Jump to content

MaxPeck

Members
  • Posts

    473
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by MaxPeck

  1. I appreciate your diligence in being proactive with this, but is there any way to stop your mod from kicking me out of the game and opening Curseforge in a browser every time I start KSP? I get the issue and I know where to go when the fixes are ready, the system hijacking is really getting kind of annoying...
  2. Mk2 does still have the inline cockpit. But I think if you did an end-loading hangar in round and mk2 variants, it could also address the issue someone else had of “long rovers”. Think of the habitable inline hanger, except instead of opening dorsally, it opens on one end. Since there are a plethora of cargo doors out there, you wouldn’t necessarily need to model a cargo opening, just leave an attachment point so we can attach a cargo door and/or structural hulls ourselves. As to the asteroid hangar... I’ve done it once, and I liked it. I captured a large asteroid and shimmied it over multiple missions into a stable 500x500 Kerbal orbit, put the asteroid hangar in it, built up some surface stuff using the asteroid claws and stock grabber and had myself a pretty awesome shipyard. The problem is that Squad usually iterates the game before I can get that far, and then I spend the next month playing Kerbal Update Program and restarting my career game once again. The asteroid framework is pretty late game and Squad never really gives us a chance to get that far.
  3. And I just realized the Gold Digger is actually a Pathfinder part, so I probably should've posted there; but thanks for looking into it. FYI, this also seems to occur with the Buffalo Drill, the Lasso, the Hacienda and the Drilling Rig as well.
  4. So if we're getting into use cases, I can elaborate a bit. Standby for more verbose feedback. I use just about all the hangar modules to some extent, including the spaceport. The rover lander is one of the most used for me... I generally use it as a scout package where I load a small rover inside with either a WBI grabber arm or some other grabber tool. I'll drop rover landers at probable base sites and use the small rover to check them out. I also use the small rover to push and tug base modules into place before landing Kerbals, and I use the rover lander itself as my landing target, using mechjeb. I'll target it, and then push +10 meters in different directions using the targeting controls, and then use the rover to roughly lay out the base before I commit to putting Kerbals on the surface. I like being able to put my rovers away each time I'm done at the site, so until I get a ground hangar set up, rover hangers are the thing. I use inline hangars and radial hangars for docking bays on transports. On one larger ship I also included a spaceport as a hanger bay, but then I accidentally deorbited it doing an inclination change. The good news is the hanger survived all the way to the surface and was still intact after the crash, so it became a de facto surface base. I like being able to park probes and landers inside of a hangar instead of having them just hanging off of docking ports. I also like being able to add the hangar extenders as my ships evolve. The ground hangar generally becomes the centerpiece of my main surface base and houses my engineering and exploration rovers. I like the idea of the VTOL hangar, but I have a hard time implementing it. It seems like it likes to eat my crafts, they land and they'll store and then it'll refuse to give them back. Or it'll let me load them in the editor and then refuse to let me launch them. I feel like the launch pad on top needs to be bigger, maybe as much as 80-90% of the surface area for it to be useful. I don't use the inflatable hangars much. Sometimes I'll use the advanced inflatable ground hangar. I never use the inflatable space hangar because I don't really like the aesthetic of it, and it's a pain to launch. Easier just to use inline hangars. I would like to use the MK3 spaceplane form factor more, but it's so big and unwieldy that it gets to be more trouble than it's worth. Doesn't stop me from trying, but I've yet to have a successful design with it that actually had any utility. I'd really like more smaller end-loading ones, like maybe a 1.25, 2.5 or MK2 form factor one that either has a cargo door on the end or can be combined with an existing cargo door, like the current payload bays, but without the dorsal opening. I know there are MM patches to allow payload bays to act as single-use hangars, but I build a lot of 2.5m VTOLs, and it would be nice to be able to drive a rover in and out of the end of them. The radial one doesn't work for that, and the inline ones will to an extent, but getting back into them from the ground is a chore. The adjustable adapter is invaluable and gets a LOT of use. People who don't have this mod don't know what they're missing.
  5. I don't know why. This is one of my mandatory mods. Your aeroshells in the early game and ground hangars in the later game are keys to my space program, and I much prefer being able to put landers in radial hangars than having them hang off the side of my transports. This mod makes KSP 1000x more playable, I'm not sure why it's doesn't have greater uptake. Maybe people just don't know about it.
