Nils277

Members
  • Content count

    1042
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1215 Excellent

About Nils277

  • Rank
    Sr. Base and Rover Engineer

Profile Information

  • Location Fishing on the shores of Duna

Recent Profile Visitors

5830 profile views
  1. The textures from the IVAs from KPBS do not really have a high resolution. Especially the earlier IVAs. Can you post a screenshot of an IVA so i can see of it is the normal resolution?
  2. Kerbal Planetary Base System is now also available in chinese: Kerbal Planetary Base System - [Russian] [Spanish] [Chinese] still needed would be japanese and non stock languages: Kerbal Planetary Base Systems - ~6000 Words - Needs Japanese One question though: How should mods be handled that had a full translation for a language but then added new parts that are not translated yet? Would a category like "needs update" be a good idea? Or should we just change support for a language to "partial" and add the language again to the needed translations?
  3. Update to 1.5.1 Changelog Download One more thing: KPBS has several new parts starting from version 1.5.0 which are not translated yet. Can anyone help to translate them into Spanish, Russian and Chinese? Oh and shamelessly pinging @Rafael acevedo @fitiales @Dr. Jet @vosskftw and @q654517651
  4. Found the error: will make a release with the fixed config soonishTM
  5. @wile1411 Hmm, i thought i have tested the reactor with NFE installed. Seems like it has not been tested thoroughly enough. Will also take a look at the configs and the logs. @DStaal You are right about the trust. The second image does not reflect what the mod will look like in the game. Will leave the old image EDIT: @wile1411 I found the error. I used ModuleCoreHeat instead of ModuleCoreHeatNoCatchup. Here is the patch that should make it work: @PART[KKAOSS_Nuclear_Reactor]:FOR[PlanetarySurfaceStructures]:NEEDS[NearFutureElectrical] { !MODULE[ModuleResourceConverter]{} MODULE { name = ModuleUpdateOverride } MODULE { name = FissionReactor StartActionName = #LOC_NFElectrical_ModuleFissionReactor_Action_StartActionName StopActionName = #LOC_NFElectrical_ModuleFissionReactor_Action_StopActionName ToggleActionName = #LOC_NFElectrical_ModuleFissionReactor_Action_ToggleActionName HeatGeneration = 107500 NominalTemperature = 825 CriticalTemperature = 1300 CoreDamageRate = 0.007 // Base lifetime calculations off this resource FuelName = EnrichedUranium INPUT_RESOURCE { ResourceName = EnrichedUranium Ratio = 0.00000374929 FlowMode = NO_FLOW } OUTPUT_RESOURCE { ResourceName = DepletedFuel Ratio = 0.00000374929 DumpExcess = false FlowMode = NO_FLOW } UseSpecializationBonus = false AutoShutdown = false DefaultShutoffTemp = 0.90 GeneratesHeat = false TemperatureModifier { key = 0 0 } } @MODULE[ModuleCoreHeat] { @name = ModuleCoreHeatNoCatchup @CoreTempGoal = 825 @CoreShutdownTemp = 6000 @MaxCoolant = 2150 } MODULE { name = FissionGenerator PowerGeneration = 1200 HeatUsed = 2150 } MODULE { name = RadioactiveStorageContainer DangerousFuel = DepletedFuel SafeFuel = EnrichedUranium EngineerLevelForSafe = 1 EngineerLevelForDangerous = 3 MaxTempForTransfer = 400 HeatFluxPerWasteUnit = 5 } } Will push a fix soonishTM.
  6. Played around a bit with Gimp to "enhance" the screenshot used for the main image in the OP: Before: After: What do you think?
  7. Good to hear that removing KJR fixed the bug. I'm really sure it worked with 3.3.2 of KJR, will have to take a look what now causes this problem... Seriously had to laugh about this one You can increase the spring and damping value to make the joint a bit less bendy Btw you can change the shape of the underbody thruster to fit in the wide place in the right click menu in the editor. In the Protractor folder you can remove everything except for the "Parts" folder. This should fix the problem and still save your crafts.
