Galileo

Members
  • Content count

    6,569
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6,139 Excellent

About Galileo

  • Rank
    Charlie Munman

Recent Profile Visitors

21,818 profile views
  1. [KSP 1.4.2] ShipEffects Continued [1.0.8.4]

    Yeah that change would need to come from their end unfortunately, or fortunately depending on how willing the dev is.
  2. OPM Galileo can be removed completely. The new OPM should also be available for 1.3.1, so any old instance of “ OPM Galileo” should be wiped.
  3. @HebaruSan is there anything that can be done to just remove the old “OPM Galileo” from ckan?
  4. If you mean the orbit lines are jittery, then yes, that’s normal. It’s a bug in KSP. Bodies were not meant to be placed outside of Eeloo, and when they are, you get that issue.
  5. Working for SQUAD? :-)

    I don’t think QA is what you think it is OP. It’s not a fun gig.
  6. It is scatterer related is and is caused by a bad cfg. Do you happen to disable scatterer eclipses? i used to have an issue like this with SVE and it turned out to be people disabling the eclipses. I forget what parameter needs to change. It’s been so long since I have seen the issue.
  7. [1.3.1] Kerbal Star Systems [v0.7.3] 11 Dec 2017

    Some people can’t help themself...
  8. Don’t know about your first issue, but the aero effects are a stock issue. It’s in 1.3.1 and is more noticeable in 1.4.x due to the new exaggerated effects.
  9. Spectra doesn’t work with OPM... it only gives the stock system any visuals.
  10. I figured out the exposure issue, and the culprit was KSP itself. The stock lighting exposure on a scale of 0-1 is set at 0.9. With Kopernicus, I am able to lower the value and make it look as intended. So I will be including a cfg to fix that, and the next version of SVE will come with a high recommendation for Kopernicus (I assume most people download it anyway for Jool rings or OPM, so it’s practically a dependency anyway)
  11. No I don’t have clouds on Duna, but I’m not opposed to adding some next update.
  12. [1.3.1]TextureReplacerReplaced v0.5.4

    I get that. Like I said, you cannot replace the same texture with both mods. It’s pretty simple; If you want to use TRR to replace skyboxes, you don’t install SR: Skybox. Or if you only want to use TRR, you simply don’t install any SR plugins. The naming convention in SR is whatever the content developer wants it to be more or less, so it will likely be different. So yeah, it would be incompatible because you can’t take the textures from an SR mod and put them in TRR or vice versa. That just leads me back to my first point; you have choose which mod replaces which texture. Convoluted? Absolutely. That’s why I wouldn’t recommend using both in tandem unless you know what you are doing. But they do work together as long as you aren’t trying to replace the same textures with both mods.
  13. Yes, SVE disables or changes a few settings that 95% of ppl don’t notice anyway and it saves performance by a ton. I don’t have time to deal with “my performance is crap” posts, so I nipped it in the bud. just recently people have come to notice that SVE performs better than default EVE + Scatterer, so I’d say it has been justified.
  14. [1.3.1]TextureReplacerReplaced v0.5.4

    Obviously you can’t replace the same texture with both mods, but you can pick and choose what mod replaces what. I use TRR for visor reflections and SR for other things. They work fine together.
  15. [1.3.1]TextureReplacerReplaced v0.5.4

    Where are you getting that information? TRR works fine even along side sigma replacements...there is no conflict only bad TRR setups, which is not your fault, it’s the user who can’t figure out how to set up TRR correctly. A bad setup is not a conflict. Instead of sending them my way, please look into the issue the user is having with your mod because I will not provide support for a mod we clearly have chosen to not use.