Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


169 Excellent

Profile Information

  • About me
    Junior Rocket Scientist

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Does the EVA Science Experiment still use the vanilla science system? Or is there something I'm missing here? I ran the experiments, and the Kerbalism science tracker shows 1.0x for the regions I ran them in, but it still shows them otherwise marked as 'available science'. It also describes biomes the experiement is impossible in, like flying high / flying low.
  2. Man... is there like, a "diet" version of this mod? There's some really good unique stuff in here, like the deployable litter you can leave all over the surface, but there's also just so damn much crap it really clogs the parts list. I nearly had kittens when I, without even most of the tech tree unlocked, opened the VAB and saw like 891 capsules/command pieces listed, and most of them are these weirdo satellites and stuff. Or the excrementsloads of engines, like, I have enough engines without needing to sort through them. Is there a cut down version of this mod that kind of narrows it down to the more unique/niche parts only?
  3. lmao I knew I wasn't crazy, thanks.
  4. Even without a scientist the base flow of science is 0.05625.
  5. So I've had a surface-deployed goo experiment running for 111 days on the Mun, and it's ONLY 2% COMPLETE. It has 4 power units available. 0.005625p/hr is the stated science gain rate. This cannot be serious. Is this serious? This is pointless, it's going to take centuries for this stupid thing to finish, what is the point?
  6. I found a bug: GT wants to create files based on the name of the vessel. However, you can put invalid Windows characters into a vessel name, but it explodes GT when it tries to create/read those files. In this case, you can't put a colon in a file name, GT apparently didn't get that memo, so when you reach space, GT has a meltdown and spams the log with this.
  7. Well, I still can't get functional behavior here. I use CraftManager, and my building strategy is to make everything very modular. Lifting templates in the VAB saves, payloads in the Subassemblies saves. EVERYTHING was made with KSP-Recall, which you said you were able to fix if the subassembly had been made with old versions. I attached the craft files and you can see that they have AttachedOnEditor modules. But loading the satellite from the in-game subassembly menu doesn't work. Loading the lifter from the CraftManager "load as subassembly" doesn't work. The root part of the lifter will be the US2 decoupler which is attached to the AE-FF1 payload fairing base. The root part of the satellite is a Spark engine attached to a Restock Octo bus. Craft file for satellite: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qrUVE-qkuRL_qrfQlKWib_UWLLio8tc-/view?usp=sharing Craft file for lifter: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gPz2g1NwFDIlLAaWoTMmRCytVGiPKZ2F/view?usp=sharing I don't get it. Did I miss something about what I need to do here? MORE: I just made a brand new subassembly, right there. Saved it as a subassembly, and then immediately tried to load it. It's right over there on the left, 'unnamed'. And it's all still broken. I replaced the US2 decoupler with a stock decoupler and it loads the subassembly. Reverted back to US2 and it's broken. There is no AttachedOnEditor module for the US2 part in the .craft file. Checking my satellite, I have 23 parts, but only 16 occurrences of 'AttachedOnEditor', and there's no US2 part, but there are Restock parts. Recall has NEVER and IS NOT applying AttachedOnEditor to modded parts. So, what, is every single craft that uses modded parts irreparably broken and unusable now for subassembly loading? I wanted to say this in that last post, but I changed my post to try to fully understand the situation. With all due respect, and I mean that sincerely: who, exactly would "everybody" in this situation be? I have never, ever heard of this problem. I have never, ever seen of any issues that were related to it. I've never seen anybody ever talk about it. I believe you discovered an actual problem that used a hacky fix, but I also believe that what you are doing to try to fix it is at this point causing vastly more damage than whatever 'problems' could have arisen from Squad's fix. It's as if we have a table with a little wobble in it, and you didn't like that we just shoved a napkin under the leg to even it out, so you disassembled the table and are chopping at it in your workshop and at now the table wobble is gone, but the table is a foot shorter, half its size, and sometimes tips over completely, and you're saying that we just need to buy brand new chairs to