CessnaSkyhawk
-
Posts
227 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by CessnaSkyhawk
-
-
I'm excited for it being a new stable platform which hopefully has less spaghetti code than KSP 1, and thus less random crashes/lag/glitches
-
Has anyone else been experiencing very high lag in low orbit of Jupiter's moons? For whatever reason I get a huge amount of lag when I'm close in to them even though the game runs fine everywhere else.
-
26 minutes ago, Hrubec said:
Yes, I thought so, but that option was not available in EVA, only to reset it (although it was not ever used). Maybe my scientist needs to be more than level 0?
One more thing regarding kerbalism life support: is there any way to add more LiOH (to external tank?) my scrubbers dont work more than several days and then I run out of it.
I tried to add external ECLSS with basic regen scrubber but that doesnt work - option to dump co2 is missing from the menu actually
According to my code it should just be any Scientist.
As for the latter, that's intentional - irl scrubbers tended to wear out over time hence the limited amount of LiOH - I haven't really tested, but it might be possible to add on some additional LiOH scrubbers in the external ECLSS for more time. As for the basic regen, not sure why the dump co2 method is missing, but the catch with the basic regen is that iirc it can only support half of the requirements for a given crew, so you'd need double the amount of basic regen scrubbers to get the same scrubbing capacity as the LiOH scrubbers - it's more meant to make early stations viable before the advanced one is unlocked, without making LiOH scrubbers useless.
-
21 hours ago, Hrubec said:
hi. I have agena materials bay on the agena target vehicle and I have docked to it with my gemini spacecraft with pilot and scientist. when I tried to run the mat. bay experiment, it just says 'not prepared'. Does anybody know what it means, how to get it running? thanks
If I'm remembering correctly, it means you have to bring a kerbal out and interact with the part to "prepare it" for its run, and then you'll be good to activate it.
-
Are there crew in the habitats? IIRC sometimes the VAB automatically slots kerbals into habitats, and then naturally it won't let you deflate them if they're occupied
-
On 11/14/2022 at 4:40 AM, septemberWaves said:
Does this also properly configure Kerbalism resource amounts in crewed parts? One of the biggest things that makes Kerbalism difficult to use outside of RO is that most crew parts have procedurally-generated life support capacities that make no sense, and which require doing silly things like clipping extra life support containers inside an Apollo capsule just to be able to complete a lunar mission.
Not exactly - it still uses the kerbalism system, but I tried to make it a tad more reasonable. I've got some ideas for modifying it in that regards (eg give capsules set amounts of resources based on their usage length) but I wasn't sure if it was better to do that or leave it up to players. I could see about throwing something together for the next update, but no guarantees
-
12 minutes ago, Gordon Dry said:
Could it be that there is a typo in GameData\SkyhawkScienceSystem\ModSupport\B9ProceduralWings\B9ProceduralWings.cfg ?
Because having to get to tier 11 to get procedural wings sounds wrong.
It's like the staff of the aircraft hangar has to buy all wings from 3rd party companies for decades before they're allowed to build their own wings.Yeah that seems pretty high to me as well - that originally came from a PR, so I assume the contributor had a reason for making it so lategame but regardless, I moved them back to the first aviation tier so they are actually useful.
-
Yeah - Engine Ignitor should be feasible, most early rockets have either solid ullage motors or rcs for ullage, both of which should be available at the same time as the respective engines. As for the balance concerns and glitches with regards to sounding rockets, I'm planning on investigating them soon. Frankly, I've never actually done a playthrough of KSP with SSS and SK as I've been too burnt out from the game to try it once I finished the mods up. I'm finally looking at setting a playthrough up (once I've decided on a planet pack - leaning towards KSRSS reborn but am worried about its stability) so I can finally get an idea what works and what doesn't.
