Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


534 Excellent

1 Follower

Profile Information

  • About me
    Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

3,519 profile views
  1. I run a comprehensive check on all my mods, to be sure that in the main install everything is updated (waiting patiently the next 30 minutes or so, to let the half a tons of mods load)... Sidenote: in a very barebone modded instal (the "testing one" I was using for modding and tweaking) trying to follow your advice to update, not only I still had the , but suddenly Spectra stopped working (even if it's the very same version I was using previously)... I do not know anymore what is happening with my KSP.......
  2. Waterfall is indeed the latest one (0.6.3) I'll run a whole new re-check in all the graphic mods and dependencies I'm using, then...
  3. <Araym passing by , after ending his own work on the IXS adaptation for Blueshift> I sensed something... ... at first I thought it was something alike "... a disturbance in The Force, as millions of voices were screaming..." ... but in reality they were just cheers and hymn of joy, looking at your upcoming parts for Blueshift!!! I'm waiting now impatiently, to mix-and-match those to my adaptations!
  4. I tried something similar, to modify the kerbal inventory capacity (my point was just to give more slots and a slight more weight availability, just because I have a couple of props from Benjee10 suits to use together the jetpack and parachute) I obtained some kind of success (so eventually I could share some of my changes) BUT I found a strange behaviour: each time I reverted a launch back to the VAB, the kerbal on board, even if they were getting the upgraded capacity, were hard-scripted back to their stock capacity directly in the save persistent file, no matter what I did in my ModuleManager patches, and sometime I got some weird behaviour of "duplicating items" in the game scenes (once a kerbal on a Mun mission got 13 copies of jetpacks, one for each time I reloaded/switched back to his craft) I do not want to give you a bad news, but for fully "hack" the system in which the game handle the inventory of each kerbal, I think you will need the support of a custom made .dll file... (I shelved my modification, by the way, noticed that bugs and problem my idea created to me) My code was this: //More EVA slot cargo @PART[kerbalEVA]:FINAL { @MODULE[ModuleInventoryPart] { %InventorySlots = 4 %packedVolumeLimit = 60 %massLimit = 0.1 } } @PART[kerbalEVAfemale]:FINAL { @MODULE[ModuleInventoryPart] { %InventorySlots = 4 %packedVolumeLimit = 60 %massLimit = 0.1 } } The ":FINAL" was just because I tried to be sure that was implemented in any case, being just a "personal patch" (so it was in my own hand any problem) and it's not really a "good etiquette" in patches eventually to make public. If you find eventually a way to make it stable, let me know.
  5. Update v.1.0.6: Updated to reflect changes of the parent mod "IXS Warship v." USE THIS IF YOU HAVE UPDATED THE ORIGINAL PARENT MOD TO A VERSION EQUAL OR SUCCESSIVE TO v. removed fixes to command pod (adopted by "IXS Warship v.") removed added nodes to wsIXSmainHull (IXS Main Hull) (adopted by "IXS Warship v.") generator sounds added to wsWarpDrive4 (main IXS warp ring) and minor code tweaks minor code tweaks to wsWarpDriveSupport (sustainer IXS warp ring) It "should be" (not using "Alcubierre Warp Drive" I'm not used to its own part placement) or at least they will sit in any case in a pretty high node to be more balanced compared to conventional rocket engines (at least in regard to the parts directly connected to the warp technologies that I patched: parts not patched by me still sit in the same place as the original mod)
  6. EDIT: I made some extra experiments. I left basically every option turned on (with ocean using 256 furier grid, to push everything to the limit... the only options I left turned off, but it was the same as above, are "Disable scaled space ambient light" and oceans's "Secondary lights") but just switched from "depth buffer mode" to "projector mode". This improved the situation a bit: The shaped models used for the warp effects returns to be "someway" transparent (even if shadows are casted on them alike they were solid: a behaviour that is someway present also in "stock" enviroment, even if less evident because the shadows are less defined - so it is probably relate to Waterfall shaders), with just little graphic artefacts (slightly noticeable in the full zoomed out image) rather than be totally "black". Still no joy for the sun flares: they are present (as shown by the first picture, very zoomed out), but from inside the "warp bubble" they are basically erased.
  7. I do not really know the "technicalities" of Waterfall, but for the rocket plumes everything iss working. For the effects involved in my screenshot, the "cylindrical" one used as base for the engines's plumes should come directly from Waterfall, but the bigger "warpfield" around the ship came from @Angel-125's "Blueshift" (the warp mod itself). From what I'm learning by using them, they should be, basically, some transparent shapes that can be linked to display on their surfaces, based on the config used, the various graphic "effects". Waterfall has, internally, its own shader that then interact in the way these effects are displayed: my (very wild... ) guess is that a bit of strangeness in how KSP handle "transparencies" (see the above post about the windshields from "Open Cockpit" as example) mixed with Waterfall's shaders, make those "shapes" used as base not so trasparent as they should to some Scatterer effects. I tried to figure which one from Scatterer could be, but the best I achieved is that using the "Integrated" pre-set, with almost everything turned off, they return to be "transparent", but even just switching to "Very Low", they already start to be "bugged".
