• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

155 Excellent

About Justicier

  • Rank
    The SSTO Whisperer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. That is how I had it set up before. No sounds worked at all. From what I have seen, MODULE,0 works for a single module file. Multi-module files work starting with MODULE,1 and so on. Setting the code to MODULE,0 still has no effect on the particle emitter, it still is at full emission regardless of engine state.
  2. Been using the Jet Sounds mod and the latest version has sound files for the RAPIER in the download, but no cfg file to make them work. So, I have been trying to create my own that will allow custom sounds for the RAPIER. I have hit a brick wall in that I can get the "power" and "running" sounds working in-game, but not the startup, and shutdown sounds. To further show me how terrible I am with coding, right now regardless of the state of the engine there is full exhaust particle effects being displayed. The engine could be completely out of fuel and shut off, but it still spews the full particle effect. So, after about two weeks trying different configurations to the code, this is what I am currently running with the aforementioned effects. At this point I'm really at a loss, any help would be most welcome! Current code is in spoiler window below:
  3. Would love to see this fantastic mod updated! As someone who loves to design and fly spaceplanes this mod is a must have. 90% of the time my designs make use of the rapier however, and since there were rapier sounds in the latest version but no configuration file, I have been working on making the sounds work with the rapier motor. Thus far I have had success in getting the "running" and "thrust" sounds to work in-game, but not the startup and shutdown. There is also something wrong with my code in that the particle effects for the engine are always fully engaged... regardless of the engine actually being activated and running. If any code monkeys could help me problem solve this issue I'd be happy to receive help seeing as... well... "Dammit, Jim I'm a sound engineer not a coder!" Code I am trying to get working is in the spoiler box below:
  4. Ahh but answers can certainly be attained by utilizing something other than ad hominem. The people I'd advise asking for updates from is Flying Tiger. Squad *may* be helping with a bit of testing for the console porting, but ultimately the responsibility is on Flying Tiger's shoulders... and SQUAD's ultimate responsibility is to maintain/update the PC version.
  5. DoS is still valid terminology, just sayin' Though in this case I believe you are correct in stating DDoS since the server was being flooded by multiple computers/connections instead of just one. All that being said... I greatly regret my decision to go to college to learn network security... what a colossal headache. And thank you Devs for the SITREP, most of us are grateful that you guys keep us informed
  6. ^ What bewing said. However, since your craft has a TWR greater than 1, I have a couple questions. What kind of engines are you using... RAPIERs? A Combo of Whiplash+Rocket motors? And what about the intakes... Shock cones? Radial air intakes? This is important because different engines will be more or less capable at different altitudes and speeds. The type of intake is also very important as some will not provide much if anything for the engines at supersonic and hypersonic speeds. Generally speaking, if you want your plane to go to space today, you should consider using a minimum of Whiplash jet engines for getting your speed and angels (altitude), then rocket motors (preferably aerospikes) for the last push from high altitude to orbit when the air has gotten too thin and the jets cough out. If it is available, the RAPIER engine used in conjunction with Shock Cone intakes is probably your best bet since that combo has the best high-altitude, hypersonic performance (well, in KSP terms). This is of course all assuming that your plane is nice and aerodynamic... I hope you're not trying to get a brick to orbit
  7. I've been building spaceplanes for a long time and to date, I have not been able to create a 100% reliable "Dreamchaser" style lifting body aircraft with only stubby little 45degree wings/stabilizers. The aerodynamics modeling in KSP works... but in some ways is still pretty hinkey/buggy, and it appears to be that way with alot of lifting body designs as well as flying wings. The angled wings seem to be the primary issue, especially if you are not using a decent vertical stabilizer. Granted I have made some that work well enough at low altitude in-atmo, but when re-entering the atmosphere they tumble like a leaf in the wind. It is something I have noticed for a long time, but haven't been able to work around other than clipping a vertical stabilizer into the body of the plane. It feels cheaty but it does overcome what seems to be a limitation of the aero system in the game.
  8. Hehe, you were thinking of a poor hapless Kerbal getting sucked in weren't you? Be honest now