-
Have people been having success running the KSRSS reborn beta? I'm trying to decide on a planet pack to finally do a run through of my tech tree and check balance and all that good stuff, and have almsot settled on KSRSS. I just want to make sure other people have had success with it so I don't start and than find out midway thru that something is completely borked
-
On 9/9/2022 at 5:30 PM, HawkEngineer said:
Is anyone else getting a B9 PartSwitch Fatal Error for no tank type found: SSS_Food. I have installed the latest v1.1.2 of SSS and running on KSP version 1.12.3. I have doubled checked the dependencies and did a clean install twice, but keep getting the error as soon as I install Kerbalism.
Are you using SkyhawkKerbalism or just stock Kerbalism?
-
29 minutes ago, ballisticfox0 said:
There it is,
I wondered how long it would take for someone to ask that, yes we will! Here’s some screenshots from the configs I released about an hour ago:
Wow! They look amazing! How does one install them? I was just trying to install the latest gitlab version (after the configs were added), but it seems that when Parallax was put it, in would just lead to an infinite loading screen. Is there any specific things I need to install/not install different from the default parallax to get it to work?
-
13 minutes ago, guto8797 said:
I do have Kopernicus, and the OPM planet pack. I am also at 1x scale, I presume, since I haven't changed anything regarding planet sizes. Should I then just lower science rewards?
That's probably the best bet then. Lower science rewards should make it harder to progress and thus encourage you to do more BDB-style missions
-
1 hour ago, ProCrast said:
Thanks for the correction, module manager can now patch.
Unfortunately, I encountered other problems:
- The empty technology nodes are still there ,looks like nodes from the stock CTT : https://imgur.com/kX7wdvX
- When I buy a node, I have to leave the R&D menu and then come back for them to actually be validated ( nodes don't turn green directly ) .
- HideHemptyTechTreeNodes seems to work incorrectly : https://imgur.com/TlAvFL5GameData : https://imgur.com/JKYd3gU
KSP.Log : https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qNJOPYkVdVJPWkvmGrJvHlYo12woy8jW/view?usp=sharingAh - therein lies the other issue. SSS is incompatible with CTT, so naturally, having both installed at once is gonna lead to them fighting over stuff. Try deleting CTT and see how it works.
7 minutes ago, guto8797 said:The thing is that to me it straight up doesn't. The amount of science I get from the very first few missions launching a suborbital rockets, orbiting for the first time, launching a small airplane, and orbiting a polar satelite for SCANSAT get me enough tech points to research several nodes ahead. So now I have all of those historical probe cores that I have never once used since the unique experiment they seem to possess does not justify an individual launch. Since I am fund, rather than science, bottlenecked, its more effective for me to launch a custom satelite cramming as much science equipment in it as possible (and if possible completing a few contracts along the way) rather than the several launches emulating the real space program. This leads to me having pages of parts which I haven't used and which usually are part of some specific ensemble. Perhaps I should change my settings, or try to use the Bureaucracy mod or Kerbal Construction Time. Suggestions?
That was the thing that I had a lot of difficulty while balancing - i wanted to make it harder to encourage people to do more realistic missions, but not so hard that it limits flexibility and railroads people in to one specific way of playing. That and depending on what your solar system is, stuff may be thrown off as well - I have custom science multipliers set for most popular planet packs, but the issue is that they require kopernicus to function properly, so if you're playing in stock then they might not be applying correctly (that, and also if you're at 1x scale, the rockets are just more powerful which makes it much easier to progress to higher tech levels)
-
3 hours ago, ProCrast said:
Hi , i need help please .
SSS ScienceExperiments.cfg seem to prevent module manager to patch ...
I have this error message during loading screen :
https://imgur.com/yDG4rmA
Once in the R&D menu i can't buy any node from the tech Tree and empty text node appears .
I tried to search if something was "off" in my Ksp.log but i can't find something relevant .
