Jump to content

Snark

Moderator
  • Posts

    9,971
  • Joined

Posts posted by Snark

  1. Some content has been redacted and/or removed due to off-topic digressions.

    Folks, the topic of this thread is Russian launches and missions. Kindly leave the "my rocket is better than your rocket" posturing at the door. It's off topic, it solves nothing, and it just makes the thread less useful and interesting to all concerned.

    Thank you for your understanding.

  2. A large amount of content has been removed, due to:

    • politics
    • off-topic content
    • arguing about arguing
    • telling people what to do or not to do (a.k.a. "backseat moderating")
    • responding to any posts that do any of the above.  When we remove a thing, we gotta remove everything that responds to it, lest we create "dangling responses".

    Folks, please don't post politics, surely this reminder shouldn't be necessary.

    A few bits of advice:

    • "Here's what government should do" or "here's what public policy should be" tends to be political, so if you see yourself writing that kind of thing, treat that as a warning signal and reconsider posting it.
    • Responding to someone else who posted politics, is politics.  Even if you say "not political, but".
    • Discussion of environmental issues per se isn't really about SpaceX, so it's off topic.  "SpaceX is having difficulty with a launch permit because of environmental issue" is fine... but extending that to "what our environmental policy should be" or the importance of such issues is off-topic.  (And almost invariably political.)
    • Please don't tell anyone what to do or what not to do, even as a "suggestion".  You're not a moderator, it's not your place to give orders.  If you think something's a problem, just report it and don't respond.  That engages the moderators, whose job it is to deal with that sort of thing.  It's what we're for.
    • When you know that someone else's stuff is off-topic, please don't try the maneuver of responding to them in the same vein, and then inserting a token "obligatory SpaceX" remark, in order to somehow make your post "OK".  It just makes things worse.  When we remove the other thing, it means we have to remove your stuff, too.
    • Please don't respond to anything political or otherwise problematic with the rules, even if your own post tries to steer clear of those problems.  Because we can't have "dangling responses".

    Thank you for your understanding.

  3. Since the author has chosen to delete the mod, there's nothing further to discuss here, and so the thread has been locked.

    Some content has been redacted and/or removed, due to people making personal remarks. Folks, let's please remember that we're all friends here: modders make what they do out of personal interest and passion for the game, and users like to try the mods for the same reason. So let's keep things civil, please.

    Just to be sure we're all on the same page, it may be worth reviewing a couple of points that one presumes we all understand, here:

    • Modders give us shiny toys for free, and don't owe the users anything. (So it's never appropriate to complain about a mod, though of course good-faith constructive feedback is always appropriate.)
    • A mod changes the user's gameplay (and has the potential to wreck savefiles), so naturally users are going to want to know what it does: both to decide "do I want this for my gameplay" and to assess risk. So it's common for modders to provide such information along with a mod. The modder is under no obligation to do so (see bullet point above), but since every user needs to know this basic information, it's to be expected that folks will ask about it if the information isn't included.

    Thank you for your understanding.

  4. On 2/17/2024 at 4:34 PM, SpaceWalker1870 said:

    is there like a wiki page for it? curious if that planet that moho now orbits has a surface or not, idk, just saw it in internet and it seemed interesting

    You mean Moh?  No, it's a gas giant, no surface there.

    I don't know about any wiki, but if you look at the OP of this thread, there's a section entitled "New Planetary Layout" with a spoiler that describes things.  It's not much info, but at least it tells you what things are (for example, it mentions that Moh, which you were asking about here, is a gas giant).

  5. Hello, and welcome to the forums! :)

    5 hours ago, RedSh0t said:

    Hi, this is not correlated to the topic, becouse i'm pretty desperate to fix a bug with opt, essentially the wings don't produce any lift, i don't know what could be the problem, as i don't have far installed, but the problem appears also with tundra exploration, do you know what mod could be cousing this? i can send the mod list if you want.

    We've moved your question to its own topic under KSP1 Mod Discussions, since that's the best place for general questions about mods.

    If you have a question about a specific mod (such as OPT?), then the best place to ask would be in that mod's release thread.

