Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Nikolai

  1. I'm having a little trouble using this mod with 1.12.3; the outer planets don't show up after I install it. I don't know if it's some other mod in the way. I'll put it on a clean install and get back. ETA: It must have been some other mod. I put it on a clean install with only Kopernicus and ModuleManager, and the outer planets showed up. I'll see if I can determine which mod broke things. ETA2: I think it was the visual pack I was using (AVP). SVE seems to be well-behaved, and adding the other mods in without that seems to be going smoothly.
  2. Can confirm. I had the rainbow clouds (confirmed over several runs), and the only thing I did was install Kopernicus Bleeding Edge (release 76), and the rainbow clouds disappeared.
  3. I've seen it while attempting to grab. It doesn't seem to care if you just want to detach it.
  4. Is there a notification showing up in the center-top of the screen when you try to do that? If it exceeds the weight or volume that a single Kerbal can move, it will complain like this and not move the part.
  5. I think what Alversia was getting at is that you need to do more than just click. You need to click and drag (the part into the inventory you want it to appear in), while holding "g" down the entire time.
  6. Do you get a sound effect? Does the part you're trying to detach change color?
  7. Dang it, I wish I could. I admit that I rage quit, and started with a whole new account, this time taking some measures to ensure that my Kerbals don't have to try to fasten things together when they're floating around (by including ladders that they can attach and detach as they go). If it helps, the piece that I accidentally disconnected was one Jumbo-64 fuel tank in a line of eight, all with docking ports on top and bottom to hold them in place. I think I disconnected it from the Z-4K battery unit "above" it. I'll look into USI Konstruction. Thanks for the pointer.
  8. Stupid question: Is the force/torque with which a TJ-1 Fixed Telescopic Joint "holds onto" a JS-1 Joint Socket tweakable? I just had four of them holding two very large space station parts together (a Kerbal accidentally detached the space station parts on EVA). When I left and then returned to the station a while after securing the two parts this way, I found that it had separated into two parts, and that the joints and sockets were no longer holding one another. (If I'm barking up the wrong tree as to how this separation might have happened, please let me know.)
  9. Those longer ones are brilliant! Where (in which file) do the patches you've created go? (I'm not familiar with how mods are structured, obviously.)
  10. Does this mean that we don't need all of the dependencies of KSPRC -- e.g., "Kopernicus" and "Kopernicus Expansion"?
  11. No... I was just under the impression for some reason that KIS allowed Kerbals to attach regular struts. As I think about it, I don't know where I got that impression. Thanks for your help, though. I'll see if I can jury-rig what I want with some TJ-1 fixed telescopic joints and joint sockets.
  12. Those look like telescopic joints, not struts. Do they replace struts? Are regular struts not the sort of thing that Kerbals can attach on EVA?
  13. I'm running KSP 1.10.1 and KIS 1.26 (and KAS 1.7). Could someone help me understand strutting spacecraft on EVA? I've attached the strut to the rocket. But it's just one end. I thought that by right-clicking on the strut, I could then open a context menu that would let me take out the other end and attach it somewhere. Unfortunately, I only get the usual context menu (with entries like "Aim Camera"). Do I also need to be <G>rabbing or something? (It's taken me an embarrassingly long time to get the hang of that for just attaching stuff.) Also, it appears that a Kerbal can't carry a strut and equip an electric screwdriver simultaneously. Can a Kerbal carry an attachment system that will let him/her bolt a bracket to the side of the rocket so that we can at least carry containers to where we need them? It really seems that this would be an interesting "instance case" to add to the manual -- a sort of step-by-step guide example of using KIS that shows the steps you'd go through to strut two stages together on EVA. (Of course, I don't have the talent to add such a thing to the manual myself -- it's really quite nice, and I don't have any idea how much difficulty or time is involved -- so take it as a simple suggestion; feel free to take it or leave it.) Thanks for helping me understand this system. I'm excited at the potential of KIS, but I only have time to play with it in spurts and starts. Thanks in advance for any advice you can give me.
  14. Have you ever coded in the large? You don't need to be present to write and register code, but coordinating code is often much harder without personal presence, especially when there are lots of other people and groups to coordinate with.
  15. I understand that. My wife has MS as well, and with the drugs she has to take to suppress her immune system, I'm trying not to worry. I hope your colleague and his girlfriend stay safe and well.
  16. False, according to the United States' top expert on infectious diseases. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/anthony-fauci-fact-check-republicans_n_5e695561c5b6747ef116958a
  17. By that metric, no one has ever tested their capabilities against a machine of any kind, since all machines have been made by humans. I think we all know that testing oneself "against a machine" is shorthand for testing one's own capabilities against the thing(s) the engineered machine has been designed to excel at, including the machine's lack of fatigue and total attention to the task at hand.
  18. Indeed not. I doubt many people would feel any better about that now, even though our mathematical concepts are more refined. "Every number is rational." "What about this length?" "That length can't have a number assigned to it." "But I can see it!" ... et cetera, et cetera. Lay folk seem to have a concept that mathematics should be useful, not merely consistent, and as such have little patience for logical abstraction that remains solid even outside of things their senses and intuition tell them that math should be able to handle. (Witness those who insist that there's no point to so-called "imaginary" numbers.)
  19. Yup. And there's a reason "rational" (able-to-be-expressed-as-an-integer-ratio) and "reasonable" are synonymous in conversational speech. Back in ancient Greece, the Pythagorean cult held to some interesting ideas. They refrained from eating beans, for example, because they thought that humans were made of the same stuff. And they held that any number -- any number -- could be expressed as the ratio of two integers. It's fairly simple to prove that the square root of two cannot be. This could well have been scandalous. Imagine giving the impression that one could look forever and never find an "irrational" number, only to find that there was an irrational number with an extremely simple depiction -- the diagonal of a unit square. The reaction of the Pythagoreans was to attempt to keep the proof secret. This kind of behavior was -- well -- irrational.
  20. I disagree. The picture shows that he is clearly further away from the axis of rotation. When he decouples, he continues to move away in a tangent to the arc he was describing. Right. Because the centripetal acceleration offered by the parachute cords with both of them isn't enough to ping them both back. With Clooney's greater mass (from himself and his more massive backpack) and his greater radius of curvature (being further away from the axis of rotation), it makes sense that he'd be tensing those cords quite a lot more than Bullock by her lonesome. I'll have to re-check the movie on that one -- I don't think there's a shot that clearly shows them simply moving in opposite directions. All you can establish is that they're both in linear motion, which makes sense under the scenario you describe -- Clooney would keep going in a tangent to the arc he was describing, and Bullock would move back along some vector described by both her inertia before the decoupling and the tension of the parachute cords pinging her back. IIRC, there's just a shot of one moving linearly, then a shot of the other moving linearly, but not with both in the same shot after decoupling (so that you can see that they're moving directly away from one another).
  21. As mentioned before in this thread: Because they weren't stationary with respect to the space station. They were rotating. Here's are several frames overlaid on each other that clearly show that rotation.
  22. If you're seeing this when it's supposed to be really dark (and not at dusk or dawn), and you're using the default skybox, make sure that the "changeSkybox" variable is set to "False" in <KSP Installation Folder>/GameData/DistantObject/PhuginData/settings.cfg (you can open it with a text editor). Otherwise, you'll just get a blank, black skybox (because the computer will think you want to replace the skybox, but won't have anything to replace it with). The planets and distant spacecraft will still show up.
  • Create New...