• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12 Good

About darloth

  • Rank
  1. Sorry, didn't see the previous post about needing the VAB/SPH for crew - but I didn't read all the middle pages of the thread either, so that's on me. Okay then, fair enough on the loading and launching from there. Hopefully one day it'll be easier to set up somehow, but this is fine for now, it's mostly only a big issue early in career when you want to launch a lot of small things and are really just waiting for one craft at a time. Edit: There was a potential issue here, but it seems to have solved itself in the latest version, so I've removed it. If you're still interested, the text can be found here: https://pastebin.com/VmM1Lqec Additional failure modes for engines (primarily limited thrust or gimbal lock) would be lovely, since currently they mostly just shut down completely which isn't much fun. I wonder whether individual engines from a single-part-multi-engine cluster suffer failures individually? Another suggestion, if you ever get the time, perhaps it's worthwhile making an integration with KRASH and any other simulation mods where, if it's possible for you to do so, you can choose to not suffer (or just flat out never suffer) part failures in simulations? They don't add much in my opinion to a feasibility sim, and seem to be constant across simulation reruns though I didn't do enough testing to confirm that. Either way not a big priority, but a nice to have.
  2. Thanks for confirming - I was worried that was the case. I've had some reports that contract configurator has a surprisingly high impact on game performance and my system can barely run this as it is, but I'll give it a whirl
  3. I'm getting some contracts on this mod where they want me to test parts at Kerbin. Are those contracts possible? Will they just work on Gaia, or, as I suspect, will they just be uncompletable? I'm not using Contract Configurator or any contract packs that I'm aware of, but I am running a lot of other mods. ( http://puu.sh/xxejB/b97c06dba3.txt )
  4. I had a bug where all my VAB workers vanished into nothing. I couldn't reproduce it, but I think the start of the problem was doing a Revert To VAB on an integrated craft. Edit: Further details, think I've reproduced this now - Using version 3.0b, if I set all workers working to integrate a craft in the VAB, then exit the VAB, wait until integration is complete, go back into the VAB, get the message that the craft has changed (it hasn't) so I need to reload, do NOT reload, go to the pad, check that the vessel is not integrated, but then revert to VAB - THEN, all my workers will have vanished and the integration will have reset to 0. Unrelated, as a feature request can I launch from the space center instead of the VAB please? There's already an integrations list, and the transition loading time is quite significant. Even if the launch bay showed me somehow (probably via name) which version was the integrated one as a poster mentioned above, that would be a big help. While I like the idea of the vehicle integration in this mod, it's still slightly finnicky. I might end up using KCT just to see if that results in more reliable integrations that don't get lost if I do things in the wrong order. Edit: Seems to work better with KCT, and that also allows me to launch from the space center. Of course, things still break a lot, but that's working as intended
  5. Currently Dang It! adds +9450 funds as a flat cost to every cargo bay, including the service bays. This makes them cost a ridiculous amount, and the buy-in when using career mode with entry costs for unlocking parts makes them more to unlock than some manned command pods! I can't see any reason that the cargo bays themselves need to cost more just because they might fail to open. Having spare parts cost X is fine, but can you explain why the bay itself costs so much extra? The command pods also have commensurate fund increases in line with their spare part capacity, and it also seems a bit excessively expensive just for space to put things in, but I don't mind pods being pricy as much as I do not being able to afford a service bay because it's 9950 to purchase and like 20k entry cost, which is just slightly less than the cost of my entire unmanned mun lander. It's a rolled piece of sheet metal with an articulated door! It's already FULL of space (literally in many cases). If spare parts must be a price concern, please make them more expensive rather than charging for the things to put them in. (On my personal copy I will remove the cost for cargo bays, divide the additional costs for pods by 4, and double the price of spare parts. Would you be interested in my opinion of that balance point, or not?)
  6. I have updated, and I'll keep an eye on the counter. If I get anything else that looks unusual I'll send you a save file, a mod list, and a log. Just a little further detail - all of my 7 would have been with Stage Recovery installed and active, but not actually recovering discarded parts (mostly bits of sounding rocket and the occasional lower booster stage).
  7. just recently tried this mod (in 1.2.2) and I'm getting a curious reading for vessels destroyed. There was one sounding rocket I crashed into the ocean at terrific speed, which -should- count, and that one the kraken ate when I turned physics timewarp too high, but I have a vessels destroyed count of 7 despite recovering every other probe core I've launched. I'm using stage recovery and a load of other mods. Could you tell me what the conditions for the vessel destroyed counter going up are please, so I can try and investigate why this is higher than it seems like it should be?
