Jump to content

karamazovnew

Members
  • Posts

    143
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by karamazovnew

  1. I've got it! Chris, you surely know most of the info below, you only need to read the last part, but I'll leave this here for people who might find it useful in their work. Basically it's like this: all buttons are identical, there is no restriction of what you can do with any button, but you need to follow these rules: - the layout: not sure about the exact details, but in B9 the top buttons are called "button_A" to "button_F", the bottom buttons are called "buttonR1" to "buttonR7", the Next and Prev buttons are buttonR9 and buttonR10, and I think you can figure out the rest because they are named. - you can call up a page with a button: PAGE { button = buttonR1 (or whatever) name = mywhateverPage That page will be available from ALL pages, UNLESS you do 2 things: have a "disableSwitchingTo=mywhateverPage", or "redirect = mywhateverPage, iLikeThisPageMore". The first method simply makes the button ignore the calling of that page completely, the second redirects it to another page(and also overrides anything in the disableSwitchingTo list). - you can call up pages which will be available just from other pages (nesting), by using the trick B9 uses: you make a fake page for a button that you will then redirect when needed to whatever you want. In fact, this allows you to rename the buttons in the code. For example: PAGE { button = buttonR1 name = MyGloriousNEWBottomLeftMostButtonXOXOXO etc.... } And then, in your WhateverNormalPage CONTEXTREDIRECT { redirect = MyGloriousNEWBottomLeftMostButtonXOXOXO, MyAwesomeNewPage -but what if you want to do something else, not just call up a new page (aka mods like Engine Igniter)? Well, first you have to block it from calling any page that it normally calls. Since we were careful to only call up the MyGloriousNEWBottomLeftMostButtonXOXOXO with the buttonR1, we just disableSwitchingTo=MyGloriousNEWBottomLeftMostButtonXOXOXO. Now the buttonR1 is free for other uses. Well, first you have to set it as a global button in the Rasterpropmonitor Module, at the start of the file. In B9, it's "globalButtons = button_UP,button_DOWN, button_ENTER, button_ESC,button_HOME, button_RIGHT, button_LEFT,buttonR9,buttonR10". We will just add buttonR1 to the list for now. This list is actually an index, that starts at 0. Normally, a function is called like this by a mod: mymodsFunction=myButtonPositionInTheGlobalList So, for example, EngineIgnitor looks for a "button8 = 7" line. Here, button8 is just the name (in the mod) of the Toggle button. But the button you actually CLICK will be that 7. What is that 7? It's the seventh button name in the globalButtons list. So, counting from 0 (button_UP), the seventh will be "buttonR9", which, as I've said previously, is the Next button in B9. To assign it to buttonR1, we have added it to the globalButtons list, at the end, so it will have an index of 8. Thus, "button8 = 8" will assign it correctly. Rinse and repeat for the other buttons. I hope that pretty much explains how to use all buttons. a quick fix for the Engine Igniter problem is: globalButtons = button_UP,button_DOWN,button_ENTER,button_ESC,button_HOME,button_RIGHT,button_LEFT,buttonR9,buttonR10,buttonR1,buttonR2,buttonR3,buttonR4,buttonR5 and down in the EngineIgniter page, button6 = 9 button7 = 10 button8 = 11 button9 = 12 button10 = 13 Cheers
  2. The Engine Igniter page doesn't seem to work right. It works just fine in the stock cockpits which use the default RPM, but not in B9. This isn't a new problem, it happened in the previous version of B9 also. Looking at the B9_MFD.cfg file, it seems that: To fix the text, this line needs to be deleted: "textOverlay = B9_Aerospace/Props/B9_MFD/pages/overlayUtilities.txt" To fix the redirect on the second button on the bottom this line needs to be deleted: "redirect = btn2, smartass" The bottom labeled buttons don't do anything. This part needs to be changed, but I don't know to what. button6 = 9 button7 = 10 button8 = 11 button9 = 12 button10 = 13 Any ideas? Also, I think some pages have weird button functions such as: - the menuflight page uses the bottom right buttons, unlabeled. Maybe you should delete these lines: redirect = btn6, ADIpg redirect = btn7, pluginScanSAT - in the syntneticvision (ADI) pages, you have again one unlabeled button that switches the adi pages, as well as the up and down arrows: redirect = btn6, ADIpg redirect = btn9, syntneticvisionL redirect = btn10, ADIpg Also(almost forgot), I was hoping to get a full bridge part for the HX parts. But in the meantime, can you please just add an attachment node to the front of the fake bridge?
  3. Many thanks. I downloaded the "All Of It In 1" vers. I'll install both now and report back. Nope, same problem with the one on Kerbal Stuff.
