EatVacuum
-
Posts
233 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by EatVacuum
-
-
27 minutes ago, Gordon Dry said:
@EatVacuum did you try to check the settings?
I swear to the rocket gods I did, and somehow missed it. I'll look again. Thanks!
-
This may have been answered at some point, but I haven't stumbled across it poking through this topic and the old SR one...
I am playing with a rescakle of x6.4, and with the greater orbital velocity required (7500m/s for low orbit), every stage that makes it into low orbit burns up. I have added heat shields (didn't used to be necessary) and still get the same result. It used to be you could set the velocity settings, but now I get a "Settings are in the stock settings..." message. SO how do I set the velocity limit (DR_velocity?) to a level that is appropriate for rescaled games? There isn't an obvious settings file in the SR folder, there doesn't seem to be an SR scenario in the save file, so where is it hidden?
I love this mod and don't have the time or patience to futz around with FMRS for every launch, and I'd really like to have the automated recovery feature of SR for my campaign. Thanks LGG for maintaining the mod, and I'd appreciate any help from you or the community. Cheers!
-
I decided to play it safe, which is why I didn't offer to post config. But nothing is stopping you from making your own, if you know how.
But I'm not sure about the legalities the first part of the cc by nc-nd 4 license summary includes the statement " You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. " Which would seem to imply you can make changes. But then later it says "If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material."
So now I'm uncertain where the line falls. I tried reading the full length legalese but life is too short and it made my head hurt.
In any case, it runs fine with KSP 1.4.3 as it is in case anyone asks. And rescaling is trivial for personal use.
-
On 5/8/2018 at 3:39 PM, EatVacuum said:
I did this myself a few releases back. But license is all rights reserved so while I think we can post a MM file it doesn't allow us to make new configs or parts except for personal use - no sharing!
Can anyone familiar with the licensing legalities confirm?
I join the refrain - Science Panda please loosen up on the licensing or give it to a volunteet custodian temporarily until you have time to give it the TLC it deserves. I'd hate for this mod to die like many other great ones have.
And @sciencepanda has kindly changed the license to CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
On 3/20/2018 at 1:12 AM, Dankgum said:Well that has to be a problem with the engine then. Are they the DLC parts?
Someone could probably scale it up and recompile the mesh plus config.
If you were to make copies of the pad and the "mast 2.5m" part configs, and then go into each and change rescaleFactor to be 2.0, you can make two new parts that have double the dimensions of the originals. I'm pretty sure that using those two doubled parts in combination would fit a 5m vessel perfectly. Of course, the actual tower might look small on the double sized pad, or look way to tall and thin if your rocket is tall, in which case you might want to rescale the tower slices as well.
-
If you can't be bothered to scan just the last few posts before asking a question why would you expect anyone to take the time to answer?
Only a couple of posts up from yours there are two posts mentioning engines and SRBs missing when you try the current stockalike with Real Fuels.
But anyway stockalike engine configs are here...
But Raptor hasn't updated for 1.4.3 and the current Real Fuels so back up your saves before trying it.
-
On 5/22/2018 at 11:33 PM, Austinator48 said:
IMHO I think it should be a lot higher then that, they are engineers after all. (Is there a way to make a config file to edit that amount? and if so what would be the variable?)
Maybe 10% plus 10% per level of engineer? Even one fresh out of university and astronaut camp should make a difference. But more experienced Engineers shoud also make more difference. Scotty could probably cludge a fix for a broken transporter from a rubber band, two paper clips and and his pocket lint so a level 5 Kerbal engineer should make a major difference IMHO.
-
They haven't updated the Real Fuels thread yet but RF 12.7.0 is up as latest version on their Github as of two days ago.
Being an optimist I tried it with the current RF stockalike config and something is borked, most of the engines are MIA. But that was expected - there were posts on the RF thread reporting the same issue. Also mentions of lots of parts throwing nullrefs, method exceptions and the like.
I certainly wouldn't expect to see an update this mod until Raptor has a stable release of RF to work with.