Here's my KSP.log :
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RcWmXztn6_XKxufUbNuuesacDnaYqww6/view?usp=sharing
and MMPatch.log :
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AozvSKlkTJL-0MXLn_9eT77zqLQG2nRS/view?usp=sharing
Also here's my gamedata :
https://imgur.com/7ObOiS4Alright - thanks for the info, looks like it was a singular small typo - suprised it actually never came up before. I'll release the fixed version in a moment
7 hours ago, thunder175 said:So I've noticed that the BDB Kerablism compatibility file is missing a lot of entries from the current Kerbalism Default BDB support file. Is this intentional or is it just based on an earlier version of the KerbalismConfig baseline?
That is intentional - Skyhawk Kerbalism completely reworks the BDB-Kerbalism compatibility in a way that is different from the old Kerbalism support, so naturally the support files are going to look vastly different. SK/SSS's Kerbalism integration is a whole different animal from stock Kerbalism
-
13 hours ago, bigyihsuan said:
The latest v1.1.1 release has compat for Benjee10's Orion: https://github.com/CessnaSkyhawk/SkyhawkScienceSystem/releases/tag/v1.1.1
EDIT: After loading it up in KSP, it seems that the service module engine (in-game it's KJ-10b "Viking") is not patched for the new fuel types, defaulting to kerolox. It's from Benjee10_sharedAssets, so that needs to be patched.
1 hour ago, bigyihsuan said:Dug around in the code, it seems SSS is patching the deprecated DIRECT_KJ10 rather than the new benjee10_AJ10_v2. Here's a patch that will fix this:
@PART[benjee10_AJ10_v2]:FIRST:NEEDS[Benjee10_sharedAssets] { %SSS_Hypergolic = True }
Thanks for catching this - I must of forgot that the new engine would have be hypergolic. I'll add this in next time I do a release
On 8/29/2022 at 8:53 PM, Socowez said:I found this string in KerbalismConfig/System/Reliability.cfg.
@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines*],!MODULE[Reliability]:HAS[#type[ModuleEngines]]]:NEEDS[FeatureReliability]:FOR[KerbalismDefault]
{
MODULE
{
name = Reliability
type = ModuleEngines
}
}@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]]:NEEDS[FeatureReliability]:FOR[KerbalismDefault]
{
@MODULE[Reliability]:HAS[#type[ModuleEngines*]]
{
title = Engine
redundancy = Propulsion
repair = Engineer
mtbf = 0
extra_cost = 1.5
extra_mass = 0.05
turnon_failure_probability = 0.007
rated_operation_duration = 600
rated_ignitions = 1
}
}// this calculates ignitions from thrust, and vac/atm ISP ratio:
// - the lower the thrust, the higher the ignition count.
// - the higher the difference between vacuum and atmosphere ISP, the higher the ignition count.
// thrust 0-350 gives 64-1 ignitions (custom exponential-ish scale).
// vac/atm ratio gives no bonus if below 150%, and then a linear bonus of +1 ignitions for every extra 20%.
// some specific engine types will receive further bonus.
