Jump to content

JH4C

Members
  • Posts

    416
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by JH4C

  1. 3 hours ago, therealcrow999 said:

    Koyuz 1.0.craft

    There's your problem, and it's not Craft Manager's fault exactly; stock cannot handle periods in craft filenames. Craft Manager's able to save the thumbnail because it's using its own code probably, but then falling back on game code to write the .craft files perhaps? To see this in action, if you empty your VAB folder temporarily and then just put one of those Koyuz in there as downloaded from KerbalX, then make a small edit to it in the VAB, I believe you'll see it get saved with a different name. Your custom tags still show because they're linked to the name inside the file, which remains the same whether it's downloaded from the website or in-game.

    3 hours ago, therealcrow999 said:

    M3V 'Ike_Dres TP Logistics Kit'-Titan 4N.craft

    I'd be willing to bet Jeb's wages on those apostrophes being the problem there. They rarely play nicely with filehandling, I'm surprised it's a legal name on the site.

  2. 7 hours ago, AccidentalDisassembly said:

    I believe something is messed up for one of the M2X B9 Part Switch patches, considering B9PS crashes the game with a little fatal exception message when you try to place parts like the Mk2 Tri-coupler (the one with three 1.25m bits) in the editor - it could be a conflict with something else, I suppose, but I think it might be because there are no types defined for some of the switching options in the B9PS patch... possibly.

    If you posted the crash message B9 gives you, we would know more. Have you also updated B9 to its newest? The stricter settings initially introduced with 1.5.0 have been eased a little.

  3. 1 hour ago, Ruedii said:

    A few requests:

    1. Multiple colors/styles, some using stock textures.
    2. More tank sizes (of course)
    3. Matched radial decouplers for heavy lifter designs.
    4. Base engine operates as technically 3 engine modules (Center, Side, and Booster) that can be toggled individually using action groups or toggles.
    5. Multi-Parachute stage cap assembly for those of us who prefer the inaccurate but easier chute-based landings.
    6. Matched style in-line probe core.

    At least suggestions 1, 2, and 3 seem counter to the idea of the mod, i.e. that these parts are based off of the real Electron rockets; there's plenty of other mods that can fill those needs just fine, but no other mod offers these specific parts. Making one engine work as three independent ones - is that even possible? A themed probe core might be nice though, just so the main body can be either recovered or put onto a no-littering heading (impact or burn-up) once the payload has been deployed.

  4. 8 hours ago, Tonka Crash said:

    I ran into a bug running 1.5.1. Several parts use textures from a deprecated fuel tank.

    As that folder no longer exists in 1.5.1 (would it still remain if you upgraded? I did a fresh install) you could always recreate it and copy that texture back into place. I'm not sure if it would be considered kosher to add the texture to the download, as it was a Squad-created asset and I don't think we have permission to redistribute them.

    The new path for the replacement parts is Squad/Parts/FuelTank/Size1_Tanks/ and there's 5 possible files, but I think they're all different to the old file even if just in a small way, so it might be best if we could find a way to recreate the important parts of the old file in a new texture instead. Anyone know of a plugin to open DDS files in Photoshop?

  5. 5 hours ago, YourOldNerd said:

    my question is why one (MK2) is working and the other (MK3) is not.

    You don't have the right dependencies for Mk3 installed, more specifically I'd say you don't have B9PartSwitch installed. I don't believe the Mk2 parts have been updated to use that module yet, while the Mk3 parts started using it when the 1.5.x update was released.

  6. 7 hours ago, Terensky said:

    It seems that some of the habitation modules like the pxl-2 shelter (SSPR version 1.0.8.0) don't 'record' kerbal experience: I had a bunch of tourism contracts in career that had to be flown again in different habitats because of this. I mean, for example, if a tourist had to land on Minmus and was seated on the pxl-2 it was as he had never landed there, even if the ship as a whole, of course, had. The same happens for KSC crew (engineers, pilots and scientists). I opened up the pxl-2 config and noticed that the entry 'vesselType = ship' is missing. Adding this seems to solve the issue: I just like to ask if this could have some unwanted results.

    I wonder if that was why I wasn't getting pilot experience when I had the cupola on my rocket... That entry's not in that part's config either; mind you, I wouldn't expect it to be; a quick search through my install barely a third of crewed parts have the vesselType flag set. How strange!

  7. 3 hours ago, YourOldNerd said:

    KSP 1.5.1 here.

    Mk3 Expansion seems working good (I repeat: seems working good), with just an excepition: the MK3 Service Bay. More strange if you think that the MK2 Service Bay is working properly.

    Also if I load a previous made craft with this part, KSP shows an error that says: parts missing: M3X.serviceBay. But the MK3 Service Bay is shown on the Payload Menu.

     

    You must have built the ship using the 1.4.5 version; in the latest edition that part has a new model and config, and the internal part name is now M3X_ServiceBay instead of M3X_serviceBay. Either load the ship in an older install and remove that part, or edit the .craft and change the occurrences of that name to get it into 1.5.x, then remove and re-install it to ensure it has the correct config within the file. That should solve that problem at least - what other problems are you having with it? And why would the mk2 Service Bay's functionality make any difference?

  8. It's easy enough to make a new wing from an old one, just crack open the config file for the part and change the scale & name of the part then save it somewhere in your GameData folder.

    I don't know if Procedural Wings might support something that big?

  9. 1 hour ago, MaverickSawyer said:

    True, but I've had difficulty pruning that pack properly, as most of the parts in it are better reproduced elsewhere by other packs I use. I've tried multiple times to trim away all but that part and a few others, but the way the textures are referenced is... wonky, and I wind up with blank meshes with no textures. :/ 

    You could try using The Janitor's Closet to hide away the parts you're not interested in?

  10. On 10/18/2018 at 11:41 PM, TK-313 said:

    If @Beale finds himself in the mood for making some orbital experiments from the Roskosmos age, this can be an interesting one... The Znamya (Banner) series of experiments was all about space mirrors/solar sails that were unfolded and held in place by centrifugal force (i.e. the ship had to rotate to unfold the mirror), consisting of:

    fK-2XSlwjCA.jpg

    Znamya-2 - 20 m in diameter, based on a Progress ship. Launched in 1992. Successful - created a spot of light ~8 km in diameter and with a luminosity equivalent to approximately that of a full moon.

     

    Znamya-2.5 - 25 m in diameter, expected to create a bright spot 7 km in diameter, with luminosity between five and ten full moons. Based on another Progress. Launched in 1999. Failed due to the reflector catching on the ship's antenna and tearing. Program cancelled. Also, this article explores various unfolding mechanisms that could be used to prevent this failure in the future.

     

    Znamya-3 - deploying in 2 stages, the smaller reflector being 25 m in diameter and the bigger one - 60 m. Based on a heavily modified Progress with an added inertial control system (to minimize fuel costs of maintaining attitude). Intended for 2008. Never built due to program's cancellation. More pics of it here.

    Scott Manley did a video yesterday that mentioned the Znamya-2, in relation to the hypothesised Chinese "space mirror" mission. Might be a little extra info to go from, should @Beale decide to dive down this particular rabbithole?

     

  11. 14 hours ago, neistridlar said:

    Which brings up the question, two doors, or one, and if one, first floor or second floor or both variants, and do they have passenger capacity on the other floor?

    If you have 2 doors, I'd put one height on one side and the other height on the other side; the few places I've seen stacked skytubes for linking airports to planes, they shared a common feed. If you decide on 1 door, regardless of which level it's on I would put an internal staircase to link the floors rather than seating on the other level.

  12. 59 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

    Not much I can do about this right now, but I'll put an issue into Github about it

     

    I know you're exceptionally busy and other mods are much more important, this was purely something I'd uncovered and thought worth mentioning so that you had this knowledge ahead of your own testing. I should have thought to put it in GitHub, if I find anything else I'll try and remember.

  13. 1 hour ago, I likeOxidizerrfuel said:

    I CANT ATTACH ANYTHING TO THESE PARTS:mad:

    It'll help a lot if you turn off caps lock, and instead describe what you're trying to do and in which version of KSP you're trying to do it. There's a handy guide at the top of this forum that explains how to go about asking for assistance, please refer to it.

    The latest release of these parts works just fine in 1.4.x and 1.5.x. These parts are designed to fit together in a specific way, and they do not change the behaviour of other parts so if you're trying to attach something as a payload that isn't intended to be fitted as a radial part, either you'll need an adaptor plate or you could use something like Editor Extensions Redux to change the attachment rule of that specific part.

  14. I've been testing a few mods to see if I can use them without waiting for recompiles, and I've found a bug that had been overlooked in the current version, and a new bug that'll need tweaking for the next version:

    • Old bug: Mod does not affect any Kerbal equipped with the Making History retro suits. None of the options this mod provides are available in their action menus.
    • New bug: Lady Kerbals cannot remove their helmets any more. Obviously there's been some changes to the models, perhaps the meshes have been renamed or something but there's nothing immediately obvious in the .cfg files for EVA Kerbals.

    Everything else appears to still work just fine; Male Kerbals can remove/replace their helmets, patrol routes can be programmed and followed, Kerbals will follow each other around as requested.

×
×
  • Create New...