katateochi

Members
  • Content Count

    3,280
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

3,613 Excellent

About katateochi

  • Rank
    KerbalX.com dev

Contact Methods

  • Website URL Array

Profile Information

  • Location Array
  • Interests Array

Recent Profile Visitors

16,414 profile views
  1. omg, I was away for a few days and missed a bunch of notifications and totally missed this! This is epic! Thanks so much @swjr-swis This has made my day. I'd actually completely forgotten the anniversary this year (it's been such a strange year!) so thanks for reminding me and for making this. Yeah, 6 years! 41k+ craft and 3.4 million downloads. I am pleased! This has been the most enjoyable coding project I've ever worked on, and that's entirely because of this community. Still got loads of things I want to do with the site, it's just finding the time to do them! And there is also the upcoming KSP 2 which at the moment is just a can-O-uncertainty that I can't do anything about yet. I know Craft Manger is in need of some attention in the latest KSP release. I've also got an idea for a mod (maybe 2) which would use KerbalX as a central point, but its just finding the time these days! I'll do a post about it and see if the idea appeals and if anyone would be able to work with me on it.
  2. I only change one thing in keybindings; to enable wheel controls in docking/rotation mode (or as I calling it, driving mode). I use RCS with the IJKL keys so I've got pitch, roll, yaw on WASDQE as normal at the same time. I also bind H/N (RCS forward/back) to thumb buttons on my mouse, that way I can control attitude with one hand, and have RCS forward/backward thrust and camera control with the other hand. I never use docking/rotation mode for docking, I only use it for driving.
  3. I don't really agree about them not being economical, they're a core part of my space program transporting all crew and a lot of payloads (the only real limit on that is if it can fit in a cargo bay), and all they cost is the fuel (also, I find launching SSTOs to be much more laid back than rockets, my main cargo transporter needs 2 pitch adjustments to reach a 100km suborbital path, where as rockets need all that mucking about with gravity turns! ) The re-use bit is more tricky, but definitely not impossible. For one career I did a lot of my tourist and training missions using one SSTO that was refuelled on the tarmac. It's payload was crew so that's a bit easier; Just load crew into a "bus" with a claw and dock it with the SSTO and transfer crew, and same for fuel. And the fuel was mined and refined at KSC, so it was a truly re-usable setup. The draw back was having a mining setup, fuel storage tanks and various ground crew craft parked around KSC all the time; made for a more laggy experience at the space centre. It did also get rather tedious transferring crew all the time and stock fuel transfers are also a pain. So eventually I gave up on that idea, but that SSTO had flown 10's of missions without being recovered. Loading cargo into an SSTO on the runway is more of a problem and you need a good crane setup (more craft making KSC laggy). Loading cargo so it's properly centred can also be awkward. It's totally doable, the question is, are you playing Kerbal Ground Crew or Kerbal Space Program? If you want to spend the majority of your time refuelling and loading aircraft then great, but my feeling was, as much as I wanted it, it wasn't worth the time.
  4. yeah I'll just play a couple hours KSP....6-8 hours later...and that was much of the first few years If I played an ave. of 6 hours per session, 290 days of the year for the first 5 years that's ~8700 hours. and then in the last 3 years more like ave. 4 hours per session 175 days in the year (~2100). I'm almost certainly over the 10,000 hour mark.....and that's a fairly conservative estimate.
  5. Yeah I'm still here! I've been a bit quiet on the forums over the last year, but never actually left, just lurking and keeping KerbalX running. I've been getting back into playing KSP again which is nice after a long break. Glad to see you're still about too! I'm so happy that vid still gets views. I really want to do something like it again, but I just don't have the time for vid making these days.
  6. Yeah, there is something special about reusable kit. I've been really fixated on SSTO space planes for a while now, infact I built these rockets partly to force myself away from SSTOs for a bit, but still keep some of the reusable aspect. I wanted reusable, but also fairly cheap to launch which is why I went with engine clusters rather than more powerful single engines (also I was aiming for something based on the Falcon 9 design). Mostly Pizza! I have a rule that crew are only launched on space planes; they tend to be a smoother ride and also when things go wrong they can mostly regain control and glide back down even if all engines have failed. So I rarely launch crew on rockets unless they've got an LES built in. Which these could have, but these are more intended as unmanned cargo launchers; so basically anything; satellites, station and base modules or interplanetary craft (just without the crew, they come up via SSTO later).
  7. I'm looking for some tips and advice on which software to use to create and then host high quality gifs. I mostly want to create short clips from KSP footage to post with craft, just to showcase a certain feature or show a pan around of the craft. So nothing long, just around 10 second clips. First, should I be creating .gif or .webm? I've used a program called Wondershare Filmora to create both file types and it produces pretty ok quality, the webm versions have significantly smaller filesize. But which ever I create, when I upload them to imgur the end result is much more compressed and quality is poor. I see people posting insanely high quality gifs on imgur, so what is the trick?
  8. The LV series are a set of Stock and Stock+DLC launch vehicles that are all built around a common design; A recoverable core stage with a pair of LFO boosters. The engines on the core stage fire from launch to orbit (no upper stages) and, on all except the 03 and 09, the engines are clusters, rather than a more expensive single engine. The core stage has a small fairing-enclosed section just behind the main fairings containing all the components (probe core, reaction wheel, batteries, antenna, solar panels and parachutes for recovery). All the fairings are set to clam-shell mode. The LV series are all tested carrying a payload at least a 6% heavier than spec’d (ie the LV-45 is tested with a 48 ton payload) and will reach LKO (100km) with at least 100m/s dV spare. In testing they were piloted by MechJeb’s ascent autopilot to ensure each test flight was the same. They are all built to be stable running at 3x physics warp all the way to orbit. They're on KerbalX, here's a link to the first in the series https://kerbalx.com/katateochi/LV-03 or you can get the whole set here https://kerbalx.com/hangars/115373