@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]:HAS[#maxThrust,@atmosphereCurve]]:NEEDS[FeatureReliability]:FOR[KerbalismDefault]
{
@MODULE[Reliability]:HAS[#type[ModuleEngines*]]
{
// Parse and store atmosphere ISP as a temporary value
__tmp_isp_atm = #$../MODULE[ModuleEngines*]/atmosphereCurve/key,1$
@__tmp_isp_atm ^= :^[\d\.]* (\d+) *.*$:$1:// Parse and store vacuum ISP as a temporary value
__tmp_isp_vac = #$../MODULE[ModuleEngines*]/atmosphereCurve/key,0$
@__tmp_isp_vac ^= :^[\d\.]* (\d+) *.*$:$1:// Give ignitions based on the ratio between vacum and atmosphere ISP
// ----
// Example results for typical stock engines:
// Spider => 1
// Ant => 13
// Twitch => 1
// Terrier => 13
// Thud => 1
// LV-T30 => 1
// Poodle => 12
// Mainsail => 1
@rated_ignitions = #$__tmp_isp_vac$
@rated_ignitions /= #$__tmp_isp_atm$ // Get the ratio between vacum and atmosphere ISP
@rated_ignitions -= 1.5 // Zero the curve to a ratio of 1.5
@rated_ignitions ^= :^-.*$:0: // If negative, set to zero
@rated_ignitions *= 5 // Give a power of 5 to the curve
@rated_ignitions += 1 // Set a minimum value of 1// Give extra ignitions the smaller the engine is
// ----
// Example results for typical stock engines:
// Spider => +64
// Ant => +64
// Twitch => +32
// Terrier => +10
// Thud => +8
// LV-T30 => +4
// Poodle => +2
// Mainsail => +0
__tmp_thrust_factor = #$../MODULE[ModuleEngines*]/maxThrust$
@__tmp_thrust_factor ^= :^[0-9]$:_64: // if thrust between 0 and 9, give +64 ignitions
@__tmp_thrust_factor ^= :^1[0-9]$:_32: // if thrust between 10 and 19, give +32 ignitions
@__tmp_thrust_factor ^= :^[2-4][0-9]$:_16: // if thrust between 20 and 49, give +16 ignitions
@__tmp_thrust_factor ^= :^[5-9][0-9]$:_10: // if thrust between 50 and 99, give +10 ignitions
@__tmp_thrust_factor ^= :^1[0-4][0-9]$:_8: // if thrust between 100 and 149, give +8 ignitions
@__tmp_thrust_factor ^= :^1[5-9][0-9]$:_6: // if thrust between 150 and 199, give +6 ignitions
@__tmp_thrust_factor ^= :^2[0-4][0-9]$:_4: // if thrust between 200 and 249, give +4 ignitions
@__tmp_thrust_factor ^= :^2[5-9][0-9]$:_2: // if thrust between 250 and 299, give +2 ignitions
@__tmp_thrust_factor ^= :^3[0-9][0-9]$:_1: // if thrust between 300 and 349, give +1 ignitions
@__tmp_thrust_factor ^= :^[^_].*$:_0: // if thrust is 350 or more, give +0 ignitions
@__tmp_thrust_factor ^= :_:: // remove the "_" prefix// Combine the two ignitions values
// ----
// Final sum for the previous examples:
// Spider => 65
// Ant => 77
// Twitch => 33
// Terrier => 23
// Thud => 9
// LV-T30 => 5
// Poodle => 14
// Mainsail => 1
@rated_ignitions += #$__tmp_thrust_factor$
@rated_ignitions ^= :\.\d+:: // Floor value to get an integer// Remove all temporary variables
!__tmp_* = dummy
}
}// SRBs
@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]:HAS[@PROPELLANT[SolidFuel]]]:NEEDS[FeatureReliability]:FOR[KerbalismDefault]
{
@MODULE[Reliability]:HAS[#type[ModuleEngines*]]
{
@rated_ignitions = 0
@rated_operation_duration = 0
@turnon_failure_probability = 0.005
}
}// NERV
@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]:HAS[@PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel]]]:NEEDS[FeatureReliability]:FOR[KerbalismDefault]
{
@MODULE[Reliability]:HAS[#type[ModuleEngines*]]
{
@rated_operation_duration = 800
@repair = Engineer@2
}
}// your standard garden variety rocket engine
@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]:HAS[@PROPELLANT[Oxidizer]]]:NEEDS[FeatureReliability]:FOR[KerbalismDefault]
{
@MODULE[Reliability]:HAS[#type[ModuleEngines*]]
{
@rated_operation_duration = 350
@turnon_failure_probability = 0.007
@repair = true
}
}// ion engines
@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]:HAS[@PROPELLANT[XenonGas]]]:NEEDS[FeatureReliability]:FOR[KerbalismDefault]
{
@MODULE[Reliability]:HAS[#type[ModuleEngines*]] {
@rated_operation_duration = 0
@turnon_failure_probability = 0.002
@repair = Engineer@2
}
}// jet engines
@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]:HAS[@PROPELLANT[IntakeAir]]]:NEEDS[FeatureReliability]:FOR[KerbalismDefault]
{
@MODULE[Reliability]:HAS[#type[ModuleEngines*]] {
