spudcosmic

Members
  • Content Count

    146
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About spudcosmic

  • Rank
    Spacecraft Engineer
  1. Okay I do have this version installed, and CKAN is saying the MAX ksp version is for 1.4.1. I think I just read it wrong. I am getting log spam though. Give me a second to launch the game and record what it's saying. Edit: The spam I am getting is: "Exception: Type Load Exception: Could not load 'Base Field List 2' from assembly 'Assembly-Csharp, Version=0.0.0.0, Culture=Neutral"
  2. You were right @evileye.x, it's the freaking low level launchpad. Even with the launchpad upgraded to full I still had a minor performance hit; it's only when all of them are max level the game is stable at 60. Why though? A clean install of 1.3.1 doesn't have this problem. Oh well. Oh, and I remove a few contract packs I didn't care for and it seems like it significantly improved load times between scenes, so that's nice too. Thanks everyone.
  3. contract configuration? I have the contract configurator mod for 1.4.1, though I'm running 1.3.1. CKAN installed it so I'm sure it's fine. Contract parser is a requirement for Contracts Window+, although you reminded me I don't really use it so I'll probably remove it. Custom Barn Kit was also a requirement for something, SETI rebalance I think? Though CKAN isn't telling me its required for anything. That was my first thought too, although I haven't actually tested it yet for some reason. I'll work on that.
  4. I would not have thought of that. Thanks, that really narrows down my search. Although it'll be a shame to play without them if they do end up being the cause.
  5. I've been playing my own cocktail of realism mods with 10x kerbol system in 1.3 but I've really been missing the RO engine and part configs that resize everything and remove the throttle from most engines and whatnot. Is there any way I can incorporate that in to my 1.3 game? And if not could a standalone version of the RO part configs be released?
  6. I'm having this strange issue where I have awful performance ( < 30 fps) but only in career, while sandbox is a constant stable 60. The poor performance is everywhere, not just on planets and my testing so far has shown it to be not caused by any visual enhancements I have installed. my current mod list is: Would any of these be the cause? The only thing I can think of is some mod that's only active in career that's for some reason a big resource hog. If it helps my system specs are: GTX 1060 AMD FX-6300 8gb DDR3 ram
  7. I'm pretty sure the radioactive material inside of an atomic engine is very well shielded and there'd be little to no risk placing them within a few meters of habitation. The real safety risk regarding atomic rockets is if somehow the radioactive material were to escape containment, like say, a during catastrophic launch failure. This is a major reason why atomic rockets haven't been launched into space yet; launch failure could mean dangerous radioactive material spread throughout the upper atmosphere. Of course, if something were to also happen to the engine in space that could also mean bad news for the crew. Also I'd just like to point out that the exhaust of nuclear thermal rockets is not radioactive. The radioactive material is contained separately and is just used to super heat the propellant, and not mixed with it. A lot of people seem to get this wrong.
  8. You could always just bring as much RCS as you need; kind of like what you probably already do with normal fuel.
  9. What about a form of monthly funding based on you reputation? Without contracts you could make it so doing science experiments give reputation, and to make it balanced you could make reputation degrade over time so you can't just afk with timewarp for money. The degrading reputation also kind of makes sense realistically, people get bored and uninterested the longer it takes between major space agencies doing anything.
  10. I'm just waiting patiently for mods to update, as you should be too. Just don't update and continue playing your previous save, or go occupy yourself doing something else. Can we have this thread locked?
  11. Yes but parachute landed stages are more prone to being damaged upon landing, but even more so is the cost of recovering the spent stage from the ocean many kilometers away. With an SSTO you can land it back at the space center and the only cost is a little bit of refurbishing and refueling. Over all bringing payloads up with an SSTO is many times more cheaper than using a rocket.
  12. Are you thinking about expanding this mod? Perhaps the MK III parts and beyond?
  13. I hope your mod doesn't die, It's probably one of my favorites. My guess that the current contracts/budget system is going to be lacking in some way and you will find some way to integrate and expand upon it.
  14. How about parts have a failure chance when they are used or while being used, and some parts would have a significant failure chance and some parts have practically zero. So technically it is possible to design a craft with close to zero failure chance, but with limitations. Generally main lifting engines would have a high failure chance because of how complex they are, and orbital engines would have close to zero. I have been thinking about a system like this for a while so I have a lot more ideas, but I really have to go to sleep now, so maybe I'll post some more tomorrow.