-
I play 6.4x rescaled Kerbin, so I don't us RSS or RO, just RF with Raptor's Real Fuels stockalike configs (and Real plumes). I am also seeing most of the liquid fuel engines and SRBs missing as well. But RF Stockalike hasn't been updated for KSP 1.4.3 and the latest RF version so I expect that was the issue.
If I remove RFSA but keep RF the engines and SRBs show up and everything works fine although the engines are back on a diet of liquid fuel and oxidizer of course.
-
On 3/20/2018 at 1:12 AM, Dankgum said:
Someone could probably scale it up and recompile the mesh plus config.
I did this myself a few releases back. But license is all rights reserved so while I think we can post a MM file it doesn't allow us to make new configs or parts except for personal use - no sharing!
Can anyone familiar with the licensing legalities confirm?
I join the refrain - Science Panda please loosen up on the licensing or give it to a volunteet custodian temporarily until you have time to give it the TLC it deserves. I'd hate for this mod to die like many other great ones have.
-
To be fair he didn't remove the poodle, he put the Wolfhound model on the poodle stats. I've always thought the Poodle engine model was the worse in Squads line up. The engine was good, it was just ugly and wrong. High efficiency vacuum engines have large engine bells for a reason.
This thing looks like the PAM-D, a solid propellant engine used to boost satellites when it should look like the SPS engine on the Apollo service module. Put onto an Apollo analogue in KSP it just looks wrong. Butt ugly in fact. It's just one of many reasons to go with KW Rocketry to get a more realistic equivalent. Or Ven's Stock Revamp to replace it and other unsatisfactory Squad models with better looks.
All in all I think this is a good simple solution.
-
On 05/04/2018 at 7:43 PM, SpacePilotMax said:
It's called Near Future Technologies and it's a free mod. Also SpaceY for the lifters. As for colonization, it's a feature that should have been in the stock game as far as I'm concerned, exists in the form of USI and is too much of a platform feature like parachutes.
And again - official KSP content is supported forever, at least as long as KSP itself is supported. On the other had many beloved mods have disappeared when the modder drops out. To be fair those with open licenses often get new lives when someone else picks them up, but not all. I've been playing KSP since 0.18 and I've seen lots of mods retired. So I don't think "It's already in a mod" is a particularly valid argument.
-
I prefer the clean white look of the new parts. I was never fond of the "repurposed junk yard parts" look of early KSP parts or even the cleaner grayish ones. Over time KSP parts have gotten better, I just see this as being the next stage. With the texture flipping function I think they should just add more textures so everyone can choose their preference. Kerbal grey, NASA white and black, bare metal and cryogenic orange at the very least should be available for all tanks.
-
On 01/01/2018 at 3:03 PM, ZooNamedGames said:
I don't want to remove the existing royalty free tracks, just add more so that additional audio tracks can be heard as the game is played.
But yet you specifically titled it "Ditch the Royalty Free Music". Kind of a mixed message.
Personally I love Kevin Macleod's music, I've got over 2,000 hours in game and I still like it. I even went to the Incompetech site and downloaded all the tracks and many more for my own listening pleasure and for use in my own RPG.
I would not say no to themed music for each planet, but then I am a big fan of Holst
. More is always good, having alternate tracks would be good, although I'd like to be able to switch out anything I don't like. Or flip back to classic KSP music at times. Hmmm, there was a mod that did this, and now I want to go find it. But having it in stock would be good.
The "Hold a song contest" idea is great. They should put that up in the Daily Kerbal as something different than the usual challenges. I can't compose, but I will listen and vote if it becomes a thing.
-
I like the idea of DLC to make good I.S.S. style space stations and have them actually useful. The current mobile processing lab does give a reason to build stations, but It's both OP for science gain and also not particularly fun. The getting science and bringing it back part is fun and challenging, but at the space station It's just absorb it, set it processing and then leave and wait days or weeks 'til the science tank is full. Then a quick visit to the station to transmit... and done.
Give us more science to do there, reasons to EVA and anything else to make space stations interesting and fun. You could call the DLC "Makin' Stations!".
