Jump to content

acc

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    647

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by acc

    [1.5.0 <-> 1.8.1] Kerbalism v3.2

    in KSP1 Mod Releases

    Posted

    Is there a way to make solar panels work with kerbalism that don't use the stock modules? Trying to get the SSTU panels to work in background simulation.

    Following mm-patch adds the solar panel reliability to them: 

    @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[SSTUSolarPanelDeployable]]:NEEDS[Kerbalism,SSTU]:AFTER[SSTU]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = Reliability
		type = ModuleCurvedSolarPanel
		title = Solar Panel
		redundancy = Power Generation
		repair = true
		mtbf = 36288000
		extra_cost = 2.5
		extra_mass = 1.0
	}
}

    But that doesn't seem to be enough.

    I also did read the docs and been hoping there would be some sort of part module or something that could work around the need of the stock solar panel part module.

    If anyone could help me out there that would be awesome. Thanks.

    [1.5.0 <-> 1.8.1] Kerbalism v3.2

    in KSP1 Mod Releases

    Posted · Edited by acc

    I run in a odd problem on my early space program, where I only have directional solar panels. The Kerbalism calculations for EC seems to not take into account that a craft would align itself to the sun all the time, so I have to jump from craft to craft to make the game recognize that it still has power input. This is especially a big issue when you want to timewarp for a while (as example to finish one or more time based contracts) and on manned vessels, since the life support systems are shutting down.

    Is there a way around this issue? I really like the mod, but it's no fun to jump from vessel to vessel all the time.

    [1.12.x] SXT Continued

    in KSP1 Mod Releases

    Posted

    19 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

    Your conclusion was wrong, and it would nice if you would give someone the benefit of the doubt before making a conclusion.

    I don't mind mistakes being pointed out, but this was rude and uncalled for

    It was meant to be a joke with no intention to be rude. I apologize.

    [1.12.x] SXT Continued

    in KSP1 Mod Releases

    Posted · Edited by acc

    I was wondering why my props don't work (KSP 1.4.1, SXT 0.3.23.2) and I found in Firespitter/Plugins a Firespitter.dll.mdb instead of Firespitter.dll.

    So I would conclude someone @linuxgurugamer has grabbed the wrong file out of the github repo and put it in the latest release :D

    But don't worry, it happens. You're doin a great job maintaining the mod.

    [1.5.0 <-> 1.8.1] Kerbalism v3.2

    in KSP1 Mod Releases

    Posted

    Hey,

    great improvements with the latest update.

    I got a problem: In map screen I can't get the body info window appear again. It disappeared (in version 1.3.2) at some point (or I accidentaly closed it) and I can't find a way to make it show up again. Tried the old Alt+N, reinstalling, updating to the latest version, checking the wiki and google, but no success.

    [WIP][1.8.x] SSTULabs - Low Part Count Solutions (Orbiters, Landers, Lifters) - Dev Thread [11-18-18]

    in KSP1 Mod Development

    Posted

    21 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

    Possibly, in the far future.  I have saved the mesh, and you may see something -similar- in the BaseCore series of parts (though, of course, it will have a flat bottom, and be intended for use on bases, probably as a temporary expansion or emergency shelter of some sort).


    In reality, the BEAM module is useless on the ISS.  They don't use it for... well.. anything, and the airlock is locked at (nearly) all times.  It is there merely for in-space validation and testing of the expandable module concept; to see how well it holds up in space.  At no point is the module scheduled for any real use; no habitation, no equipment, no activities, nothing.

    TL:DR -- I would rather have useful and usable modules on my space station, not prototypes intended only for testing purposes...  (also see the many, many, posts I've made regarding my stance on replica stuff...)

     

     

    I know, it's just for authenticity.

    Guess the ST-HAB-A1 looks also ok-ish as BEAM: Cx49_unXEAAtHA3.jpg

    [WIP][1.8.x] SSTULabs - Low Part Count Solutions (Orbiters, Landers, Lifters) - Dev Thread [11-18-18]

    in KSP1 Mod Development

    Posted · Edited by acc

    @ShadowmageIn a future update, will there be another inflateable hab like the ST-HUB-D? Really miss that thing. Was the BEAM on my ISS replica.

    CxuFaabXgAEn_li.jpg

    49 minutes ago, tater said:

    I was gonna ask which the HAB-D was, as I could not remember, lol. The reality is that it's really a sort of useless, testbed part, though.

     

    I liked it very much. Was also great for radial attachment, without taking so much space like the other inflateable habs.

    [1.1] AFBW v1.7-beta (Joystick & controller mod)

    in KSP1 Mod Releases

    Posted

    4 hours ago, KGEI said:

    This is an amazing mod, I can finally complete complicated maneuvers smoothly! (thank you so much)
    great work.

    Other note: I am using the 'Saikek X52' controller setup, and (I greatly apologize if I missed this in the settings) I was wondering if there is a setting to enable the joystick trigger as the left-click, as I am using this mod in tandem with BD armory and I want to be able to have dogfights without having to switch to the mouse every time I want to shoot something.

    Is this possible or am I sounding like Old-man-using-iphone right now?

    BD armory has a setting menu where you can set the joystick trigger as fire key. I posted a feature suggestion for multiple fire buttons in the BD armory thread

    Devnote Tuesday: On the eighth day before Christmas, Squad gave to me...

    in KSP1 The Daily Kerbal

    Posted

    15 minutes ago, Phineas Freak said:

    In another note, if you want to change it now and not waiting, you can use the following MM patch: 

    
@PHYSICSGLOBALS
{
	%prelaunchDefaultThrottle = 0
}

    And it will make the throttle to default to zero on launch. But i agree, a GUI (like a slider) would be much better.

    oh, nice, thank you. last time I looked into that it was'nt possible. then I'm fine :)

×
×
  • Create New...