• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

571 Excellent

1 Follower

About AlamoVampire

  • Rank
    I Am Broken

Profile Information

  • Location Waiting at the other side of the Rainbow Bridge
  • Interests I miss my beloved kitty.

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. AlamoVampire

    Uncontrolled Destructive Staging

    So I take this to mean I am either bonkers or idk ...? op 20:46:30
  2. Ok, lets get this started. Mods in Use: MechJeb, SpaceY, SpaceY Expanded, Cacteye, Chatterer, Docking Port Alignment Indicator, Procedural Fairings, Reentry Particle Effects, KIS, KAS, Planetary Base. Note: ALL mods are up to current standards for KSP 1.3.0. Issue: MechJeb is failing to stage the first stage away, requiring manual staging, then, when the action group to discharge the payload fairing it suddenly decides it wants to engage the sepatrons which destroys a portion of my payload rendering it entirely useless. I post this here, as, the game is not generating a log that I can find, and the console depicted in the final images shows no errors either. Is anyone encountering this themselves or have some clue as to what is going on? Personal Supposition: I think either my craft is borked some how, or something is going on with mechjeb. Or its a kraken. I honestly do not know. Craft File (NOTE: if you wish to explore my craft to see this for yourself, you require: MechJeb, Procedural Fairings, Cacteye telescope) For ease of helping, I will remove the spaceY launch clamps): Secondary Note: Sorry for the lack of an album, but, I am told the new forum upgrade broke the imgur albums, so, heres a string of images. It should be noted, one the first stage is cut lose, I begin taking pictures once a second until manual deployment of the payload fairing. I have never had MechJeb do this. I have used it since I discovered it back in KSP 0.21, and never had need to command it to stop short of any stages. Initial Post Posting Edit Note of additional Information: I just tried something. I tore off the boost stage, leaving the final orbital stage/payload intact. I replaced the mechjeb unit, zeroed the mainsails thrust and launched. I found that even if I manually stage the thing using space bar, the moment that fairing is deployed and mechjeb is active, it instantly fires the sepatrons. IF I use the action group or manually stage with mechjeb OFFLINE the sepatrons do not engage. Secondary Post Posting Edit Note of additional additional Information: I just altered the vehicle again, moving the mechjeb unit up onto the payload itself. This had no effect on the aforementioned issue. Tertiary Post Posting Edit Note of additional additional additional Information: I found I was missing a probe core on the payload. Thought adding one would fix it along with swapping to stock sepatrons. It did allow for control of the payload post undocking on orbit, but, the sepatrons are still being fired by the mechjeb. cause remains unknown. Images: On the pad: Initial Ascent: Stage One MECO, This image and all the rest to follow are taken roughly at 1 to 1.5 second intervals: MechJeb is now just sitting there as we coast: MechJeb still sitting there doing nothing as we coast: I press 1 button, action group 1 to deploy the payload fairing, suddenly mechjeb wakes up and cooks the payload: I have 0 clue what is going on here. I have never seen mechjeb do this since I first found it way back at 0.21. I wish I knew what was going on. And before someone asks if I have an output log, no, no I do not, as it has not created one. The last log I see that has the title of output log is from october 2016, and thats in both the KSP_Data and KSP_X64_Data folders. If I am not looking in the correct place to find one dated for September 4, 2017 please guide me to it, and I will gladly file dropper it into this post with a big ol edit showing it off. I will try to coax the kraken out of hiding as those who know more than I take a look see. OP 23:57:30 first edit time: 00:05:30 second edit time: 00:08:30 third edit time: 00:29:30 fourth edit: 11:06:30 fifth edit: 15:27:30 sixth edit: 9-6-17 18:42:30
  3. AlamoVampire

    Cheating; A meditation on it's definition in modded KSP

    Not counting challenges nothing is cheating. Cheating is a means of gaining an unfair advantage by any means outside the convention of preset agreed upon rules over another player. That is the definition of cheating I have always followed. In short: cheating in KSP if cheating (outside of challenges) is possible only cheats you out of the sense of accomplishment. Op 06:11:30
  4. AlamoVampire

    Forum Colour Schemes ?

