FirroSeranel

Members
  • Content Count

    332
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

77 Excellent

1 Follower

About FirroSeranel

  • Rank
    Barefoot Rocket Scientist

Contact Methods

  • Skype (Discord) Barefoot#8429

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Is there an easy way to do that? If I just delete a certain part of it, will Steam detect it and re-download it? I tend to do some QoL tweaks to some of the Squad parts (fixing some bugs, increasing speed/power of wheels because I'm impatient, etc). Edit: Yes, Steam did detect and re-download individual folders, so I just deleted and re-downloaded all but Wheels. (Hopefully they fixed the lack of surface attachment on the big ISRU unit. <.< That's the main bug I always go in and fix.) About to try again and see if the node glitch is still happening. Edit Edit: That seems to have fixed it. Thanks!
  2. Hmm... couple of small bugs/incompatibilities. The 0.625m inline Reaction Wheel has an issue with the lights from IndicatorLights being positioned floating in space and extra-large. This appears to be because the stock 0.625 Reaction Wheel has a Rescale Factor of 0.5 built in, while the ReStock part does not... so the Indicator Lights people doubled the scale and position coordinates for the lights. It's easily corrected by undoing this doubling in their config file. A patch could do the same... just not sure if that would be more appropriate to put here or there. Second, the FL-T400 and FL-T800, for me, have their attachment nodes misplaced, well inside the models. I also don't see any "newness" of those models/textures... they just look like the Making History models. Is there some way to force the game to use ReStock parts even if Making History is installed? Edit: Okay, I removed Community Part Titles, thinking something with renaming the parts might have broken the model replacements... The result is baffling. Now the FL-T800 is fine, nodes in the correct places. The FL-T400 is still off... And now the FL-T200 is off. The proportion that the nodes are misplaced seems proportional to the length of the fuel tank, as if maybe it's using one model file and it's just stretching the length dimension and applying different textures? But... why would different ones be misplaced depending on a part renaming mod?
  3. FirroSeranel

    missing modules in vab crafts

    Yeah, looks like it's up to date. Still worth trying deleting ModuleManager.ConfigCache, ModuleManager.ConfigSHA, ModuleManager.Physics, and ModuleManager.TechTree just to see what happens. Those aren't downloaded with MM, they're built when it runs, and I've had issues where they collect garbage from time to time. The reason I mentioned it though is that Kerbalism recently had a very similar issue, where some of its modules weren't working with Module Manager 4.0.1. That's why 4.0.2 exists, because something new that MM was doing was conflicting with Kerbalism. So you might check the Module Manager page to see if anyone is mentioning similar issues there, and of course the USI-LS page. Other than that, that isn't that extensive of a mod list, so a clean reinstall would probably be easier than extensively digging into logs and such. Sorry I couldn't be of more help! Oh, also... if you have had other mods installed in the past in this installation of KSP, but removed them, I recommend going through and making sure to manually delete their folders. Sometimes CKAN isn't perfect about removing files that the mods generated themselves in runtime, and sometimes those can mess things up. Check for 000_ModName and zzzModName varieties as well.
  4. I have a career that I recently switched over from Kerbalism to USI (which necessitated uninstalling one mod and installing I dunno... 15-20 others that USI required). Since this change, aside from the expected (craft files complaining about missing modules), and a few crafts that got deleted because of missing parts (which I'm fine with and can replace), I'm having one very specific odd issue. In a command module in any craft loaded from a file, I cannot click the Reaction Wheels button reliably to change its mode from Normal to Pilot Only and then to SAS Only. Sometimes it does work, sometimes it doesn't, but even when it works, it doesn't update the display in the context-menu for the craft. I.e. I have to click it, click somewhere else, and right-click the command module again to see if it worked. Even in the same part, if I launch a brand-new one, it works fine. Only loaded craft files that once complained about missing modules have this issue. Which would be fine... I can always just redesign the craft -- and do for most missions anyway. But this particular design is a very complicated and finely tuned rover I put probably 5 hours into, and I'd really rather not have to scrap it and rebuild it. Any ideas of what in the craft file might be causing this?
  5. FirroSeranel

    missing modules in vab crafts

    This sounds a little like a Module Manager problem. Are you running the most recent ModuleManager.dll? Make sure you only have the most recent version in your GameData directory, and try deleting all Module Manager files except the dll. That'd be my first suggestion. Kind of like the KSP version of "Have you tried turning it off and on again?" XD
  6. FirroSeranel

    [1.6.1] CommNet Constellation v1.3.1 [27 Jan 2019]

