Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


28 Excellent

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • About me
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Steam doesn't allow for the uploading of Dynamic Link Libraries (.dll) files that quite a number of complex mods use due to safety reasons.
  2. I think it's because of the way you're setting up your fairing and it's fully intended. You see, your payload appears smaller in diameter than the rest of the rocket. Hence it's more streamlined and doesn't produce as much drag. Your fairing however is obscenely bigger than the rest of the rocket, so when faced with oncoming air resistance it's going to want to rotate to face the airflow engine-first. It's the reason why darts in real life are bigger at the back. A more reasonable test would be to try hiding your payload in a fairing of the same size.
  3. Well, the first thing that comes to mind is the Mk IV fuselage system mod, available here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/91713-105-mark-iv-spaceplane-system-the-go-faster-update-minor-hotfix-030116/ Never really used it myself, but it looks really well polished. Give it a try.
  4. That's not a bug, it's a feature. When you drop stuff into the 'seat inventory', it's actually being stuffed into the occupant's inventory. So if you sat a kerbal there, he/she will have the parts. But you didn't. You'll have to send a box instead of a capsule.
  5. [quote name='Angel-125'] Low-gravity worlds are a challenge, so is making wheels in KSP. I'm finding that it's a bit of a black art to get the right traction. It sounds like I still need to tweak the wheels; bear in mind that it will make them harder to use on normal-gravity worlds..[/QUOTE] I figured as such. They work fine on Kerbin, and I like that. But on the Mun it's like ice skating. Maybe I could recommend a wheel variant that appears to have simpler-looking suspension, but lower spring values to match, to go on such low-gravity worlds? It would be sortof like attaching the probe-sized wheels to the MSEV, except less odd and similar ground clearance. Or maybe add a attachable weight that you can place on a buckboard/in a container?
  6. Any tips for driving on the Munar surface? I get ice-like traction trying to even move around the lander. My Buffalo uses a 2u flatbed, 3 chassis parts and 4 Omniwheels. 2 KIS small containers are secured to the buckboards, both empty (I suspect 1.0.5 wiped the inventories of the crates and the crew, as I had to edit a electric drill back in.) I haven't tried the Grizzly, do you think that would perform any better?
  7. I just retrieved a lone 'Thud' engine as part of a contract using KIS to attach the CC-R2 connector port, and then using the KAS winch to reel it into the cargo bay. If I were you, I'd check to see if it works in 1.0.5 before asking for an update. Which in my case, it does.
  8. Once, I tried to attach a science pod, but it snapped to the mounts and were 'incompatible'. I had to attach it at a odd angle to prevent it snapping to the buckboard mounting point. I was hoping the flatbed would make a good utility platform for carrying around more than just buckboards. Also, nice work on the new update! I'm more than pumped to send a supply mission with the new wheels!
  9. I use the standard because I don't really see a need for the wide flatbeds yet because I don't find myself needing to haul 20 tiny buckboards in one trip. Yet. If it's possible I'd like attachment nodes on the flatbed when you're in the field because I got frustrated trying to mount a science pod to it (it'd snap to the mount point and I have to place it at awkward positions). And yes I'd like to see that attachment method implemented. Also, could you see about implementing a IVA cabin light switch? Sometimes it gets dark and I can't see much inside the cabin.
  10. This mod has actually made me spend more time flying aircraft from the inside of the cockpit. I thought I'd never see a day I'd be able to enjoy using the interior. And then you came along. Excellent work.
  11. Great work! Can't wait to actually get moving! *ba dum tss
  12. I updated CRP like you said, and tried again. I tried to reconstruct based off the first imgur gallery and additional image, and then tried using the Chassis 2U as the root part. The 1st image is what happened when I built and launched the rover, constructed as per the gallery. The entire cab unit fell off and the chassis pieces seperated. They can still clip through the cab unit as if they were attached. The 2nd image is what happened when I recreated the rover in your 2nd image in the same post. Cab and Cabin stayed together, chassis fell off outright. The last 3 images show what happened when I tried using the Chassis 2U as the root part. As soon as the physics 'loaded', the Cab unit separated and started floating up and away, the wheels immediately broke, and the back Chassis 1U detached and broke a wheel. Notice how in the last image, the speed is still reading 174m/s after the physics loaded, which is probably why the wheels broke. http://imgur.com/a/2IrSG This mod is a really awesome concept, and I want it so bad, which is why I'm trying my best to help you fix it. I want to rove around in swag too.
  13. I've experienced the same issue trying to construct the Buffalo in the SPH on my Career mode save. Apparently, as soon as you put the wheels on a chassis piece, it will detach the chassis unit itself from the rest of the vehicle on loading. Only happens on parts connected indirectly to the command module. So chassis units connected to the command module via other chassis units, will basically detach if you attach a wheel, and act like they have no collider except for the wheels themselves. Although they still remain controllable and no 'part detached' events are logged in the F3 window. Basically, ghost parts. EDIT: I can confirm it only happens with buffalo pieces, regardless of wheel. I constructed different rovers: 1. Buffalo wagon unit with crew cab, 2 pieces of chassis, and M1-A1 wheels. 2. Same as 1, but with Rovemax TR-2L wheels. 3. Mk1 command pod with Rovemax TR-2L wheels attached to them. Only rovers 1 and 2, the ones with the chassis pieces, fell off and had the glitch. Rover 3 functioned normally without abnormalities. Here are 3 screenies, featuring rovers 1 and 2. http://imgur.com/a/S2UYx Hope this helps with bugfixing.
  14. Hey, just wondering, does anyone else have trouble reassembling parts? I've run into this problem with my Munar Exploration lander (MEL), in which I realised poor solar panel placement meant I couldn't drill Karbonite sustainably. I sent a probe containing materials for a 4-panel solar array. As soon as I assemble the array, or while assembling it, I get bad overheating problems. For example, at my 2nd landing site, I placed a battery onto a large cubic strut attached to a ground base, only for the initial panel I fixed on to explode due to overheating. I can't find anything outstanding in the logs, and I've had to quicksave-quickload repeatedly before attaching the individual parts, which consist of nothing but a Ground Base, a Portable Karbonite Generator, 4 OX-STAT XL static solar panels, and 1 large cubic strut, as well as 4 AES struts, which are basically sets of 5 small cubic struts welded together. I can provide a picture if needed. I am using the RealHeat plugin. I'll try removing it and get back with my results.
  • Create New...