    Why? Why cant we just have options? I liked the old color scheme. When I first saw this new look, I seriously thought my phone had broken or I had a bad connection to the forum. I reloaded the page 10-20 times, restarted it a few times. This new look as I have said before is just too sterile, its like being in a laboratory or something... I just know its killing my eyes op 23:47:30
  5. AlamoVampire

    Ask the Mods questions about the Forums!

    I have an honest question: Why does the forum keep changing? I get making things more secure and stuff like that, but, why the aesthetic changes? Just curious. op 23:38:30
  6. AlamoVampire

    Ask the Mods questions about the Forums!

    @qzgy Annd the bubble of hope goes pop lol. Thanks for the clarification. With that I also cast my vote for a way to choose how the forum looks on our end. Mobile and desktop op 19:37:30
  7. AlamoVampire

    Ask the Mods questions about the Forums!

    Can that not be done on mobile, im not seeing on mobile this new layout is too sterile and painful to me op 19:31:30
  8. AlamoVampire

    Ask the Mods questions about the Forums!

    I thought my phone broke when I saw this ugly new look. Now to see if I can make it look like the older version, that looked nice. This <sweeps hand> is too sterile. I like it not at all. op 18:56:30
  9. AlamoVampire

    25km auto delete?

    @Physics Student I have been here on KSP since version 0.21 op 00:21:30
  10. AlamoVampire

    25km auto delete?

    @bewing Thanks for the info, makes things more clear op01:52:30
  11. AlamoVampire

    25km auto delete?

    Ok, I have a question about the distance required for auto delete of debris and so forth as the main vessel flies away. It has been stated by any number of players and devs that 25km distance is enough to make debris and the like go poof and be auto deleted. I have trusted this number for years, but, the other day, I spotted quite accidentally something that has prompted this question. Ok, so, here is what was going on: I was sending up a mission to my space station, routine as routine gets. By some dumb accident of timing <I guess timing is as good as coincidence?> my boosters held out long enough to stay with the vessel almost to the point where I was ready for the coasting phase to the AP, mechjeb dumps the boosters as they burned out and 2-3 seconds later the vessel orients itself for the circularizing burn and mechjeb hits the auto-warp to take me to the the burn. I look below my vessel and I see 8 items in a neat oval below me: As you see they range in distance from around under 20km to almost 30km away. THIS is where my question stems: I have seen things travel to 25km and delete, and now, I have seen them make it to basically 30km away <this doesnt count launch clamps as I have seen those stick to the pad with me nearly 60km away, i think, THINK they are counted differently, but, may be wrong there>, so, my question is: Is the 25km distance hard and fast, or basically an averaged distance that is a nice figure to work with? Not a pressing issue, just something I found curious and was wondering about. Thoughts? op 00:32:30
  12. AlamoVampire

    Deleting Kerbals

    @bewing Sir, I just did a fast experiment about the Astronaut Complex cycling the retired kerbals out, I did it X2 <the in/out of the complex> and it seemed that was sufficient to remove the retired kerbal. op 00:22:30 edit: Concerning kerbals like Valentina, it would seem once you retire a "veteran" one in/out of the complex is all it takes to remove them from the roster. neat bit of info i think edit time 00:35:30
  13. AlamoVampire

