Noio

Members
  • Content Count

    78
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

28 Excellent

About Noio

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Hi! I love these science contracts - they really do add a lot of interest and fun. I've noticed that if one has the Station Science mod installed, the 'biome study' missions start asking for station science experiments too. And this is a bit of a bummer, because I don't want to slog a 30-ton cyclotron and two big bags of kibbal to Ike. Or do I? Hmmm... Is this an unexpected mod interaction, or intentional? Thanks!
  2. Oh. My. Gawd. I have avoided space planes for years because of control issues. This mod has completely changed my relationship with wingy things. I want to buy you a beer.
  3. Hi: I've put together a config which adds ModuleSPU and ModuleRTAntennaPassive to the new RLA-Stockalike probe cores. I can't vouch for correctness, but it seems to work for me. In case it's useful for somebody else, here it is. Please feel free to use & abuse in any way you see fit. RemoteTech_RLA_Stockalike_Probes.cfg @PART[RLA_small_probe_4sides]:AFTER[RLA_Stockalike]:NEEDS[RemoteTech] { %MODULE[ModuleSPU] {} %MODULE[ModuleRTAntennaPassive] { %TechRequired = unmannedTech %OmniRange = 3000 %TRANSMITTER { %PacketInterval = 0.3 %PacketSize = 2 %PacketResourceCost = 15.0 } } } @PART[RLA_small_probe_4sides_gold]:AFTER[RLA_Stockalike]:NEEDS[RemoteTech] { %MODULE[ModuleSPU] {} %MODULE[ModuleRTAntennaPassive] { %TechRequired = unmannedTech %OmniRange = 3000 %TRANSMITTER { %PacketInterval = 0.3 %PacketSize = 2 %PacketResourceCost = 15.0 } } } @PART[RLA_small_probe_6sides_gold]:AFTER[RLA_Stockalike]:NEEDS[RemoteTech] { %MODULE[ModuleSPU] {} %MODULE[ModuleRTAntennaPassive] { %TechRequired = unmannedTech %OmniRange = 3000 %TRANSMITTER { %PacketInterval = 0.3 %PacketSize = 2 %PacketResourceCost = 15.0 } } } @PART[RLA_small_probe_8sides_gold]:AFTER[RLA_Stockalike]:NEEDS[RemoteTech] { %MODULE[ModuleSPU] {} %MODULE[ModuleRTAntennaPassive] { %TechRequired = unmannedTech %OmniRange = 3000 %TRANSMITTER { %PacketInterval = 0.3 %PacketSize = 2 %PacketResourceCost = 15.0 } } } @PART[RLA_small_probe_24sides]:AFTER[RLA_Stockalike]:NEEDS[RemoteTech] { %MODULE[ModuleSPU] {} %MODULE[ModuleRTAntennaPassive] { %TechRequired = unmannedTech %OmniRange = 3000 %TRANSMITTER { %PacketInterval = 0.3 %PacketSize = 2 %PacketResourceCost = 15.0 } } } @PART[RLA_small_probe_24sides_gold]:AFTER[RLA_Stockalike]:NEEDS[RemoteTech] { %MODULE[ModuleSPU] {} %MODULE[ModuleRTAntennaPassive] { %TechRequired = unmannedTech %OmniRange = 3000 %TRANSMITTER { %PacketInterval = 0.3 %PacketSize = 2 %PacketResourceCost = 15.0 } } } @PART[RLA_small_probe_QBE_gold]:AFTER[RLA_Stockalike]:NEEDS[RemoteTech] { %MODULE[ModuleSPU] {} %MODULE[ModuleRTAntennaPassive] { %TechRequired = unmannedTech %OmniRange = 3000 %TRANSMITTER { %PacketInterval = 0.3 %PacketSize = 2 %PacketResourceCost = 15.0 } } }
  4. As always, thanks for all the hard work providing a high-utility part set that doesn't overpower stock. Now that the small stock reaction wheel is also size 0, is there still value being added by the size 0 MRS one? I can't find an effective difference between the two anymore.
  5. Thanks Cybutek, for all the work you do making KER an amazing mod. I have a small feature request: could we have a setting which causes numeric fields to be zero-padded for a fixed width? At timewarp, the number of digits in numeric displays changes fast enough that the fields become entirely unreadable. I'd rather have a fixed number of digits so there's no jitter at high speed. Thanks a ton!
  6. Thank you kindly. Life without NanoGauges is too imprecise to bear. I think the download link in the OP is wrong. This one seems to work fine: http://nereid42.de/NanoGauges/NanoGauges0.5.10-178.zip
  7. Do you envision that being part of SpaceY as well? I am perhaps a little odd - I like to stay inside the stock sizes without too much deviation. To that end I had been using MRS, but SpaceY adds some really great size1-3 parts and I started using that too. But I'm worried that SpaceY is also now defining larger stuff and its scope appears to be growing. Perhaps MRS could become the home of all the size0-size3 stuff, and SpaceY the home of the larger stuff?
  8. Love NavHud. Love it. But would it be possible to get support for the stock toolbar?
