looking rover parts and small stuff is always nice to have.