    Multiplayer in version 1.5

    @razark First of all, if you are talking a limit of 4-5 players max, you STILL have some problems. Part count is still a massive issue. If you set it as a server rule that no one can go above X parts on a single vessel, you run into a few problems. Even 5 ships at say a max of 30 parts is still 150 parts, and take my mission in the picture a few posts up. That thing once it cut the external boosters off was STILL 170 parts to lift a truss for a station, that truss was 17 parts. The station its on is now 107 parts. If you set a part limit cap for the player with the weakest machine, you limit the ability to do much of anything beyond LKO. I personally cannot seem to get beyond kerbin SOI with less than 100 parts w/out unlimited fuels. Is this a function of bad design, idk, but, i know, a decent mission with enough dV to go to, do stuff come back = part counts above a reasonably small number maximum for multiple users to not hit the playability on the weakest link. The example I keep using with the so called rant is valid. Pure and simple. Why? Simple. They had the blueprint on how it can be done properly, they went 180 degrees away from that. To me, and this is where my example matters, as with what this is, its a matter of OPINION using facts as we see them, that in my opinion they did a horrificly BAD job making fairings, and considering the horrific job, again in MY opinion, I see no hope for them to pull this off in a good way. Now, lets look at YOUR example, of how you and your friends do MP. If you are using a local area network, which from your description that is precisely what you are using, that works for you, and thats awesome. However, why should Squad put money into something, you are doing free of charge via LAN or what the mod DMP also does free of charge? BUT, lets say for giggles they choose to invest time in it. Lets say they make it work some how. WHO will be financially responsible for the upkeep of the new hardware making this possible? You? Me? Take Two? Squad? Who? See, I may not be an IT guy, but, I know enough to know, it takes hardware to make something work. For multiplayer to work, and lets just go big picture and forget individual sessions with X players in it. Lets assume that there are THOUSANDS of players who want to play KSP in a multiplayer environment. How many server blades will be needed to handle it? Will they be dedicated to ONLY that? Will they also be responsible for holding and handling transactions with the store? How will that affect those servers? Will they then charge us a 1 time fee? Weekly? Monthly? Yearly? How much? Will I as a steam user be able to connect with my friend who bought KSP via the website? Will HE have to pay a fee to use multiplayer, but as a steam user I get it free? Other way around? what about GoG users? What about console users who may want to play with PC users? How will they make it cross platform compatible? That isnt easy far as I know. What about those who had this game gifted to them from any of the sources? What about me? I will NEVER use this multiplayer, will I be forced to pay for a service I will never use? What then? Im not being panicy or conspiratorial here, these are valid concerns that cannot be dismissed as easily as one would with any of my other points. Financial concerns such as these are a HUGE bear hiding in the shadows. Now, lets say, they say, they wont charge a fee. How exactly will they pay the bills to keep this going? Someone, somewhere will need to foot the bill for the electricity to run the servers, the cooling of said servers and so on. Sure its fun to dream big, I do it all the time with my lego's, even right now, across the room from me in my chair, my lego saturn v is to the left of my tv screen and a lego UCS sandcrawler is to my tv's right, and I dream the adventures they inspire all the time, but, one must also see the troubles ahead, dont let the dream cloud the reality. op 02:51:30 Edit: brass tacks bottom line: I have said all that I have to say on this. I think for KSP 1, mp is a bad idea. You do not. Fair enough. But I now withdraw from this thread, as we will most likely not agree which is ok, I wish you the best. edit time 03:40:30
  14. AlamoVampire

    What did you do in KSP today?

    I used this launcher: to add a 17 part truss segment <the truss seen with the large radiator> to the station: gotta love raw overkill! Further, I used the claw on an RCS tug, which was 8 RCS blocks <stock ones>, the 2.5m probe core, the 2.5m RCS tank to move that 17 part truss. Never in my life have I been so proud or had such a clear appreciation for docking port alignment indicator. With out that 1 mod, that truss would NOT have arrived as well aligned as you see it in that picture. op 01:17:30 edit time 01:31:30
  15. AlamoVampire