    Otherwise, if you have a modding question and aren't sure where to ask, then this subforum would be the place to go.

    Hope you can find an answer to your problem!

  6. A large amount of content has been redacted and/or removed, due to off-topic digressions and other issues.

    For anyone interested in the detailed technical minutiae of the specific problem that @NippyFlippers raised, please see the GitHub issue that JonnyOThan was kind enough to open for that purpose:

    On 2/1/2024 at 10:35 PM, JonnyOThan said:

    I opened a GitHub issue here for tracking: https://github.com/KSPModdingLibs/KSPCommunityFixes/issues/191

    Thank you for your understanding.

  7. Some content has been removed, due to off-topic discussion (among other things).  Folks, please play nice.  The topic of this thread is this fork of TweakScale.  If you have a question about a different fork of TweakScale than this one, best to go ask there.

    This is one of those situations where more than one fork of a mod is being actively supported / maintained / developed.  It's understandable that folks might be a little unfamiliar with how such situations work, because for the large majority of mods, that is not the case and there's only one active fork at a time.  However, just because it's uncommon doesn't mean it doesn't happen-- such as the current case.

    So, what's a confused user to do?  Well, if you have a question about a particular fork of a mod, then you should ask your questions in that fork's thread.  For example, if you use Lisias' fork of TweakScale, and you have questions about it, you would ask here.  If you have questions about someone else's fork, then you should go ask them in that modder's thread.

    7 hours ago, ElonsMusk said:

    Is there a comprehensive difference between Jonny's new fork and yours? I've always used yours, I don't mean to start drama just curious if there's a difference between the two that may affect which fork I use in the future.

    That's certainly a reasonable thing for a user to want to know, and it's perfectly understandable to want to ask such a question.  :)

    However, please understand that questions like this are tricky.  Why?  Because there is nobody in a position to answer authoritatively.  Modders know their own work-- that's why, if you have a question about a mod, the right person to ask is the author.  Modders-- like anyone-- are not in a position to know someone else's work unless they've worked with it themselves.  One trusts that modders are aware of this, too, and would know better than to comment on someone else's work.

    The person to answer questions about a modder's work is the modder themselves.  This means that if you ask modder A to critique or discuss modder B's work, you're asking them a question about something they aren't in a position to judge.

    If you want to know the differences between two active forks like this, therefore, your best bet is to look at the OPs of their respective threads in detail, and see what information you may find there.  Each author is in the best position of describing what features or other benefits their own fork provides, so the OP of their mod thread is the best place to get such information.

    Thank you for your understanding.

  8. 11 hours ago, Kerbal2023 said:

    So the combinability exponent will be 0.75 for all combinable antennas? (Although the Communotron 16 doesn't.)

    That's the one exception among the stock antennas, yeah. That one's linear.

    11 hours ago, Kerbal2023 said:

     If I changed the 16S to combinable, I don't have to set the combinability exponent manually?

    Not unless you want the exponent to be something other than the default 0.75, no.

  9. What it does

    • Pretty much what the title says.  It takes some KSP functionality that isn't accessible via action groups, and enables that.
    • Currently, the only such functionality is setting SAS mode (see below).  Other functionality may be added in the future.

    Download from SpaceDock
    License: MIT
    Source code

     

    Setting SAS mode

    The mod exposes SAS mode setting to action groups. It adds this action-group functionality to the stock Avionics Hub, as well as via a new part, the Mk1 SAS controller.  This is a small, radially-attached part similar in size to the smaller science instruments, which also functions similar to the avionics nosecone to allow low-level SAS functionality in the absence of a pilot.
    sasControllerMk1.png

    If you select the avionics hub or SAS controller in the editor's action groups UI, it has actions for setting the various SAS modes, which you can assign to whatever action groups you want.
    actionGroups.png

    Note:

    • It doesn't toggle SAS on and off; you still do that the old-fashioned way, via the SAS action group.  All these new actions do is to set the current SAS mode, when it's already active.
    • Your vessel's SAS limitations (due to probe or pilot level) still apply, so (for example) trying to use an action group to set SAS to prograde will still only work if your vessel has at least SAS level 1.
    • Thanks to @Geonovast for supplying the SAS controller model, and also for suggesting this mod in the first place!  The mod wouldn't have happened without him.