  8. Yes there are a lot mods that are causing problems in the log. I found those (but there may be more): EnhancedNavBall Firespitter ModStatistics HideEmptyTechTreeNodes NavBallAdjustor IRSurfaceSampler KSPAPIExtensions ProceduralFairings EnhancedNavBall ProceduralParts Protractor I'd definitely remove Protractor and ProceduralParts. These two mods cause the majority of the listed bugs. Where Protractor causes the most logged errors but ProceduralParts interferes the most with other mods, also with the FUR plugin. Regarding the joint, i found that in the Editor the plugin logs the error that the Joint does not have a parent, meaning it is (most probably) the root part of the vessel. I though i configured the part in a way that preventes it from becoming root in the editor but there seems to be something really wrong. More interesting is that the joint does not find any parts it is connected to when in flight. This renders it completely inoperable. This should acutally NEVER be the case. This can only happen when the vessel only consists of one part. Which is not the case in your vessel. The only reason i can come up with is that at least one of the mods (maybe KJR) messes around with the connections/nodes between the parts and therefore completely confuses the plugin for the joint. If it is not KJR and is not fixed by removing or updating all outdated/incompatible mods, i fear the only way to find the mod FUR is interfering with is to remove all other mods and add them one by one until the error occures.
  9. Hmm, from looking at the rover it should work. At least the joint is build exactly like it should. One thing i saw in your GameData folder is KerbalJointReinforcement. There have been some issues with it in the past, but that should have been solved with the latest patch of KJR. You could try to remove it and see if the Joints are working then. Wow, 100MB for the Log file is really a whole lot Usually for me it is only about 1-2 MB max. This might be an indicator that KSP is logging really a lot of errors that occur at very update. But i will have to look at the log to be sure.
  10. Hmm, the "Inoperable" text for the hitch and joint indicate that there has something really gone wrong. Also when unlocking the parts in the hangar it should also have them unlocked in flight. Can you post a screenshot of your craft as well as the "KSP.log" file from your KSP main directory? (the log as link please) Also did you take a look at the KSPedia entries for the hitches? They need a strict setup for work properly.
  11. Update to 1.5.0 Features Changelog Download @wile1411 You didn't do anything wrong. I just pushed the changes for 1.5.0 too early on github before making the official release
  12. Yep, there were multiple ones missing that Will go trough all of them.
  13. @Aelfhe1m Thanks a lot! I must have been really blind to miss out the "HAS" part...Just looked at the config for the other parts and they all have it. Edit: "they all have it" was a bit exaggerated..lets say most of them...
  14. @coolguy8445 I have no objections regarding KPBS being supported by RO. However i think that doing this would really be a whole lot of work. KPBS currently has 133 parts (including support for the various life support mods) which were not really designed with realism in mind, meaning they might be unblanced because they are too small/big/light/heavy etc. for their real purpose. Also i wouldn't be able to help for an adaption for RO, because i have never used it and therefore have no idea on how the balancing is done.
  15. I have a question regarding adding parts to contract requirements. I have been told that the ISRU i wanted to add does not fulfill the contract (at least for one user). For the other parts like the cupola it is working. I believe that this might have to do with the fact that there are already two ISRUs that can fulfill a contract. Currently the script looks like this: @Contracts { @Base { @PART_REQUEST[#Part[ISRU,MiniISRU]] { Part = KKAOSS_ISRU_g } @CREW_REQUEST[#Part[ISRU,MiniISRU]] { Part = KKAOSS_ISRU_g } } @Station { @PART_REQUEST[#Part[ISRU,MiniISRU]] { Part = KKAOSS_ISRU_g } @CREW_REQUEST[#Part[ISRU,MiniISRU]] { Part = KKAOSS_ISRU_g } } } Does the request have to look different for the ISRU or is it sufficient when i look for only one ISRU in the contract?