• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,000 Excellent

About SuicidalInsanity

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

11,193 profile views
  1. Yeah, mini ISRU is like that because stock behavior for the 1.25m can't run at full efficiency. Why that's the behavior Squad went with instead of simply reducing conversion rate (same end result of longer conversion timespan, far less end-user confusion), your guess is as good as mine. Easiest way to fix it would be via MM patch, @PART[SMX_Size0ISRU] { @MODULE[ModuleCoreHeat] { @MaxCoolant = 100 } } Slightly more involved way would be to reduce all the ModuleResourceConverter TemperatureModifier curves in the .cfg by half.
  2. I was in a Project Orion mood, but the existent Orion mods that I know of haven't been updated since KSP 1.3.1. So I coded my own. Queue the next few hours spent testing fooling around with it, which main consisted of repeatedly nuking the KSC (Incidentally! In the name of !!Science!!). Still have to work out kinks like dV calcs, but no big deal - it's Orion. (In a way, finding dV is unnecessary - does the vessel have the dV to go to [X]? Yes.) Jeb performs his Magnum Opus: 2! Hundred! Atom! Bombs!: A nuclear cacophony, in D minor.
  3. Why are you messing with the models? A .mu file is a .mu file and hasn't changed as KSP updates, and nothing shares textures for MODEL node optimizations. The only thing(s) that needs updating for compatibility with current BDAc are the weapon .cfgs. (and possibly the Jericho Trumpet plugin? Fairly sure the 1.4.5. recompile patch still worked in 1.8.1) That said, if you want to save yourself some work, the AA 1.4.5+ compatibility patch posted on the last page configures the weapons to work in BDAc 1.1+. It's a MM patch, but you could pull the values from that for easy updating of the .cfgs proper.
  4. I've tried various means of attaching radially attached bits to the inline Banshee fan to try and reproduce the error you're seeing, but have been unable to replicate it. I'm going to need detailed reproduction steps. ... M2X Update 1.8.7 is now up at long last. Grab it from SpaceDock or GitHub. Changelog: Of note - All parts with variants now now have color tagged descriptions, Banshee fan fuel types can now be dynamically toggled in the SPH/VAB (no more messing with MM patches), and the Mk2 landing leg is back after an extended absence.
  5. Ok. That was an embarrassing messup on my part - teach me to make last-minute untested animation changes to parts. The offending wheel has been rebuilt, and a few other errors that have been brought up have also been corrected. Lets try this again. SMX Update 1.1.1 - SpaceDock ; GitHub.
  6. By default, SMX drills will only harvest Ore. To mine other things requires a MM patch to change the drills to harvest those other things. If you want to mine MKS resources, you can try the MKS patch (third post on page 4 of this thread) which probably should still work, though its a few years old, so it might be out of date. If I'm misreading your post and the issue instead is you already have the MKS MM patch from page 4 added to your game and drill options still aren't appearing, then the MKS patch will need updating. I have 0 experience with MKS, so the MKS thread might be the better place to ask for help.
  7. Sorry for the delay (curse you feature creep!). Version 1.1 is now up on SpaceDock and GitHub. Changelog: Happy mining!
  8. I can take a look at it. A good chunk of parts were made back before I knew much about DragCubes, so a misconfigured DragCube being the issue wouldn't be surprising.
  9. Some wheely nice new toys to play with: The superheavy leg now has a radial sibling, some wheeled landing gears (XL variant not shown) for vertical takeoff/landing ships/generally non-mobile bases that might need some mobility for alignment, and some deployable wheels for when you want a TR-2L that can fit into a fairing. Inline podded variants for those who want aerodynamic mining landers/superheavy aercraft gears.
  10. The superheavy leg was originally intended to be but one of several radial/podded landing gears/wheels/klaws to have heavier duty stuff to use with all the new heavy mining parts. Progress on them stopped back when the new wheel changes were implemented and I couldn't figure out the new voodoo they required. That said, i would love to get them finished, so who knows? Perhaps the next Mining Extension update will have all sorts of new landing options.