@rated_operation_duration = 86400
@rated_ignitions = 0
@repair = true
}
}// hypergolic or monoprop engines
@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]:HAS[@PROPELLANT[MonoPropellant]]]:NEEDS[FeatureReliability]:FOR[KerbalismDefault]
{
@MODULE[Reliability]:HAS[#type[ModuleEngines*]] {
@rated_operation_duration = 0
@rated_ignitions = 0
@repair = true
@turnon_failure_probability = 0.001
}
}@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEnginesRF]]:NEEDS[FeatureReliability]:FOR[KerbalismDefault]
{
MODULE
{
name = Reliability
type = ModuleEnginesRF
title = Engine
redundancy = Propulsion
repair = Engineer
mtbf = 0
extra_cost = 1.0
extra_mass = 0.1
rated_operation_duration = 12000
}
}It appears the engine ignition and rated burn times are based on modifiers set in the config, which could very easily create oddities with burn times and ignitions because of... well, hell if I know.
I noticed this block of code is missing in Reliability.cfg in SkyhawkKerbalism, which is how I'm guessing you disabled the engine configs for kerbalism. Can I just copy/paste this into Reliability.cfg in SkyhawkKerbalism (changing mentions of KerbalismDefault to zzzKerbalismskyhawk), or would you think there are other steps I need to do first?
Or, you know, you could upload a different version of SkyhawkKerbalism that restores kerbalism engine support to those that want it. Wink wink.
5 hours ago, Socowez said:Actually, please do this. I can't figure the first thing about it. After messing with the code a short bit, I managed to get the Reliability option to show up in the PAW. However, every engine had the same burn times and number of ignitions.
pretty please?
Yes that is the section that handles engine reliablity, so you're own the right track. Unfortunately, I'm not planning on doing anything with it at this time - I don't feel comfortable releasing work unless its up to my (pretty dang high) standards, and unfortunately, Kerbalism's engine reliability stuff is a tad too wonky for me to get it to that level without sinking a decent amount of time into it, which I'm not really interested in doing right now, and honestly, I'm pretty much burnt out with modding and don't expect to be doing anymore major updates for a good long while, if ever again. I'm always open to pull requests, but I wouldn't expect any support outside of those.
-
3 hours ago, Socowez said:
I understand.
... However, should I wish to re-enable kerbalism reliability support to engines, how would I do so?
I simply prefer kerbalism's unity of features, instead of downloading a separate mod for each function I want. It just removes a lot of hassle.
I'm only asking if there's a "true/false" field I can change, or a patch I can copy/paste into GameData. Any more complicated than that and I'll just get engine ignitor lol
You could probably copy paste the portion of the default kerbalism's reliabilty config which handles engines into a seperate config file and it would apply it. No clue how it would handle hypergolic engines though, as it tends to assume stock resources.
-
On 8/21/2022 at 10:35 AM, Socowez said:
Kerbalism doesn't have support for any engines when using SkyhawkKerbalism. No ignition counters, reliability, nothing. Is this intentional? Is there a setting I can change to enable it?
2 hours ago, Socowez said:I have a problem with SkyhawkKerbalism. Engine support for kerbalism is not present, and engines have the stock configuration despite having kerbalism installed with skyhawkkerbalism and no other kerbalism configs.
Any help is appreciated, even pointing me to a more relevant forum would be great.
That is intentional - I found that Kerbalism's engine failure modules were a bit clunky and had a lot of weird cases where they didn't work how I wanted them too (like giving late game engines way to short burn times, or certain engine types having really strange numbers of ignitions), and thus opted to just completely disable that portion of the mod. I'd recommend other mods such as Engine Ignitor or Less Real Test Flight if you want engine ignition limits or failure functionalities respectively.
