ThirdOfSeven

Members
  • Content Count

    94
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

55 Excellent

3 Followers

About ThirdOfSeven

  • Rank
    Addicted To Mods

Profile Information

  • Location Array
  • Interests Array

Recent Profile Visitors

2,540 profile views
  1. Currently testing it in 1.6.1 with tons of mods (including unofficial FAR build and GPP). Game didn't crash yet, they inflate, deflate, produce lift, they fly somewhere slowly. I didn't try this mod before today, maybe something is missing, but for me it looks working perfectly.
  2. So it seems not all retractable parts got this improvement about impact resistance when retracted, but only 5 types of solar panels? Is it only in part.cfg but also part modules don't support them?
  3. When it is falling from space, bottom side is pointing prograde (direction of speed vector), which is pointing to ground. Ship itself will point retrograde (with its pointy end). Nevermind, it doesn't flip anymore after clean reinstall.
  4. It seems to me like Mk1 Pod, despite previous information on "not changing its properties too much" is now flipping in atmosphere (with no SAS) to fly with pointy side down, while it should keep its orientation with thick bottom side to prograde. Is it intended? Anybody else can observe this?
  5. It is mostly related to KSP Update -> Mods update -> Modded career goes to recycle bin. Stock stuff mostly works ok and Squad usually keeps old parts (or their versions) in place for backward compatibility. But I never saw somebody asking modders to stop updating their mods, like FreeThinker's KSPI-E which is updating quite often, sometimes changing tech tree and balance monthly, if not more frequent.
  6. They will have to release updates with bugfixes to fix it anyway and it will take some time to finish it this way. I suggest community to choose their "finished" version without developers having to decide which version it is, basically. Only thing we need from developers in this case is to keep such version available as "older release" on Steam Only problem is competition between Squad and new amazing stuff they will add and ugly old "stable" version missing this stuff and I don't think we will be able to resist...
  7. Basically update every 3 months makes any serious project in this game nearly impossible without freezing it on your PC and not getting updates anyway (cause anything like career or crafts may break). It is what I have to do anyway with any attempt to do modded let's play series. Why don't modders then choose version they consider "stable enough to be worth modding" and linger behind official like it was for Minecraft, for example (1.6 was "nice for mods" for few years until 1.7 become "more or less stable")? And if you wanna release for new KSP version, go for it, just keep mod for older versions and its code available (even if you don't support it). I think even if API is stable enough and it is only recompile issue, not every mod author will keep interest in game forever anyway and will not come in time to release new recompiled "official" version. And mostly we get "outdated" mods not only cause it is hard to rewrite, test and fix bugs for new version, but cause people take break from even keeping an eye on this game. Nothing will solve this.
  8. No, actually they sink really well, and I need tons of blisters strapped to stop them. Now parts in KSP have their own "buoyancy" field, not sure which value they have by default and I don't think they are related to part scale, that's why. I'm trying to make TweakScale patch to scale it as well to check if it will help.
  9. Oh, now it is clear it is x, y, z scale multipliers and some static "weight" added is last value. Anyway, seems buoyancy is not adjusted by this mod
  10. I can't find link to source code for plugins anywhere to check (shouldn't it be available, btw?). What MODULE { name = FSResizer specificMass = 5, 5, 0.0, 0.5 /// <--- these specificCost = 472.3465, 605.744, 0.0, 450.0 size = 1 sizeOnly = true } these values mean? Why will any ship with upscaled parts instantly sink? I suspect it is due to mass growing but not buoyancy. Maybe buoyancy parameter should be adjusted on resize too (like it is done by TweakScale)?
  11. Hi there. I have two related problems here: [LOG 11:18:05.418] ADDON BINDER: Create binding redirect: BDArmory, Version=1.2.0.1047, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null => BDArmory, Version=1.2.2.2, Cult ure=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null [ERR 11:18:05.419] AssemblyLoader: Exception loading 'AntiSubmarineWeapon': System.Reflection.ReflectionTypeLoadException: The classes in the module cannot be loaded. at (wrapper managed-to-native) System.Reflection.Assembly:GetTypes (bool) at System.Reflection.Assembly.GetTypes () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at AssemblyLoader.LoadAssemblies () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 Additional information about this exception: System.TypeLoadException: Could not load type 'AntiSubmarineWeapon.ModuleAntiSubmarineWeapon' from assembly 'AntiSubmarineWeapon, Version=0.6.5.2, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null'. This happens with latest BDA from SpaceDock at 1.4.5. I know it may be not supported and wanted to rebuild/fix it, but seems like (second problem) Link to source code in starter post and on SpaceDock is broken.
  12. Good point, but on other hand you don't need to advance through entire tree to fly planes on Kerbin. Same with other tech which is mostly useful for interplanetary travel like high-ISP ion thrusters or NERVA. But, of course, letting people to play their way is not something I want to remove. I just don't want this option to be common pitfall. I'm not alone stopped around Kerbin (i know people who did also and I had to persuade them to just fly somewhere else with cheap probe to not lose much! :)), that's why I thought it can be nice to make sure people don't miss 90% of KSP content this way.
  13. I remember my first play through in vanilla KSP when I had no reason to fly anywhere beyound Kerbin SOI cause you still get science and contracts here to unlock everything. So you can afraid to visit Duna forever and you will not suffer in any way (other than not seeing awesomeness of other planet), which is completely wrong. I think main problem is ability to just grind required science points amount by flying to the Mun/Minmus and around Kerbin. You can, of course, reduce science income, but it will eventually let you grind anyway through contracts and by visiting more biomes (or even by using some strategy through administration). Solar system already has some difficulty progression between different planets which can be used in some way to encourage flying to other celestial bodies and their points of interest to progress in some way through technology and funding. I don't know what exactly can be done as it has to be tested first on focus group, but it can be even some different kind of science you can get with different instruments in different places to progress through different tiers or branches so you can't just collect it all in single place. Or even more significant drop in contract income for bodies/biomes you already visited multiple times (depending on how far it is, so you still have reason to build bases around distant planets). Other way may be adding some story with clues behind all these anomalies scattered around so you can be driven by pure interest. Some pre-defined set of contracts/missions with interesting story can be nice also (but, of course, they are hard to make them procedurally generated and have to be made by people).
  14. There definitely some logic in design for new textures, I mean RT-10 is obviously "two times RT-5", so they definitely can be just two RT-5 stacked together by Kerbals. I don't care much about variation between these two and like them like they are done. And IRL SRBs don't have any strange thingies like old ones had. We also miss 2 other pictures "without stripes" and they may look even more similar. But if somebody has better idea about it, I'd like to look at them.
  15. It is pretty simple stuff anybody understand and you don't need to clarify it. Question was about why we have work on 1.5 reported and nothing about fixing bugs in 1.4.x. Any hint on possible 1.4.6, 1.4.7 bug-fix releases work will be appreciated.