Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

151 Excellent

About Kurtvw

  • Rank
    Knower of the Things!

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. This thread wins the 'King of the Trolls' award. I hope I don't get sued for failing to deliver an actual award.
  2. Ok, @Tabris, you probably just kicked me in the skull in the precisely correct fashion. While I'm pretty familiar with the USI stuff, this was my first few flights with LifeSupport. Based on the way I read the instructions, I thought that the presence of the hab was all that was necessary. But, I just now reinstalled and threw it on the pad, and hey, I'm stupid, there is a button to start the hab. OK, erase the last day, I'm a freakin' moron. Thanks for all you do @RoverDude, I'll get back to playing with this and probably enjoy it a lot more now that I'm among the enlightened.
  3. @RoverDude I totally understand, I don't program kerbal stuff, but I am a programmer in my day job - And as this discussion is evolving I'm starting to think this was a bug anyhow and not about the intended mechanics. I had a hab that provides 25 months (if memory serves), and 2 kerbals, so that should have been 12.5 total months. The mission was perhaps 20 days total. Everyone was perfectly happy until I decoupled the hab for re-entry. I still have the craft file if you want to have a look at it, or if it might help you. Just let me know.
  4. @RoverDude The version is current as applied by CKAN it was 7.0.0. It was a minmus flight and it wasn't terribly long, but they were beyond their capsule only limit, so they had a 2 man crew cabin in there, (the stock one).... We weren't anywhere near the many months of hab time that module brings. It was 2 kerbals with 2 seats in the capsule (Salamander) and 2 empty seats in the hab As soon as it decoupled the trouble started. I didn't know you had a previous similar bug, this may be that same thing, because what was described by the other poster was exactly what happened.
  5. Hardly moot for an uninstall, a reinstall could happen in 30 seconds. The config limits really aren't what I'm driving at. I know that is adjustable... But a distance from home as a hard line only makes sense to a programmer. In real world experience, Bob, if you were on your way home from Singapore, would you just stop trying because it takes too darn long? "I'm just so far away, and I know I'm headed home, but jeez, six more hours is too much, I quit" I'm wondering if there is some way you can soften it in the mod? I get that programmatically it's hard to choose a boundary lin
  6. @RoverDude I love most of this mod. But I wanted to share with you a corner that kinda bugs me and caused me to uninstall. Ok - So for instance supplies, we know the numbers, we can plan them and work them and if we run out our kerbals get snotty and stop working, that part makes sense and works great. ... But as it applies to 'Homesick' there is a problem... and the problem is that you can have a kerbal quit working while minutes away from getting home, and that doesn't make sense at all. Tonite I had a pair of kerbals coming home in a capsule with a hab space attached... prior to
  7. @Badie You need to define the 'and back' part... Landing on Kerbin? Is crash ok? Or just back to Kerbin SOI?
  8. Here is a totally useless, but dead sexy little all stock SSTO I made today, just for giggles.. It can transport one Kerbal to space and back, and not an ounce more. Fun little plane with no functional purpose.
  9. @cliffdover If you're really just looking to go direct to the meat without the fun of vaporizing a lot of little green Kerbals, check out Scott Manley's kerbal tutorials on YouTube. But really, sometimes its more fun just to break stuff until you learn how not to break stuff. You can't win KSP, the fun is in the doing.
  10. The plan, Similar to 'The Martian' was to land at the ascent vehicle which was previous landed autonomously. The Ascent vehicle came down well short of it's planned landing site due to 'operator error' (me)... It is in a high mountainous area, but did land safely (to my great surprise). The team (Jeb and Bob Kerman) were to land, deploy their rover and drive to the Ascent Vehicle which would be 'near by', which I was hoping would be a couple kilometers. I then set them up for the same approach I used to land the Ascent Vehicle, completely forgetting they had MUCH less mass and wo
  11. @blackrack those latest screens look great! Does this mean you're nearing a new version?
  12. @ferram4, this is why I like you so much! It's as if I made a mod and was trying to handle the masses not understanding that I have a day job, and do this when I have time. I have not done that of course, but had I, I'd probably sound a lot like you. Us curmudgeonly programmers gotta stick together! Rock on!
  13. In the simplest terms, if you're not able to find it, you probably shouldn't be using it anyhow, consider it something of a deliberate barrier to entry as it is a test version and you should not expect it to behave like a final version. That having been said, it shouldn't be too hard for you to find it if you start looking.
  14. Hey @ferram4, very happy to see you getting time to work on FAR for 1.2, its been a long October without everyone's favorite aerodynamics mod. Thanks for all you do, man.
  • Create New...