  8. @Angel-125 Question: could be an issue in my own install, or is it normal that the various warp generator do not appear selectable in the VAB to be set in the action groups, even with advanced tweakable active? To simplify my operation I have each time to set them in space (using mods that allow to modify action groups once a craft is launched) rather than have the possibility to do it in the VAB...
  9. It's not really "broken": it's just that now your MM patch does not latch anymore with the new "syntax 2 mode" coded Sunflares by Scatterer, not having the same terms you were expecting to patch. BUT even if these are coded in "syntax 2 mode", Scatterer still is able to read "syntax 1 mode" coded sunflare (like the older one , from where you based yours). NOT knowing how translate the old "syntax 1" in "syntax 2", neither how achieve the same results you get for Spectra in "syntax 2", I simply made the "emergency patch" above just as explained: merging the old Scatterer 0.0723 "syntax 1" coded config to your patches (also in "syntax 1"), alike an humanized version of MM, to have a full config, then simply transforming that in a little more longer MM patch that, once it sense the presence of Scatterer, it simply "erase" whatever Scatterer config could be (not caring if its "syntax 2" or "syntax 1" coded), and totally replace it with the old one. Scatterer still support both syntax way of coding, so for the time being (untill maybe you will decide to update your Sun config to "syntax 2") feel free to grab my config and use in your releases: in the end, the final effect in KSP, using Spectra, are the same we had in the past, and they are still working (obtaining the expected, amazing, final result we all know and love).
  10. My patches shouldn't (finger crossed) break other parts or the Alcubierre mod itself: as "case #2", using both warp mods you should just find the IXS working as "Blueshift" ship... (more later in my answer) (** "MAD SCIENTIST" LOOK ** "You could be a nice specimen for a test in that regard... eheheheheheh" ) As the parent mods "Blueshift" and "Kerbal Flying Saucers" (needed not only for functionality, but also for some game mechanic balancements), IXS with my patches has various tech tree placement adjustment: in case of stock, with a couple of custom made nodes by Angel-125 for his mods... in case of CTT (like the one Im used) with a pretty high and far placement too... both cases should balance her a bit better. As I'm not using "Alcubierre" neither the stock tree (CTT forever!), so I didn't made a direct comparison, but at least the "warping parts", once patched, should sit much higher than original, so better fitting in a role of "warp drive mk.2" with their slender look... (** "Mad Scientist" look... AGAIN! ** "Yes! You could be a nice specimen indeed for an experiment or two... AH↑AH↓AH↑AH↓AH↑AH↓AH↑AH↓ ** CRAZY BUNNY LAUGHT ~Peko~Peko! **) "Yes", eventually... ... but "No, thanks!". It "should" be possible indeed, using the appropriate stock functionality of some "improvement nodes" for the tech tree (both stock and CTT support that) rather than a direct patch, but that would have been a "double balancing", both against "Blushift" and "Alcubierre Warp Drive", not only for their functionality, but also in tech tree nodes. I already spent a couple of week trying to figue "HOW adapt IXS for Blueshift", having, in the end, a decent result... I'm not planning to double the time for further integration with multiple warp drive mods present. Sorry. ("But nobody will ever stop you to try such of a task, If you are willing to create the appropriate "improvement nodes", and submit them to me. I could look for some employee in my *Kensetsu*~peko! AH↑AH↓AH↑AH↓AH↑AH↓AH↑AH↓" ** CRAZY BUNNY MODE, AGAIN **) In the "Download" section, the first, bigger, link, should land you in the Github page with all the releases available, in which you have to choose the one that you want (generally: "the latest (bigger release number) the better"). Once you get there, just click on the related "Assets" little link of the release you are choosing, that, if not open, will allow you to pick the download (the "Source.zip" file is generally the way to go: you will have a file called "IXSWarpshipForBlueshift.zip" with the progressive release number on it, to be easy catalogued in your download folder, confronted to past releases) containing the needed structure from where you can unzip, install in KSP GameData folder... etc etc etc... alike any other mod. (But to avoid confusion I will move the "Source and Licensing" link a bit down on the opening page of this thread, so it could be easier to get just the release page) ------ I see... I see... Another pupil for my (maybe future) "How to circularize orbit on warp power guide 101 for dummies" crash course. ("... I could make big bucks out of it~peko~peko! AH↑AH↓AH↑AH↓AH↑AH↓AH↑AH↓")
  11. @blackrack UPDATE: graphic mod list as above in my previous message, but with Texture Unlimited removed (as I tought it could "weirdly interact" with some actual models): I tested with some other "transparent parts" that are showing weird behaviours: this involve, for example, "Open Cockpit" one and "Benjee10's Historical Kerbal Suits" Open Cockpit comes with some trasparent windshield that, also, show the ability to "cancel" something: in this case, Benjee10's suits come with a custom helmet that, watched thru a "transparent surface", has the custom visor disappear. (And this happened even before adding Scatterer, in previous experiences of mine) In the same testing without Texture Unlimited (I tought that, interacting with some properties of models and parts, could actually be involved) the warp ships with Waterfall of my above posts show the same behaviours, so I avoid to repost similar pictures, but my ideas is that "something" related to how KSP handle "transparency" (at least in 1.11.2 that I'm using) is globally creating some weird behaviours (I cannot be more of help, because I do not really know how KSP works behind the scenes: I can just point out some final effects as end user).