  6. @allista - I have a few things to add. For me, the engine configurations have always been counterintuitive. Generally, in aviation, "thrust" refers to forward flight, but with your mod, it actually pertains to lift. That took me a long time to get straight. So if I want a thrust producing engine, I actually need to set it to "manual control", and when I need lift-producing engines, I have to set them to thrust. I've never been able to figure out maneuvering engines. So I generally end up with powered VTOLs that have thrust engines and manual engines, or helicopters that have unbalanced thrust engines. So this could use a pass, explaining what the different configurations do and how they affect flight, along with some example use cases, maybe. In terms of the editor - I'm in 100% agreement about the modules option. The #1 cause of reverting to the hangar for me is forgetting to enable modules and having a blank TCA UI staring at me. Maybe if you enable the modules by default as they become available and leave the option to turn them off as needed? My other through has to do with engine balancing in the editor. The UI for this is unclear. I've been using TCA since before you adopted it, so I've pretty much been with you the whole time, and I only just figured this out recently, and only because I was in a "what does this button do" mood one day and started clicking on things to see what happened. It would be nice if this information were more obvious, and didn't require you to putz around with engine configuration settings to affect it. In terms of the flight UI, I like them. As a pilot, I find them easy to use. About the only thing I would change is the problem annunciator - it sometimes flips through error modes faster than I can interpret them. Maybe a small caution/warning UI would help. Not alarms that have to be acknowledged, but something that can show multiple problems at once - (low control authority and terrain warnings in particular). Maybe if you could create a small, unobtrusive indicator light on the UI that shows when a low control authority condition is happening, or a terrain light, or both? Don't know how hard that would be, just a thought. Also, from time to time my aircraft, as I'm trying to maneuver near a ground target or manually land, will go into a panic and start a climb up to a couple of hundred meters. It would be nice to know why. I usually just end up turning off CPS when that happens, but it would be nice to know why the system is panicking instead of suddenly finding myself going ballistic. That's about all the feedback I've got... hope that helps.
  7. @Angel-125 Regarding my previous 2 posts, I've been doing some digging. Your drills and stock drills break the game in my install. KPBS and USI drills don't. I know you're a busy person and you have a lot to maintain with your mods, so I was trying to keep this as painless as possible. I tried removing the MM config from pathfinder that adds WBI modules to stock drills, but the game still took a crap when I tried to load one. Digging through the log, I've isolated the segment where it all goes wrong... it definitely seems to be tied to WBIModuleResourceHarvester.... in the log I see the switch from editor to flight scene, and everything is loading all honky-dory, and then this: [EXC 22:48:40.663] NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object WildBlueIndustries.WBIModuleResourceHarvester.OnSave (.ConfigNode node) PartModule.Save (.ConfigNode node) ShipConstruct.SaveShip () ShipConstruction.CreateBackup (.ShipConstruct ship) FlightDriver.setStartupNewVessel () UnityEngine.Debug:LogException(Exception) FlightDriver:setStartupNewVessel() FlightDriver:Start() And them the next thing I see is a scene switch from flight to space center. Any idea what's going on?
  8. So upon further review in sandbox, it's not just the Gold Digger. Any drill seems to cause the problem. Edit: And upon even further review, not all the drills break the game. I'm doing more testing.
  9. Anyone else having an issue where a Gold Digger drill causes the game to spaz out? If I attach a gold digger to a vessel and then launch it, the game thinks about it for a while and then goes back to the space center scene instead of the flight scene. If I go back into the SPH or VAB, I can't edit the vessel, but I can bring up PAW menus, and any attempt to add parts is met with an error in debug- "NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object". Leaving the SPH/VAB and coming in again doesn't work and neither does trying to use the new craft button. The only fix I've found so far is to load a working vessel on top of the one with the drill and hit launch, in which case KSP seems to ignore the drill-equipped vessel and launch the good one, and then if you revert, all is well and the drill vessel is gone. Yeah, I know.. logs, but I was wondering if anyone else was seeing this behavior also before I start going through all that. I have Buffalo, Pathfinder and Tools all on the latest version from Github. Running 1.7.1 with BG on MacOS. EDIT: Also noticed just now, going back into the SPH, there are multiple copies of the contracts window and KSPedia buttons in the stock toolbar.