The exact same applies for bases. Give us more to do on the surface, ongoing activities for the bases. I'd really like to see actual colonization of Duna and Laythe as an extended mission arc. That would be a great addon mission pack for a Base-themed DLC. But it would need life support, greenhouses and so on, so not a small undertaking.
Yes I know you can find much of this in mods, and I do use them. But it should be in stock. Great mods can be abandoned...maybe not while Linuxgurugamer is around but he could burn out one day. Once in stock it will be there as long as KSP is.
-
This should be moved, It's not a suggestion or a development thing. It's a mod change so it should be in add-ns section somewhere.
-
On 08/02/2016 at 12:19 AM, Temstar said:
And that's precisely the reason why I wouldn't want it in stock.
Not a good arguement I'm afraid. You can always not use the autopilot functionality but why would you want to deny it to others? I detest people who think their way is the only right way to play the game. And that is your whole argument.
From a developer/business sales point of view the more approachable the game is the more people will keep playing. Which means more potential sales of DLC down the road. A higher activity level and good comments and ratings in Steam also means more purchases by Steam members. So every player who stops playing, or who doesn't buy it because it is too hard is lost $$$. The same is true if It's too easy.
Simply put the option to have autopilot like features of a stock mechjeb into the difficulty options where other things that make the game harder or easier already exist addresses the issue for those who want it hard and those who want it easy. Everybody wins!
-
It is a great looking model, although as mentioned it is proportionately smaller compared to the Mark 1-3 capsule than the real world LEM is to the Apollo capsule. It also apparently is only meant to be married to the junior docking port, the full size clampotron just doesn't work visually, totally ruining the otherwise great esthetics of the model. But while the Clampotron junior looks OK on the MEM, it really doesn't work well on the Mark-1-3 capsule, only the full sized docking port works there, although that can be addressed with an intermediate piece - stacking a small clampotron on top of the full size one works, and allows for the capsule to dock with both the MEM and (after detaching the junior) any station you have that uses regular size ports.
But ignoring the esthetics, It does seem to have gotten at best a quick, or no pass at all through the old QA team, it is borked in at least three ways that impact actual gameplay.
1) As already mentioned, the RCS is unbalanced and it needs a CoM fix - using the "horizontal" plane (I,J,K,L or WASD key depending on your preference) translational thrusters produces a torque causing rotational spin in the opposed direction. While it is not terrible when SAS is on, it continually fires the RCS to fix the rotation, wasting fuel and making your docking maneouvers a little trickier. It is horribly obvious with SAS off, so much so that I have to wonder if any of the devs actually flew the MEM while working on it, let alone passed it by any actual QA testers or beta testers. It's hard to believe that this problem would have escaped even a casual play through of a Munar landing with orbital maneouvering, let alone any actual docking maneouvers. Miving the CoM upwards will fix this.
2) Not specifically mentioned previously - the RCS is also not centred with the CoM in the horizontal plane, so if you fire the RCS thrusters for movement forward or aft (the H,N keys), you get rotational torque causing yaw. Adjusting the CoM so the RCS is balanced will move the CoM horizontally, which means it will be offset from the centre of thrust of any engine placed on the normal attachment point, which will cause torque using the engine. That would be worse than having the RCS unbalanced as it will cause torque and yaw or pitch rotation issues during powered ascents from the surface or when using the engine for orbital maneuvering. Using the move tool to offset the engine to get the thrust aligned is frustrating and fiddly, so you probably won't get it perfect. And then, assuming your descent stage is balanced itself, it in turn will have to be adjusted to get its center of thrust back under the CoM. The only good fix is for the devs to rebalance the thrusters.
3) Doing an EVA does send the MEM flipping as previously mentioned, but that is the case with some other manned parts, so it is hardly unique although it does seem to be worse than most. This is not a big deal as you don't have to EVA to transfer crew back and forth for a classic munar mission, but it is an inconvenience if you want to use it for any operations that do require EVAs.
If I were a KSC engineer, this part would not pass inspection, it would get sent back to Sean's Cannery for a rebuild. Looks like it's back to my old ugly squat lander with the Mk2 lander can for now.