    Multiplayer in version 1.5

    @razark With all respects, I see no way in KSP as it is now, a game that was by its designers own admission designed to be single player would be able to be retrofitted in a meaningful way to make multiplayer workable this far down the road from where this game came from. Have the points of trolls, mods, part counts been addressed? Yes. BUT, how do you fix those issues in a way that works, and works in a way that does NOT harm the game? More over, as the most common suggestion to say trolls as an example, is to use smaller or private servers. Ok, I will bite, even Battlefield 1 has rented servers that can be done. BUT, they have time scales for the lease, something like 30, 60, 90, 180 days for increasing amounts of money. This is fine on BF1 if the entire squad <read here as the unit of players who represent the same guild for want of a better description at 00:42 am lol> are willing to share the costs. Seeing as, in all bluntness, this isnt Squad's property but Take Two's property now, I seriously, seriously do not see this game following BF1's path of private servers. I see it, if it happens at all for THIS KSP that is, following more along the lines of Grand Theft Auto V's GTA Online, where you get something like 27-32ish players on a sessions, which, being a GTAO player, knowing that player base, makes Trolls a more than certainty. Lets look at time warp. Has THIS been addressed? Yes. But, not one, as far as I can tell, not one suggestion has been a viable one that does not inadvertently screw something up for one or more players. Some suggest it being a sync'd thing, well, what happens when if YOU time warp, but, i choose not to, and then who's session is the game/server is the dominant one when it comes to where each planet, each moon, each asteroid, each vessel in ALL players game are being drawn from? Mine? Yours? Some one elses? How does it cope with that many variables that doesnt make connections alone a night mare? Right now as I type this, I ran a ookla speed test, with the following results for my connection: 19ms ping, 235.20 MBPS UPLOAD, 23.48 MBPS DOWNLOAD, how do these numbers compare to you? To another player? Lets look at part count, I just did this: As this was in flight, it was showing my mission clock as YELLOW. Once those external boosters were dumped, I was still at 170 parts, STILL yellow. Sure my FPS were fine, but, double that part count? Triple it? What about 10 times that part count? When I finished that mission, the station it went to went from 90 to 107 parts, mission timer was green after departure and the cargo vessel in that picture was gone beyond physics range, and this is just on MY machine with 1 player, me. What now happens when I join you? Lets say your mission clock goes yellow at 300 parts, red at oh 700 as a random guess. Ok, so, you say YOUR parts are non physics calculated parts, ok, I can run with that, its a painting to me. What about when I dock to that nice station of yours? That thing suddenly is part of me and I am now apart of IT, and NOW, everything is physics calculated. I suddenly went from able to move easy to a fly stuck on fly paper. How do you handle this? I have not seen a workable suggestion to this. Now, onto point 4. You are 50% correct in that I hate stock fairings. However you missed the point I was making. Possibly because I may not have elucidated it well enough. Let me do so now: This game thanks to FAR had need the need of fairings, which Procedural Fairings and its creator were more than happy to provide us with. He/She gave a handy guide to how they work. The fairings in PF are simple to use, easy to replicate and simple to understand. They are the gold standard. I am not even getting into the inter stage apolo-esque fairings that serve as fuselage here, just basic: protect the payload from wind aspect only. Squad decided much to the joy of lets say most players, decided it was time to update the aerodynamic model to something a little more.... realistic. This was/is basically FAR lite, the fun of aerodynamics that are realistic with out them being SO real that it drives players away. They then said: Well, with the new aerodynamics we need fairings. For what ever reason <I am not privy to why PF was not folded in, they never, as far as I know, explicitly said why it wasnt> they chose to ignore the gold standard blueprint on how to do the following: 1. Make them understandable. 2. Make them easy to use. 3. Make them easy to duplicate. 4. Make them function on mission in a realistic way. 4A. They eventually, kinda, sorta did by adding in a toggle that MUST BE CLICKED EACH TIME you use the things, that make them do what Procedural Fairings do on deploy: Clam Shell. If they <opinion on quality here> could not make a stock fairing that was at LEAST as easy and friendly to use and understand fairing when again, the gold standard was there as the prime example <and truth be told here, nothing in this world is wholly original any more, regardless of what it is, we see something that has been done, and go: I can do that, and emulate it and then add our touch, fairings here, should have been no different> to go by, they gave us something that was instead, beyond unintuitive, absurdly difficult to reproduce should a major edit to the payload be needed, and beyond unrealistic <even given the artistic license this game takes on realism> default <now at least, no matter how often you tell it to stop potato chipping> potato chip deployment. It beggars you to believe that, with only DMP as a multiplayer blueprint, that even by those who use it admissions is not the best method of achieving multiplayer in this game that, again, this far along in this games life be able to achieve a decent multiplayer. This game as we know, and as I have said is now owned by TT, and frankly, given what I see on GTAO that scares me for what KSP multiplayer could be. @Joseph Kerman Question for you: Before using the stock, did you spend significant time using Procedural? I started using them for aesthetic reasons back around KSP 0.22 or so, and by time the stocks came out, the expectation, the understanding of what fairings are for KSP was set. When you spend years using what amounts to near perfection, the slap to the face of stock is jarring to say the least, and to be kind about it. The lack of explanations in the game on how the stock work are just one in a litany of reasons. op 01:12:30