     

    IndicatorLights compatibility

    This part is compatible with IndicatorLights.

    It works fine without IndicatorLights, but if that mod happens to be present, then the part has visual indicators to show when SAS is on or off.  Different colors and patterns indicate the different SAS modes.
    IndicatorLights.png

     

    How to install

    Unzip the contents of "GameData" to your GameData folder, same as with most mods.

     

    Why would anyone want this?

    Honestly, most people probably wouldn't, it's a fairly niche use case. ;)

    It's primarily useful for folks who need to tinker with SAS mode when they're busy in a tense situation where they'd rather not take their fingers off the keyboard, such as when landing. It can also be useful for working with a mod like Smart Parts, which can trigger action groups automatically in various situations.

     

    FAQ

    • Q:  So all  it does is SAS mode?  So why does the mod have such a generic name, then?
    • A:  Because for all I know, I may have occasion to need some other action-group functionality in the future, and if I do, this mod is where I'll put it.
    • Q:  So you're definitely going to be adding more stuff, then?
    • A:  Nope.  May just be this much, forever.  I'm just leaving the door open, is all.
    • Q:  Why put SAS action groups on a new part?  Why not just add 'em to probe cores and command pods?
    • A:  Because those parts already have a lot of action items on them already, and I didn't want to clutter up every part's menu with ten new items, just on the off chance that someone might ever want to use them.  Adding the new part clutters up the craft a little bit, but I preferred that to cluttering up all the menus for all the parts.
    • Q:  But I'd rather have this functionality on the command parts!
    • A:  That's easy to add with a snippet of ModuleManager config.  As an example, look at what I've done to the avionics core.  Just add the same to whatever other parts you like.
  10. Hi all, just a note that I've released IndicatorLights v1.8.3.

    New in this release is support for indicating current SAS status (yes, I know this is arguably unnecessary, since the navball shows that status anyway, but I found myself wanting this).  The only part I've instrumented to show this is the avionics nosecone, since that part is all about SAS.

    sas.png

    Indicator is on when SAS is active, off when it's not.  When on, the color indicates the mode (color-coded by the corresponding navball icons):

    • White for "stability assist"
    • Yellow for :prograde: and :retrograde:
    • Cyan for :radial: and :antiradial:
    • Magenta for :normal:, :antinormal:, :targetpro:, :targetretro:
    • Blue for :maneuver:

    That's the default behavior, but as with pretty much everything in IndicatorLights, it's highly configurable.  Every individual SAS mode can be separately configured.  Details for modders are in the wiki.

    Other changes, besides the above:

    • Add this as a valid ColorSource identifier in config syntax (of interest only to modders)
    • Add a new statusText field to ModuleToggleLED, to allow using config to specify the UI text for the toggle button.  Thanks to @Geonovast for the feature suggestion!
    • Various minor bug-fixing and bullet-proofing.
    • Update to ModuleManager 4.2.3.

    Enjoy!

  11. Some content has been redacted and/or removed, owing to personal remarks.

    Folks, please don't make things personal.  The topic of this thread is KSP2, its features, what you'd like (or not like) to see, etc.

    The topic is not what you think of your fellow posters, their motivations, their attitudes, what you think they should or shouldn't do, whether you think they're being "reasonable," your perceptions about their past behavior, etc.  If you have a problem with someone's behavior, take it up with the moderators by filing a report.

    By all means, argue.  Address people's points, and if you happen to disagree strongly about their points, go ahead and express your disagreement (along with your reasons).  But please don't go after the people themselves.

    Thank you for your understanding.

  12. 9 minutes ago, Nazalassa said:

    Could you put this magic in a spoiler? Else it's no longer magic.

    Thank you, but no.  "Spoiling the magic" is entirely the point.

    Doing this sort of thing may seem like "fun", and to some people it may be a fun game, but to others it looks like "someone hacked the forum" and it spooks people.  It causes unnecessary concern and is akin to pulling the fire alarm in a crowded building, just for funsies.

