Jump to content

Deimos Rast

Members
  • Posts

    1,392
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Deimos Rast

  1. you're way beyond my level of understanding of the issue, but the only thing I would add is that KW Rocketry has SRB's that have a non-zero minThrust and I know we/I ran into issues with them not being throttlable with the in-editor right click GUI slider as well. You can set it, but it has no effect. This was a few KSP versions ago though, so it might have changed.

  2. well I wouldn't call myself a modder, but in the patches I throw together, I try to make them super modular (based on theme, but also with optional extras galore) that people can pick apart and choose what they want. But those are MM configs, which are easy to write and I don't have a day job so I literally have nothing better to do (and my stuff is small potatoes). Most people seem to like and appreciate my approach, but there are those who will complain about "too many configs" or "configs patching configs." You know what they say, "If you try to please everyone..."

    I see where you're coming from, but unless you've actually taken at least a half hearted attempt at providing support for people, even on a second hand "unofficial" basis, I think you'll quickly find your approach will lead to endless frustration for you, especially as thing scale in numbers.

  3. 56 minutes ago, Vorg said:

    BoxSatvA.02f.zip has: 

        BoxSatAlpha

        BoxSatPrototypes

    and an optionals that's not part of the GameData folder.

     

    BoxSat_Continued-0.2.1.zip adds:

        BSA

        BSP

        Extras

    I can't do anything about the top half, but the bottom half can all be put into a single folder. They should have been that way to begin with, but apparently github and I don't see eye to eye on things at the moment.:huh:

    But yes, you are right. I'll see what I can do.

    I made an issue of it so I won't forget.

    https://github.com/deimos790/BoxSat_Continued/issues/3

  4. 2 hours ago, Errol said:

    It there still the boost to MTBF with an engineer right click action called "inspect part" or something to that effect in this? How is it calculated?

    yes. here is a standard config. The only issue (as I see it) is no units of measurement. I'm sure they're mentioned in the deeper code, but I don't know off hand. Some can be inferred. Not sure on LifeTime though.

    @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]:HAS[@PROPELLANT[IntakeAir]],!MODULE[NoFailureModules]]:FOR[DangIt]
    {
        MODULE
        {
            name = ModuleEngineReliability
    
    		// Annual Failure Rate: 100%
            MTBF = 8760
    
    		// Engines must decay *VERY* quickly compared to other parts
            LifeTime = 15
    
    		// Amount of spare parts needed to repair the part
            RepairCost = 10
    		// Fraction of the age that is discounted when repairing (from 0 to 1)
    		RepairBonus = 0.1
    
    		// Amount of spare parts needed for preemptive maintenance
    		MaintenanceCost = 2
    
    		// Fraction of the age that is discounted when doing maintenance (from 0 to 1)
    		MaintenanceBonus = 0.3
    
    		// Duration of the inspection bonus, in seconds
            InspectionBonus = 120
    
    		// Set to true to suppress all notifications about this module
    		Silent = false
    
    		Priority = HIGH
            
            PerksRequirementName = Engineer
    		PerksRequirementValue = 3
        }
    }

     

  5. 24 minutes ago, Snacksquatch said:

    Thanks @Deimos Rast.

    I had updated mine to 1.2 a few days ago and was about to update this thread. I'll check out your version and compare to mine.

    I'll put in any pull requests on GitHub - if needed.

     

    would be much appreciated. Even if it's just balance related (in which case probably easier to talk it out here), as I made some slight changes for the sake of balancing values to modern standards.

    On 11/4/2016 at 10:13 PM, Beetlecat said:

    What? Whyever for? It's an awesome mod. If 1.2.* remains fairly stable for a while, I'd love it if all of this good stuff comes back :)

    This is just a *drop these cfgs into the mod folder* install, yeah? Or do we need to hunt out the subfolder part cfgs and replace them?

    sorry didn't see this earlier - these are just module manager patches if you haven't figured it out already. Apparently github likes to remove a layer of folders when it redistributes things, so you might get several folders when you extract it. Really need to fix that.

    Regarding FASA: 'cuz it wouldn't have an active developer, there are other mods that do and are as good already available. I don't fully agree with the counter arguments, but I do understand them.

  6. 1 hour ago, dtoxic said:

    Kinda, don't know for sure i changed containerModuleIndex = 0  to = 2 that and the patch seems to have fixed it

    it should be 3 actually. The index is a count of the MODULE nodes, starting at  #0 at the top of the part config, going down. The containermoduleindex is referring to which position in the order the ModuleScienceContainer is at, in this case it's 3, iirc. If it doesn't find a science container in that position, it throws an error.

