Jump to content

Eric S

Members
  • Content Count

    1,589
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Eric S

  1. As a matter of fact, that's probably the main performance increase we'll see. The new Unity is using a much more up to date version of Mono, which has much better garbage collection. I can't say how much of an improvement the end user will see, but I'm hoping for something nice.
  2. Trying to remember which of the USI packs RoverDude has it in, or even it's name. It's designed to be field-assembled using KIS/KAS, but can be pre-assembled. It even looks more like the Apollo's rover than most. Oh yeah, the PackRat. Here's some videos of him assembling an old version of it, I think. KIS/KAS and VAB. Take a look at those videos, but I'm pretty sure this is what you're asking for. OK, google had the answer, I'm pretty sure that's in the USI Exploration pack.
  3. Not sure what I did wrong then. Did you finish the contract and then go back to land the boosters? I landed the boosters before I finished the tourist orbital stuff, the contract got flagged as failed, I initially panicked but calmed down when I realized that they were safe in the main branch of the save, but the contract was still flagged as failed after I landed the booster and switched back to them.
  4. That's my solution to that problem, so yes it works.
  5. I wouldn't expect the level of improvements that 1.1 brought, but the new Unity should at least help the garbage collection issue (pauses while playing).
  6. It depends. I usually have some idea of where I want to go with any given career save. Some times (usually right after a KSP update or mod that radically alters the tech tree), it's just complete the tech tree. Sometimes it's build a huge space station around X. Do a mothership mission to Y. Take advantage of some new mod I've installed. When I reach the goal, encounter some bug that makes the save unplayable or goal unreachable, or do something so stupid that I'm offended, I ask myself if there's any learning-related low hanging fruit left in the save, and if not, start a new career mo
  7. Only if the mod itself is designed to allow it, which is why it depends on the mod. So no, specifically what you're asking doesn't exist to the best of my knowledge. Originally, all modules had to be tied to a part. Not a specific part, but a part that referenced the module. At some point, Squad changed it so that modders could make modules that didn't have to be referenced by a part. If a mod is written to take advantage of this ability, then the only way to block this ability is if the mod allows it to be blocked.
  8. The mod is old enough that it probably still uses the ongui UI stuff, which isn't great for performance to begin with. The first time I had the clock go yellow every time I opened Haystack, just to have it go back green as soon as I closed the window, I decided that if I ever get around to doing KSP modding, a Haystack/Targetron-inspired mod would be one of the first three that I do, written to be more efficient. Of course, it will be a learning experience for me, so if and when it happens, there's no guarantee that it'll be as efficient as I want it to be. :-)
  9. Actually, my return rates are even higher with FMRS than with SR, though that's because I have more precise control over where I land with FMRS. The two things that SR doesn't simulate that makes it easier than FMRS are: 1) Can the craft keep it's heatshield prograde? 2) Will the craft slow down enough to safely deploy its parachutes before it's too late? It fudges reentry heat, but I think the actual parachute results are fairly accurate baring these three things. I switched from FMRS to SR for two reasons. First, I got tired of manually flying in for landings. Unlike
  10. KSP's too CPU-intense for most phone/tablets. Simple Rockets is about as close as you'll come to KSP for your typical phone.
  11. In addition to that, if you switch to the craft, the orbital parameters get translated to a velocity. Then, when you switch away from the craft, the velocity gets converted back to orbital parameters. Which really just means more opportunity for rounding errors.
  12. Same here. Not complaining (much), just letting you know it's not just you.
  13. OK, I anticipate that the answer will be to file an issue on github, but before I get distracted and forget (this is quicker, I've barely used github so it will be a learning experience), I just wanted to check and see if anyone else is seeing wrong fuel levels in the MKS inflatable storage module when set to ore/fuel/oxidizer. It looks like the liquid fuel and oxidizer amounts got flipped around. Then again, this could be intentional for balance reasons (so that people like me don't try to use them as fuel tanks on large interplanetary craft, for example).
