Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


93 Excellent

Profile Information

  • About me
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Due to the climate of the modding community, I've lost the desire to continue working on KSP mods. I don't know when the next everything-disabling blowout will be, and that's not circumstances I can work under, especially on something with the kinds of dependencies this has. Anyone wishing to continue work on this mod may do so by forking the repository I linked to above, which I will leave up permanently. This will be my last post on these forums, thank you for the times I've had.
  2. @Stone Blue I can only speak for myself, but what drew me to Atom in particular was the ease with which you can install add-ons. I even have a plugin that synchronizes my settings so I can have the same plugins on different machines. ;-) As well, I do most of my developing in JavaScript these days, and there's very good support for that. Atom is, in point of fact, itself written in JS (using Electron). I haven't used Notepad++ in... fifteen years I think? A very long time, anyway. So for the actual differences between them, there you probably need someone else.
  3. Thanks! It's always nice to get evidence that I'm not the only person to ever use a thing I made. ;-) As for the file selection, I had trouble with that, myself, and ended up using the trick you mention. I wanted it to install the file types it supports (including craft and save files too), but I haven't gotten it working, and it's been a while since I really used it myself. (Really should get back to it, I have a mod I promised to maintain and haven't (u_u') ) But anyone who has suggestions or bug reports is welcome to raise them in issues, and anyone who feels they can solve something is, of course, welcome to open a pull request. I'll try to deal with them ASAP. Especially, I'd be interested in possible snippets, since that is a really cool feature.
  4. (Also, getting these parts updated to work in Unity 5 is turning into a bit of a bear, especially since that's not the part I'm good at. )
  5. Yes, yes, I'm here, guys, no need to yell. I sort of foundered a bit on getting things working in Unity 4. This prevented me from fixing a few issues in some of the models, and I sort of shelved it for a while until 1.1 appeared. Now, of course, I've just been unemployed for a couple months (just landed a new one the other day, it's all good), which affects me, weirdly, by making me get nothing done. So. Do I plan to continue the mod? Yes. But I need to get my feet back under me, now that I have some structure back in my life. Should hopefully come easier, though. Since the job I've found also contacts on C# (ASP.NET backend, I'll be working on the frontend) I might finally get somewhere wrt. the plugin situation I mentioned. So, while it will likely be a bit before a lot starts going on, something will. I sincerely want it to.
  6. There's a need to rebalance this mod's early game parts, in the stock tech tree. Much larger and/or more capable parts than the stock ones show up very early on. Air augmented boosters, for example, do not belong in the very earliest nodes, in among regular solid rockets which they overshadow quite badly. Any Mk2 form factor part should show up at the earliest among the first stock Mk2 parts. And so on. I like the parts themselves, and many of them are inventive, useful and well made. But the tech node placement needs work.
  7. So 1.1 dropped, new wheel physics, the whole shebang. Aaaand the starting runway is still an unusable rally track. I saw the excuses made above, and... Seriously? No mate. There's exactly one thing a runway is designed for, and that's being flat enough that things with small wheels can go fast on them. Hell, the Wright Bros. has a flatter piece of ground to work with than this. WWI air forces took off from flatter ground. Are we to believe that Kerbals are somehow not competent enough to level a piece of land? (SRSLY, I love KSP, but sometimes Squad's choices infuriate me.)
  8. @Kerbas_ad_astra I think the "size25" refers to Mk 2.5, wouldn't it? It's sized between Mk 2 and Mk 3 after all. But that is an excellent list, and definitely a candidate for a 'standard shape set' of sorts.
  9. The above posts are exactly the sort of information that would be useful. Save part makers the effort of digging through forums, github, source files, etc., and instead let them do what they do best: Make parts. :) So to properly describe a hull shape, seems we'd need a few pieces of information: A blender model (or similar) describing the cross section in a consistent coordinate system (i.e. with the origo in the right spot wrt. node placement), a node placement coordinate set, and a name, plus possibly a human-readable description. Add to this any licensing info (in most cases I don't foresee any trouble here - permissive licenses have become the norm of late), and the original creator, and I think that's what our shape definition would be.
  10. Obviously the thought would not be to steal content, but to provide the tools to create compatible parts, so yes, any mods with licensing that would restrict such activity, there would have to be an agreement in place.
  11. Mulling onwards about this, it might make sense to have models representing a standard cross section of the hull type, in an accessible format. That way, modelers can relatively easily work towards a shape, with a minimum of fuss. In fact I'd argue that such a template might favorably be the authoritative form of a hull shape standard, with a textual or mathematical description being derived from that.
  12. I've been thinking about some things lately, regarding part mods that include hull parts (as opposed to wing parts etc.) with cross sections that are not circular. The classic examples of such parts would be the stock Mk2 and Mk3 parts, which follow a standard set by Squad. Mk3 and the B9 HL hull parts fit each other - as I understand it this was a deliberate choice. Well, why not make this choice some more? The ability to add to parts produced by others makes sense, and can only improve the quality and flexibility of parts mods. As such, I propose setting down a standards board made up of an appropriate set of volunteers, who will determine which hull shapes to standardize, and what the precise standard should be for each. I myself lean towards being quite liberal about permitting new standard shapes - simply because I like creativity and new ideas - so in the end it may simply come down to collecting and publishing these shape descriptions in an appropriate format. But the main thrust is simply to have definitions for hull shapes that are stable, accessible and usable, permitting modders to create compatibility with others more easily. Some thoughts on what shapes it would make sense to include, sorted by the mod pack where I've seen them (which may not be the originator, please correct me in this case): B9 Aerospace (bac9) S2 S2W HX Mark IV Spaceplane System (Nertea) Mk4 OPT SpacePlane Pack (K.Yeon) Type J Type K Other types will surely come up as well - I know I've seen them, and I know I must have forgotten some also. Really, any hull type part that could be standardized meaningfully is a candidate here. It would provide us with a repository of information on what shapes are used, and prevent insularity among parts mods by making compatibility easier. So, thoughts?
  13. Gotta admit, my programming instincts are screaming for a more graceful way of performing that check. :-) But thank you for that, that means I can have engines light off at the right time. :-)
  14. Simply this: Is there a direct way to access the fuel state via kOS? Or do we need to estimate the time it takes to settle the fuel before lighting engines under the ullage thrust we have?
  • Create New...