Jump to content

rmaine

Members
  • Content Count

    168
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by rmaine

  1. II realize that 145 pages of this thread is impractical to read through, but I might point you at the very first line of the very first post... the one where it asks for logs. I doubt you have provided enough information for anyone to help.
  2. A bit wide of topic, but we clearly have vastly different perspectives on the 737 Max. Not the time or place to detail everything now, but the 737 Max concept was flawed from the start and is not really fixable. The very short version is that Boeing needed something to compete with more fuel efficient planes, but did not want to spend the time and effort to actually design a new one. So they hacked new engines onto the old plane. Those new engines didn't physically fit, so they substantially moved them, which did all sorts of bad things to the basic stability. They tried software hacks to work
  3. So one is good to eat and the other is fun to play with? Hmm. :-) Or maybe we could throw in hamburgers, which are not made with ham. :-)
  4. A little bit wondering that myself as well. In an attempt to swing this in a positive direction, let me note that I also like Planetary Base Systems... and... it integrates quite well with MKS.
  5. My acquaintances see that one after I recommend that they buy the game... which I do recommend. I also tend to recommend that they don't even read threads like this one because they will enjoy the game a lot more if they just play it instead of reading this .... um... stuff. :-( P.S. And I even very much like some of the recent improvements, such as that my bases no longer tend to go sliding and flying around now (at least not nearly as much so).
  6. This is very common and even has a name: rubber duck debugging, or sometimes teddy bear debugging. Google it. You explain your problem to a rubber duck sitting at your desk and by the time you finish explaining it, you realize the answer. Before retirement I used to have a bit of a local reputation for helping people debug their codes. Part of that was actual help, but a goodly fraction was done without me saying a word as I played the part of the rubber duck.
  7. Aha. I had the same problem (which I first noticed in seeing that none of my parts had settings for tiers in the PAW). After quite a lot of mucking around, I think I found it. I fiddled a lot with deleting and reinstalling stuff to no avail. Then I took a quick glance at the KSP.log. That's often too cryptic and full of cra^h^h^hstuff for me to figure much out, but this time I noticed right near the beginning a "poodle" (as the forum software likes to bowdlerize a term also used to refer to female dogs :-)) about PKS throwing an exception. Seemed to be related to being unable to find things i
  8. Probably depends on what you are trying to do. I'm successfully using EL with KSP 1.11.1 and without KIS. But that's not because EL now uses the stock system for KIS-like functionality (I'm moderately sure it doesn't). You only need KIS for things like survey stakes. If you aren't using survey stakes, you have never really needed KIS, contrary to what CKAN used to say (subsequently fixed). I'm just using the disposable micro-pad (great for expanding a base) and the K&K launchpad from Planetary Surface Structures for when I want to build a rover or ship. (EL's launch pad 2 also works, but I
  9. Been playing with KSP 1.11.1 for a while now. Between improvements in stock 1.11.1, plus parking brake (same principle as the USI ground tether, but a bit simpler), the problems with bases randomly exploding on scene change seem under control. And Bon Voyage takes the rover stuff down to the level of just painful (which is a big improvement). My current reason for posting is an issue of transferring resources. The new stuff in PKS is mostly ok on that, but I'm having one big pain, which I think is going to drive me back to reinstalling SImpleLogistics, which I've been doing without so far this
  10. Just ignore the error message. It doesn't actually mean anything concrete. It's just a test of the KSP version number against a value compiled into this mod. Doesn't actually mean it is necessarily incompatible. I'm using it right now in KSP 1.11.1. I mean the "right now" part literally - KSP is running on my Windows game machine while I'm typing this on my iMac. Yes, it gripes (I have to be careful to avoid using the word that comes most naturally to me there because the forum software will change it to "poodles"), but then it runs fine anyway.
  11. I'm not at all sure the problem I'm about to describe has anything to do with MechJeb. That's a bit of a shot in the dark on my part. KAC also occurs to me, or it could be in the stock game. I've seen this on multiple versions of KSP, usually when I'm right in the middle of something that has me too preoccupied to do even a half-(um, I better avoid the second part of that word lest the forum filter decide to bowdlerize it :-)) job of a bug report. Anyway, I just now hit again and quit the game pretty promptly afterwards, so it might be easier to find the relevant stuff in the logs. This time I
  12. Have to get Maja to answer that for sure (or just try it), but I suspect not because you do have to be "landed" and I doubt that would count.
  13. Well, it works with craft that don't even have wheels... or landing gear either.
  14. You are a rather special anyone for current purposes :-) as you are in a good position to actually know instead of just speculate. P.S. Unrelated, but in perusing the thread I see someone from a while back asking about external command seats. I've made it a practice to add a QBE to my rovers just because I can put a tether on it, even for rovers that always have a kerbal in the external command seat.
