Neowulf

Members
  • Content Count

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About Neowulf

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. Record the throttle state then zero it out when airpark is engaged, and reset it when disengaged. Probably best to only do this with manual airpark as autoparked vessels won't have a live pilot to deal with thrust differences as their jet engines ramp up. Alternately, what happens if you add a vessel.landed = false into ToggleAirPark() right before or after the setvelocity? Just to be sure the game know the vessel is definitely flying again.
  2. Nice. This is something I've poked at as an academic curiosity, as a way to root airships from the hooligan labs mod. Your method is much simpler/better than what I was looking at. My thought was to create a physics-less object (no collision, no visible model) at the same place as apart with the parking module and create a strong joint between them. The invisible anchor doesn't move relative to the parent body and the vessel is held into place by normal joint forces. It's an old gaming physics trick and I have confirmed this is the same method KIS/KAS uses to create ground anchors. Though I was under the impression the game would reset a vessel's position back to ground level when loaded, to compensate for position rounding in the save file.
  3. Could solve the issue with a little bit of extra logic. If a magnet is attached to or near the part it adds to the mass limit. Landed, divide the mass of the magnet's vessel by the gravity of the body and add 1/3rd that to the mass limit of the kerbal. In orbit, same as landed but count the gravity as 0.01G and add the full amount to the limit. Yes the system could be gamed, but it would be much cooler to build construction tugs and cranes
  4. KSP physics doesn't like chaining flat panel connections?
  5. Mulch is the waste of USI-LS. Kerbals + supplies = mulch, mulch + power (+fertilizer, optional) = supplies. USI-LS is more about a simple limit on kerbal mission duration instead of a realistic one. Mulch recycles back into supplies at 50% efficiency without fertilizer, and 120% with it.
  6. Could use a static solar part that snaps onto a node and sits just above the cargo as you have it shown. Or maybe deployable but non-tracking. Buffalo sounds good. Oxen would be another possibility, since the covered wagons were pulled by oxen.
  7. I just pulled the text from the wiki, so the data probably is off. Stock mining can be economy breaking, yes. But if you factor in time it's not that big of a deal. Say you have the 2 resource for construction: Cheap costs 67 funds per ton, and Expensive costs 1,760,000 funds per ton. If your mining drill and converter can churn out 1 ton of Cheap in 1 in hour, then tune it so it takes 26,260 hours to produce 1 ton of Expensive. Net effect is mining for profit takes you a lot of time, and cheaper rockets are faster to get the resources for. Balance for funds/time and the only difference between the resources to a profit miner is the size and weight of the resulting cargo. But to a player actually playing the mod it rewards low cost parts as mass/time is skewed towards cheaper parts. In the time it takes to mine enough Expensive to make 1 gravmax you have mined enough Cheap to churn out 352 I-Beams.
  8. I just did it by sight initially, but I did just copy&paste most of the data from the wiki into a google docs sheet. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1O7ismmzFr07c59wTH0-MlwXNoc3dQ279YHUo4D803fQ/edit?usp=sharing Does not include fuel tanks (a royal pain to re-edit all the cost values) or the heat shields (wonky data there, one is entirely ablator costs). Probably should have left out the solid boosters instead of adding their dry mass and cost values. Funds/ton is rounded up to make it easier to read. I'll add the fuel tanks after work tonight. And if you want to treat solid booster fuel/heat shield ablator as normal construction mass I can add/fix those entries. Quick look and more than half the parts are in the 1000-10,000 funds/ton range. But it is pretty spread out.
  9. Checking the wiki parts list of stock parts shows a massive difference in funds/ton (dry weight). M-Beam 200 I-Beam is the cheapest at 66.66funds per ton. GRAVMAX Negative Gravioli Detector is the most expensive at 880,000funds per ton. Using 2 resources covering those extremes it is possible to mix them so the funds and mass cost of the input materials matches the output product. That closes any economy breaking exploits.
  10. I installed this awhile ago and just now noticed it's supposedly non-career friendly. And having extraplanetary launchpads installed as well I really don't see why not. Sure you can break the economy by creating parts and recovering them, but any mining mod can do that. Just play the game rather than trying to break it and this is a wonderful mod to have right now.
  11. Please tell me you have a set of parts planned to make a western settler's wagon style rover? Something that looks like a covered wagon and has enough internal storage/cargo mount points to move a full camp between locations.
  12. Is it strange that when I noticed this mod, my daughter was watching this in the background?
  13. Nice. I love the look of bases made out of half spheres. Thanks for doing this.
  14. Suggestion: Cut the labcore module and trim the labexperiment module down to just eat defined resources and triggers an experiment on activation. Then insight production can be covered by the stock resource system. Could use ModuleResourceConverter with specialist bonuses for scientists, or a planetary_resource and extractor with insight concentrations spread out. Bonus points for making the lab module generic, so you just define an experiment to run and the resource amounts to consume. Might be faster now to just fix the insight generator code, but going forward a simplified plugin would be easier to maintain.
  15. Not really a feature request, just a statement of possibility in response to Greschosskopf. I'm well aware such a system would be more complex and processor consuming than the current setup. And it would thematically fit remotetech more anyway.