Jump to content

Chris97b

Members
  • Posts

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

20 Excellent

Profile Information

  • About me
    Just a guy who likes space
  • Location
    Gluing sciencey stuff to the sides of a rocket

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Wow... I just... wow... I am somewhat disappointed that my fears the questions would be cherry picked to result in essentially a PR stunt turned out to be true; some part of me knew this would happen, but this... This is a slap in the face to every KSP fan out there. Champagne. To celebrate a release marked by "mixed" reviews on Steam, which are still hovering around 50% and massive amounts of refunds, if steam discussions are to be trusted. To celebrate a release which saw the number of concurrent players drop by an entire order of magnitude in 2 days. To celebrate a release which reviewers described as anywhere from "This is unplayable junk" to "It will be good eventually, I promise". Scott Manley basically put out a video saying, in so many words, "don't buy this" for christ's sake. Not yet anyway. And to this, we are drinking champagne. This is absolutely insulting. I had sincerely hoped this would be an opportunity for the developers to regain some faith from the community. All you needed to do was come out, answer the really tough questions honestly, and say "Look, we messed up, we get it." Instead, we get the image of the entire development team celebrating an abysmal failure of a release. If this is the case, you truly have lost touch with your playerbase. I for one hope that you misspoke. I sincerely hope the point of the champagne was not to celebrate, but to drown your sorrows following an abject failure of a product launch. Otherwise I fear I am losing what faith I have left in the future of this game.
  2. It's worth mentioning that at this point KSP was a *free* demo
  3. Spent 10 minutes trying to figure out how to pan the view in the VAB. Spent another 5 swearing about why the devs would change one of the most intuitive systems in KSP1. Tried to launch a rocket, game crashed Relaunched game, crashed loading career save Finally got my rocket on the pad. Staged off the boosters and destroyed my core engine. Spent 15 minutes trying to find the flight report to figure out what happened. Removed the boosters and relaunched. Spent 15 minutes trying to figure out how to add a maneuver node. Gave up and did it seat of the pants style. Returned from orbit and discovered the atmospheric physics are *way* off Splashed down and spent 10 minutes trying to figure out how to recover the craft. Recovered the craft and spent another 10 minutes trying to figure out whether it had actually recovered, and how to return to the VAB. Returned to VAB, game crashed. Wrote negative Steam review and started new KSP1 career.
  4. It's a bit of a hack, but could you just set the mission deadline to something like 2 minutes? That way as soon as they accept the contract they have a limited time to roll out the aircraft and reach altitude. There's a certain amount of realism there too That wouldn't work for anyone using KCT, but it might do as a work around if there isn't any other way to do that.
  5. MM will tell you exactly why it didn't create a cache. In your case: Did you even bother to look at the log file?
  6. This is why I bought it on the KSP store and keep every stock version laying around just in case
  7. Hello All, I'm not sure if this is exactly an issue, but is the investor contract supposed to come up particularly frequently? I've already completed it twice and have active contracts for both the Hotel and the Casino, but the investor contract is still popping up fairly frequently. I would have expected that one to be once only, or at least wait until I've completed the Hotel/Casino before it shows up again. Not sure if this is intended, but I figured it was worth mentioning
  8. If you mean n-body gravitation, it's already being worked on: If you are talking about gravitation effects from ships, parts and the like, that will probably never happen as A: The effects are so small they would fall well below the margin of error of KSP's physics simulation and B: That would be *seriously* computationally expensive
  9. Ooh, shiny! I seem to be using the NFE reactors quite a bit lately. Would love to see that make it into AY
  10. Just FYI, MKS includes a patch that converts the MKS reactors to use the Near Future reactor modules if NFE is installed. Assuming you're running both mods the MKS reactors should work with AmpYear automagically if support gets added for the NFE reactors. Without NFE I want to say they just use the stock ModuleResourceConverter which means in theory they should already work with AY.
  11. Yeah to my knowledge the underscore thing is unique to the MODULE[ModuleName] syntax. In this case INPUT_RESOURCE and OUTPUT_RESOURCE are actually nodes. In other words, a node of type OUTPUT_RESOURCE (as opposed to say a node of type MODULE). From the stock ISRU config: In this case the :HAS conditions are actually nested, it's neither an OR nor an AND, we were trying to match a Module with the name ModuleResourceConverter which *contains* a node of type OUTPUT_RESOURCE which contains a variable with the key ResourceName. My understanding is that :HAS[@MODULE[ModuleResourceConverter],@OUTPUT_RESOURCE] would go back to the top level node when looking for the OUTPUT_RESOURCE as opposed to looking within the ModuleResourceConverter node. Take a look at the snip of the stock ISRU config above, that should make it more clear. Yep, exactly. What ended up working was: @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleResourceConverter]:HAS[@OUTPUT_RESOURCE:HAS[#ResourceName[MonoPropellant]]]]:FINAL The thing I got caught beating my head on was how to specify a node containing no name key at all. Apparently @OUTPUT_RESOURCE[*] just means a node of type OUTPUT_RESOURCE with any name, but still requiring that a name exist.
  12. Yep, exactly. That copies the monoprop module so anything not specified would have the same properties as the monoprop converter.
  13. The MonoPropellant resource is a subset variable of the OUTPUT_RESOURCE node, I would try this: @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleResourceConverter]:HAS[@OUTPUT?RESOURCE:HAS[#ResourceName[MonoPropellant]],@INPUT?RESOURCE:HAS[#ResourceName[Ore]]]]] (Note: I wasn't overly diligent in counting the brackets, I would double-check that) @nathan1 Many thanks for that, I was going crazy trying to specify a node with no name variable. I tried @OUTPUT_RESOURCE[] but that generated errors, didn't think to try it without the square brackets
  14. N/A usually (in my experience at least) means the craft doesn't have an antenna. Typically you would only see this on manned capsules, if that's the case it should say "Local Control" as opposed to Connected or Not Connected.
×
×
  • Create New...