  10. [snip] Go back to about page... let's say 153 and start reading posts until you catch up to here. [snip]
  11. Running 3.2.3 and don't use CKAN, but it looks like you've got it sorted. As always, you da man.
  12. Just installed 3.2.3, new categories still not showing.
  13. This whole argument is kinda funny to me. We're talking about $15. The price of dinner for you and another person at Taco Bell. A movie ticket (without concessions). $15. People will go out and plunk down $70 for the latest iteration of "Battleground Super Deathmatch XVII", or "Felony Carjacking Simulator: Imaginary California City" but somehow $15 for an expansion pack so the devs aren't living on ramen noodles and generic cola is too much? It's $15, man. Skip some Doritos and Dew this month and you're all set.
  14. I think there should be a bar. Not that it would do anything, but why not? The Kerbals need a Pancho's Happy Bottom Riding Club.
  15. That’s not just an MKS bug... I had that happen in the editor with IFS tanks too. Closing the PAW and then opening it back up fixed it.
  16. The triple-packed aerodynamic separators are the bomb. I use them with chutes triggered at separation, and with stage recovery, it saves me some funds and it's gratuitously satisfying to watch my boosters sail off into the distance and then get recovered.
  17. AFAIK, the #autoloc things are placeholders for localization. Instead of having to write a version in English, and a version in German and a version in Swahili, they just write one version and put those placeholders in for things like menu items. Then they write localization files that are tables that match the placeholders to the correct phrase, depending on what language you pick. Looks to me, in my very inexpert opinion, like you have a borked localization file somewhere.
  18. @allista I noticed you added the ability to add individual parts to a hangar... any chance of integrating with OSE and/or KIS so that we can make parts on a base or station and then deploy them via a hangar?
  19. I think this is the root of your problem right here. Dad’s busy, he doesn’t have time for this. I know, I’m dad too. Im on Mac and have zero issues, and I got the game from the store, not a reseller. All you do is download the zip version, NOT the installer version. Put it somewhere, drag the ksp app to your desktop and then back to its folder and then ctrl-right click it and run it. Presto, done. Easy peesy.
  20. So I've been playing on 1.7 for a couple of hours and I'm really impressed. I'm using a 2011 iMac w/32gb on board and the game runs silky smooth with 131 mods installed. The only grief I've gotten so far was a re-entry slowing down to the point of being a slide show right around 24km, but otherwise the game runs more smoothly with a LOT less crashes than previous versions. I stayed with the updates until 1.3.1 and then I said enough, I'm going to actually PLAY for a while instead of installing and re-installing and constantly starting over. I skipped all of the 1.4 and 1.5 iterations and only just started on 1.6.1 a few weeks ago. After seeing some of the updates for 1.7 I figured the pain was worth it and made the leap. I'm glad I did. Other than a few texturing issues, most of my mods made the leap, and I only had to fix the RCS-based camera in JSI, everything else seemed to work okay (well, there's Kopernicus, but I had that fixed before I made the attempt.) So bravo, Squad. I think this is one of the best KSP updates you've done. Great work.
  21. I think we’re actually tangentially agreeing on this, so I’ll just leave it at that.
  22. What is to stop them from writing in their contract that by not opting out by some arbitrary date they now own the rights your computer, and then never notify you? They nail a copy to a tree outside of their headquarters, making it publicly accessible. So they start using your pc as a support server for their company, because they wrote it somewhere and you’re bound by said “adhesion”? Unless you live in the most one-sides draconian of dictatorships, I cannot imagine unilateral contract alterations would hold up.
  23. And they would be enforceable if the contract alteration had been sent to Johnny Gameowner. As it is, the only notice most people know of is via the forum, and you have no way to prove I’ve seen it. You think I used my real name and PII when I registered for the forum? Not a chance. Squad took the lazy way out and has not done their due diligence in informing me that the terms have changed, and while MaxPeck might have seen them, I have no idea who that is, and neither does Squad/T2. They have my real contact info via the Squad store, but I’ve seen nothing in the mail informing me of any EULA changes. Prove otherwise.
×
×
  • Create New...