Ald

Members
  • Content Count

    78
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

20 Excellent

1 Follower

About Ald

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

1,118 profile views
  1. @Lisias That is why I've mentioned the "template", that would customize the bare "procedural tank" to reassemble its original part, without keeping it as a seperate part. Ergo 1 procedural tank and many variants that look and behave like the original parts. You wouldn't loose anything, the part catalogue would have the same amount of "parts", but you would significantly reduce the physical parts as files in your GameData folder. And the bonus of that would be, that those parts would be configurable to your desire both the contents of the tank, and the external looks/model, to which mod authors could contribute to increase the variety of both.
  2. It is sad to for me to say this, but devnotes have degraded significantly comparing to the things I saw pre 1.2 or so. Having that out of the way... I used to wonder, instead of revamping tanks, why not migrate to procedural ones? Similar to the way it worked/s in Procedural Parts mod. For example, the regular LF/O fuel tanks or SRBs for rockets. Instead of keeping a whole lot of seperate parts, you would have one part. A part that would be tweakable in aspects: Width, height, diameter Possibly making an option to fill the endcaps if you consider the tank has nothing above and under id (attached radialy) Possibility to pick witch what you want to fill it with (similar to Modular Fuel Tanks mod) Choosable style of the fuel tank - model and texture wise Optional: Basic color manipulation (ex. if a model and default texture has three distinct colors, add some sliders for those colors). That would benefit the airplane parts mostly. And to cover the criticism of deleting the tanks as parts - there is a solution. Use templates in place of the deleted parts, to maintain compatibility. I see the template as an direct copy description and picture wise, but done actually with the "one fuel tank which is procedural" part, which has the required characteristics. This way, you would still have FL-T100/T200/T400/T800 on your catalogue list, but without 4 seperate parts. I wouldn't apply this rule to things, that are ment to be distinct, like engines. But towards things that can be scallable - all kinds of fuel tanks and SRBs. Of course I may be wrong about this, but it did work quite well for me in previous versions (I literally deleted all fuel tanks and used the procedural ones instead).
  3. Damn, @linuxgurugamer you must run on BATT-MAN batteries. I was missing this tool so much. Big thanks from me for reviving this.
  4. One question. How do two mods interact with eachother. As I do remember "HullCamVDS" had first person view, but what happens if you add "Through The Eyes Of A Kerbal (1st person EVA) continued" to the mix? Can they coexist? I persume that there should be no conflict (C button and clicking on kerbal). But you can never be too sure. I'll check it probably, but perhaps some of you may already know the answer.
  5. I do remember this backpack had an working antenna Sadly it is covered with a lot of dust.
  6. I really liked the ability to select target for the dish. And the remotetech specific dishes/antennas. But yeah that would pretty much cover it. Also I'd like to remind you all, that Kerbinside had some preparations for openable new ground tracking bases.
  7. No link = no control is included in stock pre edition. Just go to advanced options and turn off partial control.
  8. Indeed, the spacedock version is outdated. Just take it from the source.
  9. https://d-mp.org/ -> Download the Server -> 0.2.3.1 both client and server. I don't see any problems with it.
  10. Ok so we stay with binary 1-0 signal presence. But why not to adapt the signal strength as a trully informative parameter? You'll know if you're reaching the limit of your vessels comm instruments, by watching the percents go down. It could just calculate the effective range, showing you when you'll pop out of range - leaving you enough time to do some preparations (such as sending a kOS program or leaving a set of maneuvers to the flight computer to be executed while you loose signal). Occulsion would be the only thing that would bust your signal from x% to 0%.
  11. If I had to guess: RT has pointing the dishes mechanics, which stock will not have. Big +1 for RT for me RT has a flight computer, stock does not. +1 RT doesn't have such thing as signal strenght, that would be a cool thing if merged from stock in a good way RT has signal delay - if you want to punish yourself with remote control on anything further than Kerbin SOI Perhaps some tweaking in dish antennas to have relay compatibility Rewriting big chunks of code, to use stock API for communication mechanics, while keeping the callsign features of RT And keeping it unforgiving for not deploying antennas in time or messing up with the range. That is the thing I love the most +999(9) As for me, this is a no brainer. I adore RT and pretty much refuse to play without the mentioned behaviour Also I have those wild, wild dreams of integration between RT and Kerbinside ground tracking station bases (only way to emulate it with a hardcoded custom config atm). That would make the communication pretty complete for now (unless some wilder dreams appear).
  12. The thing I mentioned will eliminate the spam and slowdown. Big lag spikes will be the garbage collector mentioned by steve_v. Try both solutions.
  13. No, it won't, and definetly it won't break it. At least it didn't make anything go bad for my save. If you're unsure, just check it on a seperate installation of KSP (distant object + cacteye without the hook) Also from readme for "DistantObjectHook": The thing I found and belive to be the closest to explaining the issue between the two mods: