Skyrunner84

Members
  • Content Count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About Skyrunner84

  • Rank
    Bottle Rocketeer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I know that RemoteTech 2 is still under development but I dont know where else to ask this. Has there been any word if the features of ComNet Constilations will be implemented? I really want to like that mod I just feel like I have to have the features in RT more. I think my biggest problem with the stock system is antenna type (direct vs relay) and that 2 direct antennas cant connect with each other. Add to that dishes that act like omni and I just get frustrated to the point I want RT back. But I do really like the idea of frequencies.
  2. First off, I have used this mod in the past. I really like this concept. It makes you think a bit more about making Satellites that will last. I am thinking about adding g this to my current save. I have a few quick questions. Is this mod still under development? Does anyone know if it is working in 1.7? Have any of the old bugs been fixed? Thank you for a great little mod.
  3. I am having a problem, I'm hoping someone here can help me with. Sorry i don't have a lot of time as I am writing this (kid's boy scouts starts soon). I am working with a fresh copy of KSP 1.6.1 and RT 1.9.1. I am trying to use Bluedog Design Bureau probes. Every time I set a probe that has a built in antenna, the antenna does not show up to be activated. I have also noted a new tag in the probe info labeled "tech perk" that indicates the probe has an omni antenna that has a range of 35km (also i am working on a rescaled system of approximately 3.2x). Anyone have any idea why this has happened?
  4. I have been playing a heavily moded career in 1.5 with no issues that i have noticed. Can you give me some stuff to look out for?
  5. I know... it is for me too. The thing is that this mod uses CFG files to configure the number (and type?) Of ignitor and to determine if that engine uses the ullage simulation at. The idea is that some specific engines would have the ullage system disabled regardless of the difficulty settings. For example if you had a radial vernier engine that you always wanted to start regardless of ullage, you could set useUllageSimulation to false for that specific engine. My workaround is that you need to find the CFG files that configure the engines that you use (whatever mod engines like BDB or stock). You then look for a line that says: useUllageSimulation = True and change "True" to "False". If you dont find that line in the CFG file for the particular engine you are using, then try adding it. My guess is that these variables in the CFG files override the settings in the difficulty menu. I'm sure that this is just a minor bug. I'm guessing that the code probably applys the CFG setting after and without respect to the difficulty setting. It would be interesting to try using an engine that does not set useUllageSimulation and see how it works. Just so we are on the same page the CFG files I am talking about are the ones that come in the engineIgnitor folder with the mod.
  6. @linuxgurugamer I have tried turning off the ullage simulation in the settings. Also tried to set the chance of unstable restart to 100%. Nothing works. Just to note these settings were made in a new career save. Like I said these settings are also being set in the BDB config file. Is it possible that that CFG is making the settings stick regardless of the game difficulty settings?
  7. I have done a workaround for this issue. I think I may have misunderstood the variables. Anyway I edited the config files for the engines that I use so that useUllageSimulation = Fales. It works and is fairly easy to do using a text editor and the search and replace. Since I am only really using BDB I just edited that CFG file. I also tried to edit the number of ignitors on some of the engines to be more realistic. For example the old Atlas sustained engine IRL was always ignited on the ground along with the main boosters. The CFGs that are distributed with this mod have that engine with 6 ignitors (I think). Unfortunately I have not been able to get these changes to work.
  8. @linuxgurugamer thank you for all the work you put into these mods. I just have a few questions. Is this mod still being developed? I understand it is probably hard to develop a mod that you wouldn't use. I have been having a slight problem. I know the ullage system is broken. So I turned it off and started a new career. Unfortunately the setting does not appear to be working because the ullage system still prevents ignition. I was poking around the code and I think I may have found the issue. I am certainly not a C# programmer. The only coding experience I have is C++ in embedded SOC systems for small projects. And this is only a hobby at best. So I noticed 2 variable that appear to be tracking the setting for the ullage system. The variables are: useUllage in Settings.cs (defaults to true) and useUllageSimulation in engineignitor.cs. I see a check of the useUllageSimulation variable in engineignitor.cs but I dont see where this variable will get set to false by a check of the useUllage variable from the settings menu? Am I wrong with this or am I just missing something? I would attempt a fix myself but I regrettably dont have the experiance to work through this problem myself. Of course any effort you put into this mod or any other mods is greatly appreciated.