  12. YES, sir: at least on my end, even using 0.0723 I ended with the same result. My "graphic" mods are: EVE (only the base mod, no "BoulderCo" configs, as needed for some other as functional dependency) Pood's OPM VO (... for upgraded OPM visuals) SVT (the latest one just for the terrain visual from spaces: the actual terrain once on planets is stock) Spectra (for clouds and atmospheric effects for the stock planets) Scatterer (not only for "general purpose", but also as needed dependency of Spectra) At first I tought was related to the sunflare syntax changes (Spectra ha a little issue for it, but that was addressed discussing it in its own thread): infact in the process to resolve that issue, I "downgraded" for testing purposes to 0.0723 and the result was the same. (At least with both releases working at "max effect" - the equivalent of "Very High" setting in 0.0770: dunno if the problem could be mitigated removing some of Scatterer options) Removing Scatterer (any) does resolve it... but obviously it is just because there is not any more a lot/none of atmospheric and water effects effect to "delete". (Before using Spectra/Scatterer, I was using "Better Looking Ocean" to tweak just the water surfaces, and that does not have issues with Waterfall) Even if I noticed that, slightly, even if they became "almost totally transparent", paying attention is still possible to notice the boundaries of Waterfall models, as they still have some different behaviours than the pure "air" in a more stock-ish atmosphere (mostly, the shadows are sligthly different). (My 2 cents: I think is more of a Waterfall shader interaction problem, with Scatterer just ending to be and "offended part", rather than the original cause: in fact I firstly addressed this issue with the Waterfall team, as even without scatterer their model are not totally "invisible" as they should. I just did the same for you here mostly for knowledge) ... even if... Could it be eventually a problem derived by "Texture Unlimited"? Because some part mods that have "transparent parts" also showed the "weird" ability to be transpared but capable to "delete" a lot of graphic effects,. I'll update about it once I'd run some experiments.
  13. Alcubierre Warp Drive is "natively" supported by the base/original mod itself of "IXS Warship". My patches are made just to let users of "Blueshift", but not RoverDude's "Alcubierre Warp Drive", to also enjoy the IXS. I do not see too much of an use of 2 warping mods that basically achieve the same result for the end player. Personally it was just a series of little differences: "Blueshift" has a bit of less costrain to the ship design. For example: no need to stay "inside a bubble" that could destroy anything sticking out of it; the "scalability" of Blueshift - you can add more warp capable parts in the correct way to have "more power", and such have "bigger ships" warp capable; the possibility to build (and eventually find already built) jump gates... etc etc As said, it's just matter of personal preferences: none is "better" than the other. Just slightly different. Beside, to fully use all the functionality of "Blueshift", I made A LOT of changes, in some cases rewriting entirely some parts to achieve totally different effects (... for example: I wanted to have new "warp coils", and I repurpose 2 parts originally used just as tanks for that... I rewrote some science part to be able to sense or harvest Graviolium, the resource needed in Blueshift to work, pretty pointless if you dont use "Blueshift"... and so on...)... ... BUT I considered some cases: Do you want to use the IXS ONLY with "Alcubierre Warp Drive"? Just grab the base mod by Linuxgurugamer, and it's ready to go without any of my patches (check the original thread to know how): you will get in the end all the same parts, as they are originally intended, even if, probably, not all my "tweaks and fixes", alike the command pod with the actual 5 kerbal, instead of the only 4 in Linux's one... or the added nodes I made for the Main hull; Do you want to use MY patches, because you want the IXS to work with "Blueshift" (and also enjoy my fixes), but also use "Alcubierre Warp Drive" for other custom made ships? I considered that: my patches have some coding that "should" (INCLUDED but NOT TESTED: I made them just for "fail safe", more than for a real consideration of using more of one warping mod) block the native support for "Alcubierre Warp Drive", leaving the possibility to use both, keeping in mind that IXS in that case will work ONLY as "Blueshift" ship; You want only my fixes, but keeping IXS to work as originally inteded for "Alcubierre warp Drive"? Well... I cannot read the mind of any possible player, to sort out any of the "infinite possibilities", but you are free to test what are doing my changes, delete the patches related to the parts that you want to keep as "original", and save only what you like... but that way I do not guarantee any result: you could end with some parts patches to "Blushift", and others working for "Alcubierre Warp Drive", with the risk of not having a "full functional ship" other situations? Not included/figured yet ("The possible is already done, the impossible is on the way, for miracles I'm learning sainthood, but I need still some work on it..." )
  14. Uhm... that could be the difference, then: I'm a "manual gear box" man. It's not "driving" if you are not shifting! And, as we say in Italy, roughly translated, I'm also an "heavy foot" while driving (pushing A LOT on the gas), or said in a more anglo-american way: "pedal to the metal"! UH?!? I hope is not caused by any error on my end... Let me know (maybe even in private messages, to not clutter here) if there is any issue that I could help to resolve, if it's based on my IXS patches.
  • Create New...