kerbnub

Members
  • Content Count

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About kerbnub

  • Rank
    Rocketeer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. By the way, you can get a hatch on your crew cabins with
  2. I think adding that node would also add more drag to the part whenever used unconnected. What I typically do when I want a normal docking port attached to the shielded one is attach the normal docking point to something else and drag it to where it would be if properly docked. When launching the craft, I'd decouple that node, and it instantly docks to the shielded one.
  3. and @5thHorseman and @panarchist thanks for responding. I kinda figured, but nice to have confirmation from those who really know. Kerbin makes a funny shuffle back and forth on Mun's horizon now (with Toast), but I still prefer it to not having seasons Does RSS work the same way btw? so the Moon there isn't tidally locked? also on a totally different topic, does Minmus actually have a hidden ocean somewhere, somehow, or why am I getting this?
  4. Gotta say this is awesome! I included it in my new JNSQ save and it makes a huge difference to have to wait for windows to get the right orbit for injections into other bodies. I just realized though that it literally does tilt everything 23 degrees when I landed on the Mun and realized it's not tidally locked anymore. Is it possible to have differential axial tilts to make it and other moons tidally locked to their parent bodies?
  5. Agree that the low vacuum ISP makes no sense from a realism standpoint: they should be optimized for vacuum, as they're not meant for use at low altitudes. But for stock gameplay balance, they're in a good place, as SSTOs are already OP as far as mass fractions to orbit are concerned. While the low ISP really hurts at higher scales (2.5x and trying in JNSQ, which is 2.7x), I've found them to still result in overall fairly realistic feeling SSTOs. It compensates in a way for the fact that real concepts for SSTOs have to use rocket mode for most of their ascent. Skylon gets to 1550 m/s airbreathing, while LKO orbital speed is about 7.8 km/s. Optimized SSTOs can still getting you to orbit with a higher mass fraction than rockets, it's just not so easy to build an SSTA.
  6. So I've been loving the mod, and was kind of low-key wondering how managed to make the moons so much more realistic looking than stock and still interesting on the ground when I possibly stumbled across the answer. When landing, I noticed that the textures used when farther away actually don't correspond that well to the actual terrain on the ground. This is particularly jarring if zoomed out and moving the camera, the transition between the layers is quite obvious. Here's what I mean (high terrain detail); I just needed to change the camera angle a tiny bit to make it clear: With this in mind, I have two questions: 1. Is this working as intended? I want to make sure I'm not looking at something broken at my end first, but I could imagine it's an intentional compromise. If the actual terrain was as flat as it appears in the far view, it would probably be pretty boring to explore. But it simply looked like the near view, then it would be pretty ugly from a distance. Did you guys decide to sacrifice consistency for beauty at both ends? 2. Is this actually so different from stock? Did I just discover something everyone know already? I know stock uses at least roughly the same system, is it just not as obvious because the difference in quality is lower? It's not a huge deal and I'll enjoy the hell out of JNSQ either way, but it kind of blew my mind and I'm just curious.
  7. Not sure if this was a SCANSAT issue only, but Rational Resources had a problem where SCANSAT wouldn't show any resources, but this was fixed in the latest update (a version after the one bundled in JNSQ). Installing the latest RR from github fixed it for me.
  8. Sounds like a recent issue with interstellar extended. Was fixed in a later update, iirc
  9. Is there an easy explanation for greatly decreased fps after getting close to Minmus in particular? Getting within a few km of Minmus is a much bigger fps hit than usual while physics is running, and landing on a craft with many parts is a slideshow. When on rails, there's no performance decrease. It's only terrible when off rails, and that persists in the scene until I leave Minmus SOI. From a brief Hyperedit test, it doesn't seem to happen around any other bodies. I'm not seeing any error spam in the log. Running KSP 1.6.1 with JNSQ 0.7, Kopernicus 1.6.1-8, Scatterer and EVE
  10. Funnily, I'm actually a PC player and didn't see this was a question for console! No idea if the bugs on both are so different though. I can hardly imagine playing on console, just for the interface, and that's before even talking about mods. I'm sure you'll like it better
  11. This is a long standing issue with rescaled games. I don't think anyone's found a way to change the rescue contract orbital parameters yet. I actually like it, as it can make rescue contracts extra spicy. But with larger rescales, rescue contracts around rocket worlds can instafail when they spawn on suborbital trajectories.
  12. I don't think I've seen any tweakscale issues with the KSP 1.6.1 versions. I have had some weird stuff with attach nodes on procedural parts sometimes getting screwed up on reloaded crafts, but not sure what's causing that yet. Know what was wrong in the past?
  13. I like procedural parts and wings; you can make parts much bigger than most stock parts and shape wings as you like. Great for FAR too if you're using that.
  14. I've had similar issues and found out it was the cargo bays. I'm not sure it's fixed in later versions, but I've found that if a cargo bay was the root part, it would stop shielding the craft after saving and reloading. In other cases I've found non-working cargo bays to be fixed by opening and closing them again.