pina_coladas
-
Posts
215 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by pina_coladas
-
-
I'm using an NVIDIA card (GTX680) with binary drivers (346.22) on Debian Sid. Both AA and AF work just fine when set to 'override' in nvidia-settings.
In-game setting have no effect whatsoever.
Yes, but I'm an unlucky one who for whom the AA override settings do nothing. I haven't had the patience to figure out how to do an application profile yet to see if that makes any difference and I was wondering if anyone else in this situation had.
-
Thanks. Are you running an Nvidia card? If so, what driver are you using? I've tried forcing globally, but no luck. I'll try forcing based on application this evening.
If you managed to get this to work please tell us how!
-
Has anyone had a problem with the toolbar button going black and unresponsive? The VAB gui is still funcitonal but the flight gui has completely disappeared and the toolbar button has gone black and doesn't do anything. This has happened on two different installs (with lots of mods) where everything works the first time I open the game - flight gui is there - but starting on the second time I open the game it breaks.
Here's the log:
[Log 10:24:34.2707200]: BuildToolbar->Awake
[Log 10:24:35.1932770]: BuildToolbar->OnGuiAppLauncherReady
[Log 10:27:42.0650450]: BuildToolbar->OnDestroy
[Log 10:27:42.4277280]: BuildToolbar->Awake
[Log 10:27:43.9185310]: BuildToolbar->OnGuiAppLauncherReady
[Log 10:27:52.0940530]: BuildToolbar->OnDestroy
[Log 10:27:53.6046120]: ActionMenu was created.
[Log 10:27:53.6050530]: ActionMenu->Awake
[Log 10:27:53.6062520]: FlightEngineerCore->Awake
[Log 10:27:54.8640820]: ActionMenu->Start
[Log 10:27:54.8893290]: FlightEngineerCore->Start
[Log 10:27:55.3848170]: ActionMenuGui was created.
[Exception 10:31:01.7846170]: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
[]: at KerbalEngineer.Flight.Readouts.Vessel.SuicideBurnProcessor.Update () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0
at KerbalEngineer.Flight.FlightEngineerCore.UpdateModules () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0Is there maybe a way of just disabling the suicide burn processor? Is that even the culprit?
edit: Huh... I went to the settings and chose the partless option and now it works.
-
Has anyone had this mod stop working for no apparent reason? I've tried deleting the real solar system folder and reinstalling but it doesn't seem to have any effect. When I first launch the game the RSS loader does come up and completes with no error messages, but then kerbin is still tiny when I start playing. If you need any logs just ask.
And thanks for this mod, it is really great.
-
Hi everyone
I decided to jump in feet first with manjaro (xfce edition) and everything seems to work fine with a stock KSP install. But when I start installing mods I come upon this problem:
That's the distant objects mod window there. If I install a bunch of mods, all mod windows look like that. I tried installing just FAR to see what would happen and that window displays just fine. So I installed distant object enhancement alongside FAR and now the DAE window doesnt work, while FAR still does. If I install more mods, all windows are broken. Strange.
Has anyone seen this before?
Edit: And what was voidi's script from that other thread supposed to do? I think it might be broken for .90 because the launcher it gives me with the pretty icon does nothing when I execute it.
Edit2: if this is something as simple as a missing fonts issue that would be really frustrating because I'm banging my head against a wall trying to install the fonts suggested in the other linux thread. Isn't there some package I can just install and be done with it? I basically need my hand held to do everyday things in linux :S
Edit3: Yes, it was the fonts...
-
So is this dead now? That would be a shame.
-
Yup, sounds pretty good so far.
-
A maneuver node? Just plug in speed and heading and it should work right? (right?)
-
That's a nice idea, I like that. I think it's achievable, though much more difficult to calculate in atmosphere...
Hm yes I hadn't really thought of that - quicksaves and trial and error would have to do on bodies with atmospheres. But being able to set the exit velocity would be of tremendous value no matter the planet.
