Jump to content

Matuchkin

Members
  • Posts

    1,517
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

1,580 Excellent

6 Followers

Profile Information

  • About me
    no.
  • Location
    Toronto, ON, Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

10,614 profile views
  1. Currently having an issue with a CKAN-installed instance of RO for 1.12.3, on the procedural fairings side of things. It appears that fairing diameter cannot be larger than 1.5 meters. Upon attempting to increase their diameters further, nothing happens. I have an incredibly faint memory of something like this appearing in the past, but I can't recall a single detail past that. I may be blind, but I have not been able to find any settings that would allow me to increase fairing diameters further. This may very well be some hidden option that I am too dim to notice. Thank you for the help.
  2. I have installed Procedural Fairings for 1.10.x, from CKAN, with RO. It appears that the fairing bases have now been adjusted to limit themselves to the diameter of what they were attached to, with the user unable to increase their diameter further. This renders it impossible to use the mod. I hope this issue can be fixed soon.
  3. I would like to provide you with the following advice: Step 1: take whatever crew parts you need. Step 2: attach solar panel, attach long range antennae. Step 3: LV-N "Nerv" Atomic Rocket Motor (x1) Step 4: Mk.1 Liquid Fuel Fuselage (xN, N∈Z+) The universe is now your oyster, at a nippy 0.10 TWR.
  4. 2353: After eight years of climbing, you finally locate the printer outside conference room 5, only to find that it ran out of ink sometime in late 2017. You use the elevator to get down to floor 10, retrieve the ink, and reload the printer. The round trip takes around 30 minutes.
  5. Ten years and finally the last page is written. I would say it was a great run, almost 10 years being the only game of its type and fully relevant until the end. On the plus side, I guess there will never be any issues with mods again. Except the ones that didn't make it from the good old days. On a completely unrelated and totally unsentimental note, does anyone know if it is possible to get one's hands on KSP 0.90?
  6. I am quite a big Quentin Tarantino fan. Actually I'm completely into this whole class of directors - QT, the Coen brothers, Robert Rodriguez, and the like. One film I find to be severely underrated is The Hateful Eight. The general consensus that I see is that the film is bloated and/or has an excessive runtime. I don't feel this way - in fact one of the aspects of the film that stood out to me the most was that it felt more like a play than a motion picture. No other film has made me snap out of the "I'm watching a movie" sentiment more than this one. The camera and aesthetic choices, along with the sound track, simply make this the most immersive and frankly amazing films I have ever watched. Another film(s) that I find to be special is the Kill Bill series. I don't know many other films that manage to be so overblown and exaggerated, yet do so while being taken seriously and perfectly maintaining their self-awareness.
  7. [A comment deletion function does not exist on the forums, so here is placeholder text.]
  8. Hello. I have been searching for the Promethium Weapons Expansion since it left development in 1.2.2, and up until this month I have not realized that the PEW project is now continued in NSI. I am very happy about this - the greatest mods eventually disappear, and it is through developers like you that this community continues thriving. We never give enough credit to those who continue projects on the verge of obsolescence. That being said, I have several qualms/questions about this mod: 1. It appears that textures are missing for multiple weapon components, such as the R60 missile. The components are covered in a black matte texture with their name written in white font. I have installed NSI via CKAN and ask whether this is an issue or these textures have not been developed yet. As I remember PEW having the same issues, I would assume for now the case is the latter. 2. I understand that combining NSI and BD Armory Weapons Extension is most likely a good solution for a modder such as you, especially with the workload that most likely comes from maintaining multiple projects. However, knowing that, BDAWE and NSI are two completely different mods, each offering different sets of components. I hope it would be understandable if I ask about what folders I must delete to remove the SciFi components in NSI, in order to only leave BDAWE (I assume simply deleting everything other than MilitaryDivision is going to completely break the mod). I also ask if it is somehow possible to segregate the BDAWE components (and others) of NSI into different folders within the mod's main directory, so that a user could simply select what elements of the mod they may wish to have. Such a structure would greatly simplify matters and reduce part bloat. 3. NSI is compatible with KSP 1.10.1. This leaves some confusion, as BDA is compatible with 1.8.1 - the version in which landing aircraft was impossible. Thank you for your work.
  9. At times, I do wonder how much new content is directly descended from mods that have been in KSP for years. We had our Infernal Robotics and Tantares DLCs, now we have our KAS/KIS update. Nevertheless I understand that an idea is different from its implementation, and I must acknowledge that there is a large KSP community that plays stock. This update is certainly well worth it.