  11. Yes, the BAD-T rules could be pared down somewhat, the "common-sense' rules removed, but the reason they are there is because at some point or another, those rules were relevant, and exist to cover fringe cases to prevent rules-lawyering ("The rules didn't explicitly state I couldn't do this..."{see also, the Eidahill Clause}) to ensure all craft are participating on an even and equal playing field. The BAD-T ruleset is what it is to provide a tightly regulated and fair tournament competition that has been tested and refined over 5.5 iterations, for a very specific type of contest. Ultimately, the ruleset you want will be determined largely by what sort of contest you are looking for. A structured tournament like BAD-T is going to have different rules than a leaderboard King-of-the-Hill contest. About the only universal rules for any flavor of BDA contest are: n max parts per craft; what DLCs are allowed, no text editing of craft files, armor to remain at default values, and no turrets/lasers. Having a rule on minimum fuel is a good idea, but should probably instead take the form of 'Needs enough fuel for n minutes of flight", since different engines have different consumption rates - that 400 fuel will last much longer for a Juno than a Panther. No real reason for ammo limits - if someone wants to have minimal ammo, if they run out that's their problem; and if they want too much, well, that's ballast reducing their TWR. Weapon limits are generally in the same vein as max parts - do you really want a craft with 30 Vulcans throwing 165000 rounds per minute melting your CPU? (That, and Moar Dakka! is an incredibly lazy way of increasing how dangerous a craft is in a match.) For part/wing&control surface clipping your choices are FAR - which handles this automatically, but does have its own learning curve and requires the user to unlearn some of the counterintuitive/wrong lessons Stock Aero teaches about building planes; banning it altogether, which is unambiguous but limiting; or defining what conditions clipping is allowed and may require judge discretion at times to disqualify abuses. One final option would be to require craft be kerballed, and turn Kerbal G-Limits on, which will also automatically take care of the more egregious clipping abuses, but will require you to modify your persistence file to have 50 clones of Jeb so each plane's pilot will have identical G-tolerance. For player adjudication via KerbalX links of match results, keep in mind different hardware specs may have an effect on outcomes if both craft are about evenly matched. Or at least have a conflict-of-interest rule that entrants can't independently verify results for their own craft. Ultimately, what sort of contest is being devised? --If it's a tournament ladder, then you'll want fairly comprehensive rules on allowed weapons/dry mass/engine power so each contestant is, at lest on paper, more or less equal. Rules would be similar in scope to the BAD-T. If using stock BDA guns I would recommend capping max engagement range to 2500m to prevent GAU-8 4000m max range exploits. --If it's a no hold barred FFA where anything goes like the Ultimate Dogfighter or ASC KotH contests the rules are lax, more design guidelines than "thou shalt build a plane to these specs". Rules for these contests have generally allowed 2 engines, and only restrict number of countermeasures and turrets/lasers. Expect it to devolve into drones with missile/GAU-8 spam/control surface clipping spam. --If it's an engineering/design contest then rules can be simplified via the premise of the contest; i.e. KerbalKontractors is soliciting a bid for a kerballed fighter armed with a single Vulcan and powered by a single Panther - because engine/weapon/control are already determined, would likely only need the above universal rules, and one for maybe SAS allowance. --If it's a leaderboard instead of a tournament bracket, you may want to recruit multiple judges to help host matches, or place hard limits on the number of entries allowed, either per person (e.g. one entry at a time, if your craft loses, you may submit a replacement) or total (e.g. there are 10 slots, first ten entries get in, and when those ten have competed, the roster will open for a new 10 entries).
  12. BAD-T V Bonus Video 3: Performance of the Rhino isn't quite what it was in your test vid, mainly due to my copy of BDArmory still having a 500m minimum arming distance for the flak rounds.
