• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

223 Excellent

About StahnAileron

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer
  1. Kerbal Aircraft Expansion _Continued

    Regarding a custom KAX resource: is there a chance of including/supporting an MM config that swaps out the KAX custom resources for more common ones from CRP for those of us that have extensive modded installs (and therefore likely to have the needed dependencies anyway)? I'd rather have a common pool of resources that the mods I use pull from (that make sense) than each one using their own set of custom resources, if possible.
  2. Two items: I don't recall if this supported Radiators as specific category. It currently doesn't (and I don't think it ever did, but again, not sure...) Radiators take EC to use for quite some time now, if I recall correctly. Any chance of adding them to the filter list? I recall Ratzap once telling me that certain categories in the filter for Fusebox are dependent on mod version-specific dlls being present when Fusebox is compiled to actually support that mod properly. This is because some mods reference EC usage with atypical methods that Fusebox has to specifically account and look for. SCANsat in particular seems to be notorious (well, to me) for breaking support in Fusebox each time they release an update. (Ratzap basically had to recompile each time certain optional supported mods updated, like SCANsat.) I'm on 1.3.0 currently and don't see SCANsat as part of the Fusebox filters. Any ideas about SCANsat support in FB-Continued? On a side-note: Kinda wished you called it Fusebox Rewired
  3. KSP Weekly: The Eridania Region

    There's a reason they called it: ... and not just "Gemini Service Module." It's kerbalized historical referencing. If you want something a bit more faithful, look at actual historical mods like @CobaltWolf's Bluedog Design Bureau.
  4. [1.2.2] Kerbal Aircraft Expansion (KAX) v2.6.4

    @keptin Given what you just said, for future reference: My understanding is that KAX is just a parts pack with a plugin-dependency in the form of FireSpitter. I'm guessing KAX will work for the foreseeable future assuming: The FireSpitter plugin is updated to support future KSP versions (and players actually update it properly...) and KSP's codebase doesn't change (once again) in how it handles models (like how I think 1.0.5 switched to convex-only colliders or something or 1.1 handled wheels/legs.) Anything else should be maintainable by the player-base if you ever drop KAX completely, no? (Like config changes.) If you do actually abandon KAX, have you considered changing the license so another modder or the KSP community can adopt it for at least maintenance and distribution, if not further development?
  5. [1.3] SpaceTux Industries Recycled Parts

    @Skalou, @linuxgurugamer First, a grateful thanks for the work on Atomic Age. I don't use much from it, but I abuse the crap out of the KANDL for small probes and commsats. That said, something I want to ask @Skalou regarding the KANDL: Have you looked at the shroud set-up for it? Most other engine fairings/shrouds I've seen in KSP either stick with the decoupler/separator or split and eject sideways. The KANDL's seems to be a single separate physical entity that kinda gets flung off due to collision on staging. I bring this up because in prior versions, it would get explosively ejected when staged. I wound up always having to disable the shroud. (Otherwise I'd risk damaging my vessel or shifting the orbit a bit. I've lost solar panels to this a couple of times, at least.) I just checked this version with KSP 1.3.0 and the same issue seems to persist. Though I admit, it doesn't seem as bad as before. This was tested with zero ejection force on the decoupler (to rule that out). No shroud = safe and gentle (no shifting), as expected. With shroud = forceful ejection, causing a spin and orbital shifting. This was a very small test vessel with low mass. Something about the size and mass you'd expect for use with the KANDL, if not a little lighter. This mostly a minor thing with a workaround I know about (I think I defaulted the config file to disable/hide the shroud), so it's not something I expect to be addressed quickly. Just something you might want to be aware of. (The lack of a shroud kinda kills the immersion when I go for practicality over aesthetics.)
  6. Generally speaking, I sorta like having my power switch separate from my mode selector. I'm more likely to power cycle than mode cycle. I also think it's a little more obvious in terms of seeing what controls/options you have.
  7. KSP Challenge: The Atari Challenge!

    I was KINDA close, in a broad sense
  8. KSP Challenge: The Atari Challenge!

    Part II: If you collected them in Kerbin orbit, de-orbit them; attempt to hit them with a direct rocket launch from the surface. The lower to the ground and higher the (combined?) impact speed, the higher the score. Anyway, back about this challenge: Yeah. I read "Atari Challenge" and I thought it was designing and launching a vessel that looked like an Atari console. Or, now that I think about it more, Atari-era classic characters.
  9. Ram Air Turbine (RATs)

    No offense, but are RATs really needed in a game that gives you an even better option: RTGs? Yes, it's not realistic, but realism was shown the door long ago. (Playability trumps realism in many cases... Or else we'd only bother playing Real Life(tm).) Granted, it's not as pretty as a RAT for aircraft design if you don't intend on using a hollow part of some sort (e.g. cargo bay) or just clipping the sucker, but it's constant power without the dependency on forward movement in an atmosphere. (And there's also the bane to many a designer: drag...) Honestly, I can't see the benefits of RATs in KSP when it has better implementations for power generation in aircraft. The only thing I can see going for this is cost (that's just one line of code in a *.cfg file) and for the sake of realism. I think it's too much effort for not enough pay-off, generally speaking. For sim enthusiasts it'd be nice, but I can't see that demographic making up a large enough portion of the player-base to warrant/justify an implementation of RATs that works (well) without some hacks. (Unless implementing them is easy; I doubt it given KSP's development history...) WARNING: The following addresses a point (Career Mode), but contains a mild rant:
  10. KSP Weekly: Taking a ride to the Moon!

