• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by JH4C

  1. What you could also do is install Editor Extensions Redux. This lets you change the surface attachment permissions on a per-part basis with a simple click, rather than try to patch every possible permutation of stock and user-created part that may or may not work well with surface attachment: Not everything reacts well to being surface attached, and sometimes parts which are okay one way will react very badly if used differently; I tried mounting a battery and SOAP-1 camera inside the upward-facing folding doors of a mk2 Cargo bay and, while everything lined up and looked fine in the SPH, if I opened the doors on the runway then the ship cracked in two and the runway exploded into flames... So I tried it in flight, and the Kraken would smite me from the skies! Interestingly, you don't actually need to hide your undercarriage inside a cargo bay like that; just clip it inside a part and set "Deploy Shielded" to on and you'll get the exact same effect. However if you're gonna be using the cargo bay for other things then it's a neat stylistic element, and regardless I like how you've done it. I don't think there's an action group mod that can do as you ask, because those options are not exposed in the code to be used by the Action Group system. SXT has a set of folding wings, and although they're not swept they function well even at supersonic speeds. Might also be worth a look - not sure you'd be able to surface-attach much, as they fold into quite a compact unit, but you never know...
  2. Loving the wing teases, I've got ideas to use them both already.
  3. Sorry to hear you've been unwell, I know how much of a sap on inspiration that can be. I think you've made a good decision, modular cockpits is a fantastic idea but it's also a fantastically complex one, and it makes sense to get the parts made first. I'll be keeping an eye on development, this is the first time I've seen these parts and I already love them. Use your spoons wisely.
  4. There's already mods that allow calculation of antenna strength/coverage, and power consumption through orbital shadows (one of which is maintained by LGG already); knowing LGG's usual stance, I suspect he'll simply suggest you try using those, rather than duplicate them in this mod. Check them out, maybe they'll do exactly what you need?
  5. Okay, I just re-downloaded from Spacedock, that error is in their archive. I also checked the GitHub and the error is there as well. Is there somewhere else I should be looking? The current release is according to filenames and the Readmes, has there been another update since? Thanks for easing my mind about the rest.
  6. For reference, the enclosing folder is called Mk2vtol and the part itself is k35b.cfg so if you're file-searching for K-35B that might be why you're not finding it.
  7. Perhaps you could use the stock mesh switch system, and remove that dependency entirely? I don't know how many people are still using 1.3.x but with 1.5.x on the horizon sooner or later they're going to have to update to keep using other mods anyway. Something else in my set-up appears to have added IntakeAtm to pretty much every intake I've got, so that's one more thing not to worry about... This just might work after all
  8. That's a good enough answer. WorldStabiliser is not intended to function in the situation you're describing. Its sole purpose is to ease physics on scene change to prevent ships from spawning and then bouncing to their doom. Once that has happened, it is disabled until the next scene change. Whatever is happening to your rover has nothing to do with the functioning of this mod.
  9. How are you managing to timewarp in the short amount of time between requesting a scene change and the scene being loaded?
  10. How tightly integrated are the parts in this mod, CRP, and IFS? I have nothing else that uses CRP or IFS, and would rather avoid installing them if I can... But if it means reprogramming everything then that's a bit beyond me; however if it's just find/replacing a few entries then I can manage that easily enough.
  11. Yay! I'm glad you're having better luck with it now. Unfortunately, you're having more luck than I ever have... While I can get the dialogues to appear, I've never once managed to get something to fly using this. I've kind of given up on being able to use VTOL for now; I was originally hoping it would help me avoid the horrors of trying to fly a proper landing, but I managed four successive grasslands/icecap landings and take-offs on the same flight yesterday, so my VTOL experiments are going on the back burner - no pun intended
  12. And I was just thinking that what my planes really lack is proper rotating lights. Thanks for updating this!
  13. The latest version is Use the SpaceDock link. (It's also in the GitHub link but it's hidden, in the block above the 3.5.0 link for some reason.)
  14. I think you're installing an out-of-date version of TCA; I've only ever installed it from the current download and my version of AT_Utils is 1.6, nothing else I have installed uses it so nothing else would have updated it. ETA: Confirmed, the current version of the download installs AT_Utils 1.6, so if you're seeing 1.5 then you're not installing the latest version of TCA. Silly question: you mention choosing the various software in the Editor scene, but are you enabling TCA there as well? Command pods can show TCA active, but if it's not been switched on before launch then you can't use it to control anything on the vehicle anyway.
