Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


27 Excellent

Profile Information

  • Location
    Deep in the Suskie, PA
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

2,139 profile views
  1. Same. I've used this version on 1.4.5 for months without issue until today...Now when I load an orbital station, the retractable radiator arrays (which are on pivotrons) load at weird angles, partially clipping into the station and causing the whole thing to blow up upon physics load.
  2. I would guess that's intentional. If you look at the rapier or some other stock engines, their centers of mass are also offset. I believe it's meant to simulate where the actual center of mass of a realistic jet engine would be. In ksp, most of the 'jet engines' are more like nozzles. The offset center of mass assumes the nozzle will be attached to a turbine or precooler or fuel tank. That's my understanding...I just realized this today while desperately trying to figure out why my COM was so high on my VTOL.
  3. Yes. I don't have the faintest idea of the difficulty required to create contracts like those, but varied record-setting contracts would be a cool addition indeed.
  4. I also have this issue; I've found that I can avoid the problem by turning the gear ratio to the lowest possible speed during high-timewarp situations or planetary transfers. The brakes should also be on.
  5. You could try lowering the bullet mass or blast radius in a part's .cfg, depending on the weapon.
  6. Thanks for the reply, I must have been thinking of something else...My intent was not to disable heating entirely.. just the heat that is applied by a nearby part exploding, if that makes any sense. No big deal, it would have been more for test purposes than anything.
  7. I thought, in the past, I've seen a config option to prevent explosions from heating other parts. I can't find any way to do so now, though...Is there a config somewhere I'm missing? I'm not even sure if that's part of the base game or something added by BD. Anyways, thanks for any help.
  8. The clouds are beautiful...but I can't run them either. They halve my fps. What I've done is remove the ksprc clouds from kerbin (keep the auroras) and keep only the stock EVE clouds. The newest EVE clouds look great in my opinion, and seem to have a far smaller fps hit.
  9. Yep, 900k is way too much. What you are describing is easily doable under 100k; just try to downsize and compress what you can. Once you land on the moon, it doesn't take that much to get back. Terrier engines are my goto choice when operating in the kerbin system. And honestly, if funds are what you're going for, tourist missions just aren't worth it once you reach the point that you're at (In my opinion). I suggest taking on bigger contracts if you want bigger rewards.
  10. I've been using SVE though, with negligible performance impacts. I'm just wondering why these volumetrics are cutting my fps in half. Everything else looks great, though. The auroras are beautiful. And the planet textures. Truly great work, Proot.
  11. How, may I ask, did you modify the clouds? I'm also getting a huge fps hit, seemingly from the volumetrics.
  12. I have this same issue. I also have texturereplacer, but I do not have any textures affecting the kerbals.
  • Create New...