  7. 26 minutes ago, Vorg said:

    I went to install boxsat last night using a download that was posted here a few days ago and found it was just a collection of cfg's. So now we have the package from curse and a package from here that gives you 4 folders in the data folder. It's getting messy. Any plans to combine/clean it up so it's not a bunch of cfg's patching cfg's? or is DP un-reacheable to get permission?

    the issue is licensing. The mod is All Rights Reserved. The best I could do is do what HGR does and make a new thread and point to the curse link and my repo, but it'd still be two downloads.

    I didn't know it gave you 4 folders though; would have thought it'd be just one. Truthfully, I've never checked how github bundles it - I suppose I could add another folder layer.

    For the record, it's not a bunch of cfg's patching cfg's. There are no duplicates - everything is integrated and clean. You might be referring to the optional patches, though, which add additional components.

    If you have any specific suggestions on improvements (besides the folder structure), I'm all ears.:)

    17 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

    Yeah no getting a hold of them.

    oh? they gone gone?

  8. 2 hours ago, dtoxic said:

    I think there might be a problem with "containerModuleIndex = 0" testing now will let you know

    EDIT: I just can;t seem to get it to work no matter what i do :(

    Try this - it's untested, but should update the lab to 1.2.1. As an aside, this lab is kind of bad (IMO). Double the ElectricCharge costs for only 250 more data storage? Granted, it's mass is incredibly low, but, eh...

    //KerbalLab
    @PART[KSO_KerbaLab]:NEEDS[KSO]
    {
    
      @MODULE[ModuleScienceConverter]
    	{
        %dataProcessingMultiplier = 0.5 // Multiplier to data processing rate and therefore science rate
    	}
    
      MODULE
      {
        name = ModuleKerbNetAccess
        MinimumFoV = 17
        MaximumFoV = 63
        AnomalyDetection = 0
        DISPLAY_MODES
        {
          Mode = Terrain
          Mode = Biome
        }
        REQUIRED_EFFECTS
        {
          Effect = ScienceSkill
        }
      }
    
      MODULE
      {
        name = ModuleExperienceManagement
        costPerKerbal = 0
      }
    
    }
    

     

  9. 1 hour ago, Enceos said:

    I was working on the station screens for the Kerbal Kommander mod. I think they turned out pretty cool, so here's a link to a standalone version.

    Download: https://www.dropbox.com/s/pyi7vba3wnffo0d/StationScreensStandalone.zip?dl=0

    Decorate your stations :)

     

    they look great. glad to see you creating again, as I really like your art style

  10. I know how much work changelogs are, so I leave it up to you - you're putting in more effort than I would already, so I trust your judgment on balancing, honestly.:)

    Regarding windows: probably Cupola IVA.

    You can still give crew capacity without ModuleKr. It's just CrewCapacity = #. Doesn't require an IVA or ModuleCommand, either (module command is for allowing you to control the vessel). You could make a patch that converts ModuleKrCrewCompartment = abc to CrewCapacity = abc....probably.

    The problem you run into though is if they have crew capacity, they become a really cheap cheaty way to add crew cap to a ship for low mass (talking about windows/hatches). Have a tourism contract? Mk1 Pod + 5 Windows. You get the idea. Not that I'd ever do that.:D

  11. 7 minutes ago, DStaal said:

    Just as a question: What's the compare/contrast between this and ESLD beacons?  (Just wondering how to chose between the two - should I ever be able to.)

    I'm sure you'd like a detailed breakdown, but I don't have a firm grasp on the mechanics of ESLD. I believe on first blush, this is the easier of the two, as it uses ElectricCharge, not Karborundum, and it's more forgiving with it's gravity wells and orbital mechanics. Personally I prefer the concept of ESLD, but the convenience of this mod, but at present...use neither.:rolleyes:

    I know, I'm a real help.:wink:

  12. On 10/23/2016 at 5:18 PM, eddiew said:

    Oh, nice, just as I was debating what the sci-fi tech should be in my next career :) 

    Is it still the, um, placeholder models? (I haven't updated to 1.2 yet, sorry ^^;)

    probably, as they are still in png and tga format.

    @linuxgurugamer

    Converted the textures to DDS. Will test in a second, but you can find them here if you want them.

    License is same as original CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0

  13. 7 minutes ago, Jso said:

    They work, you just have to rotate them sideways.

    Stick a Squad Basic Fin on, and click on it with the rotate tool. Note how the blue circle in in the same plane as the lifting surface. Now do the same with yours. The red circle is in the same plane as the (visual) lifting surface. If you rotate it around the green plane 90 degrees, then slightly either way in the red plane, they spin the rocket.