  15. That lander foot animation is hypnotic. Lovely-looking piece of kit, well done.
  16. I'm very interested in seeing if this works. SXT has another equivalent for this experiment, but in a 2.5m format; being able to use any of the three parts to achieve the same goal would really open up my options!
  17. Just wanted to check a couple of things to make sure I'm not misunderstanding them, all related to the SSPs. Firstly, ssp1_small.cfg has a typo inside; in the section where you explain how to edit the settings to only require one activation button in the right-click menu, you've forgotten to comment out the line that says "And uncomment THIS one." Probably wouldn't have noticed if I wasn't looking at all the SSP files trying to puzzle out what's below. Size 2 and 3 SSPs don't appear to have shrouds over them to make them aerodynamic on lift-off; this matches the screenshots but I'm curious if it's intentional because of the following: Size 2 SSP has two "Shroud on/off" buttons in the Editor but they change the display of the top/bottom plates only; I believe this is to allow them to be fitted to a Size 1 stack? in Flight, two buttons are provided marked "Jettison shroud" but they don't appear to do anything at all, and the panels can be extended whether or not the shroud is "jettisoned." Maybe I'm just confused by the naming convention, or it's a relic of how things had to be done before mesh switching? By contrast, SSP Size 3 has no mention of shrouds at all in either the Editor or Flight scene.
  18. I believe the current thread is over the page, as mentioned above: Micha's last post was just on Friday.
  19. Fame, fortune... Well, a pretty YouTube video anyway. You've been featured by @Kottabos:
  20. From my own recent investigations, the AR202 needs to be positioned on the left flank with the antenna pointing towards the nose for it to count as being "correctly oriented" in the Editor "potential problems" dialogue. ETA: I'm using 801 in 1.4.5 and so far it's done everything I've needed it to, but I don't have all features unlocked in my career so I can't guarantee it to be problem-free.
  21. I suspect you could edit the save to retract/disengage/completely remove the Klaw if the problem is indeed related to it being "attached" to something that no longer exists, but I'm afraid I have no knowledge as to how you'd actually achieve that...
  22. Hello @Li0n, it's me again. I've been using this in 1.4.5 without incident for a little while now, right up until I tried fitting some headlights to a new rover I was building... The hidden setting for enabling/disabling Motion Sensitive lights is giving me one hell of an interesting glitch! There's no specific error recorded in the ksp.log, and it only affects some parts with no real rhyme or reason as to which or why... Well, there's more info in the link. Have a look, maybe you can figure out why it's happening - I'm pretty sure it was okay before I upgraded from 1.4.3 (I skipped 1.4.4) so maybe it just needs recompiling? I only changed the setting to streamline my parts dialogues (I never use Motion Sensitivity and have a lot of other mods adding entries to things); I've changed it back and everything works normally again. This is repeatable on a clean install with only CrewLight and Module Manager added.
  23. Found it - it's CrewLight. More specifically, because it's very specific, it's this one particular setting in the config file: { use_motion_detector_light = True // enable the feature, lights must be set individualy, in flight or in the editor } The default for this setting is False. I'd set it to true because I never use it, and wanted to remove it from the part menus for simplicity... With hilarious consequences! *Studio applause* How bizarre...
  24. A picture's worth a thousand spotlights words... Also note, despite mirroring being set on the painting effect only occurs on the face you're actually moving your mouse over. I'm slowly working through my mods, trying to pinpoint whichever's causing this, but it takes so long to reload...
  25. @BlackHat has it. Somehow my installed version hadn't included the enwrapping SpaceTuxIndustries folder which I'd therefore erroneously picked as the point of failure - I accept full blame for this, I'd had to do a manual install to avoid getting some dependencies I don't want to have installed. However, even though it was in the wrong root folder I still had a lot of the other parts show up because more than half of the parts use relative addressing within their config files; only those that needed to look for an absolute path were failing, and because I saw something appear I merrily assumed all was well. No other part of the log contained any reference to the path, but the answer was in the bit I'd snipped out if only I'd stepped back for a better look. Sorry for the false alarm on that front. I still maintain that the "Ram jet mk 10" file is misnamed though; I also did a fresh install and the game still says it can't find the texture it wants because it doesn't have that underscore. It's Clockwork Industries' Ram Air Intake mk3. JH4Cramair.zip - a full log this time.