• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

214 Excellent

1 Follower

About Murdabenne

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

2,046 profile views
  1. Thanks for the 1.6.1 version bump!
  2. Murdabenne

    [1.4.3] Kerbal Academy Contract Pack [v1.2.x]

    Read a few messages back in this thread - 1.2.0 and 1.2.1 are bugged and incomplete. 1.10 is the latest complete functioning version. And the developer apparently had RL take him away months ago, so consider this mod abandoned until you hear otherwise. 1.10 is all we have.
  3. Murdabenne

    [1.4.5] Hangar

    For those looking for an update, check Allista's status - as of the date/time of this post, he last visited the forums Jan 10 and last posted in October 2018. I think RL got busy for him, so I wouldnt expect any updates until after he posts something.
  4. Is this working OK in 1.6.1? Does it work with Restock? I'm on 1.5.1, and trying to move to 1.6.1, and this is one of the mods that seems to have been abandoned a long time ago. I have craft that absolutely depend on the legs and ladders.
  5. Murdabenne

    [1.5.1+] Maneuver Queue Requeued

  6. Murdabenne

    [1.5.1+] Maneuver Queue Requeued

    @linuxgurugamer is this one ready for a thread bump? Last edit was a year ago. Imthinking of finally moving to 1.6.1 now that most of the mods I love are available. I assume this one works in 1.6.1?
  7. Glad you are so enthusiastic about this - it means you aren't likely to just leave it, and passion cannot be taught. Wrong? No. Hardly. Again, hard to understand the tone, difficult to convey properly on the internet. Yours seems rather harsh, but given all the Brazil references in your profile, English is likely not your primary so perhaps that's it. I know my Arabic often comes across that way when I attempt it (and your English is certainly better than my Arabic or German -- or Portuguese). Anyway, I don t believe that my meaning was what you think it was. We differ on what we beleive should be done as a mod writer and software maintainer - I don't have the same sense of imperative that you do; to me after all, its just a game and just recreational software and to me these are fringe issues, to you they are central. And you're not wrong to take that position. At one time I was a strident Open Source crusader (quite difficult in the US government contract world), so I recognize the mindset. Technically this an ethical disagreement at this point, with my "Weltanshaunng" being different from yours culturally, historically and likely by my advancing age as well. Since there are gigabytes of argument in ontology, deontology vs teleology, informational ethics (with its accompanying branch Epistemology), and ethics of software development out there on the internet. To anyone that made it through that, have fun reading up on those topics - Epistemology (what is knowledge - how do I know what I know) and Ethics (what should I do) are interesting fields I've been dabbling in since my university days as a Philosophy minor. And obviously this is going way off topic, there is no need to go any further. So... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'll leave it at that. Good luck! p.s. Please make a Patreon so I (and others!) can buy you a beer (or other beverage of your choice) - which is what I would do if we lived near enough each other to meet at a good pub!
  8. Running OK on 1.5.1. Anyone tried these on 1.6, given the fuel tank changes in the VAB? (Yes I just necro'd a thread - but its appropriate because its NecroBones)
  9. Murdabenne

    [1.4] SpaceY Expanded, v1.5 (2018-04-02)

    Im staying at 1.5.1 specifically for mods like this - I love having the heavy lifters, and Necrobones fuel tanks, and especially all the ladders and landing legs in the Lithobraking. We need to clone @linuxgurugamer. Better yet, more of us need to learn to code just enough so we can do upkeep. The "point" releases so far seem more like marketing gimmicks given the regressions and absence of bug fixes - 1.6 makes no difference at all to those of us players who have been running KER and BetterBurnTime for years. Why build that into the game, why not work on bug fixes and content instead of duplicating addon functionality?
  10. Is this "retired" along with the other NecroBones mods? If so, that's a shame. I've been using his stuff since it came out - even the elephant engine a time or two.
  11. Murdabenne

    [1.4.1] Fuel Tanks Plus 2.0.2 (2018-03-14)

    I'm staying on 1.5.1 forever due to things like this. Not to mention the bugs in 1.6 like z-fighting, the Unity regressions, etc and nothing really added by 1.6 that I didnt already have with KER.
  12. Murdabenne