  14. Well, I finally got around to spending the few hours, and while I'm not happy with the hexcore yet, here's my quadcore. It uses the Lynx service bay and gives you four places for Universal Storage wedges, as you probably guessed from the name. It requires the Lynx, Universal Storage, and ModuleManager. I had to slightly scale down the US QuadCores so that they weren't obviously bigger than the space they were put in. The wedges, when installed, will slightly clip into the floor and ceiling. Something that's niggling at me, despite using mirrored coordinates, one pair of nodes appears
  15. Hmmm... good point, I'm hitting the Mun first, and it's a 16 day transfer from the Mun to Minmus at minimum delta-v, so the time I cut off coming back from Minmus is probably made up for by that transfer. Could definitely shorten that trip by spending more delta-v, but I think the extra fuel would outweigh the extra life support consumables. As for Tourist Plus contracts, I do the minimum necessary for Stage Recovery mod recovery, when you're earning 3-4M roots for a mission that cost less than a quarter million to launch, spending more time than necessary to do that mission to minimize
  16. I do the Minmus->Solar SoI a little differently. Instead of leaving Minmus prograde to Kerbin's SoI limit (to minimize delta-v expended), I leave retrograde+radial out (in reference to Kerbin, but still within Minmus' SoI). This basically kills so much of my horizontal velocity that when I duck back into Kerbin's SoI, I'm probably going to have to raise my periapsis to aerobrake rather than lower it. Makes for a short trip, which is nice when you're playing with life support. And yes, Tourism Plus is fun.
  17. The closest you can come to that is changing the model in a Module Manager config file, that way you're not altering the original part's config file, but that still requires a .cfg file.
  18. HGR_Redux (part of HGR) has a 1.875 fairing that works just like the stock fairings. It looks like they're using a custom model rather than rescaling the stock fairings, though they are using the stock textures. You could either use this or look to see how this differs from your tinkering. For what it's worth, I use HGR extensively for 1.875m parts.
  19. True, but I honestly expect the part to take a few hours at most, and most of that is learning, so even if I only use it for one save, it's worth it.
  20. I'm thinking of going one step farther and setting up a lynx part that has room for some Universal Storage slots. I can probably pull it off without designing any new parts, just combining one of the Lynx parts with a few of the 4-container bases. Not that many of the other science parts would need dedicated parts since they can fit in the Lynx science bay, but it opens up a few more options.
  21. If the craft get smaller because the payload gets smaller, I'll agree. However, they're mostly getting smaller because I'm not getting stuck with having 10 times the TWR and three times the delta-v I want. Early stock probes are like crushing walnuts with a sledgehammer.
  22. Heh, don't mind, had already downloaded it, just haven't installed it yet. I'm actually fine with the status quo, I was just explaining why priority by itself couldn't fix the problem.
  23. That already happens, because the stage the part is in affects the priority, so any part that stages causes this effect. It still doesn't fix the issue in all cases because once the radial tanks are drained, radial engines will feed off of center stack fuel tanks (or any other fuel tanks that aren't empty). On the rare occasion that I still use cross-feeding or even more rare, asparagus staging, I still use fuel lines specifically to prevent this, as the engines cut out when the fuel tanks they're attached to empty, giving me a very solid "time to stage" effect that I don't get if I depend o
  24. Well, two trick pony, really, it's also insanely handy for those "splashed down" part tests. Though I have to admit, that's about the biggest point of disagreement I have with you. Every part pack I have that isn't about functionality is about filling in gaps. 1.875m and 0.625 tanks/engines, 2 kerbal command pods, stuff like that. I agree with much of your analysis of the tech tree as well, and would like to add one gripe. We shouldn't be getting 0.625 engines/tanks at the same tech level as 2.5m ones. I don't think we need to go full on "sounding rockets first, then 1.25m parts"
×
×
  • Create New...