Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4,144 Excellent

About Lisias

  • Rank
    Boldly crashing what no Kerbal has crashed before!

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Location
    Universe ! Virgo ! Milkway ! OrionArm ! SolarSystem ! Earth ! America ! SouthAmerica ! Brazil ! SãoPaulo ! Capital ! Home ! LivingRoom ! MyChair
  • Interests
    I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of lines of code cried out in Null Reference Exceptions and were suddenly flooding the KSP.log...

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Excellent! But so I don't understand why the patch above failed, because TS does kinda the same, but using introspection... Anyway, by night I will check this - I must had done something stupid on that patch... Welcome. I understand this solution is less than desirable, but there're so much time available to check and pursue every new change (and bug introduced) on each new KSP version, so Authors need some time to understand what's happening to cope with - for example, I managed to understand why some old parts are blowing up due heat on launch, but now I realised that h
  2. Because you would ended up with 9 times more storage than the original part, not 3! Suppose you have a container 3 meters by 3 meters, with slots with 1m³ each. So you have 9 slots, and the container has 9 m³. By scaling the container to twice the size, you till have a container with 6 meters by 6 meters, or 36m³. BUT, by scaling the slot's size and the quantity of slots on the container, you will end with 36 slots with 3m³ each = 108m³ - the numbers don't fit. (unless you are a fan of Doctor Who, of course! ) Damn. Or I did something wrong on the patch, or I wi
  3. This explains your interest on support for ModuleCargoPart and ModuleInventoryPart. What I plan to do is to support these things the same way I did on KIS: allowing the user to choose to scale the quantity of slots, or the size of each slot (those quantity remains the same). It's essentially what I'm working on now, and I expect a new TS release (or, at least, a new 2.5 Beta with it) in a couple weeks. But since this is not necessarily what you may want to do with your part, and since TweakScale will provide Exponents aiming to support the stunt I mentioned in the previous paragraph,
  4. Yes. It doesn't helps on KSP 1.11 . The craft already spawns under the runway. Interestingly, I spawned that 500 tons rover using Vessel Mover and let it place it gently into the ground.. .Dude, that thing moved up the rover to 300 meters, and started to down it to the ground at less than 0.5M per second! It took minutes to lay the craft on the ground! This hints me that the weight is the key. I think that something on spawning the craft is placing the rover on the PQS ground level, instead of firing a ray from the skies into the ground to find the runway collider. Then, before the p
  5. Now you lose me, I think I need further information about what you need to do - otherwise I may be only making things worse... About extending stock classes, I tried it some time ago and got some unwanted misbehaviours... Once you extend a stock Module, every single instance of the original module will be replaced by yours instead - no matter what you call it. I was trying to extent the ModuleControlSurface (to tell you the true, I was trying to tinker with Atmospheric Autopilot that does that), don't remember the details, but let's call this new class ModuleControlSurfaceHacked.
  6. Can't really tell. I had had problems in the past on editing root nodes using MM, and didn't found a way to workaround it and what you asks implies on creating a new root node. I didn't managed to do it (what's different of not being possible however). It's the reason I gave up and just allowed some ScaleExponents on TweakScale Companion for Firespitter to duplicate the deprecating ones on TweakScale "core" for while - I'm going to get rid of anything non stock/DLC on the main TweakScale, and replacing them with optional Companions - what will prevent a lot of problems TweakScale had in t
  7. The last one on the GameDatabase will prevail. The ScaleExponents are stored on a dict, so any duplicate will overwrite the previous one. You raised a very good question - such a stunt can potentially ruin the savegame - next release of TweakScale will have a Sanity Check for it! The code uses introspection to check the type of the atribute being scaled, and apply the correct operation. floats are operanted with float operators, etc. It's not different from using a variable, standard C# coercion applies. Still about this behaviour, follow some findings on KSP
  8. Yes. Work in Progress at this time. There are 2 new modules and 24 new parts I need to map and support, but since KSP 1.11 release date I only had time to work on it this weekend! Version | ReleaseDt | ∑Modules | ∑AllParts | ∑AllDeprecated | ∑Stock | ∑MH | ∑Serenity ------------+----------------+------------+------------+----------------+----------+--------+------------ 0.22| 2013-10-16 | 31| 156| 0| 156| 0| 0 0.23.0| 2013-12-17 | 36| 157| 0| 157| 0|
  9. Humm... You should not be drifting on KSP 1.11, they implemented that "anchoring" stunt exactly to prevent that. I tried KSP Recall on KSP 1.11, but it apparently didn't made (good) differences on me - but it screwed up the "anchoring" when the craft is not visible by camera, and so I decided to withdraw Driftless from 1.11 . I wonder if it would not make a difference here, since even the anchoring is failing on your wheels. What is the weight of your craft? I'm trying to reproduce the problem here, but no dice . [edit: I reproduced the problem on a 120ton rover using 240% scal
  10. As long no one shoves more that one fuel switch on the same part, B9PWS is fully supported as long as I know - I have no reports of problems, at least, and my sporadic tests didn't raised any problems: If you are unsure, build a mockup of what you are planning to do and then check if anything goes wrong - be advised that everything non-stock (or DLCs) is being gradually deprecated on TweakScale "core", with fresh support being implemented on the TweakScale Companion Program. -- POST EDIT -- Talked too soon. B9PS per appears to do not be a problem, but some parts using it are t
  11. God bless the Users - without them, developers would not have reasons to be blessed! It's more complicated. There's not a hardcoded rule for scaling things, each part can have it's own scaling receipt - but virtually all of them are classified into "categories", and the receipts are cooked for each category. For example, the weight of most parts are scaled cubicly, but engines and crewed parts are scaled by 2.5 (yeah, fractions!) - it was realised that this scaling is kinda more related to real life. Engines's thrust are usually scaled by 2.5 too (bigger engines
  12. In the dark ages of 2.4.3.x , yes. But that was less than optimal - smaller wheels got incredibly strong by their size, and bigger wheels terribly weak and fragile. Scaling wheels now has a functional purpose, not only cosmetic anymore - and without nasty collateral effects! However, there're still some work to do.
  13. Kinda of. That thing behave relatively well while flying, but it was somewhat over reacting on rolling - I usually need to trim down the Authority Limit of the control surfaces at flight to cope with the flight regime at the moment. What I think it's happening is that with radial symmetry, the code that control the control surfaces is not doing a good job on distributing the forces equally on every control surface. This is happening on odd and even number of control surfaces, but on even numbers, there's a immediate counterpart to keep things... hum... more controllable. By some
  14. So you found a new launch problem! "Congrats"!! Please send me your KSP.log **AND** the craft that it's blowing up into space on the most unpleasant way. With a bit of luck, I will identify exactly why it's exploding and so I could inprove the beta work around to include your case!
  15. You may have found a new misbehaviour on Launch (like the stunt KSP Recall Beta is "fixing"). Press F3 as soon as your rocket start to blow up (without cheats). Then publish that screenshot here so I can give a peek. KSP Recall Beta may solve your problem, but it would be wiser to check that F3 first.
  • Create New...