    Is the mobile launch pad the first step into a stock feature of off-site/-world construction using ISRU? Like the EPL mod? That would make KSP far more playable for me in the long run. I've yet to really do anything outside the Kerbin SOI. (The one thing was an attempt at a DMagic survey contract around the Sun. That game was in 1.0.5...) Exploration of the Kerbin solar system doesn't have much incentive for me without some in-game reward (other than science, of which I have disagreements with concerning how research works...)
  11. KSP Challenge: The Mun Arch Speed Challenge!

    Probably clichéd as hell, but any thoughts on the Top Gun theme as an intro leading into Danger Zone? First thing that came to mind. There may be something else more appropriate, though...
  12. StarMods: Tokamak Industries Refurbished Parts!

    To be perfectly honest, I think @linuxgurugamer at this point needs a monument or something within KSP to honor his role of keeping fun and useful mods alive as they get abandoned by modders from lack of time, energy, or drive. (You have to admit it: the breaking changes that come with new KSP versions for some mods must frustrate those modders to no end.) Remember: half the fun in KSP comes from mods. It sometimes feels like he keeps half of those mods alive.
  13. How do you dock?

    When I do bother with docking, RCS all the way. I once was mucking around with an Apollo-ish-style mission for the hell of it. I realized in orbit I done goofed and forgot the RCS. "No problem," I thought. "I just need to align prograde, decouple, thrust a bit, flip over to retrograde, and thrust again." Yeah, no. I forgot exactly what went wrong, but I wound up either colliding with the other craft or thrust wrong, so alignment went balls. This was with RemoteTech installed; neither craft had probe cores. (It was a fairly minimalist design; as I said, just goofing around.) I had to EVA a kerbal to the other craft first to stabilize it. Then tried to dock. Took longer than I cared for with too much effort compared to RCS-controlled approaches I've done before. (Ah! I think I recall the problem: the separator was in the way and I had to nudge it away. My attempt knocked the lander as well, screwing up the alignment.) Since I was just goofing off and really just testing the design, I reverted to the editor and made sure to add RCS for later runs. I don't think I ever did anything productive with that design afterwards. Just did it to do it; no real objective beyond that in mind. (I don't even remember if I bothered with a munar landing and rendezvous test.) The last set of docking I did was for my first real attempt at a true functional space station, something I always wanted to do by was too lazy to attempt (plus, 1.0.5 was not conducive to high part counts; I skipped 1.1). That was all RCS and MJ's Target Alignment Auto-pilot all the way. The station was built using NFT station parts and ports, so proper alignment was important, both for the aesthetics and for the ports to work. Frame-rate was meh too, so RCS control was kinda important for the precision. It was also needed for orienting the station and fine-tuning its orbit. It was a large and heavy stand-up guy, probably the biggest and largest I've actually designed and put up, either single-launched or assembled in-situ. The few SSTO spaceplanes I've designed and built for docking rely on RCS as well. The docking ports I use on them are rarely ever aligned with the main engines to even attempt engine-only docking. I do recall someone using a bunch of normal engines in each axis as RCS on a massive mothership he built. He had to; it turned WAY too sluggishly otherwise. (Never mind the frame-rate...) He had to map each set of engines to an action group. (I don't recall if AGX had a hand in this. I imagine it would considering the amount of functionality he had in that ship.)
  14. KSP Challenge: Crosswise the Sea!

    In the very first or second challenge (I forgot which), I suggested they rename the thread series to something more appropriate because I knew the connotations the word "challenge" triggers in the KSP community. (Or anyone who understands competition. A challenge is a type of competition in the end.) I still find it a bit irksome, but it's minor since beyond the use of that word for whatever reason they have, they explain the actual point behind the "challenges": having fun in KSP. Sometimes just having someone else define a goal for you in a open-sandbox game like KSP makes it easier to have fun because you're not limited by what your mind can come up with. (Or lack of motivation; I get lazy after a while trying to achieve goals I set for myself in KSP.) I imagine the term is used to garner more attention to these threads. It may backfire if players associate a "SQUAD Challenge" as "meh" compare to their expectation when seeing the word, however. Even so, turn out for these seem to be decent, so it not a lost cause. If anything, it's a good way to get newer players involve with the community. There's a more typical challenge section here if players are up for it. Otherwise, just ignore these threads if the interest isn't there for you. Hell, it's what I've been doing. (I've been out of KSP for a couple of months now.)
  15. Regional Armed Forces Show!

    That might be tough because (A) I'm still on 1.2, (B) run a mod-heavy installation, and (C) haven't really touched KSP much over the past 2-3 months. I could create a stock 1.2 install (I'm waiting on mods to update) to do it for you, however. I just don't recall what KSP had for stock part selection. It probably won't be as pretty(-ish; I'll admit the cockpit I used wasn't really befitting).