On 8/26/2022 at 8:22 AM, MagicCuboid said:I'm getting "no storage space" when using the Beacon satellite on the Kerbalism 12hr config. Fixed it by deleting the "Science3" requirement in the main tech tree Bluedog_DB config (there was already one for "Probes2" which got overwritten)
That's a strange config error - I'll investigate when I get a chance.
On 8/21/2022 at 1:03 PM, IronCretin said:I fixed my core issue, but I'm still not able to change the fuel tanks. This is my menu for the tank:
And this is the hypergolics tech node. I do have B9partswitch and part upgrades enabled, but the tech tree doesn't have the upgrade for the hypergolics switch that the files say should be there.
The tank even says that it's switchable in the tooltip, it just doesn't show up in the menu.
EDIT: I found the upgrade, it was in the sounding rockets node, not the hypergols one.
Ah - I forgot about that. When CRE is installed the hypergol tankage node moves forward to sounding rockets because CRE's early rockets are hypergolic, so that they can actually be used.
-
1 hour ago, IronCretin said:
It seems like none of the tier 0 cores have hard drives, so I just edited the config to give them one. Followup question: how do I change the fuel type in tanks? I can't find an option in the menu.
For fuel tank types, first of all, make sure part upgrades are enabled and B9 Part switch is installed. So long as that's the case, you'll begin unlocking new fuel tank types as you unlock engines that use said fuels (eg, hypergol should unlock when you research "Early Hypergolic Engines")
On 8/18/2022 at 9:46 PM, Socowez said:Had this problem before.
The probe core doesn't have kerbalism support, so you could either:
A. Scour the internet for a patch that adds kerbalism support to CNAR
B. Beg CNAR/Kerbalism devs to add support for each other
C. Use a different probe core (this is the most practical option)Of course, quote me if I'm wrong.
As for the tier 0 cores, I think that may be due to some edge cases in the system I used to assign data values, as I (incorrectly, it seems) assumed most people would only really be using the "eaglet" parts for their first sounding rockets. I'll have to remember to change that in the next update, but for now I'd say the best bet is to just add a patch like the following somewhere in your GameData folder:
Quote@PART[***insert part ID here***]:NEEDS[ProfileSkyhawk]:FOR[KerbalismSkyhawk]
{
MODULE
{
name = HardDrive
title = Sounding Rocket Storage
dataCapacity = 0.25 // data size in Mb
sampleCapacity = 1 // sample size in slots
}
}
-
I hate to be that guy (cause I've definetly been on the other side of this with SSS, and ik how it can get pretty annoying), but I was just wondering if y'all have a ballpark estimate for the full download being avalible again (eg is it a more short-term days to weeks type of update, or is it gonna be a longer term month or more type thing) cause I'm trying to decide if I'm gonna wait for the release to start my next playthrough, or just pick a different planet pack and start that instead.
-
New Releases for Skyhawk Kerbalism and Skyhawk Science System up on github - should fix most, if not all of the issues people have been experiencing as of late. Let me know if there's any issues!
-
21 hours ago, biohazard15 said:
Definitely not safe to use for an operational save (there's still updates to planets), but suits well for testing both the mod and your current crafts. I recommend making a separate install if you want to try it.
alright - I was planning on using a custom space center for my next playthrough, so i guess I'll use the beta to get my kerbal konstructs stuff all taken care of and then just wait for the full release to start playing
-
10 hours ago, biohazard15 said:
Reborn beta can be found here: Files · reborn · KSRSS / KSRSS · GitLab
alrighty. you think its stable enough for save game use yet, or is it better to just wait for the full release?
-
Just making sure I'm not just being an idiot, but I can't find the download link anymore? Is it still somewhere on the first page or is it in a different spot now?