  8. Somehow Kerbalism managed to 'lose' some of my vessels - oxygen and food was no longer being used up, signal was just non-present (but I could still control probes) leading me to suspect that for whatever reason, it wasn't getting applied on vessel load. Furthermore, the monitor display only showed 4 vessels though I had more flying. Reloading KSP in general fixed this so I am not too bothered about it, but if you want more details (I have a lot of mods running, and they change regularly) please let me know.
  9. Could you add another section for kerbalism antenna please? As far as I know, something like: @PART[helperDrone]:NEEDS[Kerbalism] { %MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter] { @@name = Antenna %scope = orbit // up to home system SOI (at max ECC) %relay_cost = 0.5 // prohibitively high relay cost, because drones should be bad at that? %min_transmission_cost = 4.0 // bad cost scaling also %max_transmission_cost = 8.0 // since it's just meant to be a control link - but hey, no reason to totally disallow it. } } should do the trick, though I'm not entirely certain... If it works for me I'll let you know. You can also define your own scope if you don't want them to have almost munar control range.
  10. Given that all command pods have this inbuilt antenna, what made you decide to go with the home scope rather than the orbit scope? (They also do expand over time - orbit will eventually become most of the home system, kerbin + mun + eventually minmus in stock).
  11. Since I can't seem to submit an issue via Github (maybe because it's a fork? I don't quite understand why somethings have Issues and some don't, not looked into it) I'll report this here. I'm using version 1.0 beta because that's what CKAN gave me (and also because 1.0.1 is tagged pre-release). When using Kerbalism and Deadly Reentry and FAR and dozens of other hopefully unrelated things, whenever I attach a heatshield to the bottom of a command pod (tested for sure with 1.25m basic command you start with, but I'm pretty sure I've seen it with other sizes and types from mods) it spawns flames when decoupled. Given that normal behaviour at least early game is to eject the heat shield once you're through the hot part so the pod weighs less for landing, this looks a bit weird. Edit: Having a quick look at the code, maybe this could be fixed by adding "heatshield" to the list of part name filters that often trigger a planned separation? I'm not 100% certain or I'd send you a pull request...
  12. The default profile for Kerbalism seems to have a food size/weight that contrasts fairly heavily with all of the available mods that give you a place to put it. The small food container from Kerbalism holds 200 units which is 56kg, and it's a pretty small container, in the 0.625m cross section. The Universal Storage basic food wedge 'supports' Kerbalism (in that it exists when Kerbalism is installed) but only holds 53 units of food (15kg) in a container that looks roughly twice the volume of the default small container. Meanwhile, the Buckboard from Wild Blue Industries (I think pathfinder but they have a few, so it could have come from any of their base/rover expansion bits) supports all manner of resources, including food, where the big square crate holds only 319 units (90kg). It can hold over 500kg of LFO for comparison. That being said, it also only holds 319 units of oxygen which is a bit crazy too. I tried using parts from USI, but they won't hold food. Several of them will still hold supplies but I don't think Kerbalism can use those at all in the default state and my career save is not yet far enough to see if there's a resource converter for them (perhaps the greenhouse). You can probably put this down to inconsistent Kerbalism support in WildBlue and Universal Storage (and I can locally hotfix them by changing individual MM configs), but basically I'm struggling to find ways to attach sufficient food that aren't just stacking looooads of the default container. Is there a well supported part pack for the default config? Alternatively, have you considered adjusting the default config and the default small food container to at least attempt to fit in with the vague sizes suggested by other people's guesses? (Edit: I'm using version 1.0.5, but the changelog doesn't mention anything about resource changes so I think this is still valid.) (Edit2: Okay, so I've discovered that there ARE bigger parts to store this, I just hadn't seen or reached them on the tech tree yet. Even so, I'm going to leave this post here because it highlights the size differences of the stuff I do have, but please consider my "How am I even supposed to use this?! complaint retracted. Sorry!)
  13. Personally, as a game-wide setting. I want it so it can be another use for Eva kerbals, representing them taking some c4 out there and detonating it by hand when something gets stuck
  14. A button or keyboard shortcut that clears the part search and goes back to wherever I was before would be heavenly and amazing, if that is plausible.
  15. There's a part search mod by Malah now, for those who like me were hoping this would be updated. Probably worth looking at in the meantime.