Nertea

Members
  • Content Count

    3,160
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11,431 Excellent

About Nertea

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. I finally got around to checking this and in a basic install (SSPXr + dependencies) I can run the experiment on the pad. Chances are, you have another mods that is doing things to the part, it is a common target for shennanigans.
  2. I"ve been over this a number of times and I'm having issues locating anything that could cause this (can't reproduce it of course). Could you dump your MM cache and log? There has to be something in another mod adding those subtypes when trying to be compatible...
  3. I just started up the game with these two mods and no such error appeared. Post your log, modlist and modulemanager cache file.
  4. Probably not, honestly. It's going to be odd for someone to look at the engine set and have a single engine that is way out of place in terms of how it works. it's a 6x AR-1 cluster. NTO/MMH is ok for me. I'll consider that one, I have a vague suspicion that @CobaltWolf has already done it though. The RS-76 has a total of 1 good image, which is going to eliminate it (plus it's ugly :P). The AJ-800, at least I can do most of it from an NK-33. Things that are options now: 2x RD-191 <- probably the most work AJ-800 <- probably the least work TR-107
  5. No, it's not a typo. Testing on a Delta-IVish thing showed that this was sufficient. However, I'm currently tracking an issue in KSP 1.9 at least where these multipliers don't even work anymore. Are you using 1.9? If so, you might be having control issues because the numbers are high!
  6. Yeah I'm trying my best to be size-accurate, at least, with these engines. Rutherford Vac is the top contender for that slot right now, yeah. Advantage is that you'd also probably get a regular Rutherford out of this, though it would be tiiiiny. RD-861K is a bit small - it's nozzle maps to something in a 1.25m footprint KSP-wise. Reaver-1 might also work.. it's a little bit small, but that might be ok. As mentioned, the single-chamber version of those RDs is a little bit small, but I am considering a 2-engine cluster as on Antares as an option. You'd probably get a single Another option considered is the mythical AJ-800, which is effectively an NK-33 with two turbopumps and a sized up combustion chamber/nozzle. It might fit the footprint nicely.
  7. Methalox engines are going away from the mod, they're going to be moved to CryoEngines and expanded in scope with a few more models. Currently we have 4, RS18, Raptor, Raptor Vac and BE-4. I'll add the old STBE to that, at least, and shove in a couple of other upcoming engines.
  8. Uh so work is continuing on NFLV. I've been very busy at work but what you need to know is that the set of engines that will ship has changed a little. I'm evolving it to a set that adds one sustainer and one booster in each size class from 0.625 to 3.75m. Here's what the state is right now: Savvy viewers will notice that the old STBE is gone - I made a mistake and modeled the wrong STBE last time. The old one will make a return somewhere - I've modeled and added the correct one: In addition the Merlin 1D and Merlin 1D vac are now getting added as 0.625m and 1.25m engines: I have four more slots to fill - the 0.625/1.875/2.5/3.75m sustainers. Two of these are currently in progress, I'm still identifying candidates for the other two slots (0.625m and 2.5m). If you have an interesting thought for an engine that's the right size and role (and kerolox) to fill these, I'd be happy to hear it.
  9. Those should be fine. Really need your logfile and your ModuleManger cache. You're saying, basically (to confirm): 1) The part exists. 2) The part exists on in-flight craft. 3) The part is missing in the VAB. 4) The part is missing in the tech tree. Additionally, I need to know what parts are missing. You say rotational parts - is this all centrifuges (there should be 5)? Are any other expandable parts affected?
  10. Sounds like a mod interaction. Usual culprits are Kerbalism, USI and similar mods - this functionality works fine with just SSPX intalled
  11. I know you're impatient, but it's quite hard to ensure that unpaid volunteers give you more quality content on a regular basis. For obvious reasons. Work on this mod is usually not as simple as 'oh, make a cool part and release it'. For example, when we do design work on a new size class (e.g. as 5m parts in this update) we need to more or less work on most of the main parts at the same time to ensure that unity of design is correctly followed. There's no point to releasing a single 5m fuel tank and not touching the others. This is an extreme example but you can see how it applies to most parts, that we typically release in sets. We also need to coordinate with our QC people as we try to maintain a high standard of testing in the mod. Just so you know this will not be coming in the next update. Things in that 'wishlist' issue are just that, wishes, and aren't scoped for immediate development unless they exist as a new issue.
  12. Not quite correct, it is used to run the propellers and lift fans. The animations are from DeployableEngines. This has now been released, see here: Effectively to make something more reflective, modify the MATERIAL in the currently defined SUBTYPE nodes for the solar panels. You will need to use a FLOAT node that targets the Shininess parameter (this is not the correct parameter name, investigate the Bumped Specular (Mapped) shader in PartTools to get the correct one). This might sound a little frustrated, because it is - I don't know how people expect me to understand issues when they are described with things like 'everything just seems really off'. Please be a little more specific and try to include relevant data, in this case a screenshot would be great. Then I can say 'no this is bad I'll look into it' or 'working as expected' without eating half an hour of my time pulling the current version of the mod, starting the game, doing checks and coming back to ask you more questions.
  13. As you found in your search, this has happened a couple times in the past. However, nobody has been able to get me actual reproduction steps - I've never managed to reproduce this myself. There's nothing in your game's log that indicated anything untoward happened either so it has to be a mod interaction of some obscure type.
  14. Wheels are not skinned meshes typically, the stock game doesn't use them much. I had a quick look at TR's source and yes, it will not work on skinned meshes as it makes assumptions that will not work on them. Could be a feature request to the developer. The reason you are seeing that difference is likely because the panels are 75% reflective by default, I expect your TR replacement is 100% or something. The upcoming release of B9PS should allow you to modify material values in a switcher, which should in turn allow you to change this on my panels without TR. I typically don't love copies of my models floating around that aren't under my control. I'd suggest patching?