  9. I know this post is from a long time ago but I didnt realize that the balance had been changed to 2.5x. Honestly I like the 3.2x system much better than stock (and probably more than 2.5x though I have not tried it) and I have not had too many problems getting to orbit with the early career BDB rockets. The Launch Failure mod really likes to drop fins off my rockets but i dont count that against BDB (maybe you guy should tighten up your quality control ). Anyway I will mess around with BDB in a sandbox in 3.2x to see how later rockets will work. I like the challenge. I know this post is from a long time ago but I didnt realize that the balance had been changed to 2.5x. Honestly I like the 3.2x system much better than stock (and probably more than 2.5x though I have not tried it) and I have not had too many problems getting to orbit with the early career BDB rockets. The Launch Failure mod really likes to drop fins off my rockets but i dont count that against BDB (maybe you guy should tighten up your quality control ). Anyway I will mess around with BDB in a sandbox in 3.2x to see how later rockets will work. I like the challenge. I know this post is from a long time ago but I didnt realize that the balance had been changed to 2.5x. Honestly I like the 3.2x system much better than stock (and probably more than 2.5x though I have not tried it) and I have not had too many problems getting to orbit with the early career BDB rockets. The Launch Failure mod really likes to drop fins off my rockets but i dont count that against BDB (maybe you guy should tighten up your quality control ). Anyway I will mess around with BDB in a sandbox in 3.2x to see how later rockets will work. I like the challenge. I know this post is from a long time ago but I didnt realize that the balance had been changed to 2.5x. Honestly I like the 3.2x system much better than stock (and probably more than 2.5x though I have not tried it) and I have not had too many problems getting to orbit with the early career BDB rockets. The Launch Failure mod really likes to drop fins off my rockets but i dont count that against BDB (maybe you guy should tighten up your quality control ). Anyway I will mess around with BDB in a sandbox in 3.2x to see how later rockets will work. I like the challenge.
  10. Quick question... Does this incorporate BDB parts at all? Edit: Sorry I see now that it is listed under the integrated but not tested list of mods. Anyone test this?
  11. I am thinking about installing RemoteTech in my next 3.2X career. Are the BDB RT configs balanced for 3.2X like the rest of the parts are? By the way I am using Realistic Rescale as my 3.2X system.
  12. I will try this when I can.... but like i said everything was fixed after installing RealChute. So far i do kinda like RealChute.
  13. I am using KRASH, KCT and Launch Failure (a long with several other mods) in a new career save. The last issue I have with this career for now is that when I run a KRASH simulation I still get part failures on launch. Is there anyway to prevent part fails while using in the KRASH sim? I will post this in the Launch Failure thread as well.
  14. Hey everyone.... I cant remember if I have already said this so I will say it now. This is one of my favorite mods. I have finally got it set up in a career save using a 3.2x system in KSP 1.4.5. I find that the ships I have made so far are very nicely balanced for this size. Now on to my one issue. For some reason some parachute parts (i.e. the Mercury Landing and Control Module) are starting with the parachute deployed in the VAB. The real problem is that it does not appear that it is being treated like a parachute because I don't have any of the normal parachute options when I click on the part. When I launch a part like this the parachute remains out and does not act like a parachute. Also it does not show a parachute in the staging, just a de coupler. Here is a photo from the VAB: It seems like I have had this problem before. I cant remember if it was with BDB or another parts mod and I don't remember how it was fixed. Any ideas on this one? UPDATE: I just installed RealChute and all seems to be fine in the VAB for now. I am getting ready to launch my first Mercury Redstone rocket in this save. I will let you know what happens. I would still like to know what was wrong though. UPDATE 2: Installing RealChute fixed everything for me. I dont know why BDB messed up to begin with since I never used it with RealChute in the past. Oh well I am happy now.