DStaal
-
Posts
4,001 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by DStaal
-
-
21 minutes ago, gabo04 said:
The AKI Power Transfer Conduit doesn't shows the link, plug, unplug options.
What version of KSP and KAS?
-
Just to confuse you further - for that specific need there's a third option:
(Honestly, this mod is worth it for the construction docking ports alone.)
-
14 hours ago, RobertaME said:
What is this "too much math" thing you speak of? That's like saying you have too much love! (seriously, I LOVE math
and can't imagine a circumstance were calculus is anything but fun... I know... I'm weird! 
)
I remember Calc II from college - or as I liked to call it 'problem solving for engineers': Here's this formula, memorize it, when the numbers look like *this* plug them in *here*. Here's the next formula...
I'd liked math until then.
(I don't think that is the only - or best - way to teach Calc II. It was just the only way it was taught at the college I was at.)
-
13 hours ago, SOXBLOX said:
The WORST they can do in the monetization realm is to do a Stellaris, and use DLC spam to keep getting money, as I have pointed out before. They probably won't even do that. It goes against the Kerbal spirit.
You mean the Paradox Interactive business model?
-
21 hours ago, lancisman said:
When i load ksp i can't press any of the button. When my cursor get's over the buttons they change color. Does anyone have a solution to this?
What OS?
What version of KSP?
What mods, if any, are you running?
Do you have logs?
(And this really should be in one of the support sub-forums.)
-
14 hours ago, miguelsgamingch said:
So Youre Saying It Doesn't work with 1.10.1?
I haven't tried it.
I'm saying that the [v0.2.2] in the thread title would typically be the *KSP* version, not the *mod* version.
-
Just to let you know, by the guidelines of this forum your subject says that this mod only works in *KSP* v0.2.2.
(I know that's not what you meant, but it's the convention here.)
-
On 8/30/2020 at 12:15 PM, RandomKerbal said:
May I ask why did you removed (or make them deprecated) the MP only fuel tanks? It was nicely textured and served as a vital component on my MP-engine powered ships.
There was a discussion on it before it happened - it should be here a few (or a few dozen) pages back. Basically:
1. Nertea didn't like the look anymore.
2. They were mostly excess parts.
3. Restock/Restock+ have similar parts.
4. They mostly weren't all that useful, or used.
-
20 hours ago, Beale said:
It's a cool idea, but I'm not sure on the logistics i.e. analoue TV signal vs. electrical bit-by-bit camera image.
I'll investigate.
Digital could be fairly resistant to the error level - but at an expense: It would allow you to *detect* errors in transmission, but *fixing* them either requires always transmitting a large overhead of checksums (which also requires extra processing at the remote end before send), or you have to have the remote resend the image (or some portion of the image) if there's an error. (You could of course ignore errors in a portion of an image if you've blocked your images correctly - which would be how you get the noise pattern in the current version.)
Analogue lets more noise get in, but you can still get a fairly useful image even with a lot of noise.
Either of these can be alleviated by slowing down transmission of course.
-
5 minutes ago, darthgently said:
The "cost" of a less dense fairing is that it should be more fragile and so riskier to use in my view. I don't see why it should cost more if there are less materials put into it, or less labor (possibly) if fewer "layers" have to be sprayed or laminated on (imagineering here). I might try a super thin fairing on a very fast rising rocket to see if it breaks up easier than a denser one
I think the idea of increasing the cost would be that it was being made out of more expensive materials - You could make fairing out of aluminum steel, or you could make it out of carbon fiber, and get the same strength - but the former likely would have higher mass.
-
Interesting. I'll have to play around with this.
One thought: Have you thought about tying the error rate or noise (or both) to the signal strength of the probe? That is: you can send a good camera out, but if you're barely in-network you'll get a poor quality picture back. Then the quality in the part config is the max quality the part can have, under ideal conditions.
-
22 hours ago, capi3101 said:
Directional instability (yaw) is inherent in any flying wing design; it's the price paid for having no tail. The real B-2 uses a combination of split brake-rudders and differential thrust to compensate. Differential thrust wouldn't be easy to emulate in KSP given how thrust is setup in general in the game, but you might still be able to set up some kind of 'split aileron' to help matters.
TCA does it all the time. Thrust limiters and throttle control. You could probably set something up with action groups and robotics controllers if you want something manual.
-
This looks interesting, but very similar to MOLE. What's the differentiator at this point?
-
8 hours ago, Jacke said:
I wish Firefox had two sidebars (and I don't know why they don't do that), because I'd use one for tabs and the other for bookmarks. As it is, since every window has many tabs, I just have to put the tab bar in the traditional top position and the bookmarks in the sidebar.
You may be interested in this:
(I apologize for the minor off-topic digression.)
-
1 minute ago, VoidSquid said:
And regarding "less-cluttered presentation of the navball at the corner", well, for me it's just the other way around, the new UI is cluttered (stuff at wrong, non-intuitive places), the KSP1 way it's way more logical, intuitive.
You sure by 'logical, intuitive' you don't just mean 'what I am used to'?
