• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

29 Excellent


About Joker58th

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Profile Information

  • Location Array
  • Interests Array

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Yep, you can just remove it. I normally create a GameDataTemp folder at the same level as GameData and move mod folders in there just in case I want to turn them back on or if I ever want to remove proper with CKAN. If your not using FAR, I think you can also move MFI as well since it won't be needed without Kopernicus. Works just fine as this is my setup as of now. No other config changes needed.
  2. There is a Kopernicus issue that causes this. I have the same problem on the Mun. There is much discussion on the Kopernicus thread as well as some github issues. My personal work around for now since I don't use any planet packs is to remove Kopernicus/MFI and do without the KSPRC textures. Or disabling Terrain Scatters in the graphics settings (restart game) also helps. Here are the links to the forum and github for reference.
  3. Yeah, this mod and JetSoundsContinued are the way to go for all of your sound needs. Love the deep rumble in orbit with Audio Muffler Redux too. Great job!
  4. I agree with this. Only I suggest making a return contract by itself giving the player the option for extra funds. Also, I think the first probe orbit of Kerbin should not have a return requirement. Make a separate return contract as well, IMHO.
  5. @Diddly Feelerino Actually, I recall this as well in my scenario with a Mun landing. After landing, if I jumped to the tracking station, for example, and went back to the same ship, the lag was gone. Can you try completely disabling terrain scatters, restart the game and try your mun landing again? Edit: And when I say disable terrain scatters, I mean unchecking the radial button and not just adjusting the slider to 0. That may be the same thing but I'm not 100% on that.
  6. Oh whoops! My bad. It must have been on this forum then. Interesting. I was thinking it was all the time from what I have experienced but I will keep a watch out the next time I use kopernicus. Question: Any chance for some city lights?
  7. I believe that Avera9eJoe is aware of this and there even may be an issue on github about it. If I recall correctly, at some point he might try to figure it out but for now, we just live with it. Or the other option is to not use the KSPRC textures and just use stock. Spectra works without it just fine. And kopernicus too if you don't want to deal with the lag issues.
  8. @jpinard I initially encountered the lag in a career when doing a Mun landing. See issue here for details with graphs showing what happens from 15km to the surface on a clean install with minimum mods, no resize, no expansion packs. You mention the Mun in your earlier post so I thought maybe you were experiencing the same.
  9. @jpinard Try turning off Terrain Scatters in the graphics settings, restart the game (important) and see if that helps. Note that turning off Terrain Scatters does not affect the breaking ground surface features, it just makes them easier to see.
  10. And really, yes, this is the better option. I will have to think more about this and what it would be like to not use part limits at all. I think Custom Barn Kit allows this to be changed if I'm not mistaken.
  11. Thanks for the suggestion @kcs123 Unfortunately it did not work. I did some more digging and found one of the SSTU mod integration configs for CTT. @PARTUPGRADE[SSTU-ST-SolarUpgrade3]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree] { @techRequired = advSolarTech } His config works so I tried to model it as shown here. @PARTUPGRADE[SSTU-SC-ENG-SRB-GeneralRocketry]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree] { @TechRequired = heavyRocketry } Still doesn't work. @Shadowmage any ideas here? I compared the log file entries with the solar upgrade and the one I'm trying and they both look very similar. Here is my config's part. I even copied my config file to the same folder as the CTT.cfg in SSTU which I'm guessing has nothing to do with it but I did just for kicks. [LOG 14:20:33.004] Config(@PARTUPGRADE[SSTU-SC-ENG-SRB-GeneralRocketry]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree]) SSTU/ModIntegration/CTT/CTT/@PARTUPGRADE[SSTU-SC-ENG-SRB-GeneralRocketry]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree] [LOG 14:20:33.015] Config(PARTUPGRADE) SSTU/Parts/Upgrades/UpgradeParts-MSRB-ISP/SSTU-SC-ENG-SRB-GeneralRocketry [LOG 2019-07-16 14:20:14.866] Applying update SSTU/ModIntegration/CTT/CTT/@PARTUPGRADE[SSTU-SC-ENG-SRB-GeneralRocketry]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree] to SSTU/Parts/Upgrades/UpgradeParts-MSRB-ISP.cfg/PARTUPGRADE Edit: As a test, I actually made the changes in the CTT.cfg file in SSTU just to see if that had anything to do with it. That is what the log file shows above. Edit2: I made a new config file with only these entries and it does work now. Something goofy with my original config file. All good now.
  12. Uhhh...that went straight over my head... and it sounds like I wasn't very clear in my uneducated suggestion. I'm not really talking about changing serious under the hood parts of the game to reduce part counts for better performance. Actually I'm talking about adding pseudo part counts to an single part such as the MFT for career balance purposes. So if you are limited to 30 parts in early career and you are not stacking, its kind of cheaty right? So if you could somehow make KSP believe that each time you click the Core (maybe Upper and Lower too) to change the length of the tank, it would tack on another part but only while in the VAB. Once you launch, the tank would behave as the single part it really is. Does this make sense?
  13. Could I ask some help here with a modification I am trying to make with the tech tree and an SSTU upgrade. Here is the original code from the mod. PARTUPGRADE { name = SSTU-SC-ENG-SRB-GeneralRocketry partIcon = SSTU-SC-ENG-SRB-A techRequired = generalRocketry entryCost = 2000 cost = 0 title = Modular SRB Efficiency Upgrade manufacturer = SSTU description = A new, more explosive fuel mixture improves the burning efficiency of solid rockets. } I have been making some changes with SSTU parts successfully so I thought I would try using the same structure like this: //heavierRocketry @PARTUPGRADE[SSTU-SC-ENG-SRB-GeneralRocketry]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree,SSTU]:BEFORE[zzzUnKerballedStart] { @TechRequired = heavierRocketry } But its not working. Can someone give some guidance here?
  14. Here are some screen shots of my latest career.
  15. It's nice to hear your feedback when playing through career. In general I do like your approach of not stacking parts to make rockets look better and also reduce part count for physics/cpu issues. I can understand why some might not as it also bypasses some of the early career part limitations which normally takes trade-offs and/or ingenuity to complete a mission. There is some challenge there. I have an idea. Take your procedure tanks for example. Is there a way to fool KSP in to thinking there are more parts in a single procedural part but only in the VAB/SPH? Say based on the length of the tank, more parts would be added or removed and be reflected in and subject to the Engineers report limitations. Once you go to launch, the part number would be the actual parts used. This way, your parts would fit better into career and yet still be low part counts for cpu/physics reasons when flying. Maybe tanks would be upgraded at certain levels so that as tech advances, fewer parts per tank are needed. Possibly corresponding to where larger stock tanks are placed in the tech tree. Another example would be the engines. A single engine starts out as two parts, one for the engine and one for the mounting plate. Each engine would add to the part count from there on but again, only in the VAB/SPH. Maybe the part count for each procedural part would show up in the PAW as well. Anyhow, just a high level idea without any knowledge if it can be done and if so, how much work involved.