    I second this. I recently discovered this mod, and while it's a really neat idea, it isn't working anything like I would expect. I'm having the exact same issues. Sometimes a satellite with a dedicated antenna will relay through the comm network satellites (with relay antennae). Sometimes not so much. Built-in antennae never seem to relay through comsats at all. This is definitely *not* the same behavior as stock, as in stock, even a built-in antenna in a pod or probe core will relay through any relay antenna in range just fine. Also, the first post and the tutorial seem to imply that you can set a single antenna to multiple channels to form a relay link. I don't see any way to do that either. In fact, it's exceedingly difficult to do anything but set all antennae to the same channel on a given craft, from the Tracking Station. I end up having to switch to each ship one at a time and use the right-click menu for each antenna individually... and even then it doesn't end up working much of the time. I do also have Kerbalism installed... could that be changing how the communication system logic is working somehow?
  7. Ah. That isn't listed as updated for 1.6 though. Is there any problem with just adding "Utility" in place of "none" for each of the storage parts? All other parts in the mod have categories defined, so I assume these should play nicely without CCK as well, yes?
  8. Okay, so reverting to MM 3.1.3 worked as far as getting Kerbalism life support inserted properly into command pods... However, none of the storage parts are appearing anywhere in the VAB. It looks like they have no Category set. ("Category=none" in the part files). Obviously I can manually correct this but... am I missing something here? Is there some mod dependency that auto-sorts parts into categories that don't have a category set that I don't have? Or are most players just shrugging and living without the storage parts?
  9. Hey @linuxgurugamer, I just wanted to say thank you for all the many mods you create, revive, and maintain. You're an absolute mainstay of the modding community, and of KSP in general. The game wouldn't be the same without you!
  10. Ah, heh. Well it seemed like a good thread to revive, as it has open questions that I don't feel have ever been answered truly sufficiently. I actually made a suggestion that Scott Manley might take this one on; it seems right up his alley, both to do the real physics first, and then to come up with the "Kerbal Way" after. But yes, this was a necro.
  11. The solutions presented here are great! However, they have a couple more foundational assumptions than what has been mentioned. One is atmosphere, though since this question was primarily about the Mun, that's a moot one. Still, it's worth noting that on a body with atmosphere, optimal launch angle will be considerably higher for all but the very shortest hops, up to a pretty typical gravity turn for hops more than about (gut feel) 1/4 of the way around the body. The other assumption, though, is very relevant on the Mun, and that is TWR. From what I can tell at a glance, the solutions here only involve an instantaneous kick (i.e. assumption of infinite impulse), as if you were launching a ship via catapult. This is fine for a one or two biome direct ascent ship with TWR of 2:1 (Kerbin) or higher (12:1+ for Mun), but a high-efficiency lunar lander designed for multiple biome hops is typically not going to have that kind of TWR. For a Munar TWR of 1.5:1 to 2:1, burns are going to be, in my experience, on order of 20 to 30% of total flight time, which means some calculus needs to get involved for a truly accurate flight plan. I could -probably- work that out if I felt like braining that hard at this time of night, but what I think more players are interested in is a more "Kerbal" approach, less akin to plotting a gravity assist trajectory by hand, and more akin to "put the planets at 12:00 and 2:30, then make a maneuver node on the light/dark side of the planet and then fiddle until you get an encounter... then fiddle more until the after-encounter orbit is about what you want". I suspect a true optimal approach based on non-instantaneous thrust would be something more akin to finding the minimum of a function of time that balances vertical time including both burns with horizontal velocity to cover the distance in that amount of time, at least for a brute force numerical/mathematical approach, with a more nuanced approach directly balancing gravity drag losses into the mix. My gut feel for a more "kerbal" approach is that the simpler methods presented above (which pretty much boil down to "launch at 45° for short hops, scaling down to 25° for hemispheric hops") gives a pretty close answer, but only if your vector at the -end- of the launch burn is at the angle specified. With a low TWR, this could mean your actual NavBall heading could be a -lot- higher during the burn. It should work out to something like half the angle to verticle for a TWR of 2:1, if my instinct is correct. If you have KER installed (Simple Orbit, or any other mod that splits velocity into horizontal and vertical components), you can get a decent feel for this angle by looking at the relative ratio of vertical and horizontal velocity. So for a short hop, the "Kerbal Way (tm)" would likely be to keep Vertical and Horizontal speed equal during the burn, whatever angle that actually requires, with the throttle pinned to the floor. For a long hop, "close enough" would probably put horizontal about double vertical during the burn. Does anyone feel like doing more math to see if my gut feel for the "Kerbalized Sub-Orbital Hop Flight Plan" is correct? I.e. keep vertical and horizontal speed equal during the launch burn for short hops, and 1:2 for long trips?
  12. FirroSeranel

    [1.4.5] Hangar

    I'm having a strange issue with the stock short Mk 2 cargo bay. Everything works as intended, but when I launch a vessel from the hangar it completely refills the fuel on the mothership. I've used the fairing hangars so far in this save with no trouble. The only mod I can think might be interfering is KSP Interstellar Extended, as it adds a radiator functionality to the cargo bay doors, so it's modifying the same config as Hangar is. Any ideas? Edit: The inline hangar is now doing the same thing...
  13. Appears to be working fine in 1.3.1. I'll update if I have any trouble, but it may just need a config file update for max KSP version. Edit: No trouble at all after several hours.