Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


211 Excellent

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • About me
    Kerbal Brewmaster

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I'm starting to get back into Kerbal Space Program after a long hiatus. I did release an official recompile for 1.2.2. Thanks to Ser for the 1.2 recompile while I was away. Release: https://github.com/stevehead/ksp-SimpleOrbitCalculator/releases/tag/v1.5.0 I will look into CKAN support later.
  2. Feel free to do whatever you want with the mod. I've had a lot of life changing experiences over the past months. Barely have time to play KSP, let alone maintain mods. Would love to see my work built on and continued.
  3. Sorry, RL stuff has kept me very busy the past several weeks. I'll try to get to the update soon.
  4. Glad you like it. Regarding the clock, if it's possible, it would require a plugin to achieve this. This is a config only modification of the game.
  5. Alright thanks, that works with the links. I do have another complaint regarding the new forums. It hurts my eyes after about 5 minutes. There is not enough contrast between the posts, and it all just runs together. Again, an issue with the flat design. This is really bad on larger monitors such as the 27" I'm using.
  6. As a former web developer, I do not understand everyone's obsession with flat design. The new forums look like a quickly put together website with Twitter Bootstrap, with some custom CSS; it looks terrible and does not do well with the busyness that is inherit of a forum website's UI. Not to mention the headache that it is giving us mod makers forcing us to fix the formatting for our mod threads. WYSIWYGs are for those that are computer illiterate, BBCodes are more flexible. I want the old forums back. I am a strong believer in "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Also, is there not a way to link new threads without the need for the thread's title in the URL? I want links like this: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/115990; not this: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/104465-105-soc-simple-orbit-calculator-v140-6232015/ I understand that the older thread links are probably using some sort of htaccess rewrite rule (or similar method) that redirects to the new URL.
  7. [quote name='CatastrophicFailure']Patiently waiting (and subbing) till this great sounding mod gets moving again. Was there ever any word on 1.0.4 compatibility?[/QUOTE] I would really like to get back to this mod. Sooner rather than later I'd say. But the next couple of weeks are going to be insanely busy for me (working full time in a retail environment + black friday + going back to school + exam next week). I'll try to verify compatibility at the least today or tomorrow. [quote name='lextacy']Can this mod be used in a way to give certain engines more failure than others? I know testflgiht does this , but testflight does not offer launchpad explosions. What is [I]propagationChanceDecreases = False[/I] and [I]failurePropagateProbability = 0.7[/I] ??[/QUOTE] There is currently no way to increase or decrease failure rates for individual engines. I was thinking about for science/career modes to increase reliability the further you progress into the tech tree. The GitHub readme has details on what each setting does. Here's the link: [URL]https://github.com/stevehead/ksp-KerbalLaunchFailure#custom-settings[/URL]
  8. [quote name='VenomousRequiem']This mod has become a must have to be completely honest. As well as Kerbal Launch failure. Keep up the good work, yo.[/QUOTE] Glad you enjoy it and thanks! I've been unfortunately neglecting Kerbal Launch Failure. My free time is really limited, and plugin mods require a little more work. ------------------------- Just a heads up to everyone, the new changes to heating with 1.0.5 may render my 4x scale config unplayable with out-of-the-box settings. I tried a reentry from LKO with the Mk1-2 pod and 2.5 heat shield and it burned through just about all the ablator, so Mun/interplanetary returns would kill the shield (and ultimately the vessel). I've never played around with the heat difficulty slider when starting a new game. Does that decrease how much ablator is burned off? If so, lowering that could be temporary solution. Same may apply for the 3x config, but I have not tested that one yet. Same deal with 64K but worse; that will need to be fixed by the 64K crew as my generic config has nothing to do with the heat settings and atmosphere density, etc.