accommodate the shorter table. I still don't understand how a crappy Squad-level fix is somehow worse than the fact that Recall effectively says that any old saved ships are effectively trashed. Whatever problem was behind the scenes never manifested as an issue for me in my entire 12 years of playing KSP, until you tried to fix it, and now things have come to the point where calling the current version of KSP Recall (and by extension: Tweakscale) "A mod that will completely break your game" is fair criticism. We've spoken a lot before and I respect the work you do and the service you provide considerably, but this is tough-love. You're very clever and skilled but we're going on several months of hacking together a series of broken fixes to repair a devastating problem that was entirely induced by an attempt to fix a problem that as near I can tell, you're the first and only one to have ever noticed or cared about fixing. Is this just the Sunk Cost Fallacy? Because I would at this point just say to roll everything back, and never touch it again. Pretend you never saw it. Leave this underlying hacky fix where it's been for the last two years. There is a certain degree of trust that the players need to have in modders, that they will A) Keep players informed, and B) Not break their games, and I feel like that trust was violated here. I feel uninformed because you've basically turned us into QA testers for four versions of your mod that are so clearly broken, you should have caught it yourself, so how on earth did we get to version and it still isn't fixed? If you said "here's a working version on Git, let me know if you have issues", I am informed. When you push a stable release to CKAN, at least three times, to fix a bug that does not appear to have ever been fixed in any version, what is this besides completely untested, unfinished versions being willfully pushed to the public for us to figure out all the problems for you? And second, the game is broken. Yes, most of it works, nothing appears to be permanent, but when a major core feature of the base game is genuinely unusable for four versions, that's bad. That's really bad. If Modders had a Hippocratic Oath, that'd be one of the things you never do. Break your own mod, fine. Break the base game, no. I've rolled back Recall to, before this mess was unleashed, and I will be unlikely to ever update Recall again. If after four version releases we're still dealing with clearly broken features that appear to be totally untested, when will a version of Recall be released that causes permanent damage in some fashion? I have no reason to believe that that couldn't easily happen in the future. I'm sorry.
  8. Oh it looks like the code to replace them is in the PF-Everything mod addon.
  9. Things I like about this mod: - Makes for nicer, smoother fairings. - More customizable colors. - Fairings are persistent debris parts with collisions. Things I don't like about this mod: - It replaces the stock fairing parts, including the stock fairing build method. Why not just make new parts? - Interstaging, honestly, is too complicated and I don't understand. The default fairings you just dragged them to where you wanted and clicked, and your interstage fairing was done. How am I expected to conjoin a fairing with, say, one of the MH Soyuz capsules to smooth it out? - Fairing bases themselves are not colorable. TBH just making the fairings new parts and not replacement would address the problems. In my opinion it's bad form to replace stock parts completely outside of texture/model replacements, or some kind of overhaul where that behavior is expected.
  10. Is the stock science box supposed to have hard drive space? There's an upgrade that seems to suggest it should, but mine does not, only slot space.
  11. Fingers are crossed for an authorized update from the author. I'd love to see 'folders' added to this, and some way to save subassemblies directly as subassemblies (so you can edit them without screwing everything up). This is seriously one of those "indispensable" mods I can't play without anymore.
  12. Can I ask why you didn't just roll back Recall to BEFORE the VAB totally broke? What exactly was whatever catastrophically broke in Recall here?
  13. I nominate the Soyuz capsules, the MEM, and the Escape Tower. The Soyuz capsules are so draggy they're useless and will flip your rocket 90% of the time, and the MEM is just overbuilt and too heavy for no actual reason. The Escape Tower could be fun if it were usable. Why don't the parachutes have a node on top to attach the tower?
  14. Damn that's what I was afraid of. Indicator Lights is cute and cool. Poo.
  15. Could anyone familiar with the guts of Kerbalism answer this?
  • Create New...