LameLefty

Members
  • Content Count

    1,034
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

352 Excellent

About LameLefty

  • Rank
    Occupy Duna

Profile Information

  • Location KBMT

Recent Profile Visitors

2,320 profile views
  1. I have question re MJ's landing guidance. I understand the difficulties with atmospheric entry, descent and landing, but thankfully my question is about landing on vacuum bodies. Way back when I started playing KSP (version 0.19, over 5-1/2 years ago), it seems to me that MJ was more aggressive when landing on, say, the Mun or Ike. Just last night I was landing a plenty-powerful lander (TWR of nearly 5/1 on Ike) yet MJ (latest dev version) basically jockeyed the throttle between 25% - 50% most of the way through the descent and wasted a huge amount of dV fighting gravity losses all the way to the surface. Is there an option or setting buried somewhere to toggle a more "aggressive" vacuum landing profile? There's already a suicide burn timer display (which I have enabled via a custom window to use for manual landings), but it seems to me like that a more aggressive suicide burn landing profile might be an option some people would like to use automatically. And with a couple of settings fields for "tolerance" you could satisfy a lot of folks: e.g., an option to set the target height for zero velocity (much like the landing guidance now uses 500m for vertical descent), another to allow timer padding to allow for slow throttle response, maybe a couple other things I haven't thought about in great detail.
  2. Thanks. I *thought* that might be how the acronym was being used but, you know, with a 458 page thread, even searching the thread for the "thread-canonical" definition of the acronym wasn't helping much - I just saw page after page of use in discussion of designs and concepts with no specification to be sure. And coming from a background in the real-life aerospace industry, I can assure you that we have acronyms for acronyms, and make up or re-use others on a whim.
  3. As a slight out-of-date aerospace engineer (no kidding), KSP fan and space history enthusiast, I love this mod though I haven't actually done a play through with it (mostly because I'd have to install something like TweakScale and/or RSS to get the most use from it). I've been reading the thread here pretty regularly on and off over the years with each new release of KSP, just to see the amazing modeling work and discussion of "what if" launch vehicles and architectures. However, if you'll pardon the question: what does "LDC" stand for in all the discussion posts? Thanks.
  4. LameLefty

    [1.5.1-1 + Backports] Kopernicus & KittopiaTech

    Thank you so much, Thomas P. Your work is greatly appreciated.
  5. Um, the mod does appear in the stock toolbar so not sure why you're asking him to do that? (And yes, for those who ask, DPAI seems to still work just fine in 1.5.1, per my test the other night).
  6. LameLefty

    What did you do in KSP today?

    Nothing I haven't done hundreds of times in KSP since version 0.19, but still a relaxing way to spend a little while on a Sunday night.
  7. LameLefty

    [1.5.1-1 + Backports] Kopernicus & KittopiaTech

    Well, there's been a commit to patch compatibility but as yet no release. Unless you have the toolchain to compile it yourself, you've still gotta wait for an official release. (I have the toolchain and know-how but not the inclination - watching college football today and no real time for KSP anyway for a few days).
  8. LameLefty

    [1.5.1-1 + Backports] Kopernicus & KittopiaTech

    I've posted three times in this thread since 1.5.0 was released. Never once have I even intimated that the incompatibility with 1.5.1 is Thomas P.'s fault. Please, for the love of Jebus Kerman, read what I wrote rather than what you believe I have written.
  9. LameLefty

    [1.5.1-1 + Backports] Kopernicus & KittopiaTech

    So far as I can tell from Steam (which I’ve been using since 2004 btw) the Betas tab only allows rolling back to whatever the game developers have set up Steam to allow. And in my case at least, I can roll back to several point releases (1.2.whatever, 1.3.whatever, etc) but I have no option to go back to the original 1.5.0 release. *shrug* In any case, it’s not a major deal if you’ve backed up your installation folder (which I used to do in the days when KSP crashed routinely) but I didn’t do it this time myself. Perhaps a useful reminder to do so in the future again.
  10. LameLefty

    [1.5.1-1 + Backports] Kopernicus & KittopiaTech

    Because 1.5.0 worked fine for them, there’s no method to roll KSP back,, and they’d like Kopernicus in their game. Absent that, ... Yeah. That’s why someone would want to bypass the version lock. Jeez, folks. That kind of condescending reply is not helpful or warranted. A simple, “No, sorry.” is all that’s required. I understand that and if you read my post, it’s not really aimed at anything except the fact that after every release for past couple years, there has been a slew of point release hotfixes. Some of us hoped that with Take 2’s resources, Squad would be able to cover pre-release testing and regression checks more thoroughly than could a little indie studio and thus avoid some of that past practice.
  11. LameLefty

    [1.5.1-1 + Backports] Kopernicus & KittopiaTech

    Well, frak. Tonight's 1.5.1 hotfix appears to have broken Kopernicus. I really wish the new Take 2 version of "Squad" would have improved this delightful and historical KSP "feature" of needing a bunch of quick mod-breaking point-fixes immediately after every. Single. Release.
  12. LameLefty

    [1.5.1-1 + Backports] Kopernicus & KittopiaTech

    No worries. Trust me, though. I'm well aware of the havoc that can come from updating my game with version changes. I've backed up my Saves folder, of course. But in any case, the heck of it is, despite the swarm of AVC-generated warnings, most of those mods at least seem to work. Heck, even Scatterer + EVE still work, which rather astonishes me honestly. I don't quite know what's going on with the Kopernicus version-check though. I see someone else reported the issue with the same warning from MJ2 and Sarbian's already issued a point-update to correct it. But the KSP warning doesn't say the game isn't loading the mod, just that it might not work as expected so presumably it would load anyway. But something was not quite right; Jool's rings were gone. Anyway though, I have apparently solved the issue. I deleted the Kopernicus and ModuleFlightIntegrator folders from my GameData folder and reinstalled them, then dug around in the SVT folder. I found an AVC version file that gave a max KSP version as 1.4.2. Heh. I don't remember if AVC added that or if it came with the mod by default when I installed it forever ago. I don't believe the version check affects mod loading or usage in-game, but I went ahead and changed that to 1.5.0 just in case. Voila.
  13. LameLefty

    [1.5.1-1 + Backports] Kopernicus & KittopiaTech

    Hah. Funny. I've been running KSP since 0.19 so … Yeah, not a noob here.
  14. LameLefty

    [1.5.1-1 + Backports] Kopernicus & KittopiaTech

    So I've updated KSP to 1.5 today, and went ahead and updated Kopernicus to today's release, but KSP gives me a warning about it being incompatible (along with warning me about Mechjeb2, which I also updated today to Sarbian's latest 1.5+ dev build as well). And no, it's not the usual nag-screen from AVC about my couple dozen other mods (getting plenty of them too, which I expected). This one seems to be from KSP itself, since it lists MJ2 alongside Kopernicus in its window. Anyone have an idea what might be triggering that warning?
  15. Well, I don't mean to start an argument about what constitutes a "mid to low range" but my system is a Core i7-6820HK with a GTX1070 8GB video card. I can run THE WITCHER 3 at 1080p and Ultra graphical settings at a rock-solid 60 FPS. Most other recent-gen games run similarly well, and older titles even better. In my KSP 1.4 - 1.4.3 Career save I have a moderately complex station around the Mun. With Kopernicus installed (along with StockVisualTerrain), I get 11 fps in physics range of this station. When I remove Kopernicus from my GameData folder I get 21 - 25 fps with the same station. *shrug*