  13. It seems there is some contention over the results of the final match. This is a goof on my part, due to filming the matches over two different days. In light of the deviation from my usual pattern of team 1 focus, team 2 focus, what ever has the best wide angle coverage focus, I recorded a second take of the first bout. This had the same end score and three times the length, so I went with the first take. Since it was offscreen I cannot give a definitive answer. Best guess, based on what I know of the BDAc AI, both in code and observed behavior, is either A) the AI remained target fixated on the wreckage of the Honeybee and followed it into the ground, or B), the AI went into a dive at the end of the climb after shooting down the PD-2, and dove into the ground due to the AI not really having any controls to pull out of a dive unless the craft crosses the min alt threshold, at which point the plane GLOC'd the pilot and crashed (or had too much speed and couldn't pull up in time). While the WCC isn't a second tier plane and doesn't ordinarily GLOC the pilot, it does ride the edge of the pilot's G-tolerance at times, so a GLOC after a long dive isn't inconceivable. I went and re-ran the final match 9 times under near-identical* conditions to the original 3 matches (partially to investigate, partially to satisfy my curiosity on overall outcome, partially for the purposes of adjudication, since this is the first time a match has been contested in this manner). Not how I was planning on spending my evening, but c'est la vie. 3 bouts focused on a WCC with no vessel switching, 3 bouts focused on a PD-2 with no vessel switching, and 3 bouts with vessel switching every 30 seconds. Final score the PD-2 won 6-3; PD-2 scored 13 kills to the WCC 9. The bouts without vessel switching had a similar WCC crash - incoming fire from the PD-2s is causing it to dive and evade. Usually it pulled up in time, occasionally not. *These weren't official matches and the UI was left on, mainly to investigate GLOC. They were recorded, though, to ensure that RAM and CPU overhead were consistent with the official bouts. If people want to see an extended Finals reel I can put them up in some form. I do not interfere/intervene/modify/or otherwise influence their outcomes. Like Sturmhauke said, sometimes results differ between different hardware. I simply run the matches to provide a uniform, consistent playing field for all entrants to ensure all craft compete under the same, as near-identical-as-I-can-make conditions. I sympathize, I've had my share of BDA contests where I make something that can trounce the leaderboard, only to watch as AI quibbles and RNG decide that no, it's going to eat all the missiles(or dirt) and fail to score a single kill in the official matches. And yes, it's annoying to see my time and effort fail; I suspect that's why tetryds set up BAD-T with a double-blind entry system. You build the best craft you can, and not have to worry about someone else coming along and building something tailored to counter it. You have fun building and designing an entry (and if you don't, then why play KSP?), you submit it, then sit back and watch the show. You don't know how your craft will ultimately perform against the competition, but no one else will, either. There's a reason the rules include "...but for the most part, this tournament is aimed at having fun, watching submitted craft fight bravely and die gloriously". The WCC did both, with aplomb.
  14. And so it ends. Match 16, the final match of BAD-T V, between @aleksey444's White Collar Criminal and @Dwerto's PD-2 Honeybee; two capable and agile fighters that have proven themselves thus far, both built around similar design philosophy, that now come head to head in a not-quite mirror match to determine the champion: Congratulations, winner (and second place too); and to everyone else, regardless of how good (or bad) your craft did, thank you for participating and I hope enjoyed the tourney, both building your craft as well as watching them compete.
  15. Double Crash Cockpit Crush K.O! As for how it happened, your guess is as good as mine, one of those 1-in-a-million chances, but the sequence of events is Krakenhound 1 rear ends the AeroImperial - this does minor damage to the AeroImp, but crushes the nose of the Krakenhound. Pilot is fine, plane is controllable, but all weapons were smashed off. The AeroImp then bounces off, into the cockpit of the second Krakenhound, crushing the pilot. To add insult to injury, the AeroImp survived with minimal damage. My only regret is that I cut the recording there - the AeroImp managed to circle around and rammed one of the Krakenhounds a second time before the 'hounds crashed.