Jump to content

cyberKerb

Members
  • Posts

    883
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

483 Excellent

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • About me
    Hardware Tinkerer
  • Location
    Canberra, Australia

Recent Profile Visitors

12,253 profile views
  1. Using syncros would be quieter wouldn't it? You could also see if a specific youtuber might want to use it for a content series / show & tell. You know of CuriousMarc? While the Navball is interesting and space related, it my not be vintage enough for him. However, if he's interested, it could be a win-win in that he gets a view videos out of the device restoration, and you get a circuit to help power it in your project.
  2. Great Insight Dr Dodd! Love reading the details of behind the scenes methodologies. I had two questions for you, one of which I expect you probably knew was coming many kilo-frame-ticks away. 1) On a scale of 1m/s to 1,000,000m/s, how sad are you going to make @Danny2462? Is he likely to have to adopt Trackmania 'hunting' style game play where he spends hours / days / weeks to find a tiny incremental improvement on breaking your new KSP2 physics calculations? 2) Other question is (with tongue firmly in cheek), if 'Krakensbane' is being added to KSP2, and we have new expanses of the great unknown to explore, does that mean we'll be visiting the Kraken Homeworld?!! Maybe we can send a peace delegation to try and negotiate forgiveness from the species that took so many brave Kerbals from many players KSP1 experience. To be fair, many of my previous noodle rockets were quite offensive, so I do hope the peace council doesn't devolve into a 'who started what' argument... Articles like this directly save Kerbal lives through less sacrifices to the physics Gods (i.e you and your team) to understand their nebulous ways. Noted exception of @Danny2462, who would sacrifice many Kerbals just to know they exist... or for a mouse cursor.
  3. The models look great! Question though, is the background terrain a static model or are you also showing off some awesome looking cliff / mountain generation for KSP2?
  4. There's 10 now, but is still depends on the Devs having cleared other higher priority issues first. No point in bothering them, just have to have patience. It only a minor issue the grand scheme of things when compared to the other in progress issues you can see they are working on.
  5. Forgot to add my vote - so done now. That only counts as two so far. A casual check of the issues log it seem most issues only get 0-3 votes. Those that are in confirmed status (ie had attention / impact enough for people to vote that they were looked at be Dev) have around 3-10 votes .So I'd so we're a long way of someone looking at it. For context though, they are fixing issue like being unable to save the game, which would be more important that a biome fix at this moment. Priorities aside, I'd say you'd only need about 10 votes or so to make the point when compared to other votes that are being worked on / acknowledged. Then it's just up to the dev team other priorities as to when to tackle the issue.
  6. True, but for what seems to be an easy text edit of the biome color code and a small colorfill change to Tylo and Eve biome maps, you'd think this fix would be only a minor effort to correct. Guess I've been following Wube and Factorio development too much. They are still the gold standard for development cycle and bug fixing processes. I'm sure @SQUAD have bigger issues to address due to all their recent DLC releases and patches for gameplay improvements like the flight scene repairs.
  7. I created a new issue with the current version numbers so I can keep it updated until corrected: https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/27145
  8. This a ping for @Alphathon to advise you might have useful reference code for adapting OSE to the stock inventory. USI updated the Konstruction mod with functionality that is similar to what OSE is with regards to creating parts.
  9. Other than the Specialized parts and using the stock Inventory, does this make the Konstruction mod into an alternative to the OSE workshop mod now?
  10. Thanks! The plan is to run a career campaign until I can get the funds to build this Shuttle and continue from there. I'm looking forward to working this challenge goals into my career save.
  11. I've been thinking about joining this challenge for a long while and during these holidays, decided to have a go. After a few iterations in the design, I've settled on something that allows a bit of flexibility with moving fuel to the front or back of the craft. I also tested expanding the cargo bay and it seems OK enough to work out the details in later missions. Last two requirements were that it looked good to me (check) and if I crash it Jeb stuffs a landing, the debris would be interesting (hence the side pods). My entire testing routine was to launch from the runway with minimum fuel and climb to 1K when flame-out occurs. Then I'd do a split-S and line up for an attempt at landing on the runway. This let me test both the balance of the design in the climb (can it take off and not flip), what it does in a stall (was it tail or nose heavy), and finally if the side pods were attached strong enough to handle a hard-ish landing (do I need more struts). When that worked, I repeating the test again, this time with the 40T fuel pod in the cargo bay to ensure I could take off and land with a heavy load. During testing, I found that I needed to clip two additional TX440 ballast tanks (with the the fuel locked off) into the front fuel tank. (This is the unused fuel you'll see in the resource panel) This was to ensure I had enough weight for the craft to be nose heavy. Both ballast tanks have to be filled and a pair of winglets need to be added to the nose when landing heavy cargo. With an empty cargo bay, testing showed that removing the nose winglets and only one filled ballast tank is enough to keep the craft balanced when dead-stick. Here's my submission for STS-1T: Approach and landing test Album Here: https://imgur.com/a/IsdD6zm Craft is mostly stock with the exception of 2x MK2 nosecones on the side pods and a SSPX "PXL-PPD Flat Adaptor" on the rear for mounting the Senior docking port. Is 'Commander' difficulty just landing on the runway for most missions?
  12. I'm surprised your KSP is working - that log file has constant NRE from Parallax among others issue on loading the game. I do see the NRE from Docking camera, but it you'll probably need to work out what combination is causing that issue before it can be troubleshooted much. I've launch a vessel into space around Minmus and the KURS docking cam worked fine.
  13. Minor issue with the restock whitelist in that you've referenced textures as models. Squad/Parts/Command/cupola/ksp_l_cupola_diff.dds Squad/Parts/Command/cupola/ksp_l_cupola_diff.mu <-Not valid Squad/Parts/Command/cupola/ksp_l_cupola_normal.dds Squad/Parts/Command/cupola/ksp_l_cupola_normal.mu <-Not valid I can also confirm the RCS on the cockpit doesn't work. The model shows it has RCS ports on the texture, but the part: 'mk25Cockpit' doesn't have a ModuleRCSFX module in the cfg file. Having said that - looking at the model via Sarbians 'debug parts', it doesn't seem to have a transform for the RCS module to be attached to.
  14. Initial BETA Release added to github for anyone that wants to test the mod out. Just note if you are testing, it's a BETA release, so I'm mainly after feedback on what's been coded so far. The container is under the science parts and is unlocked at the same time as the Science Jr. Important note that Heavy Science is NOT compatible with Kopernicus at all. Everything breaks horribly, but I'm still learning how to get that to work. Initial Release 0.1.0.0-Beta Github Download link Somewhat relevant:
×
×
  • Create New...