  15. Ah, neat. I hadn't been aware of this mod til just now. I've recently been using the USI ground tether in conjunction with a config hack to add it to all command modules. That's working pretty well for me, but this sounds like the same thing without adding in the USI tools mod, which I'm not using anything else from. Also avoids me needing to do the config hack. Sounds like an improvement for my use case. Anyone have any comment about comparison between the USI ground tether and this mod (other that the suggestion to avoid using both)? Hmm. I also wonder about the viability of deleting th
  16. Also, I note you say that you *HAVE* to plant a flag. If you are talking about a mission requirement, those are satisfied in spite of the flag falling over. So you don't necessarily have to upgrade to 1.11.1 for that. If you mean that you "have" to plant one for aesthetic reasons, that's a different matter.
  17. Um. Yes it does. From the bug fixes section of the announcement posted as the OP of this thread. Fix placed flags falling down. Also, I started a new 1.11.1 career and can verify that does indeed appear to be fixed.
  18. If you happen to be looking at things like that, a similar issue is the mod suggesting crew reports when there is no crew aboard. This is pretty much zero priority as far as I'm concerned; it's easy enough for me to ignore. Just FYI. I was going to mention another low-priority feature that I'd be more interested in would be the ability to pretty much shut up the mod completely for after I've maxed out science and am not really interested in adding more... but then I noticed it already seems to happen to have that option. I'll have to check that out. :-)
  19. Started a new 1.11.1 career a few days ago and I can verify that base contracts *CAN* still be completed by launching a small hub and expanding it using Extraplanetary Launchpads. Thankfully. :-) I just completed a mun base contract that required a cupola and the ability to support 6 kerbals, neither of which were met by my initial hub. So I'd say the new description is just plain wrong; no the base does not have to be launched complete. I can't testify as to exactly what the actual requirement might be, but it clearly is not "launched complete." To be at least a little fair, I admit that Extr
  20. My interpretation (which I grant could be wrong) of intercept only is that it optimizes to intercept the target without taking into account the delta-v that would be needed to rendezvous. So you might get a smaller delta-v for the first burn at the cost of larger delta-v at the end. If you aren't going to do that end burn, then it saves a little. Probably not a lot of difference in most cases.
  21. Maybe so, but that's not at all what the description says. The description specifically says it cannot be built in parts using EVA construction - nothing about the timing of assembled parts. If that is indeed what it meant, then I'd say the new string makes it more confusing rather than less so. Granted I haven't yet seen the actual string - just the above description of it. Granted further it does say that the change is just in the contract description, which implies that the actual contract working is unchanged. I sort of hope so because I pretty much always construct large bases by launchin
  22. Mostly just a matter of curiosity. Wondering about the rather drastic improvement in fuel cell productivity compared to stock. Searching for "fuel cell" in the manual got no hits. Searching for it in the forums gets impractically many. I didn't notice a way to restrict a forum search to this particular 240-page thread :-(. I recently started a new career - my first using EL. I had formerly used SimpleConstruction instead, but decided to try EL this time. Got to where I was ready to add some fuel cell power to one of my bases. Glanced at my old notes on what I had needed, but then when I starte
  23. Back from dinner. On the round trip thing. Yes, it works easily enough for Gilly, Ike and Dres. I've done all those in past careers. As you say, mostly just a matter of time. Duna was a bit harder, but still doable. Eve, however... taking off from Eve is hugely harder than landing there; I've never managed that round trip. I also haven't been farther out that Dres, but that's mostly because the self-destroying bases hit my tolerance limit before I got that far on my prior careers. I'm using EL instead of SimpleConstruction this career, partly because it seems more actively maintained. Dis
  24. I missed your reply til just now. Glad to see you are still around. I got a little farther in me recent playthrough in the last few days. Not far enough to be 100% sure yet, but it looks offhand like ksp 1.11 plus the USI ground tether hack is indeed helping a lot with things self-destructing on scene load. ANyway, none of my bases on mun, minmus, or gilly (that's as far as I have gotten) have done anything nasty yet. The tutorial bit I was talking about was the walkthrough on the wiki, which shows designing a base in the VAB and then says "So yeah, there are a lot of means of gettin
  25. @NermNermNerm Not sure whether you are still fiddling with this mod or not, but I just started a new career in KSP 1.11 and PKS (the mod seems to work ok, btw). Thought it time for me to give a little feedback on various things I've noticed mostly from prior careers. I really haven't found any other mods that I feel I can reasonably make self-sufficient bases with; that's the biggest attraction of PKS to me. I've fiddled with a few others, most recently MKS, but I wasn't finding it very engaging to me (plus it's clearly in the middle of major changes). 1. The one thing that drove me to g
×
×
  • Create New...