NipperySlipples

Members
  • Content Count

    17
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

18 Good

About NipperySlipples

  • Rank
    Bottle Rocketeer

Recent Profile Visitors

234 profile views
  1. I'm also playing with far and having no issues. Tweakchute makes its changes to moduleparachute. Far removes moduleparachute from parts and replaces it with its own module. Tweakchute wont do anything in a FAR game, but shouldn't be able to crash it. I think @Gordon Fecyk may have a third mod causing a conflict. However, since tweakchute isn't doing it's thing with FAR, you have to remember to set the altitude and pressure for opening chutes if you don't want to smash into the ground too fast. Luckily both are easily tweak-able in the editor. Were just an extra right click away from safety is all.
  2. You are welcome to uninstall it if you dont enjoy it *not sarcastic* Next time try constructive criticism. Everything is fully customizable failure and difficulty wise. There are config's, There is a settings page. Your career settings may need to be adjusted if you find it not to your liking, or the chances of failure in oh scraps config. You also likely wouldn't of run out of funds if you were building just the booster for static fires until it was more reliable. If you just built 3 Large fully mission ready rockets and tried to launch them without testing or increasing generations then yeah....3 duplicate, super expensive, untested rockets made of large numbers of untested parts.....well that's the expected outcome. Try: 1) prebuilding just the boosters, testing them and increasing generation until they fire more often than not. (static fires) 2) not using a bunch of low generation parts all together at the same time on early rockets. a bunch of low generation/untested parts on the same craft will increase your chances of having a failure. Using a part failure mod like this or baris is a process of building up the reliability of your parts. You wont just launch a rocket and get to space unless your inventory is tested and improved. In short, Lots of people manage just fine. Maybe its user error. If you have any actual balance suggestions or questions, I'm sure the mod author would be happy to hear them. Without the sarcasm mind you.
  3. Can you all please stop putting out incredible looking planet packs before I'm halfway done exploring the last one. It makes decisions for new save games really really hard. In all seriousness though, I took a quick look at this well waiting for the DLC. From what i can see it looks Quality with a capital Q. 1/4 scale is great. Planets look top notch visually. the pack works with a ton of other mods out of the box. I've already spotted some really cool looking places I want to explore and the arrangement of bodies really looks like its going to add some interesting challenges as you get further out to. I'm excited to play this. Thanks for all the work you guys are doing. I wouldn't expect less from the galileo team and you delivered.
  4. Ive just tested again and they are still working on my install. Here's a screenshot. Perhaps you have parachute failures turned off in the difficulty settings? Otherwise you may just be getting lucky, or perhaps have very high generation/safe parachutes? That being said, If you truly think its not working you can upload the save file and log somewhere for me and I will look into it.
  5. @dkavolis Small bug report. Latest version creates NRE spam in the log as soon as you go EVA. I'm not sure if this is a problem. This is with a fresh install of 1.7 and nothing except module manager, FAR and modular flight integrator on a brand new save. Log file here. Reproduction steps are simple, launch a pod with a kerbal and EVA.
  6. I have in the past experienced something that sounds exactly like this. However, it was because I had removed a ton of mods from a save, and had ships still being built by KCT. I did not have this problem on a new save. Your log is full of things like this... Youv'e removed a ton of mods from this save. Im betting you removed a bunch of it with ships in the build queue. Try testing your install again in a new save. I may be way off base, but Id bet it works.
  7. Is kerbal health something your interested in supporting? Having looked over your planet description's in game, you've come up with tons of cool ideas here and I would love to see what you would do with radiation in this system. A day in the mod makes me confident you would do a better job than me. So please consider this a feature request. The config's are small , simple and well documented in kerbal health's wiki. I'm happy to make some if your not interested. If that's the case, would you mind if I sent you a private message with some questions related to the planet compositions? The two values needed boil down to the % of radiation blocked by magnetosphere (if there is one) and the % of radiation absorbed in the atmosphere (again, if there is one). And thanks again for all the work that must have gone into this planet pack.
  8. This is fantastic work. Well done, and thanks to Gameslinx. Has anyone run this with kerbal health? I'm hoping for some radiation config's. I'll write my own if not, but id love to avoid spoiling all these cool new planets just to research appropriate radiation settings. I Would much rather mutate a few kerbal generations by finding someone elses radiation levels in game (or i guess send probes ).
