FatherLawrence

Members
  • Content Count

    35
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by FatherLawrence


  1. 1 hour ago, ShotgunNinja said:

      Should I make that increase EC cost of data transmission and relay instead of reducing the range?
      Or should I reduce the range less at each malfunction? (eg: 25% instead of 50%)

    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.


  2. 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.

     

    On 4/18/2016 at 3:10 AM, ShotgunNinja said:

    @Sigma88 Unfortunately this mod assume there is only one star, and that the star has index zero in the FlightGlobal.bodies array. I didn't even knew there were mods that added new stars!

    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?


  3. 14 hours ago, SuicidalInsanity said:

     

    If you thought the 3.75m drill was big...

      Reveal hidden contents

    5 minutes with Blender later...ZCu4vMC.png...and I can only wonder about the Whackjob-esque monster of a rocket that would be required to get one into orbit.

    Truly, it would be a very Kerbal way of mining (MOAR BoostersDrills), but I think I'm going to have to pass on a TBM.

     

    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!


  4. 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?


  5. 1 hour ago, smjjames said:

    The texture makes it look like a Borg cubeship, otherwise looks cool.

    Also, I think per the posting rules, you need to put the license into the OP.

    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


  6. Just now, gietek said:

    I'm afraid I too have this problem with bases. The only mods I'm using are MechJeb and ScienceAlert. As soon as I sent my first base to Minimus StateFunding broke. Is there any way to "unbreak" this without reloading the old save (which I haven't got)? It really is a very good mod giving some purpose to the game and enhancing the experience. I wish I had seen this before.

    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.

    Just now, JJE64 said:

    I've also noticed that it's a little unforgiving of reverts... if you screw the pooch and have to revert to launch and try again, it counts the kernels killed and ships as destroyed anyway.  I've had to edit the state funding conf file a few times now to undo things that "never happened".  It also sometimes counts dropped stages as destroyed ships, not sure why.

    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.


  7. On 12/22/2015 at 7:43 AM, columini said:

    So I wanted to try this mod and in my first quarter I got 100% satellite coverage on Kerbin, Mun and Minmus with the USSK and I just got 12300 funds for that.

    This is ridiculously low. Is it normal ? Right now it doesn't allow me to play the game without those stupid contracts that I don't want to do.

    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. 


  8. On 12/13/2015 at 1:35 PM, Stoney3K said:

    I think that if you want to do interstellar jumps, you could scale them with the same dynamics but in Kerbol orbit only

    That sounds great, actually. Much more difficult to use than normal beacons, but with the added benefit of interstellar travel.

    On 12/13/2015 at 1:35 PM, Stoney3K said:

    you can drop an array of drills/ISRUs anywhere on your favorite planet and timewarp until the tanks are full, haul the fuel off the surface, and repeat. This is anything but a challenge since time is not a limited commodity in stock KSP.

    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.


  9. Imma hyperedit a beacon a few terameters out and find out.

    EDIT: so it appears you'll just have to carry literally several tons of karborundum on each beacon. Where a probe going around in-system jumps with an LB-100 would cost ~3 karborundum, the same probe was clocking 7500 karborundum for the distant jumps.

    You can cross the distance with these beacons, but it will be stupid expensive.

    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 :confused: 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.


  10. 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.


  11. State Funding broke for me too, after I renamed a ship like you did, so I uninstalled it, deleted the cfg file from my game save and reinstalled. However now the mod cannot create a cfg save file for some reason, so the mod acts as if I've just installed it each time the game loads

    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.


  12. 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.


  13. So in the alt +F2 menu thingy it first says warning File 'saves/Kerbal Space Agency(Mods)/statefunding.conf' does not exist and then when I select one of the programs it says [Exception]: NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object

    I'm also having this problem. First 6 quarters went fine, got reports regularly, and then one day I clicked on the tab and all the info was blank. I could look at past reports, but every other tab was empty. ALT+F2 showed the same NullReferenceException, which in KSP.log looks like this:

    [EXC 17:03:23.153] NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object

    StateFunding.Review.UpdateBases ()

    StateFunding.Review.touch ()

    StateFunding.StateFundingHubLabView.draw (StateFunding.View Vw, StateFunding.ViewWindow Window)

    StateFunding.StateFundingHubView.LoadScienceStations ()

    StateFunding.ViewButton.paint ()

    StateFunding.View.paint ()

    StateFunding.ViewManager.OnGUI ()

    I restarted the program and also tried fast forwarding a couple quarters to get it to generate new reports, but it failed to do so at high and low warps; I know it can generate reports during warp as it has done so at the highest setting before.

    P.S. I really enjoy this mod and the way it shapes career mode. I also play with RemoteTech and thought it was actually kinda funny that the public couldn't tell the difference between Kerbals dying in simulations and real launches. I guess if all your simulations show that your program will kill Kerbals, that would generate bad publicity, eh?


  14. This may be the exact failure mod I needed. I've wanted to play with the risk of something going wrong during launch, but I'm also planning on using extra solar systems once the right mods get updated and it would be an enormous pain to have a ship literally 100 years away from the home system suddenly explode when I switch to it. This looks like the right balance of risk and not ruining the more important flights.