  9. I'm a big fan of MRS, but I had been keeping KW Rocketry around alongside it for: - The size-1 Maverick-1D, an engine which fills what I feel to be a huge hole in the lineup; - The excellent SRB collection, which addresses a part of the catalog which to me is lacking; - The excellent 5-meter parts. But to me, the Space-Y lifter pack provides more utility, integrates more closely to the rest of the stock lineup, and does it in less RAM. So it's time to scratch out line-item three. Very, very nice. (However, there will always be a soft squishy lovey place in my brain for the sound of the KW Griffin Century igniting. And so I'll miss it a little. )
  10. Awesome. However, is there a size-three nosecone? I see size-3 bases but no cones that fit. Also, is there a non-expanded size-1? I'd like to be able to put a fairing around my teeny satellites without needing a big expanded fairing.
  11. Okay, I've managed to reproduce it at will, thanks to Rebel's notes. Yay! 0.25 Win32, two mods installed: FAR 0.14.3.2, and HyperEdit, used to put the vessel in orbit in the first place. You can find the save game quicksave here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-8cKOlqLStFMlNnbnVMN2Zad3c/view?usp=sharing And the output_log here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-8cKOlqLStFTzlNMnpyM0Y2dWM/view?usp=sharing To reproduce: - Load the quicksave. After the quickload, you should be focused on a Kerbal X in orbit. Click the time-warp arrow icons in the upper left to the fastest warp you can get. - Let it warp until T+30 days. - Then, using the mouse on the time-warp gadget again, set speed to 1x. Using this recipe, I was able to trigger the failure three times in a row. If I uninstall FAR and repeat the same test, the error does not occur.
  12. A small bug: The Terrier is available in the tech tree *way* before other three-meter parts. I suspect that it really should be moved back to match the other big engines.
  13. I have been seeing this too, and it's crazy infrequent, and crazy hard to reproduce at will. I've been spending the last few nights trying to figure out a reliable way to reproduce it. I _think_ that it has something to do with a state change (SOI for sure, but also seen in low orbit - atmospheric boundary?) right as KJR is showing the little 'stabilizing physics load' message, because that message gets stuck onscreen until I do something to break the overflow (like hopping to the space center). But I can't make it happen with *just* KJR installed. To my mind, that doesn't necessarily mean it's not there, perhaps the presence of FAR just changes the timing just right (or perhaps it's vice versa?). If I have KJR *and* FAR installed it seems to happen more, for small values of more. But again I think that may just be the timing changing more than something specific to FAR, but it's hard to tell. So far, my most reliable method (read: it seems to happen slighly less never than the usual almost-never) of reproducing it seems to be to tell KAC to stop RIGHT before SOI changes (like, single-digit seconds), then set for max warp and hope KAC hits realtime a split-second before the SOI change. Rebelgamer, when are you seeing this? The fact that you're seeing it in a 'static' 95k Kerbin orbit throws out most of my theories, but helps me know where to focus testing. Is it just multi-day warps followed by a stop? Does it happen to you reliably, or intermittently? How do you come out of warp? Manually? Kerbal Alarm Clock? Perhaps between the two of us we can figure out exactly how to trigger it.
  14. Aha! That is an excellent point. I think I'm a few sigma from the mean - I don't rely on reaction wheels for much of anything but basic "orientation stationkeeping." It didn't even OCCUR to me to think about the wheels when I was evaluating the parts. I'm probably poorly equipped to evaluate the tradeoff caused by the loss of said wheels to the general population. I will happily concede that.
  15. I, too, have had great success with the new radial probe core. It is very nice. I am a little worried, though, that it's a bit too good. Ever since it showed up in my lineup it's been chosen preferentially to the big inline cores - it's both lighter AND makes the rocket less wobbletastic. If the addition of new parts makes it so that old parts are no longer valid choices in any circumstance, that's a sign in my mind.