• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dweller_Benthos

  1. Just came across another weird thing. This is still using .7.5 because I'm lazy and didn't switch back to .7. Anyway, I was using the buttons in the dialog to get a capture around the Mun, and as soon as the flight path "connected" into an orbit, everything in the dialog went blank. No display, no buttons, nothing. Just a transparent rectangle. The debug log is full of "Null reference Exception: Object reference not set to an instance of an object." errors. Noticed that even when the dialog is open but using the controls on the widget, as soon as the orbit changes to being a capture around the Mun, the dialog goes blank.
  2. Open the config files for each part and look in the module section, it will tell you the altitudes needed. You can then edit the description field to your liking. So for the first one I opened, it has this in the module section: MODULE { name = SCANsat sensorType = 1 fov = 5 min_alt = 5000 max_alt = 500000 best_alt = 5000 power = 0.1 animationName = Collapse_Antenna } So, taking that, I can change the description to (assuming those values are in meters, testing will confirm): description = The Scientific Committee on Advanced Navigation brings you this high performance RADAR altimetry sensor. This is the entry-level model in this sensor family, and commonly sold in a bundle with toy rockets and remote-controlled model planes. After focus group testing revealed that 95% of the target audience tried to duct tape it to the exhaust pipe of their rocket engines, this new and improved model has been made even easier to use. Scans best at 5,000 meters, can scan up to 500,000 meters altitude. Something like that, but that's only helpful while in the VAB, once you're in flight, there's no way to see that info I don't think. You have to go by the indicators on the map screen. Orange = no good. Green = OK! What I usually do is set the altitude at 750K and scan for the high res map, then lower to 250K and scan for the rest.
  3. Ah, that works, many thanks again. So, any idea WHY they made maneuver nodes randomly collapse? In pretty much all the youtube videos I've watched by many different people, that is one of the main things they complain about. Actually, that's the reason I initially installed a node edit mod, was to have a keyboard shortcut to re-open a node that had hidden itself among a multitude of ship & debris icons that you used to get in the older version where you couldn't hide debris. Hated that zoom-in, open node, zoom-out to see entire system, adjust node, node closes, zoom-in etc. Madness. The only thing I'd like to see added are more snap-to functions, then I would never have to open the MechJeb node editor, which has snap-tos for ascending & descending nodes of the current orbit, and the same for target. Those come in handy.
  4. OK, I see that I found the same problems as other people, e.g. the widget being over ridden by the dialog, so I don't need to say any more about that. I also noticed that when I did approach the node and do the burn, the node didn't respond and the burn time didn't decrease, and the adjusted flight path stayed as if the node wasn't active, if that makes any sense. Also, is it meant to have the dialog open when the maneuver node is closed? I used to use a different editor, which doesn't look like it's going to be updated, it's thread points here, but it's dialog used to vanish when the node was "inactive", IOW, in it's minimized state. It had an option to keep the dialog open if I wanted, but would go away and unclutter the screen when it was no longer needed. Is Precise Node supposed to do that as well? If not, feature request, hmmm?? LOL Thanks for this, node editing like this should be directly in game.
  5. Yeah, I had the thought, that once an economy and costs are introduced, that recovering vessels should cost something. The further away from the KSC you land, the more it costs. Until then, though, a "bonus" in science for closer landing would be cool, and not that hard to implement. Though unless they plan on keeping it forever, might not be a good idea. I can just hear the screams when they announce "You can longer get bonus science for a close landing, you now have to pay for a recovery team/vessel" LOL
  6. You should be able to edit the cfg file to allow it's use in the career mode, that is, if it's compatible with .23 at all.
  7. Yeah, but what does "UP" mean in in space? LOL - Kerbals probably have a way to know which way is up, or do they really mean "Point this end towards the planet you want scanned"? Oh yeah, awesome model, Akatze, I will definitely use that in my next game once .23 comes out.
  8. E95 - Catastrophic Success http://www.youtube.com/user/kurtjmac
  9. It says UFO in the bottom left & title of the instruments window. The "No structures found" means buildings, a bit misleading, I might admit. Drive a rover around the space center, see what it finds :-)
  10. Both are OK to me, but TBH - I'm not crazy about transparent UI interface elements, I have MechJeb set to use the "old" opaque style.