    This works:

     

     

    ElectricCharge always goes through a crossfeed. You could have the SAS consume MonoProp instead of EC if giving it a limited life is the goal.

    You might have won the Internet for the day...:rep:

  14. 5 minutes ago, Epiphanic said:

     

    I do not have CRP installed. Would I need that to make this Resource Definition config file?

    No, as DangIt should have the resource defined somewhere on its own (I don't have the current version in front of me it would seem). You won't need CRP till next version it seems.

    Yes.

  15. 57 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

    What about disabling it on the control module as well? I'll have to try that.

    can you not put a spin on it by angling the fins? I certainly can't. :huh:

    Is that even possible with stock aerodynamics? I've honestly never tried to spin my rockets, they usually do that enough on their own:D

    So you want to disable two sources of SAS simultaneously? Lol. Well, "no EC" would do that, and maybe it is good that the SAS eats the probe's EC after all then.

    For reference: this is the ModuleSAS API documentation here, maybe you'll see something I missed.

  16. 41 minutes ago, Epiphanic said:

    I just downloaded Dang It! to try it out and it changed the MK1 Command Pod's cost to $15,000 (up from $600). I looked around the Module Manager configs and didn't see anything that would adjust it so much. The SpareParts.cfg only increases the cost by $3,150 (if I understand it correctly).

    There also doesn't seem to be a tweakable slider when you right-click on the command pod to adjust the number of spare parts.

    It's obviously a small fix by editing the Module Manager configs, but I'm still trying to figure out what to edit.

    @linuxgurugamer

    This is what I meant by "weird cost behavior".

     

    @Epiphanic it should be tweakable. Do you have CommunityResourcePack (not sure if you need it in this version, but you will eventually)?

    it's best not to edit resource definitions. Try making a patch out the the second part of the below snippet (the @RESOURCE_DEFINITION bit)

     

    RESOURCE_DEFINITION
    {
       name = SpareParts
       density = 0.00378
       flowMode = NO_FLOW
       transfer = NONE
       isTweakable = true
       isVisible = true
       unitCost = 12.6
    	volume = 1
    }
    
    @RESOURCE_DEFINITION[SpareParts]:NEEDS[DangIt]
    {
    	%isTweakable = true
    }

     

  17. 3 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

    Fixed, thank you

    I wan't aware, but not going to update just for this.  Next version, Thanks

    I had contacted @Daishi to confirm permission, will be in next release (yes, he replied)

    This release was to have a functioning, same as the old, release.

    ModuleWheel has been updated to ModuleWheelBase for the next release. I'm going to be merging in the Entropy mod with this, that will add the following:

    • SRBs
    • All animations
    • Generators
    • Parachutes
    • Solar panels

    I'm also adding a resource definition, so that the CommunityTechTree is not a dependency anymore.  The local SpareParts won't be added if the CCT is there

    What sort of checks for crew capacity would you check for in ModuleLight and ModulereactionWheel?

    and I'm looking into the spareparts patch cost setting behavior

    Can you explain the specific behavior you are referring to?  

    I made the following changes locally, and I can submit a PR if you'd like (but it took maybe 5 minutes).

    Regarding the cost: if you look at the SpareParts patch, it has a cost offsetting behavior (I believe the spare parts?). It should probably reference the unit cost in the resource definition, so it updates if it changes. Also, in the past (and forgive me, it's been awhile since I've used this), I seem to remember costs sometimes going negative on parts that were adjusted. I posted about it in the old thread, as did some others, so I'll dig around and see if I can find those posts. (My original post is here)

     

    Battery.cfg: Changed ModuleEngines to ModuleEngines*
    Lights.cfg: Added check for CrewCapacity (thinking that you don't want command/crew parts to fail)
    RCS.cfg: Changed ModuleRCS to ModuleRCS*
    ReactionWheel.cfg: Added check for CrewCapacity (thinking that you don't want command/crew parts to fail)
    Tanks.cfg: Added :FIRST in hopes of getting the patch in before fuel switchers delete resources (otherwise we'll have to rewrite the patch)
    WheelMotor.cfg: Changed ModuleWheel to ModuleWheelBase
    WheelTire.cfg: Changed ModuleWheel to ModuleWheelBase
    
    
    @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleReactionWheel],~CrewCapacity[*],!MODULE[NoFailureModules]]:FOR[DangIt]
    @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleLight],~CrewCapacity[*],!MODULE[NoFailureModules]]:FOR[DangIt]
    

     

×
×
  • Create New...