  4. Same here, although I'll use reentry as examples. Simple rocket with nosecone, nose first. - starting from a 100km orbit. 68 km Pe results in a drop of Ap to 75km. 67.7 km Pe results in complete reentry. - starting from a 200km orbit. 65 km Pe results in a drop of Ap to 129km. 63 km Pe results in complete reentry. This can't be normal. I'm not saying that I miss the old way, as there was next to no friction until slamming into a wall at 40km altitude. But this is worse, spaceplanes will have a hard time to get up into orbit, while reentry using fuselage effect will be impossible. Maybe a happy medium between the two?
  5. That's not what I meant, I mean that Procedural Parts reference the RealTankTypes.cfg completely. This file doesn't include cost for the tank, so they end up costing nothing when empty. Their mass is laughably small when empty (compared to stock), and all tank types can be filled at 100%. I also don't really see much variance in the TANK_DEFINITION mains, so I don't see structural variance, G tolerance, that sort of thing. In contrast, stock tanks (I mean anything but Procedural) have those things defined much better. Also in contrast, the Procedural Tanks themselves work better when used without RealFuels, as they refference their own settings, per stock fuel type. I know that, I just wish I had a use for all. For example, limiting refineries to worse fuels, having thrust restrictions, basically allowing you to choose between cost/usability. Don't worry, I have a few plans for that NEARFuels is not the same Seriously. And probably will not be updated as per maker's comments.Anyhow, since you're busy with updating RealFuels and I'm wasting time not playing without some of my mods, as soon as RealFuels is ready, I'm gonna start to tweak it a bit for a simplified stock career. I'll probably bombard you with question as soon as that happens Ah, I do have one already: is there any way to limit the number of fuel types loaded in a tank? For example, I want some tank types to allow me a maximum of X fuels (any fuels), but the service module to allow me a maxim of Y fuels (again, any fuels)? Also, is there a way to increase the mass and decrease capacity utilization of the tank based on how many fuels you have in it? Cheers and good luck with the update.
  6. KCT is one of my main mods so until it's updated I'll be putting any career thoughts on hold (not a problem, as many other mods need testing and tweaking for my taste). But maybe this is a good time to share something I wrote on the KebinSide thread: The thing is, I believe that Stage Recovery in particular should work a bit differently. The KCT "revert button" should allow you to: -destroy the vessel, for a tiny bit of money, only if landed and on Kerbin of course. -recover crew and science, again for a tiny bit of money, depending how far you are from KSC (although the closest KerbinSide site should reduce the cost). -recover the craft. This should COST money, the further away you are from KSC. KerbinSide sites should reduce the cost, but not nullify it. -at the end of this, the parts would be reconditioned and allowed further use (meaning you get some money back). I'm not sure if KCT keeps track of existing part in the inventory for cost, or only for build time. An utopia would be to have some label on the parts in the VAB (such as the *Experimental* label) that shows how many of that part you have. -moving on my utopian view, every part should have a "durability" resource, hidden, influenced by G's, heat, time in use, that decides how much the reconditioning costs. The upside would be to give a bit of science in return (the boys at the labs would love the radiated melted parts). - KerbinSide does open up the possibility of an interesting "HARD mode" option, where landing outside your base areas might mean that your "time to recovery" might take days, killing your stranded kerbals at sea or starve on land. Or die of cold in the mountains. Hehehehe. Enough wishful thinking, KCT has been a great mod for a long time, a MUST in any stock career. I'm just suggesting ways to make it even more awesome.
  7. 1. This mod doesn't seem to agree with the game's save system. I can Save in the menu, buy as many pads as I want, load again, bam I have money again, but the launchsites are still open. 2. Also, can we have a filter in the "Launch Site Selector" window to just show opened sites? Which reminds me... 3. In the Launch Site Selector, what are the black boxes to the right of the site's names? *solved 4. Just a request. I play extensively with Kerbal Construction Time and Stage Recovery (well, not now, no update yet) and I'd like to see some clever integration with that. What I mean is, in the long term, not sure if this is possible I'd like to see something like this: - Each site has a base cost for opening (appearing on the map). Recovering outside the range of these bases should COST money. A small interface to allow you to recover just crew and science and destroy the vessel (again, at small cost) would help. However, this merely allows you to use the basic non upgraded site. At each launch you still have to pay extra for the transport, and loose more time in KCT. Worse, you are limited as to how much mass you can actually move to a site and the refunds for landing near get diminishing returns. "Recover Vessel" still means shifting the thing back to KSC and that costs money. Planes have the alternative to be left at the alternate sites until needed again. - Now for upgrades: - Fuel depot. Ignores the fuel mass during transport and gives money back for the fuel remaining at the end of a mission if landed near. - Hangar. Allow you to Refuel, reservice (reset failure times for Dang it) and recrew any aircraft landed or left near the airport. Not sure if possible to STORE the craft "in the hangar", that seems difficult, but you can always just park your craft and recover the crew only. Although will need a very small "bus" to be able to launch crew at that site (nice as it also simulates crew transport costs to the site). Will need an interface to recover science back to KSC tho. - Data Link. Allows a link between the site and KSC. Signal travel time still applies. Quite expensive might I add. Alternatively, build a sort of network, only allowing you to connect to nearby sites (so that you don't just buy the one site at the other end of the planet). - Mega Antenna Array. Since some arrays already are implemented, a humongous range that covers the entire Kerbol System would be fun, but veeeeeery expensive. Maybe just one for the entire planet. This would be able to create a link to any antenna, but at cost, so that you can unfold that forgotten solar panel. - Basic Assembly. Greatly reduces costs of launching at the site, as it mimics breaking the rocket into parts for transport and reassembly on site. - Full blown mega launch site. Works normally, as an extension to KSC. P.S yes, I am a masochist.