  10. Hello. This is an amazing mod and I feel that switching up how propeller engines work in KSP in such a fashion is an idea that cannot be more welcome. However, you may wish to consider that, by switching to horsepower, you are effectively breaking the system used by KSP to determine flight time, thrust-to-weight, and other important factors. This greatly reduces the usability of the mod, as the user does not have any information about the engine they are using. Furthermore, as an engine's sole purpose is to accelerate an object, the most useful measurement for an engine is thrust, and the most important measurement for an object with an applied engine is thrust-to-weight ratio. Providing the power of an engine is meaningless: if I told a KSP user that a rocket engine outputs a certain number of Watts, this would mean absolutely nothing. Yes, a propeller engine rotates, but the end result of this rotation is always thrust in a certain regime. The action required to generate thrust, be it the expulsion of gas, rotation of aerodynamic surfaces, or standing on one leg and barking three times, does not mean anything when asking the question "can I accelerate this object". To add to this, information on fuel consumption, at least at a standstill at sea level and 100% mixture, is enigmatically not included in the engine parameters. One would assume this is an important piece of information, given that many pilots meticulously plan fuel consumption for every flight down to the liter. Again, I do not mean to discredit your work. AJE Extended has always been used and will continue to be used by me in the future. I am simply wondering why, as of now, one has to guess when using piston engines.
  11. Plane-based SSTOs are difficult. I have been playing this game since I found 0.18.3 Demo on Softonic seven years ago, and I have only managed to create my first SSTOs this week. You may also wish to consider creating rocket-based SSTOs. For instance, combine a single Mammoth engine with an appropriate number of Kerbodyne S3 tanks of any length. You will get SSTOs that could lift fairly large payloads into orbit. A challenge that I have set for myself in stock or stock-sized KSP is to get all payloads into orbit with a single stage.
  12. Small confirmation on the modded engine rule: are the small electric ductfans from KAX permissible for this challenge? I am asking this because, while they do not utilize exotic or unrealistically efficient fuels, they simply have infinite fuel as electricity is a fairly simple issue to take care of, whether with solar panel or RTG spam. EDIT: And also: I understand that this thread is old (and that I have frequented it before), but somehow I never thought of asking about the actual definitions of circumnavigation used, and cannot see valid definitions in the opening post. If I were to travel a path that would be considered a circumnavigation by any real life competitive/exploration association or body, would this automatically be considered a circumnavigation within the challenge's ruleset?
  13. You may want to look into physicsless parts in KSP (if such parts still exist in the current version). These are parts without any mass or aerodynamic effects. If I am correct, the small radial monopropellant motor is an example of such a part, which means that you can generate an extremely large thrust while adding no mass to your vehicle. However, though the above will get you to accelerate quickly, you will be doing so within the bounds of the KSP physics engine. The "fling" that you displayed, where an object is ejected at speed away from a celestial body, is a glitch that commonly happens when the physics engine is broken. A common way to reproduce this glitch is to enable infinite fuel and accelerate towards a celestial body, reaching relative velocity before impact. My guess as to how it can happen is that an error in calculation results in a division by 0 and hence an infinite force vector. When this vector is effected onto the object in question, this can only happen within several "frames" of the simulation before a collision is no longer detected and the vector disappears. As a result, the object is propelled at a random but extremely high velocity, which depends on your computer specifications and - I would assume - processor speed. The answer to your question, then, is that you simply need to push the boundaries of the physics engine. You can spin until the craft's joints begin to stretch and parts begin to clip, create a craft that decouples a clipped part, et al. Something that would return a calculation error. The rest is random.
  14. For me, the only thing Origin has done was give me Battlefield 3 and Dead Space when I was in grade school. They had something called "on the house" or such. Other than that, Origin simply serves as a Battlefield 3/4 installer when necessary, which is a shame since these games have now been put on Steam.
  15. Well there's this game called Kerbal Space Program. It's in a pretty early state, they only have this white pod that seats 3 people, two fuel tanks, two engines, and a decoupler, but I think you can get creative enough with it. The graphics are very unity-like and simplistic, but I like the sort of bright red, futuristic colour scheme they have with their buildings. They modelled a whole planet as well, and a moon. Can you imagine? That's insane.
×
×
  • Create New...