DrunkenKerbalnaut

Members
  • Content Count

    649
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DrunkenKerbalnaut

  1. Found this in my travels https://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/comments/5o4p4u/timewarp_safe_stock_electric_prop_proof_of_concept/?st=1Z141Z3&sh=99e41b28
  2. I remember glancing at this a few months ago, then forgetting about it. Stupid Me-from-the-past. This look pretty friggin helpful. Looking forward to trying it out. Thanks @Snark .
  3. It feels that, in my opinion, the contract system becomes much less important the moment I start leaving Kerbin SOI. World Firsts are enough to break even on damn near every inter-planetary mission. The only exception might be Kerbaled Eve trips that return from the surface. Disclaimer: Until the career/contract/science system is overhauled in a way that makes progression fluid (don't hold your breath), we have to learn to set our own goals. Right now, the game seems to consider your first extra-terrestrial landing as an endgame. That's about the time an average player will be looking at the tech tree, thinking "Well, I guess I'll just unlock the 2.5m ore tank, then. I wonder what Astroneer looks like these days?"
  4. If abusing the game mechanics isn't an issue, time advance halts rotation. Not the physics kind that maxes out at 4X. The kind that puts your craft "on rails". Seeing as your account is dated 2014, you probably know this stuff. Just putting it out there. Also (and this is probably less helpful) you can just plain avoid using the Klaw in anything other than situations that explicitly require it. Like asteroids or derelict recovery contracts. If the "spinning component" is small enough, you can always go old-school. I distinctly remember recovering Jeb from orbit with spaceships that resembled giant butterfly nets , pre-Klaw EDIT:
  5. Nah you didn't come off rude. It's your world (thread) I'm just living (posting) in it Maybe ask over on the Gallileo or OPM threads?
  6. Take a look at your profile page, here on the forum. You should be able to access the settings for notifications there.
  7. The lava is the most attractive part, to me. But give the player a reason to build a craft that can survive. Perhaps take a look through Community Resource Pack, find a reasonable but rare resource, then make it available in spades on some super tiny island - or the sea floor.
  8. Welcome to the forum. Theres a vast number of things that could have gone wrong. Consider uploading a WIP version of your mod for folks to better help you. EDIT: free services like Dropbox work just fine.
  9. Interesting. So it's gonna be a lava ocean? What's the grey-ish stuff in the foreground? That's eloquent.
  10. Might it be safe to assume that -were any space-fairing organization to use this method- they would use winches with fine motor speed control? Of course, that wouldn't address the braking issue.
  11. Use reaction wheels as both the charging mechanism and the discharging mechanism. If you can get it to apply localized torque in two opposite vectors, maybe you can cause RUD by over-powering it haha. Sorry, to answer your question: design them or perhaps role play them as having contra-rotating flywheels. Always in pairs, you know? EDIT: and Wikipedia has done some work for you, where upgrades can be applied: First generation flywheel energy storage systems use a large steel flywheel rotating on mechanical bearings. Newer systems use carbon-fiber composite rotors that have a higher tensile strength than steel and are an order of magnitude less heavy.[5] Magnetic bearings are sometimes used instead of mechanical bearings, to reduce friction. Other components are hub and shaft.
  12. I think I see what your getting at. Colliders created in Unity. Right click the model>add empty>add component>physics>capsule collider. Width set to .05 (don't ask) length set appropriate. Angle as needed with local parameters. Repeat as necessary. NOT set as triggers. Bump/normal maps: haven't pulled one off yet, so certainly not. material is png texture. shader is KSP Specular, currently opacity 1.0, but I've tried others (noted above). Shininess .03. If that doesn't do anything for you, then I think I'll be starting one from nil, see if I can repeat from completely clean slate. it's gonna suck if every one of these damn things does this haha. 50 models, or so.
  13. I got halfway through reading the thread and thought of flywheel energy storage. Was about to skip ahead to suggest that as an addition, but it looks like a certain sagacious simian beat me to it But yeah. That would be... How did the ancient Greeks say it? Ah, yes, "Mad dope, son". Sorry. I should go to bed haha.
  14. Just tried doing different module ID (both 0 & 1, and 1 & 2) for the two FS modules. No dice. I'm not so sure that matters, as the documentation From here leads me to believe it's only necessary when using 2 of the same modules, ie.: FSTextureSwitch used twice in the same part cfg. I also just tried deleting the FStextureSwitch from the cfg, and it's still misbehaving. For the record, I'm doing a complete reboot, not a DB reload. And I'm deleting MM caches each time. (Edit: and and I just tried removing the offending part from PartDatabase.cfg )
  15. I understood. For the sake of my sanity, will try again. And I just saw your post script; it would take me ages to DL right now, but yes please.
  16. Thanks for helping Spanner. Sorry, I used the wrong terminology. I think my dilemma might be better explained with pics: hierarchy and partial config: and the problem part is on the right. They are both set to the same texture currently:
  17. Hey if you can think of any ways to collaborate, I'd be interested. I find there are a lot empty niches for simple and/or structural parts in KSP.
  18. Nice work @Benji13. Found you by googling for info on some FS modules. I've spoilered the following, as it's not directly related to your mod, but please take a look:
  19. Were I to pray to google for details on this study, which key phrases might I invoke?
  20. If that's all that can be achieved, it might still be a viable part. For the purposes you've mentioned, and perhaps for some sort of KIS/KAS use.
  21. That depends on how you're using this theoretical part. If it's just a visual-only means of completing a loop, and isn't part of -say- a rover rollcage then your good. If it's protecting a squishy Kerbal or delicate science probe from a violent impact with a celestial body, it would be nice to give it some impact resistance - which makes a collider necessary.
  22. You're a mind reader. It's on the list of things to try as far as making procedurals. My idea was to make the endpoints spheres, and they surface attach at their center point. However, the struts don't have colliders for the center piece. So that's a bridge to cross. When we cross that bridge. Fun with words.
  23. Update but still not right: I realized that I had not referenced the alternate model in FSTextureSwitch MODULE, so changed that. So something like objectNames = model;modelALT And then I realized I might be able to workaround it so I dialed both shaders (KSP/Specular) down to _Opacity 0.5 In the hopes that if both were going to be visible, they could get along instead of overlapping. If it's of any importance, they share a material template. But nope. No visual difference. Meshes switch and so do textures, but the textures are very noticeably darkened to the point that features are hardly visible.