Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by softweir

  1. Fix the lack of a working download and there'd be none of this scurrilous talk!
  2. Exactly! They aren't supposed to appear in the Parts List, but unfortunately Squad's search engine is ... flaky ... and these parts do appear when you use searches. And yes, the updated versions are there, though harder to find in amongst the deprecated versions.
  3. Stranger and stranger... Last possible suggestion is to start with a clean installation of KSP and download HabTech2 before anything else. You can move your current installation elsewhere, get Steam to reinstall KSP, and start again. Good luck!
  4. How very odd! As you can see in the right-hand side panel HabTech2 is compatible with KSP 1.12.5, and you have KSP 1.12.5. I suspect you need to go into CKAN's Setting -> Compatible Game Versions panel and make sure the top button - 1.12 - is ticked as well as any others.
  5. There is - however, I didn't download MechJebForAll, yet I have an option in the PAWS to activate MechJeb for any command capsule or probe core.
  6. I know it's a pain, but please do! I can't be the only person who thought "it's on Ckan, all dependencies will be linked, just tick the box and hit Apply changes".
  7. Am I playing KSP 2? Nope. My PC isn't man enough to play it. Let's face it, adding a few more mods to KSP 1 has brought it to its knees! Will I play KSP 2 anytime soon? Mmmmaaaaybe... I need to smash open my piggy-bank and count the coppers and decide if I can afford a better PC - and once I have done that, given that I won't have all that much to spend, it depends on how fast KSP 2's performance improves. Do I want to play KSP 2? YES!
  8. Comparing Steam reviews of KSP 1 and KSP 2 isn't comparing like with like. Something that gets overlooked is that KSP 1 was a finished, mature product before it ever hit Steam, so the reviews on Steam are all those for a finished, mature product, not one in early access! It got a lot of tweaks and fixes for the low-level bugs that remained and a couple of DLCs, but that awkward "it doesn't work it's crap" stage was long gone before the first Steam review happened. If KSP 1 had been released as EA on Steam then I am sure the reviews would have been excoriating! In the early days KSP was as flaky as hell, and underwent several massive rewrites before it became anywhere near stable. What will be interesting is to see how those two very different review sets compare once KSP 2 is released as "finished". With a bit of luck the reviews will be mostly positive - at least from those players who are the target audience for KSP.
  9. I recently installed HabTech and dependencies by Ckan without problems.
  10. Rather than using crossfeed-enabled-decouplers, you might get the effect you want by using fuel lines to direct the fuel in to the core. The problem with crossfeed-enabled-decouplers is they feed both ways - when the core is emptier than the boosters they feed fuel in, BUT when the boosters are emptier than the core they feed fuel outwards! Fuel lines are single-direction.
  11. I must admit to not reading the entire thread, so forgive me if this has been said before: KSP 1 was in development for years before it went on to Steam, so the (very few) bad reviews that might have come from teething troubles won't appear on SteamDB. Not that it got poor reviews during the early days: it was an indie game that was initially played by a very small number of people who were highly invested in it, who saw the potential and were having fun finding ways around the limitations of the early versions. Heck, it was barely a game at all! When I first started playing it there was no savegame, maybe a dozen parts, no Mun, crap physics (a limitation of (PhysX at the time) and if you landed on the dark side of Kerbin your ship was destroyed! Not to mention the many varied incarnations of the Kraken - every time it was defeated, it would reincarnate as something else even more subtle and hard to destroy! But it was fun, and got a lot of very enthusiastic fans, many of whom became developers as the project expanded. KSP 2 is in a very different situation. It is no longer an indie game and is being seen by a much wider fanbase, many of whom are disappointed that it doesn't - yet - face up to the hype. It will therefore get a lot of bad reviews. Will KSP 2 eventually live up to the hype and the expectations? I dunno. I hope so, to the extent I paid for EA. I may yet be disappointed, I may not.
  12. Which store did you use? The Private Division store? That sounds messy!
  13. In general, a lot of small parts in KSP are marked physicalSignificance = NONE to reduce CPU load when simulating physics - each part's mass is added to the mass of the parent part, and no physics interactions between it and the parent part are computed; for instance, there will be no springy wobble between the small part and the parent. It is in general a good habit to mark small parts this way as a kindness to most players. I don't, of course, know exactly why Beale marked any parts this way. A simple but inelegant solution to this would be to interpose a part that has not been marked physicalSignificance = NONE between a servo and the antennae; the intermediary part will be moved by the servo and the antenna ought to move with it.
  14. B9 is a mod that supports part mods, helping them switch variants of parts. It has been bundled with a fair number of mods, so you probably got it when downloading something else.
  15. Not true! @linuxgurugamerdoes write mods, but he is most famous for adopting and maintaining mods written by other authors which they have since been abandoned, earning him the nickname "The Modfather". This is an invaluable service to mod-users: most of us have favourite mods which are no longer supported by their original authors! Targetron and Haystack were written by @Jarcikonand @Qberticusrespectively, and differences between the two are due to the preferences of their respective authors.
  16. Upload it to any of several file-hosting sites such as Google drive or Dropbox, then post the link to the file here.
  17. Though in the case of a tall, thin thing with legs on, and only one leg is on a scatter...
  18. If you can find it again without too much difficulty, then it might help others if you could link to it. This is one huge, messy thread, and finding old info is a pain!
  19. I don't think any autopilot would be able to land a booster while at the same time taking a payload to orbit. The problem is that KSP can 't operate more than one physics bubble at a time, and you need two (or for twin boosters three) physics bubbles. FMRS gets around this by using some nifty time-travel to allow you or your autopilot to take the payload to orbit, and then allow you to land each and every booster, one at a time.
  20. I doubt it will be fixed, at least not without some considerable work. As it is, the truss uses physics-less animations; so if parts could be attached to it then they would stay still while it rotated! *IF* the truss was rejigged to use a robotics motor to drive it then it could also be rejigged to accept attachments. There would be downsides, as there are problems with robotics parts accumulating errors in position that have not yet been 100% fixed.
  21. Unfortunately, most users don't look for, see or read Readme files, and in response most mod authors have given up on updating them. Therefore, the place to look for information is in the OP of a mod thread and any associated FAQs. This is what @darthgentlywas trying to steer you towards. (It would be easier looking for such data if all mod authors stuck to the same, consistent format for mod release posts so we could more easily scan them for critical information. Alas, there is no consistency whatsoever.)
  • Create New...