  9. @Pixel Kola I understand your desire for purpose in a video game. This is one of the reasons that a friend of mine will not play KSP... there's no way to "win." There is no overarching objective that the game provides to drive the player forward, that is something that the player has to provide for themselves. While KSP does provide contracts which provide some challenges, many of the contracts will feel rather "grindy" after a while as you say. But if you play KSP strictly relying on the contract system for purpose, you will be disappointed as it appears you already are. KSP invites the player to push themselves... some of my fondest memories of KSP were way back in version 0.18 when I first started playing. There were no contracts, it was just one big sandbox. I challenged myself to go to the Mun before I had a good idea of the fuel requirements. This resulted in a landing with barely any fuel left, and a stranded Jeb on the surface. For some unknown reason, I cared about what happened to my goofy looking little green astronauts, and suddenly I had created a new mission for myself: "Bring Jeb Home!" So I designed a rescue craft, bigger and better than the vehicle than landed Jeb. It was a success (barely) and Jeb was returned home safely with Bill and Bob to thank for his rescue. That little story is a microcosm of the appeal of KSP to me... the ability to make your own vehicles, missions, and challenges. That is the "purpose" of KSP... the constant asking of "Hey, what if I did this..." and challenging yourself. Many people will struggle with this as most video games will force feed the player the "purpose," to the point where there is little left for the imagination or independent thought. KSP and other games that require an artistic, intentional, or imaginative mind simply will not appeal to everyone, which is really a shame given how much KSP offers in its current form. Sometimes I wonder if more people would be interested if there was a "space race" aspect to the game... two continents on Kerbin competing with one another. Such competition will appeal to different people and possibly draw them into the game more. With this in mind... your sense of purpose may come in the form of multiplayer when SQUAD implements it. Until then I encourage you to find your own sense of purpose in the game. And I do agree with you that the game has untapped potential, but if past plans are any indication, I am confident that the Devs will integrate content that will add depth, variety, and challenge. I am hoping that the Kerbol system will be more fully fleshed out not just with more celestial bodies to explore, but also more reasons to explore them... and more environmental dangers to have to prepare for. I am certain that KSP will continue to grow for a long time, onward and upward so to say.
  10. Wait... you've gone to Jool... a long and tedious trip, but are saying that the Mk3 cargo bay is too slow to open and boring? I am having a hard time understanding your perspective. If anything, I think the current opening speed is too fast given that the real deal can only open one door at a time... and is even slower:
  11. Haha, I must admit, I was indeed thinking of such games when I made the topic... nostalgia man, it's a powerful thing Although there is also a fun little game called "Lunar Mission" on mobile that I've been playing during down time at work:
  12. Strange, I have not encountered this yet... my testing skills appear to be waning a bit. I'll have to see if I can induce some failures after I get home from work today
  13. I think I remember the mod you're referring to, it allowed for dynamically deformable terrain... haven't seen anything regarding it's development for quite some time. In order to make caves a part of the overall planet mesh it would be a bit of a frustration to implement. I was thinking more along the lines of very large "easter eggs" to make up the cave formations. I think this could be more easily accomplished by making a cavity in the overall planet mesh, then plopping down the cave model into the cavity. Not sure how this would look from a distance (possible graphical artifacts/glitches) or if the Unity engine would allow for such a large model with its own colliders without slowing to a crawl. I really like the idea of caves on some worlds being flooded, say on Laythe, it would be a bit more variety and another interesting part of the challenge :-)
  14. I am curious if there is any interest for the current set of rocky worlds in the Kerbal solar system (Kerbolsystem?) to have more "points of interest" to navigate to (and through) with rovers or hoppers. There are some cool easter eggs out there right now like the arches but I would love to see something more varied with its own biomes. I believe that having cave systems to explore would add a rather interesting dynamic to the game... not to mention an added challenge to surface vehicle designers. It would be an added challenge because many caves can be rather haphazard in formation... winding back and forth for a few hundred feet then suddenly plummeting vertically into vast caverns with more passages winding deeper still. So not only will your rover have to do... what a rover does... but it will also have to be able to fly *precisely* through tight formations that are either too rugged for wheels or would cause it to be damaged in a flip or fall. I only suggest this because I have not seen any posts from the devs discussing it... I know NovaSilisko had planned for some very cool things such as geysers in the past and maybe caves also were thought of at the same time. I have hope that the Devs will be expanding on surface details once the core gameplay updates start winding down, and I believe some variety to rocky worlds other than simple elevation changes would be a great place to start.
  15. While the Unity engine does have shortcomings which give definite validity to the use of autostruts, in their current state I consider them "OP." I love the idea of autostruts being invisible structural reinforcement between parts, but I do think that the autostruts should add a little bit of weight to the craft, otherwise there is absolutely no reason at all NOT to add autostruts to a design as there are no drawbacks whatsoever. This weight should, in my mind, be relative to the parts being linked... this may be a tiny amount for interconnecting 0.625m parts, but scaling up to 3.75m will be noticeable. All that being said, the part that really bugs me about the current autostrut system is that you can toggle them on and off on the fly when currently in flight. For debugging or timewarping... not a bad idea, but for the typical career game it feels incredibly "cheaty" to me.