-
I'd recommend keeping the slightly shiny "satin" finish, it's more appealing and makes it easier to see against a black sky. If anything, I'd prefer that the Lima get a bit of a polish to make it's finish match this one.
On another note, is anyone using it in 1.4.1 and if so, is it working great, minor issues or totally borked? I love HGR for the Soyuz-like parts so it's still a "must have" mod even with the new official Squad 1.875m Squad parts.
-
3 hours ago, Agnemon said:
Don't thank him, pay him
https://www.patreon.com/linuxgurugamer
For a list of his work load look at this
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1vS3F56EmMcfPgLPiMJrmlGo_Op1iLJoxYoEarnXpVNg/edit#gid=0
3 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:I have this fixed
@linuxgurugamer - Really, 11 hours to make the fix, that is unacceptable! <-- NOT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. Really, what do you do, just sit there 24/7 monitoring the several dozens of threads for all your supported apps?
I would love to throw you some $$$$. But I've been burned a few times so now I avoid giving my regular card info to most online payment systems, using no-name third party ATMS, small retailers in foreign countries etc.
I'll try to see about picking up a prepaid credit card, but I'd rather drop a single significant one-time payment though rather than the $1 monthly that seems to be the only option on your Patreon page. And perhaps further payments each time a KSP update breaks them all or whenever you rescue a new abandoned mod I'm fond of.
-
Quick question, is anyone else seeing the particle effects on the Mk1 RCS quad and quad 45 "reversed"?
I've been playing highly modded KSP 1.2.x for some time, always with KWR 3.1.2 for ages with no issues. I switched over to try Making History (KSP 1.4.1) and installed KW Rebalanced 3.2.5.1. And BTW thank Linuxgurugamer for maintaining this (and so many other) must have mods.
So here's my question - is anyone seeing reversed plumes but normal behaviour on the KW RCS? When I press "H" the RCS jets shoot forward instead of towards the rear, but the vessel accelerates as normal, prsseing "N" results in jets firing rearwards, but deceleration occurs. Ditto for the other rotational/translational controls.I was playing with a bunch of mods, but I stripped them all out, went back to vanilla KSP 1.4.1 install and added just KWRR and I still see it.
The plumes also seem a fair bit larger than I recall for the version I was using before, but that could be just my recollection, it's the direction issue that matters.
I didn't see any exceptions so not adding a log file. Apologies if this has already been raise, but wanted to ask around before dashing off to work.
-
Shouldn't this have been posted in the KIS/KAS threads for the mods rather than creating a new thread?
-
Here's my current 6.4k rescale campaign's Kerbin Station, still being assembled but I'm going for I.S.S.-like. A mixture of stock, Station Science, M.O.L.E. and Habtech parts for the station, and HGR for the "Soyuz" type capsules.
-
ok, so thread thoroughly hijacked.
Ohh, what the heck...
“People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff.”
Blink - imho best Doctor Who episode and possibly best time travel loop TV show ever!!!!
Teaser --> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCndqkETn3I
-
5 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:
Has anyone ever been able to contact the author of HGR? Very frustrating to maintain MM patches, I used to do it for KWRocketry, but was able to merge all patches since the license allowed.
Be a real shame to see this mod die over time
I messaged him back in January 2016 asking him to change the license to something more permissive or turn it over to me to at least baby sit until he came back but never got a response. I was so happy when Kerbas started a community fix for this, I was days away from it myself. And I doubt I would have done it nearly as well.
. More is always good, having alternate tracks would be good, although I'd like to be able to switch out anything I don't like. Or flip back to classic KSP music at times. Hmmm, there was a mod that did this, and now I want to go find it. But having it in stock would be good.
[1.8.1-1.12.x] Modular Launch Pads v2.6.1: Launch clamps evolved: Real-style launch bases and towers [03 July 2023]
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted · Edited by EatVacuum
incomplete
I would suggest you write a cfg file to change the "TechRequired = X" line to be "TechRequired = Start" for each part you want to use. I don't think you need to get into putting them all into particular tech nodes to use them. When you have the tech for the rockets, just assume you would have the tech to build the launchpads that fit them.