Jump to content

Nertea

Members
  • Content Count

    4,200
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Nertea

  1. Are you using KIS/KAS? Considering that there is no tan going on in this mod (except in the in development section, which is discussed in the development thread) you should either go there or find out which mod you're discussing.
  2. I haven't decided yet. it'll probably have a decent bit of inventory storage. If it gets actual switchable storage it'll be like the containers and limited to storagey resources, not fuel.
  3. This is the larger hab module, versus the smaller one. It has an upper deck with a few rooms and a central core of cabins similar to the 3.75m version of this part. The cargo bags provide radiation shielding and integral storage. If I end up with spare texture space on another sheet I might make a no-bags variant.
  4. I can't see a way to make wet workshop parts effectively. It's the thing where the second I do one, there's going to be requests for more (diameters, lengths, functionality). It would be better for a dedicated mod with dedicated scope to handle that.
  5. So there's a bit of subtlety here. Resource definitions are shared - this a feature of CRP. This means that functionally fuel densities, names and costs should be fine and identi The problem arises with the tank, which can have a a volume, dry mass and dry cost that varies depending on the mod that 'wins' the MM battle to be used on the tank. A second problem arises when the tank switching mod that is winning the MM battle doesn't provide the resource that the other mod needs. Either something from CryoTanks is missing or CryoTanks messes up something from another mod.
  6. They seem fine to me (I assume you're meaning NF Exploration by NFE). Do you have a recategorization mod or something? Use clustered smaller engines. Stock engines work just fine (use multiple rhinos, vectors, mainsails, etc). NFLV comes with many engines that do the job very well. So does Cryo Engines.
  7. So judging from the vast number of reports I've got in the last few days, I may need to change something with how other mods interact with CryoTanks. The real primary problem boils down to the universal switcher for the stock tanks (and mod tanks). CryoTanks patches all tanks that contain LF/O to have a B9PartSwitch based switcher, which gives options for LF/O, LF, O, LH2, LH2O/, LCH4, LCH4/O This switcher only operates if a tank it touches has not been patched by one of Interstellar Fuel Switch Firespitter Fuel Switch (not frequently used these days)
  8. Just a note that last time I checked CC's mass ratios for LH2 were super funky. If you want IFS, I have to assume you want Interstellar resources and balance. You'll have to disable IFS' switching patches if you want mine. So... this seems like it's really getting to be a problem with multiple fuel switches. Will open a conversation in the CT thread.
  9. If I'm not mistaken for most cases the 'code' name of the home body (e.g Rhode) needs to be Kerbin in a new planetary system. @Gameslinx can likely confirm this, but to target 'Rhode' you will target Kerbin. Other planets will be their 'real' names though.
  10. Everyone is all 'so big!'. I'm here looking at all the other modules, which are without exception larger.
  11. Nah this is just the endcap detail I'm using. Assume this is part of integral radiation shielding, crew supplies, or similar.
  12. Thought about it, couldn't make it very interesting gameplay-wise or importantly, visually.
  13. I would try the very basics first, copy an existing config that is similar to what you want and change the planet names. Nope. Completely orthogonal, they will not interact.
  14. Not without knowing more, from the helpful How to Get Help sticky, for example.
  15. Ugh stop reminding me. Nice! Yes I developed a few more time saving techniques for the IVAs and they seemed to get good results with the 1.875 set. That and motivation being a weird thing, often if I am happy with something I made, I will want to expand on it. Thanks, statements like this mean a lot. It's not really in scope, the only thing that I would consider would be a flatter cargo nose, the NFLV parts are good enough otherwise.
  16. It's a good point that I should probably address, huh. I don't find that particularly exciting but may fall into the 'needs'. Stuff will have IVAs. I'll definitely regret that.
  17. I'm slogging through the 2.5m part repaint which sucks, weird UVs and poorly designed textures abound. Still, happy with the results in most cases - I'm about halfway done, I think To save the boredom, I've been working a lot on the next thing, which is, as some may have guessed, 5m station parts to further expand the expansion expansion. heh. You can expect to see: 2 habitation cans 2 logistics modules (well, one chopped into two lengths) 2 adapters A science module A greenhouse A station command core A single large centrifuge Perhaps a co
  18. In order to not duplicate parts between mods I do put things in what I would consider the most common location. So 3.75m docking ports in RS+, 5m in NFLV.
  19. Yes, there are no included configs for BH. You can take a look at the wiki for how to author distributions.
  20. Well, I don't know what to tell you - all I can say is that when I look in the cache, anything related to CryoTanks is not present on tanks, there's only ConfigurableContainers stuff.
  21. Configurable Containers overrides all fuel switches as far as I know. So CryoTanks will not do anything to tans that CC touches. From inspecting the configs, this is correct.
  22. Yeah I personally get a significant amount of FPS improvement with this mod on both my systems (medium-end laptop with crappy mobile GPU and decently high end desktop). I believe the laptop is slightly worse than your system there. Nope. There is more complexity in generating the shape of the reentry effects that this mod could not handle. This comes up enough that I should put in the FAQ though. It does for me, it's possible you are using the 'old' twin boar that squad deprecated.
  23. I see you are saying 'generates xenon byproduct' which is not a feature of my reactors. I have to assume that you are using something that affects the reactors, which means all bets are off. Might be KSPI or Kerbalism. In terms of actual NFE balance, here are the relevant comparisons: Thermal Efficiency: 36% vs 40% -> FLAT needs less radiators Normalized Fuel Life: 7.61 vs 8.52 -> FLAT lasts longer, even considering higher starting fuel Fuel Efficiency: 330 kj/micro unit U vs 370 kj/micro unit U -> FLAT generate more power per unit of fuel Unfuelled mass:
×
×
  • Create New...