Jump to content

ztoundas

Members
  • Content Count

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by ztoundas

  1. Yeah, I figured it just takes the added face areas for that axis of everything connected there and subtracts it from the area of that end of the coupler, but the ones in the mod are acting like it's got nothing there. To sidestep the issue so I can play, I've just dropped the coefficient of the coupling face until I figure out how to make it proper. Oh and as for the crew portraits... I am embarrassed because I should have updated before reporting the problem... Because, @SuicidalInsanity, they are no longer missing after 1.8.1. Sorry for my lack of attention there.
  2. (Edit: The following regards 1.8.0, but some problems remain after the patch, i.e hollow parts) Now that I figured out last night what's causing all these drag issues, including was causing the really irritating drag issues with the stock cargo bays even when closed, I will work on submitting a proper bug report detailing what I found. Turns out the explicitly specified drag cube for those bays (when closed), and a majority of the other stock parts that have abnormally high drag are because their drag cube has an extremely high drag coefficient on what we consider the bottom of the par
  3. @JadeOfMaar so I'm thinking that if the y-axis area from one part matches the y+axis area of another part, then the drag coefficient for those mating polarity axis is basically ignored because the difference between the two areas is 0, right? So a stack of four identical parts traveling perfectly along the y axis should see that the middle two parts are experiencing virtually no drag? But more important to the majority of my designs, how do bi and tri-couplers work? This particular mod has a tricoupler (with 1 auto-generated drag cube) that mates perfectly fine on the y + front side,
  4. BAM So I went through my plane in flight's drag values and found the stock crew cabin, MK2 LFO segment and a few others had no YP and YN values (I'm guessing that's Y Positive and Y Negative) over 0.00. I am here assuming that meant they had no exposed areas where the Y faces of their drag boxes exposed. They looked like this (using the short LFO values, but highlighted values where the same across them): cube = Default, 2.802,0.3552,1.292, 2.802,0.3552,1.292, 2.494,0.972,0.1627, 2.494,0.972,0.1627, 4.688,0.2036,0.7, 4.688,0.2036,0.7, 0,0,0, 2.5,1.875,1.5 Now notice the original
  5. @JadeOfMaar Thanks for the insight! I noticed one of his .mu models (the MK2 battery) has multiple hollow components that together ultimately make a solid face from the Y ortho perspective, but also seems to have a bulkhead profile inconsistency in the drag cube (I think). Does the multiple elements in the 3d model confuse the automatic drag cube calculation perhaps, since some individually are hollow?
  6. Well Jeb's my uncle, looks like the stock drone core also has holes! I should have checked, because my solution didn't work perfectly, and the drone core's auto-calculated figure may be erroneous as well (like the stock structural tubes, which are known to have this issue). My example ship there does have the drone core in it, immediately before the parts I had the menus up for in my original shot. So I inverted the stack, and here is the result after adding the calculated stock drone core to the .cfg of your rcs part. I tried to match speed and AoA so the drag figures should be under simil
  7. Okay so evidently ModManager does us a solid and outputs the drag cubes auto-generated per part by the game in the PartDatabase.cfg (found in the root game folder). M2X_SCRCS (the RCS Stability Module) end up as such (colored by me to visually break up the triplets): 0.1824,0.3659,1.313, 0.1824,0.3659,1.313, 2.122,0.9694,0.1825, 2.122,0.9694,0.1838, 0.293,0.2174,0.8097, 0.293,0.2165,0.8097, 2.682E-05,-0.0001838,4.172E-06, 2.5,0.1255,1.73 Where, for example, the stock pre-defined drag cube for the MK2 bay (which I know is longer, but still has the same cross section) is: 2.8
  8. Yes, however the GUI was also missing for stock-only ships also after installing the mod. Clicking the special place on some doors and whatnot still revealed somebody was inside (for those with my problem). Meanwhile in regards to the drag-inducing holes in the RCS module, I discovered the stock MK2 cargo bay has a drag cube (two actually, but I am ignoring the second used for the opened bay). I will modify it to be as short as the RCS Stability Module and see if that works. EDIT: SORRY THIS IS A DUPLICATE POST
  9. That's the weird thing, it was happening even on ships I had built prior to adding the mod. Those ships had no mod parts within them, yet still no portrait gui, but clicking the special place on some doors and whatnot still revealed somebody was inside at least. Exiting the game, deleting the 'mk2expansion/parts/command' folder, then restarting, and viola, the gui itself was back. Meanwhile in regards to the drag-inducing holes in the RCS module, I discovered the stock MK2 cargo bay has a drag cube (two actually, but I am ignoring the second used for the opened bay). I will modify it to be
  10. In my case, the entire gui for the portraits is missing, not just misaligned pics within them. I have the MK3 parts mod by you as well, but it requires no folder deletion to work, command modules included. Lovely parts, all. Also it looks as though various parts, i.e the MK2 RCS stability module, are causing massive drag to the part behind them. Took me a bit to figure out why, but I think it is due to this: The SC-01 RCS Stability Control Module .mu looks great, and I know nothing about modding, but from my desperate research, the hole inside the model may be causing the i
  11. I'm also missing the crew portraits, the only solution is for me to delete the folder of command modules. I can still use everything else just fine.
  12. I have spent the last hour googling "ksp roll stability design," then finally had the presence of mind to check here. Sure enough, this version has asymmetrical lift when using control surfaces in my case as well. I also tried placing a copy of each control surface independently (no mirroring), and still they are asymmetrical. though the imbalance switched sides. Out of curiosity I did a series of test to see if it was placement order or creation order (in a situation where I place each side independently, no mirroring) that decided which had a higher lift, and it appear that the first
×
×
  • Create New...