(I can see arguments either way, but I know that changing UI often has people feeling the old way is 'more comfortable' - even if you can verifiablely point out that it's better.)
-
On 8/5/2020 at 2:13 AM, Nertea said:
Something some people miss is that the reflector needs to be deployed for it to work. If you can't get the line to turn green, check that the reflector is deployed.
In other news, redoing the NFE reactor panel. Interested in thoughts
My first thought is: How do I change how much power it's putting out? That's my most typical use for the current panel - adjusting reactors between 'perform burn' and 'coast' modes.
-
1 hour ago, AnFa said:
Neither is true, honestly, because I can manually turn my rocket. VERY SLOWLY, but I can, so I dunno why MJ can't
Then you don't have enough. MJ only uses a portion of the reaction wheels, so if it's barely enough for a manual turn it's not enough for an MJ turn.
Given that ship design, I'd do one of three things:
1. Drop the booster stages before circulization. (No need to leave debris in orbit anyway.)
2. Add vernor thrusters/RCS to the booster stage. Might as well use that fuel.
3. Add more reaction wheels to the center of mass during ciriculization.
That's my rough order of precedence as well.
3 hours ago, BradyRC said:Hello I have a idea for a extra function in mechjeb. It would be a automatic hop, for example you could set your target and then set your height and then it would take off and fly to the target and land. I think i would be helpful if you wanted to move from biomes on planets or do a hop test if you like to simulate that type of stuff which i do. if you could respond to this please do. Thank you
If you're just looking for this function - TCA has a couple of variants of it, depending on exactly how far you need to go.
-
KIS containers do not work with stock deployable parts. The inventory systems are incompatable.
-
Thanks, just asking since it's unusual to see a newly updated mod marked as for an old version.
-
Hi Jade - I'm noticing updates to all of your mods on SpaceDock for KSP 1.9.1 - what are the chances those will work in 1.10.1?
-
52 minutes ago, fragtzack said:
This thread went on and on about how metallic hydrogen is un-metastable which by itself proves metallic hydrogen can't be used. But that argument about metallic hydrogen being not metastable at ambient conditions is moot point because humans have engineered solutions for many substances that are not metastable at ambient conditions. See liquid hydrogen for example.
Except that the only reason to consider using metallic hydrogen would be if it were metastable. If it's not metastable, there's no advantage to metallic hydrogen over liquid hydrogen in energy density - you can react it either chemically or atomically and get the same amount of energy out of it regardless of what form it's stored in.
If it were metastable, that calculation would change: disturbing that 'stable' situation would release a large amount of energy as it reverted to more conventional forms of hydrogen. You could in theory *then* react it like any other hydrogen, but the best-case on the theory was that you wouldn't bother as that breakdown of the metastable state would release more energy than any chemical reaction, and be on par with an atomic reaction. (Without all the pesky radioactive side effects.)
Think of metastable MH as perching a bolder on top of a cliff, right on the edge. As you raise the cliff up (return the surroundings to more normal temperatures/pressures) there will be more and more energy released when someone knocks the bolder off - but only if the boulder can sit there. And it will only sit on that edge as long as it's metastable - if it's not, then it falls off, like everything else.
Without being metastable, metallic hydrogen is an interesting scientific experiment and little else. We can prove it exists and it'll tell us a bit more about how well our theories of the universe work - but it's not useful for anything on it's own.
-
1 hour ago, JDCollie said:
Oh wait, am I trying to modify the wrong command pod? I have vague recollection about one of the mk1 command pods being deprecated or something?
EDIT 2:
That did it. I just needed to modify the V2 versions of each part. >.<
Yep, modifying the right part helps.
Glad it was so simple.
-
8 minutes ago, JDCollie said:
I'm having trouble reassigning the Tech Required for the stock command parts.
@PART[mk1pod|mk2LanderCabin]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree] { @TechRequired = simpleCommandModules } @PART[probeCoreSphere]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree] { @TechRequired = start } @PART[longAntenna]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree]:FINAL { @TechRequired = survivability }I've tried with the :FINAL tag to no avail. I've also tried this running only Module Manager, Community Tech Tree, and my config mod. I am able to reassign other parts without issue (the Communotron 16 moves to survivability just like expected), but command parts refuse to budge. What am I doing wrong?
Do you have your MM logs someplace?
-
28 minutes ago, TaintedLion said:
Horray, now I just gotta wait for Restock to come out (hopefully) soon then KSP is playable for me.
I'm still waiting for 1.10.1 to be *available* to me... (Bought through GOG, they haven't updated yet.)
I'm amazed at how fast Nertea has updated. Congrats, and thanks.
and can't imagine a circumstance were calculus is anything but fun... I know... I'm weird! 
)
(I know that's not what you meant, but it's the convention here.)
[1.6.X] Surface Experiment Pack - Deployable science for KIS/KAS! (v2.7 - 13/Jan/19)
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted
This mod is not compatible with KAS versions above ~1.0, when the link structure changed, and won't be updated since the Breaking Ground expansion provides similar parts in stock.