  9. Considering the scope of this game and how long I've been playing it, there aren't too many things that really annoy me.....but there are some I would put memory issues as the worst offender, but others have mentioned that already. This THIS This bit of UI design makes me irrationally angry every time I see it, It offends me on several levels. If I accidentally open the contents of a science container (especially one with that many results in it) I then have to click through every single result just to close the window. It's actually easier/faster to do a quicksave and reload or switch to another craft and back again just to close it. Even when you're not pillaging a planet for all it's sci in one go, and just have an action group that runs all stock experiments, that's still too many clicks required just to close a window. A simple close button in the top right corner would make this a lot better, but even with that it's just a bad bit of UI. It's ok to get UI design wrong when you're creating a novel bit of UI, but this is just a standard "list and view", a UI concept that's as old (older) than HTML. There are standard conventions for this sort of interface. It should have a list view, where you can see all the results as a list (preferably with options to group and sort it by various attributes like which biome or body it came from, experiment type, science value etc). From the list view you should be able to click on each one to view the details and take actions (although you should also be able to make common actions (ie delete, transmit, process in lab) from the list view). And from the details view you should be able to return to the list view. And from any view you should (WITH ONE CLICK) be able to close the window. It also would be nice if the window would remember it's position on the screen and not always appear centre stage like it's the most important thing ever! The other thing in KSP that upsets me is watching your base do an impersonation of a glacier and gradually creep down hill. I say "hill", I don't think a 1.2 degree incline should really be called a hill, but even on such small inclines, surface craft will still gradually move. There needs to be a mechanism which locks stationary craft in place until an internal or external force acts on it.
  10. You can! right click on a tag in the tags list and click Exclude in the popup menu. That tag will then have a reddish colour and craft with that tag won't be shown. If you then click on that tag to view the craft, the exclude rule gets removed so you can see those craft again (you'll then have to re-exclude that tag to hide them again...and I admit, that bit of the UI is a bit clunky, but automatically re-excluding the tag seemed more confusing).
  11. I didn't want to do folders for a couple reasons. a) I didn't want to do anything that would change the stock layout of files, so save that used CM would look and work just the same as a save without it. b) folders.....they're so....old-fashioned. Folders make sense because paper systems came first, but they're bound by limitations of a piece of paper not physically being able to be in more than one place at the same time. We don't need to be bound by that limitation in computer systems, yet folders still apply that same constraint. Tags are basically folders, but without that limitation; you can have the same file "inside" multiple tags, so the piece of paper can be in more than one place at the same time. You could have a folder for your Launch Vehicles and a folder for SSTOs, but which one do you put an SSTO launch vehicle in? With tags you tag it with both and then can use the inherit way that tags filter to narrow down your search and provide you with just your SSTO launch vehicles, or just your SSTOs, or (using the ability to exclude a tag) show your launch vehicles that are not SSTOs, etc. I honestly can't think of anything that you can do with folders that you can't do with tags. So short answer is I've considered folders, but am unlikely to add a folder structure to CM. Did you also know you can set a tag to be excluded? Craft which are tagged with an excluded tag won't appear in your list unless you click on that excluded tag to view it. So I always have an "Archive" tag, which is set to exclude. And old designs or abandoned projects get tagged with Archive and then don't show up in the list, but they're still there in your save folder.
  12. I just took this pic, just with my mobile so it's not great, but it struck me that it was a whole load of moons in one shot....if only they could be seen! I believe Saturn has 82 moons, Jupiter 79, plus ours. I'm fortunate to live in a place with almost no light pollution, and on nights with clear skies I get some really awesome sights.
  13. Totally under appreciated folk! If aliens came and abducted all the sysadmins of the world, businesses and our economy would collapse, govts would fail (even more so) and our very way of life would crumble. (I'm actually being serious, some folk wouldn't even know which way north was without an app and the infrastructure behind it).
  14. There is a serious problem with this mod, it's almost a game breaking issue. The problem is that all the parts just look so incredible, have such cool functionality and are just generally awesome that you end up wanting to put all of them on every craft, even when you don't actually need them. You end up designing craft just so they use US-II parts, rather than the other way around! I mean look at this rover; it could have just had a nice simple stock fuel cell and some LFO tanks, but noooo, that Alkaline fuel cell just looks so awesome, and several of them together along with the hydrogen and oxygen tanks, and all their little pipes and wires and awesome details that just blend together to create some sort of steam-punk retro engine thing. It's a disaster! But seriously, I absolutely love this mod. Have done since the first version of US and the way it's continued to change and improve is fantastic. It's top on my must-have list of mods. I'm also a big fan of TAC-LS (which is rather lacking in nice parts) and US-II brings some really nice Life support parts and converters to it. The other thing I really love is the implementation of the parts from DMagic's Orbital Science mod. I still geek out at the animations of those parts. The attention to detail in this mod is fantastic, beautiful model and texture work along with some really slick animations. There's just a couple things that I'd like to suggest; Some US-II style solar panels which fit nicely into wedge sections and fairings and some US-II style antenna and dishes with the same sorta slick animations as you've done for the DM orbital science parts. If you'd consider adding those I'd be really happy (and if the dishes included the Remote Tech set of dishes, I'd be ecstatic!). oh...and (sorry, I know I'm asking a lot here), but a US-II style of ISRU drill would also be a super addition. Anyway, just suggestions. Thanks so much for this mod!
  15. Wait...1.10.1 is out? When did that happen?!