• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

101 Excellent

1 Follower

About Aerospike

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer

Profile Information

  • Location Array

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I am very grateful for squad still updating this game after all those years (almost 9 years since I first tried it! ), So grateful in fact, that I own multiple copies of the game and the DLCs (steam, gog, ksp store). Could not have said it better. Nobody here wants SQUAD to stop updating this amazing game and most of us really appreciate the content they provide (at least most of the time). But here and now some of us provide (hopefully constructive) criticism about a part revamp that we think doesn't stay true to the spirit of the part.
  2. Well it certainly is a pretty good analogue of the original Vulcain engine (or apparently also for the new upcoming Vulcain 2.1 for Ariane 6, as that one re-introduces those 2 turbopump exhaust pipes that run all the way down the engine bell). But for me there are at least 3 things that feel "wrong" about this design: 1) The (Revamped) Skipper seems to be based on the Vulcain 2 (so basically the same kind of engine) and while that design (or rather its proportions) works great for a sustainer or upper stage engine (imho), it's appearance lacks that "MOAR POWER!!" vibe that the original Mainsail had. Simply up-scaling the nozzle compared to the rest of the engine apparently isn't enough to make it look powerful. Something along the lines of Rocketdyne F-1 would have been a better source of inspiration in my opinion ("sadly" that is already covered by the MH expansion). 2) While faithfully recreating the aeroshell that hides/protects all the plumbing and turbo machinery may make that design more true to the original, it also makes it bland and uninteresting to look at in a game. Also to me this "sleek" look again takes away from the aura of power that the old design had. 3) Those exhaust pipes are possibly the worst offender here. They already look a bit strange on the real Vulcain (at least after seeing the Mainsail revamp), but in their stylized KSP representation, they make the whole engine look outright goofy. "But this is KSP, Kerbals are pretty much the definition of goofy!" I hear you scream. But for a "Mainsail" engine, it is the wrong kind of goofy imho. I feel it should look outright ridiculously powerful, not "hey, I look like a toy" or "hey, I look like the backside of a horse". Oh and before I forget: I too belong into the camp of people who are disappointed by the apparent lack of variants for the new mainsail and skipper revamps. After the last few engine revamps I was hoping that this would become the new norm for all engines.
  3. My first reaction was to like it because "whoohoo, part refresh of something that is truly starting to show its age" and " fascinating, looks like it is base on some real engine I know" (although I didn't recognize it as a Vulcain 1 / Vulcain 2.1 at first). But the longer I look at it, the less I like it as an engine in KSP. As others have already noted it doesn't really have anything interesting about it and some have already articulated some reasons as to why it isn't a good design choice in general and for the role as "Mainsail" in particular (kudos to Nertea, LittleBitMore, et al). It really is the first part revamp that I do not like.
  4. Wow! Trip back memory lane! I had a grasshopper II as a kid. Terrible RC car (weak motor, only 2wd, no individual suspension on rear axle, no (oil) shock absorbers (only springs)), but man I loved that thing! Really like your build so far!
  5. Working on a KSP analogue of NASA's SEV (space exploration vehicle) concept. I've been wanting to do this ever since the new MK2 Lander Can came out (and before I even contemplated to create my own model for a "look-a-like" rover cockpit). All Stock (with possibly both DLCs) with the exception of Aviation Lights on the top of the cockpit. Available parts severely limited because of the current progress in my career game. Current problems: 1) I'm not yet satisfied with the looks, especially the bottom "service bay" section with fuel tanks and solar panels. Maybe I need to build it in sandbox or wait until I have more structural parts unlocked in career... 2) Without some serious use of BG robotics (which I haven't used before) to create some arms, it actually has no ingame use for me. A Klaw below the cockpit to grab things would be nice, but it just doesn't fit the scale (it is way to big).
  6. So I have finally been able to try the versions that came up after my little contribution to the whole engine plate issue: * engines are not considered as a part of the same stage as the engine plate and if I remember correctly, now it seems that "ConsolidateStages" is broken, because every one of the 7 engines on my plate is considered as a separate stage. Unfortunately I don't have a screenshot, and now it seems I have trashed the config somehow (see below) * engines are in 1 stage together, but still in a different stage than the engine plate. Engines attached to the plate get no highlight at all (neither red nor green). * can't test it because somewhere in the process of starting and shutting down KSP multiple times and switching out SR versions in between I must have corrupted something, because now the UI for SR doesn't show up no matter which version I use. (button on toolbar is visible). Is there some method that SR uses to remember window positions? So that I can reset it? I can't find any obvious file for this.
  7. Hello @linuxgurugamer I was able to come up with a (crude) fix for handling the engine plates from the Making History DLC. I'm not entirely happy with the solution because it relies way to much on hard coded assumptions about Engine Plates, but I'm not yet familiar enough with the KSP API regarding parts to rewrite the code for determining stages in a cleaner and more robust way. Anyway, I've created a PR on github so you can see how I did it: Best regards and thank you again for maintaining so many great mods!
  8. Hello, I have noticed some irregularities with Stage Recovery (great mod, thank you so much for maintaining it!) percentage calculation in the Editor GUI and the Engine Plates from the Making History expansion. After looking more closely, it seems like stuff attached to the "engine nodes" is seen by SR as belonging to the stage below the engine plate and therefore the mass calculation for the stage with the engine plate at the bottom is incorrect. I poked around the code a bit and at first glance the issue seems to be located in EditorGUI.cs in StageParts DetermineStage(Part parent) {...} where parts are only checked if they implement the IStageSeparator interface, but some logic is missing to correctly handle the 2 different types of nodes of the engine plates. I know you have a lot of work to do with maintaining so many great mods. Maybe I could find some time this week to have a go at it myself (and find a fix and create PR on github) but I can't promise anything.
  9. The humble beginnings of my very first space station, creatively named "Alpha" All stock with the exception of some "surface mounted lights" for self illumination. Built for a contract in career mode for a station with a lab that can house 7 Kerbals, still needs a cupola to meet that crew requirement. Currently slightly above 80 parts in a ~101km equatorial orbit of Kerbin
  10. @Yakuzi Wow! Those are some incredibly beautiful designs!
  11. You are right of course, thanks for the correction. I mixed up the recent part revamp heavy updates. What a great "problem" to have, isn't it?
  12. Wow! I can't decide if I like your craft or your screenshots better. Both are very sleek and stylish!
  13. @MaximumThrust Here is a special release just for you (and anybody else still playing in 1.3.1): As far as I can tell with some limited tests, simply compiling the current version of the mod against KSP 1.3.1 seems to be enough to make it work. No special adaptions required. Hope this helps!