    We understand that you didn't mean any harm and were just playing around, but this is the sort of thing that causes unnecessary anxiety for people who are just trying to use the forum.

    Moral of the story (to everyone, I'm not just speaking to you personally):  Folks, please don't try to play cute games with the forum software.  Lots of people "live" here, and there are enough real fires that need putting out on a regular basis that pulling the fire alarm is not a great idea. ;)

  13. Hello, and welcome to the forum!  :)

    42 minutes ago, MattST said:

    Im in v1.12 Downloading this has caused me to get mass errors. However when I try to put parts together, either they don't snap together half the time or they do snap together but at the incorrect terminal. Any help with this please?

    I have no idea, myself, what the problem might be.  That said, though, if you have a problem with a particular mod, then the best place to ask about it is usually in that mod's release thread in KSP1 Mod Releases, since that's where all the folks most likely to have the answers (i.e. the author and the users) hang out. ;)

  14. On 9/29/2023 at 4:30 PM, ctbram said:

    I added this to my 1.12.5 game and it was causing a problem to remove and replace the crew between the vab and launch pad I was really getting mad having to constantly revert and replace the crew I put in the ship in the first place.

    I have no idea what the problem might be, but my best guess (based on the very little information you've provided) is that this is a problem with your KSP installation, rather than a problem with BetterCrewAssignment itself.

    My reasons for guessing that:

    • It works fine for me
    • Over 12,000 people have downloaded the latest version of this mod, and none of them have reported your problem, so I'm guessing it works fine for them too
    • You're the only person who has reported this problem

    Examples of ways that this could go wrong on your local KSP installation would be if there's some problem with the way you've installed BetterCrewAssignment, or else perhaps it's not playing nice with some other mod you have installed.  Without more information from you, it's impossible for anyone else to know.

    What have you done to diagnose the problem yourself?  Specifically,

    • have you looked in the KSP log file to see if there are any informative error messages that may be relevant?
    • have you tried running BetterCrewAssignment with no other mods installed (other than MM), to see whether it still seems broken for you?

    Also, FYI:  Yelling "it doesn't work!" at a mod author, while providing no specific details of what you're doing or exactly what behavior you're observing, is unhelpful.  If you'd like advice or troubleshooting help (for this or any other mod), you need to be specific about what you're doing and observing.

     

    On 9/29/2023 at 4:30 PM, ctbram said:

    I removed it from games and now all my saved ships complain about missing bca modules and all my tourist contracts have been wiped.  It would have been nice to mention once you add this mod you can never remove it from your game folder or you permanently trash ship craft files!

    The reason this "problem" isn't mentioned is that I've never had this problem, nor have I heard from any of the other several thousand users that they're having this problem, either.

    BetterCrewAssignment is-- as I design all my mods to be-- "uninstall-friendly".  Meaning, you can uninstall it and it should work just fine.

    Yes, if you load a ship that was previously saved with BCA installed, then you'll get a (harmless, ignorable) pop-up complaining that the PartModule isn't there, but this isn't specific to BCA; this is true of all mods that add PartModules to saved craft files.  If the pop-up is annoying, just re-save the ship after opening it and the pop-up goes away.

    Regarding the contract thing:  No idea what's going on there.  BetterCrewAssignment never has had anything at all to do with contracts.  There's not a single line of code in the mod that does anything with contracts at all, nor have I had any contract-related bug reports other than yours.  So, again, this sounds as though it's probably a problem with your local installation.

     

    On 9/29/2023 at 4:30 PM, ctbram said:

    purge this VIRUS

    Just a bit of friendly advice:  If you want free help from someone who,

    • doesn't know you, and
    • doesn't owe you anything, and
    • hasn't done anything wrong, and
    • has put in a lot of hours to create the shiny toy for free that you have chosen to use,

    then it usually helps not to make angry, disparaging remarks about them or their work.  Criticizing strangers tends to make them disinclined to spend more of their free time to help you.

    Best of luck.

×
×
  • Create New...