    KSP Loading... A closer look into Update 1.6

    Maybe its time for the Devs to declare the next "point" release will be nothing other than bug fixes and Unity work-arounds? No changes to the API, no new content, just fix the broken stuff, and push hard upstream to Unity for the things that cannot be fixed in code at the app level. Every once in a while, a "bug sprint" followed by a "refactor" sprint (from problems identified during the bug sprint) was a handy thing to have when I was directing a product team.
  13. Dead wrong. I was an author for 6 years for a moderately successful WOW addon. I have a feeling that you didn't understand what I was saying. I was pointing out that its up to the USER to determine if he should or should not be using a given modification or addon in a given competitive event. Each competitive event may have differing allowable actions for mods. And to meet them all, means constantly modifying and tuning, resulting in a nightmare of multiple event-specific versions which can and will confuse users. So the issues rests with the user, and the designer of the event,. For the most part, the missions were originally intended and designed to be done stock. Meaning few, if any, addons should be used. That means its not your problem, and that chasing such issues is ultimately counterproductive and detrimental to the add on and its usererbase. And if the other parts are badly configured, the same thing applies. As a developer, you can not and should not take responsibility for the bugs in another mod that can and will cause game issues even if your app is not loaded. If those concern you to the point where you are writing code, then submit fixes via their bug mechanism. And if its already too late, then why bother correcting whats already going to fail? Simply warn the users, and worry about tightening your own code. I know you want to save the world, but in gaming, sometimes failures need to fail, in order to point out their sources, so a root cause analysis will succeed, whcih makes them more readily seen and fixed by the authors in the chain. And usually a fundamental change is not made without warning, especially when its not your mod that is causing the failure - I still think a warning and then a change release are the better way to do this, especially in light of the source of the failure being outside of the addon. How do I come by this? I have a couple decades of government and contracting experience and military service, and some work for Everquest (Back when it was Redeye before it was SOE) and even "Legends of Kesmai" (in lovely Charlottesvill VA, you're ancient like me if you remember that) for networking code a long time ago. I'll admit its mainly recreational programming since then, some for my WoW addon (long since dead) and a few bits and bobs for other MMOs. So perhaps things have changed in the years in the software world since I started my new career in the medical world. And if you differ? Thats fine. That's my opinion formed from my experiences, and your experiences are likely far different. Lets agree to disagree, and I'll not bother you with my opinion since it causes unintended friction. Most of all dont take this wrong - tone is awfully hard to convey online; I appreciate the time and effort it takes to maintain a game mod, and the one you have taken on it considered vital by just about everyone with more than a couple of mods. Despite my opinion on things, I appreciate your work and the volunteering of your time and brainpower to keep this going. Thank you for doing what you do.
  14. I fail to see why Challenges are YOUR problem as the addon author. Challenges are supposed to be run completely stock from the developer's original intent. I say let Tweakscale (and all other addons) be banned from Challenges if they set it up that was as a condition. So that's not Tweakscales' problem to fix - please dont mess up this addon to fix someone else's (non-existent) "cheat" issue - let the Squad handle it, thats who has the authority to determine a cheat/no-cheat for use of addons in challenges with public status. And a lot of us don't even bother with challenges, so why mess up our gaming for a smaller subset? As for the big change, a warning would be better - if the other addon is causing the error, then let it fail and direct the people to that addon's author, instead of destroying a savegame with a non-previously announced substantial functionality change that breaks the game. Warn us first.
  15. Murdabenne

    [1.6.x] ResearchBodies V1.9.9 (17th Feb 2019)

    FYI @JPLRepo have restarted my career in order to take advantage of the update to Contract Configurator, etc. I have both telescopes in orbit (one for each contract jsut to test them out), but the progress shows the following for both contracts: You must have a Telescope part with a ModuleTrackBodies on you vessel: Incomplete Wrong - the telescope is on the probe. With Module: Track Bodies: Incomplete Wrong - I checked the persistent file, its there. Count At least 1: Incomplete Wrong - there are 2 of them in orbit. The vessel must be in orbit above 200,000 meters: incomplete Wrong - see below Destination: Kerbin: Incomplete Wrong They are in the Kerbin SOI. Situation:Orbit: Incomplete Wrong. They are in a stable nearly equatorial (< 1.0 degree inclination) nearly circular (eccentricity < 1.0) orbit Altitude:Above 200,000 m: Incomplete Wrong - periapsis is approximately 250,000m and apoapsis <1Km difference Searching the Skies: 76 days, 03:11:29: Incomplete. - I think this is the initial time minus the MET. Based on a 90 kerbin-day (19944000s) mission and subtracting the MET, this appears to be correct, and agrees with the PARAM "Duration" in the SFS file. Apparently the contract is not recognizing the TD75m nor the Tarsier that I launched and put into orbit. From the Persisten.sfs: One thing I do note is that very last line *is* decrementing. Does this mean that the contract is actually working even though the params are all "incomplete"? If so, then perhaps the completion criteria need to be restructured. Because I definitely have the telescopes in the proper orbit and they are operational. If this is the case, then it is incorrect (and misleading) to tell me I don't have the scope in orbit, that its not around Kerbin, and that is also no above 200Km. Is there a parsing issue I can look for in the logs?