  11. E94 - Kerbo Kluster http://www.youtube.com/user/kurtjmac
  12. The poles are pretty easy to land on, they are almost completely flat. Just cut power and glide down, nose up before touching down. But yeah, turn off time warp first.
  13. I don't see a problem with having a tank that can contain any type of fuel in any ratio the player wants. If you're building the rocket/plane, aren't you also deciding what is needed for the mission? You don't put lander legs on it if it's never meant to land. Should be as simple as a set of sliders, one for each type of fuel. The default for that tank is set when you place the tank in the VAB/SPH. You should then be able to move fuel around any way you want, if you move one slider all the way to the capacity of the tank, the rest either go down automatically or become unavailable. To make room for more fuel of one type, you have to reduce the other types. Once you get to the launchpad though, that should no longer be possible, you don't go swapping fuel around at the last minute. Also, once economy and funding becomes part of the game, creating a custom tank will cost more than using the one "off the shelf", and cost will be determined by how much you customize it. Just dumping the oxidizer and leaving the fuel will actually cost a bit less, but doing a completely custom tank with more types of fuel would cost a bit more. Once in flight, that tank is locked to those types of fuel, so even empty, if a tank never carried oxidizer, you can't then fill it from another tank that does have oxidizer, it wasn't made for it.
  14. Yeah, that's right. I had a plane parked on a hill and time warped while walking and the plane skidded down to the bottom of the hill very fast. Didn't blow up though. Lucked out there. So, if you're in range of any ships, probably not a good idea to physics time warp on the ground. It is funny when you do get it to work though.
  15. E93 - Return Sample http://www.youtube.com/user/kurtjmac
  16. FYI - you can physics time-warp (the 4x one) while walking. Usually. Not sure about the weird terrain / gravity on Tylo though.
  17. Three words: Kerbal Alarm Clock. You're welcome.
  18. That would be cool, get all these separate icons gathered in one place.
  19. I was looking at that common toolbar thingy, just never around to grabbing it yet, if it's included, that wouldn't bother me at all. Save me the trouble. Now if protractor and SCANSat get on board, not to mention MechJeb, that would be cool, all my mods in one place and not scattered all over.
  20. Ask and ye shall receive Squared up to use as an avatar if you so desire This one has 100% more SPAAACE in it. LOL
  21. Very nice discussion, and more than I originally bargained for, thanks everyone. So, on to a few more interesting thoughts. I presume this one has been worked out, but the air inside the station, wouldn't it twist itself into a giant tornado centered along the axis of the station? Would the friction of the air next to the ground speed it up more than the air in each successive layer towards the center? Thus creating a swirling vortex in the middle? Or is there not enough of a difference in a station even 5 miles in diameter to make much of an effect? I suppose some sort of system of fans would be installed to counteract any ill effects of the air not all spinning at the same rate. Not to mention all of the air wanting to settle towards the bottom. Also, is flight in the station effected in any way? Taking off in some sort of helicopter or VTOL ship from the ground gives you a lot of momentum in the direction the station is spinning, let's presume the air near the ground is also moving at near the same speed and that there isn't significant shear in the air as you move upwards that would make control of the ship impossible. Once you've left the ground, if you fly anti-spinwards, would you effectively negate the "gravity" and go into free fall, or would you have to apply continuous thrust/power?
  22. The other thread I was reading had a bit more complex way to figure it out, here it is, a bit beyond me. But you are right, something five miles across spinning nearly once a minute? Yeah, that's fast. Oh well, no skateboarding into "orbit" then, lol. ... wouldn't the circumference just be pi*d ? d = diameter? Comes out the same.
  23. Thanks for the answers, as I expected, it's not all cut and dry. I was mostly joking about landing on a mattress or net, but how about a large body of water? In a very large station as described in the wiki here, how fast is the ground going to be rotating past you once you get close enough to it? That page mentions 40 revolutions per hour, with a diameter of five miles. That seems to me to be pretty slow, but I don't have the math to figure it out. That also seems to bring another thought to mind, even accounting for air resistance, getting a good head of speed while on a bike or electric car would seem to let you counter act quite a bit of the force that's creating your gravity, and would let you do some pretty awesome tricks if you hit a ramp and go airborne. I was also thinking about using the MMU to accelerate in the same direction as the rotation once you get close to the outer edge, but came up against the same linear vs circular vectors of motion problem. But if you timed it just right, and hit the same velocity as the outside of the station just as you landed, you could probably land without too much trouble, I would think.