• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About FatherLawrence

  • Rank
  1. This actually seems to me to have great potential for synergy with EPL; you could use EPL to construct the DIY kit in orbit of the planet it'll be placed on.
  2. As a guy who uses Kerbal Construction time and has save-games several Kerbal-years in length even before real mid-game, any malfunctions that will eventually ruin craft after a couple years would make my life super tedious. So I vote on increased EC cost. If the range is reduced, there's nothing I can do to accommodate that failure for a satellite beyond the malfunction range. If there's increased EC cost, I can plan redundancy in my power generation or I could even use KIS to slap extra power generation onto the satellite after. On that note, I know that you're redoing malfunctions in a way that will make them toggle-able, but I'm curious if we'll be able to modify the timescale of malfunctions? A person playing with KCT and another playing without will have drastically different experiences with time, and the appropriate malfunction rate for one will be either unbearable or insignificant for the other.
  3. Wow, what an entry! I've been a die-hard RT/TAC man and the idea of dropping those initially didn't sit well with me, but your integration of so many systems together with all the new things you've done is worth overhauling my modlist to fit this. One thing I absolutely would love is support for multiple star systems, like Galactic Neighborhood. I have an idea for how you could possibly support those. Because stars are often much larger than planets and much hotter, you could run checks for each body on their radius and temp and if they passed both thresholds, consider that a star. Since scales differ between RSS, stock, etc, make those settings available to the user so they can change the thresholds if Jupiter accidentally pulled a 2001. Alternatively, allow users to name which bodies will be considered stars and then MM patches could accompany planet/system packs and ensure compatibility. I'm also curiou: what do you plan to do when SQUAD gets their telemetry/comms system integrated into stock?
  4. Hahaha, it makes me so happy you even mocked it up!! An upside to the TBM is it probably wouldn't even need landing legs!
  5. I'm really looking forward to that 3.75m beast. Just overall, this pack makes me so happy. I can never have enough drilling for my EPL/galaxy colonizing playthroughs. And I'm gonna throw a pointless vote out there for a 10m Tunnel Boring Machine, just cuz. (I kid, I kid.) (Would absolutely use those, though)
  6. This is so great. Poorly planned Mun landings were never so fun! I'm curious if there's any way to incorporate atmospheric damage for antennae and solar panels? I'm not sure if it's stock or just with RemoteTech, but some antennae break if they are extended while flying at speed through atmosphere. It'd be cool if there was a chance to get bent out of shape instead. Re Solar panels, I know you can break the panels off another craft by crashing into it, sending glittery shattered panel goodness all across the cosmos. Would it be possible to grab that shattering event and instead turn that into a damaged but still functional panel?
  7. Isn't it fine with KerbalStuff links, because the license is posted at the download location? As for the mod, I'm digging how versatile this is. If Tweakscale could be integrated, it could be hilarious to do a Borg playthrough where every ship is a cube, just with relevant stuff inside
  8. From my testing (multiple reinstalls and persistence file edits back when I made my earlier posts), I couldn't fix a save where StateFunding broke and had to use a previous save. The only way I've found to deal with it is to not rename vessels as bases. Although I do have one vessel that was automatically named a base because of some mod parts it had (not sure, possibly PlanetaryBaseSystems) and that didn't cause problems, so it seems the act of renaming a vessel a base when it was something else is the problem. Same thing with using 'simulations' in KerbalConstructionTime; vessel destruction or death still counts against you even though it didn't really happen. I justify it in my head by saying that if it was published that all of NASA's simulations ended in astronaut deaths, the public would still lose confidence in the program even though no one actually died.
  9. I have the same satellite coverage you do, but I also have a couple (very small) space stations in orbit and a teeny mining rig on Minmus, and I'm raking in 118,000 funds a quarter for that. I'm also using StageRecovery to recoup some launch costs and ScienceFunding to earn a bit more cash, which both complement this mod very well, but if you really want to get off contracts completely, I recommend doing things like creating stations and attaching lots of fuel tanks or docking ports or whatever parameters you can fill to boost Government Confidence. Satellite networks alone doesn't cut it. And if you think about it, a couple dozen half-ton satellites doesn't seem as impressive as even one moderately large space station that puts your civilians into the vast reaches of space.
  10. That sounds great, actually. Much more difficult to use than normal beacons, but with the added benefit of interstellar travel. When playing with a full constellation of time-sensitive mods like KCT, State Funding, TAC-LS, etc, just time-warping till full is a little less feasible, haha.
  11. Yeah, I just performed a similar test with a test vehicle maybe one tenth the size of the colony ship I wanted to fly out, and it spit out a cost of 8e16 karborundum Since even the largest 15m Karborundum tanks in FTT have something like 1.8e8 in capacity, it would take thousands of those tanks or ridiculously tweakscaled versions, and mining enough to fill those would be impossible XD With that in mind, I've got an idea/request for whenever the author decides their life needs more complication: What about another beacon that's designed for interstellar travel that drastically reduces cost for extreme distance jumps? Something like a minimum jump distance of 1 terameter (since I'm sure there's almost no way to use that in-system) but has different scaling costs where it starts out very expensive on the low end but doesn't scale much higher with mass or distance, so that sending a probe isn't much cheaper than a colonyship. That would make interstellar jumps possible, while difficulty still comes from getting the second beacon all the way to another star system the old-fashioned way.
  12. I'm starting up a new galaxy playthrough (using Galactic Neighborhood for multiple star systems) and was wondering if these beacons have a maximum range? Even with RoverDude's Orion drives, traveling to another star can take 50 years (and Alcubiere drives take forever in real time; these are extreme distances). For reference, some of these stars are 10-20 Terameters apart.
  13. Is there a plan to bring back the SkyDocks in Pathfinder? I used to use MCM and they were my favorite option for building with EPL, and I recently got back into KSP and found that MCM was retired in favor of this (very awesome) mod. If not, how hard would it be to grab just those docks from the MCM mod and make them 1.0.4 compatible?
  14. If you've got a save from before you renamed that ship, you can reload that and reinstall the mod and it should work, if you don't lose too much progress. After that, just abstain from renaming ships as bases and you should be fine. I've played significantly father after reloading a previous save and everything else in the mod works.
  15. I've figured out the event that's triggering the bug, at least for my game. It's renaming my vessel to a Base instead of a Ship. I reloaded to an earlier save where SF worked to a point before I launched my first Munar Base mission. I launched it again, quicksaving and checking that the mod works frequently. I landed my vessel on the Mun and up to that point, everything was still working fine. But renaming my vessel a Base, not changing the name, broke SF and caused the empty tabs and NullReference Exceptions to start. The same happened if I edited a quicksave or the Persistence file to change its type to Base. I tried to reload the earliest quicksave with the vessel and rename it in the Pre-Launch state, but that broke it too. Sometime in the next couple days, I'll try other renaming designations and see if any of those cause the same problem. EDIT: No other type changes are causing this. Interestingly, changing to type to Station causes SF to recognize it as such, even though it's landed on the Mun and not orbiting. With another vehicle that I've had active for half a year, landed on Kerbin, changing the type to Base doesn't cause the same problem. I'll try some tests to see if it's specific to just that vessel. EDIT: Other vessels made before and after that one were capable of being renamed a Base in a variety of situations. Eureka! I've been able to reproduce this in a completely stock+State Funding install. The Mark I Command Pod, the first Solar Panel, and the Communotron 16 antenna. Renaming that a Base breaks State Funding.