    I personally would rather not have failure decrease throughout the playthrough time so that every Kerbin-bound launch still has that bit of randomness to it later in the game, so if that is added I'd enjoy an option to turn that off.

    As for Extraplanetary Launchpads, it does allow orbital construction and launches; rather, it allows you to construct and launch vessels wherever you can maintain the base, so that's any orbit, on the ground, in the water, floating in mid-air...I have no idea if it triggers the "OnLaunch" event, however.


  15. Quiztech aero pack engines freak out when i raise the altitude with tca

    I myself really love the Quiztech parts as well and TCA is amazing for VTOL, so my (cheaty) solution was just to go into the parts files for the qt engines and reduce/remove their spooling time so they acted just like normal engines and can easily be controlled by TCA. Otherwise, it's gonna be hard to build good VTOLs based on air-breathing jet engines.


  16. putting additional fins in the upper stage I think will help. Don't know if spinning should really help a lot though, maybe try to keep the straight first.

    Do you have control on the rocket? With new aero, you should never go to far from your speed vector.

    The spinning is to keep an off-center CoM from tilting the rocket to one side, since it's practically impossible to balance these perfectly.

    And no, I really have no control besides staging and activating experiments because there's no SAS or control surfaces that fit the sounding rockets early in the tech tree, and that really doesn't seem like the point of a sounding rocket anyway; these are cheap, low-tech rockets that you use before you have easy access to better things.


  17. Looking for advice--In 0.90, I was able to build a simple sounding rocket that could easily reach 70km, using the biggest SR as the 1st stage, medium as 2nd, and smallest as the 3rd. I'd have medium fins as close to the bottom of the 1st stage, slightly rotated so the rocket would spin for stability. But now in 1.0's new aero model, I can't get this to work because halfway through the 1st stage burn, the rocket tips over and all is lost.

    I know that the reason for this is that the center of mass is really low on the rocket and so the tip being so high up results in the slightest sideways tilt knocking the whole thing silly when it gets up to speed. But if I lower the thrust modifier so it doesn't accelerate to that speed so fast, it doesn't spin enough to gain stability and falls over anyway.

    How are you guys dealing with this in your designs?


  18. I'm having a problem with the very first airfield mission. I crashed my jet onto the airstrip and EVA and then walk up to both the anomalies, and the waypoints are in the right place, but I can't complete the contract. I've taken reports while standing on them, jumping on them, laying down prone on them, I've called upon the small green gods of my ancestors but couldn't complete the contract. The condition of being by the pod or being in the tower would light up green, indicating it could be completed, but no dice.


  19. I'm having a problem with extremely large welds. I'm making something that would normally have several hundred parts (all just structural panels, but makes sense why I'm running into problems) and once I've welded it, some of the parts have the wrong rotation.

    This is a problem that's relatively easy to fix on smaller weldments because you can just go into the file and alter rotations until you've fixed it, but I've got hundreds of parts and I'm still not sure exactly which angles correspond to which axes in the part file (e.g. "rotation = 0, 180, 90") and whether those axes are relative to the whole vessel or just to the parent part.

    Is there any way to find the 'position' value for a piece of a weldment while within the SPH/VAB? Perhaps some sort of debug tool where you typed in a position value which would create a marker at that position somewhat like the CoM/CoL/CoT markers?

    Additionally, is there any way to extend the time given to the plugin to make more accurate calculations as to position and rotation? I'd be fine waiting 5 minutes per large weldment if it meant less house-keeping after.

    (And is there any functional difference between x and x+n360? such as 0 and 360 or 180 and 540?)

    edit: I've figured out how the position and rotation system works (position is relative to the center of mass, correct? and there is no difference between 180 and 540)


  20. I am having one odd issue that I haven't found any posts on...that is: When I exit KSP with something in Kerbol and then relaunch the game - these items are in orbit of the black hole. It is a long way to go to fetch anti-matter from my formerly convenient orbital factory.

    Any thoughts on how I can stop this? Better yet, un-move them?

    Don't know how to stop the problem from happening in the first place, but it's pretty easy to fix. You just need to make a quicksave and then edit the quicksave.sfs file to put them in the proper orbits and then load that quicksave. Here's two super quick, good guides on all the variables you need to worry about:

    http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/63278-Perfect-Satellite-Orbits-%28Or-how-to-Hyper-Edit-without-Hyper-Edit%29

    This will also be able to fix the contract bug where EVA kerbals you need to rescue orbit the black hole instead of orbiting Kerbin.

    Edit: To clarify, you need to set REF to 1 if you want things orbiting Kerbin. 0 seems to be the black hole, and I don't know what values are equal to other planets. I'll try to get around to figuring those out eventually (and I'll share here) but if anyone with some spare time and an abundance of suicidal Kerbals does it before I do, much appreciated.

    Edit2: Make sure to use Notepad++ to open those files, not whatever text program you already have. There are some special characters in those files that the normal wordpad or whatever will mess up.