-
Yo I'm currently trying to decide what planet pack to use for my first real playthrough since wrapping up Skyhawk Science System, but can't really decide which planet pack to go with. I enjoy relatively realistic planet packs that are still challenging/fun to explore. I had originally been planning to wait for the Galaxies Unbound home system but it seems like that's still a bit far out from release. Currently I'm mostly torn between JNSQ, GPP, or KSRSS. JNSQ is one I've always wanted to try for a while, either on its own, or mashed together with OPM, but there's a few small issues that keep pushing me off from it - I've heard people say its boring, theres a weird visual bug with Kerbin's shorelines that I don't like, and the big visual mod for it (Ad Astra) seems to have some funky glitches. GPP seems really awesome, and challenging too, but it also definetly seems to be a bit dated (especially I remember some of the planet textures being kinda low res last time I tried), and I'm thinking I should probably just wait cause I remember hearing some rumors about how there might be a revamp at some point. KSRSS is really cool, especially the new Reborn version, but I'm not sure if I should start a playthrough there either because reborn still is in development and I'm not sure if it'd be better to wait for it to be fully released so that all the visuals are as good as they can be (especially cuz it seems like a lot of the outer planet moons still look a tad fuzzy). What do y'all think - which one do you think I should try (of the three, or a completely different one entirely), and do y'all think I'm being a little too harsh with worrying about the visuals as well? Ik its not ever gonna get to real life levels of quality, but sometimes the textures just seem very off-putting to me if they are slightly lower res)
The Skyhawk Science System - a new, realistic tech tree for KSP, now including Kerbalism support - [v1.1.1 - "For Science!" 8/11/22)]
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted · Edited by CessnaSkyhawk
changed my mind on what I'm doing after thinking a bit
Hi everyone - I'm glad to see that even nearly two years after SSS's last update people still are very into the mod! You'll hopefully be seeing a lot more of me around the forums in the next few months, so I figured I should probably give an update as to why I have been MIA so long and what has happened with SSS.
). This killed most of the satisfaction I got from mod development and frankly also starting turning me off from KSP as a whole (cause I naturally wanted to play using SSS, but would just get frustrated when it wasn't working as intended), so I decided to just move on from both for my own sake.
. There is a possibility I might look into updating SSS, or at least officially incorporating the various fixes people have made for issues the mod had in my absence, at some point in the future but for now I'm not making any promises one way or the other as my priority for now is just trying to get back into enjoying the game.
I ended up deciding to take a break from continuing to develop SSS (and playinf KSP as a whole) due to a mixture of real life commitments (being an engineering student keeps you busy!) and the fact I was getting pretty burnt out and stressed from development of the mod in general, particularly when it came to dealing with either fine-tuning science balance or trying to stamp out all the minor issues coming from either kerbalism or the general heft and disorganization of the mod as a whole. (That and KSP modding gets quite time-consuming when the size of SSS + BDB means 10-20 minutes reload times
As of late though, I have been having a bit of a craving for KSP again, and when I popped back on the forums for the first time in a while I was surprised to still see so much activity on the thread so long after the last release. I'm planning to get back into the game again, probably via a classic stock playthrough - I got into modding so fast I've never even sent a crewed mission past Duna in stock KSP, so I figure I should finally start working on getting myself around the stock system some more.
I have considered maybe working on SSS again, but after some thought, I'm thinking I'd prefer to just leave it as is for the time being and just focus on enjoying KSP without the stress of modding for a change - even just skimming the files and things quickly to take stock of how it all is has overwhelmed me
Regardless, I do want to say thanks to all the various contributors who all worked together to help figure out how to fix or patch things in my absence - I know my code and file system isn't exactly the most intuitive or well-written, so I've got to give y'all props for figuring out how it all works and making sure people can keep enjoying the mod how I hoped they would! Also, just thank you to everyone who has enjoyed SSS over the past year or two - I'm glad that so many people enjoyed this little project of mine that even now people still actively are interested in trying it out.