  8. I've been playing RF with Stockalike and Procedural Tanks for a while now and I love the flexibility and the tech. Buuuuut... 1. Is the low price of fuel / high price of tanks by design, or just a temporary thing? Because empty procedural tanks end up costing nothing, and cheap real fuels like Liquid Hydrogen should take into account the high cost of keeping the damned thing liquid. When I tried to approximate the Kerosene mix price to resemble stock fuel price, I ended up multiplying prices by a factor of about 2000. 2. Procedural Parts (tanks in my case) rely on the tank definitions in RF. So most of the variance implemented into individual parts by other means gets lost and I get no reason to use some types with Procedural Parts. 3. With that in mind, I never use some engine fuel combinations, because they are more expensive, lower ISP and lower thrust than their variants. 4. Why so many fuels? With just stock and KW engines I ended up deleting many fuel types just to keep things simple. Maybe a LITE and FULL variant of the mod would help in making it easier to adjust to stock career.
  9. Not sure if this has been done before, but it might help somebody. After searching for a good MK3 cockpit for RasterProp, I just gave up and edited the mk3Cockpit.cfg to use the interior from the mk1-2 pod. Simply replace the INTERNAL Part with: INTERNAL { name = PodCockpit } And presto... You can use this trick for all the new cockpits which don't have RasterProp yet (but use an interior from an older part with the same number of seats).
  10. Hi, I've just downloaded the latest version. RealChutes work fine but the stock ones don't show the Action Group Menu, don't even appear in the Stage list and malfunction badly when deployed with right click menu. The used to work just fine with the previous version.
  11. Thanks for the reply. I eventually found out the problem, I was using the older version of the mod (D'oh! facepalm). But this "trip" did teach me how to hack my budget, in case I ever need it I also realized that since your mod is basically one dll, a shared separate one would be a pain. My opinion is that anybody who's playing MCE should use your mod, they go very well together (especially if you're playing with FAR and ISP Difficulty Scaler like I do). And for those that don't play MCE, or are waiting for 0.24, your mod adds that little extra touch of realism that makes me wonder "why didn't squad think of that"?! And no, I'm not expecting 0.24 to have build time included. As for your question, having other starting locations would be fantastic. There are a few cases in which I'd find the "SOI" option more helpful than any time limit, like testing if your batteries can last you a Mun night with your dish opened, things like that...
  12. Works, but in a strange way. By using your revert button (either restarting or going to VAB) I don't get any refunds. However, MCE doesn't seem to SAVE that budget, so as long as I keep making simulations, no matter how long it takes, the first time I use MCE's revert button, my budget goes back to the correct value (-1k, but I actually like simulations to cost a bit). If the game crashes (which happens a bit much when using your revert button or the start simulation one), the budget resets to the correct value, without even subtracting MCE's fee of 1k. However, if I start a normal flight (or exit the game), the budget saves normally and I loose the ability to get refunded. I'm not sure if this is the intended way for it to work. But it does give me an idea. MCE desperately needs this "simulation" idea, it's actually what brought me to your mod in the first place (although I came to love it in it's own right). So why not cooperate with Malkuth and implement a shared simulation mod, included in both mods? Every time you want to test a rocket, you go into simulation mode which costs you 1k in MCE, once per activation (but not per flight!). As long as you're in simulation mode, you can not save or do science, but you are allowed to revert for free, using the mod's revert buttons. However, when you start a normal mission, you loose MCE's revert button completely, so if you screw up, you really have to pay for it (pun intended). In my opinion, MCE only needs a revert button for launch testing, screwing up your mission later is solved with normal quickloads.
×
×
  • Create New...