  9. [quote name='Errol']Would it be possible to make texture replacer images for a tilted galactic plane version of the sky box, to match the solar system's tilt?[/QUOTE] I'm not big into graphics and such, so I wouldn't be the one to do this. I'd say it is possible, but just remember that the point of these configs is to keep the stock feel but make some things a little more realistic: one being that the galactic plane and ecliptic are not the same plane. [quote name='.50calBMg']I got it to work with both 365 and OPM by using the generic one and then installing the X3 version over it and overwriting the parts from the generic file.[/QUOTE] Great! Glad you got it working with OPM too. I'll probably add OPM support for the generic config in the next release.
  10. [quote name='.50calBMg']will this work with the kerbin 365 mod?[/QUOTE] Just tested with Kerbin 365 and it looks like it works fine with it. The generic config does not work with OPM at the moment, however. [quote name='abowl']The devs should consider adopting this because honestly alot of thought has been put into it and the axial tilt has very interesting side effects. Rarer eclipses which is nice. They become more epic when they happen. The 24h daylight, during summer at the pole. Thats just too good. These small little details is what makes a good game great. The difficulty will be slightly higher, but it shouldnt be an issue once you become affiliated with rocket building and space faring.[/QUOTE] I remember reading not too long ago a post that said that the devs could have implemented real axial tilt per planetary body, but decided not to because it was very complicated to get working with Unity 4. I'm hoping Unity 5 could possibly make it easier to implement. The problems with the method used by me and RSS are that [B]1)[/B] I can only specify axial tilt for one body (Kerbin in this case) while all others get a random tilt based on their orbital elements, and [B]2) [/B]the reference plane is the original ecliptic used in stock, so any mod that gives orbital readouts (MechJeb, KER) will have these exaggerated values (instead of Kerbin having an inclination of 0, it is [COLOR=#333333]23.4).[/COLOR]
  11. I just released a new version of my Harder Solar System configs that adds 64K support if anyone is interested. The config simulates axial tilt on Kerbin by rotating the entire solar system (like how RSS does it for Earth), increases the inclinations of Dres and Eeloo relative to the ecliptic to be more like Ceres and Pluto, changes the inclinations of Mun to about 5° to be like the Moon's and Minmus to 0.5[COLOR=#333333][FONT=Helvetica Neue]°[/FONT][/COLOR], and increases Jool's mass to be more realistic relative to the scale. [URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/137931"]Link to Thread[/URL] I should add that I tested on 1.0.5, and my specific changes are verified to work with the 1.0.4 version of 64K. This does not mean 64K is playable with the latest Kopernicus/KSP.
  12. I need the poll removed from the following thread: [URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/137931"]Harder Solar System[/URL] Thanks!
  13. [B]Version 1.2.0 Released - 64K Support! [/B]- Generic config added that supports 64K and should support most other stock-like solar systems by default. - For OPM users, Urlum's inner moons now aligned with rings like Sarnus's inner moons and fixes for science altitude errors and rings. [URL="https://github.com/SteveheadSpaceAgency/HarderSolarSystem/releases/tag/v1.2.0"]Link to Release[/URL] [I]The generic config has not been CKAN indexed yet. Will do a pull request for them this evening.[/I]
  14. If anyone uses my Outer Planets Mod compatibility config, as a heads up with the latest version of Kopernicus, the rings are not scaling properly.
  15. A few things I found regarding my configs and Outer Planets Mod: For one, I goofed and made a tiny mistake with how the science altitude threshold was being rendered by MM in the configs for Outer Planets Mod compatibility. Was throwing errors on load, which I should have caught, but I probably was AFK as I usually am when loading KSP. This has been fixed in my develop branch. Second thing is the rings in Outer Planets Mod. Some change in Kopernicus no longer requires me to scale the rings for 2x, 3x, and 4x scales; doing so as before shrinks the rings instead. This has also been fixed in the develop branch. This will unfortunately force me to bump the minimum KSP version to 1.0.5 in the AVC version file, therefore rendering any future release incompatible with KSP versions older than 1.0.5. Third, I am going to remove the tilt for Urlum's inner moons so that they are more aligned with the rings, as they are in unmodified OPM. This will be in the next release.
  • Create New...