  9. If automatically quick apply is selected, Your inventory will be used instead of new parts whenever possible. If it is not selected you will always build a new part (upping the generation) unless you manually select to use a part from your inventory via scrap yard GUI. The buttons are just quick toggles for the whole vessel to switch between building new parts (Up generation, become quicker at building it and make it safer with oh scrap) or using inventory where possible (reduce build time and costs of vehicle)
  10. Depends on the part and the mod, but for the most part yes. Any parts that uses the same modules as stock will fail. Some mods will have issues. If the mod in question just adds parts without changing game mechanics, than it most likely will work fine. I use this with 150+ other mods , and now have (almost) all of them working correctly. If you were to install something like airplanes plus, bluedog or restock they will be compatible. Textures and parts (should) be fine. If you install say SSTU which adds parts with tons of switchable variants and options (like internal RCS on parts, or multiple engine configurations that are still just a single part, etc) you may run into some issues (all your engines failing at once on a multi engine configuration, because there all technically one part for example). That being said, even if a part cant "Fail", it will still be used to calculate your vessel saftey rating. There will still be a benefit to building it multiple times and testing it, in order to lower the chances of failure across the whole vessel. Current save is using oh scrap with the following part mods: Airplane plus, grounded, all of the near future mods, restock(+) , the maritime pack, station parts expansion ,and OPT. I have no issues with failures on any of these. Mods I know that currently arnt supported: Real chute - Parachutes wont fail. (support may be added in the future) SSTU - most things wont fail correctly. (probably wont ever work with oh scrap) Science alert re-alerted - Bug in scrap yard prevents you from recovering root part if this is installed , Severed is aware of this one, and we may see a fix in the future. X-science is a working alternative for the moment.
  11. One of them is MODULE:NEEDS[!FerramAerospaceResearch], The ! means "Needs No Ferram Aerospace Research present" . There is an error though, and its probably my fault. A : is missing. Line 3 of parachutefailures.cfg reads: but it needs to read: With a : between Module and needs. Add that and your parachute failures will work again. Sorry about that. Its also named"parachureFailures.cfg" instead of parachute lol, but that doesn't really make a difference.
  12. @severedsolo Pull request is in with Ferram Support. Includes Control surfaces and parachute failures (with FARS implementation of realchute). Also added a force repair (Debug) button for easier testing. Sorry for pinging you this way, I still cant send private messages until I've posted a few more times.
  13. @Snark No need to apologize for protecting our content/ this website. That's 100% my fault, I should have read the licensing in full. I saw MIT in the OP and never opened the actual licence. In fact I should be thanking you. Technically I was in violation of his licence and had he wanted to , severed could have taken action on that. So, thanks for the good work and apologies for not following through with the rules properly before posting. I was only posting here in case someone could find a bug I missed before Severed got to see it. Ill refrain from creating my own thread or posting it again until severed has a chance to look at the PR. He mentioned above he was working on other projects first. It was silly of me to post it in this thread and say "don't ask for help here" anyway. I am pretty sure severed has plans for OhScrap going forward, hes just been busy pumping out content for other mods. I'd rather not post a derivative mod if that's the case. If it turns out I'm a garbage coder and he doesn't like my PR, I will separate JUST the compatibility patches and not the bug fixes/code changes (leaving all original code intact) to post as a separate .dll that could be added to the current OhScrap for people who wanted it. As long as severed is still actively developing OhScrap, his thread should be where you have to go to find it. So, for anyone interested. You can follow the Fork on github if you'd like to try it out. Really at the heart of it, I worked on OhScrap because i have an install with 167 mods that I really wanted to add ohscrap/scrapyard to. I just wanted them compatible so that I can enjoy all of Severed's future content.
  14. @severedsoloIt wasn't ready yesterday, it is now! PR has been put in with working remote tech support and a few bug fixes in other places. That being said. Still got 6 more days off. There will be more coming. Ive also now got a release [Link removed by moderator] ready to go if anyone wants to try it. (DO NOT BUG SEVEREDSOLO IF YOU HAVE AN ISSUE. BUG ME INSTEAD. NOT IN THIS THREAD. PM OR ON GITHUB - Until he merges this , if he merges this, it is not his problem.)