-
Forgive me for bumping this with annoying questions, but will it be possible to display/directly set the desired speed of the projectile and calculate the required megajoules instead of blindly setting the megajoules? It would be nice to have a little display that shows the mass of the payload with a text box for inputting an exit velocity, with a handy orbital parameter and required energy calculator thrown in. Squad's "tweakables" sliders are pretty damn clumsy to be using for precision stuff like targeting a precise orbit by adjusting the power going into a mass driver. If you are already working on something like that then carry on, and if not, then I hope you consider it!
-
Congrats on the release! This looks even more impressive now. It sounds like you've put a ton of work into the finnickly UI stuff and that is much appreciated.
-
Forgive me if this is a repeated question but has there been any recent news on exhaust effects that are affected by atmospheric pressure?
-
+/- 1 Megajoule and +/1 100 Kilojoules (1000 and 100 electric charge units respectively)
Herein lies the problem: interstellar has a different definition than near future of how many joules are in an electric charge unit, the last I checked. Interstellar defines 1 EC as 1 kilojoule while near future defines 1 EC as... Something else. I can't find that information for some reason. Forgive me if I'm mistaken and blabbering on about nothing but I remember reading about this incompatibility somewhere. Yeah I was talking nonsense, disregard.
On a happier note, this is what you guys want for the docking port size issue: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/79128-0-23-5-AdaptiveDockingNode-1-4-Make-Your-Awesome-Docking-Port-Models-Universal!?highlight=universal+docking
-
Haven't had a chance to try this out yet and I'm wondering how you control the speed of the projectile. Do you set the desired velocity an it adjusts the force based on mass of the payload, or do you set what force you want to impart on the payload? The ideal method I think is to set what speed you want to give the projectile and the mass driver will calculate if it has enough power, with the option of setting the amount of power you want to use directly. But maybe I'm getting ahead of myself. Anyway, I'm looking forward to playing with this thing!
Edit ^^^
There's a mod somewhere on the forums for a multi-size/universal docking port. It's a senior docking port that can connect to all 3 sizes. Just slap one of those one and you're good to go (assuming it works, haven't tried it.)
-
So any news on the next version? I just saw the navball scaling and sliding and the center of thrust indicator and I'm all excited now.
-
Have you guys seen the capacitors from near future propulsion? Sounds pretty similar to your needs (though they are a bit unrealistic). On that note, would it be much trouble to include a configuration designed to work with the near future reactors instead of interstellar? Near future uses large amounts of electric charge instead of megajoules, and there's a discrepancy between how much energy the two mods assign to electric charge.
And good call on disabling recoil only on landed vessels - who doesn't want mass driver propulsion?
-
Great idea, glad someone is making this!
* It's only one way -- I hyperedited this in space, and while it correctly shoots stuff out, there's no recoil.I get the feeling that the forces involved would destroy the mass driver if recoil was simulated (especially if it was sitting on some terrain). But maybe I'm wrong and it's possible - would be very cool/
-
"Control crafts with your natural voice"
So you don't have to try to sound like Patrick Stewart to make it work???
-
other than once getting to the moon to test its terrain I haven't been outside LEO in *months*.
Yes, RSS is great that way for simulating the real space exploration experience!
-
I assume from the structure in the .zip file that i just extract everything to the "Plugins" folder, despite there also being another "PluginData" folder at the KSP root install dir?
It's been a while but I didn't see anyone else answer your question so here goes: everything goes in the gamedata folder. All mods are supposed to be installed that way - it should go gamedata/[name of mod]/[parts, plugins, etc]. It used to be the way you did it many versions ago but many mods won't work if you do it that way now.
-
Another option would be just to have a slider to adjust the maximum power input that is being received in addition to the percent received that already exists. With something that is constantly fluctuating like power reception, percentage does little good (at least to me). If I could just limit it to a fixed rate I feel like I could do so much more with MW power.
Yeah, fixed MJ value would be better than a percentage for sure. Hard to do with a slider though, since the range of possible values would be so high.
-
Well I don't know what "hotrockets" is, but whatever you did fixed it for me, thank you very much
The new nasa engines use a new engine module, but the old engines haven't been updated yet. Most mods haven't switched yet either, except the Hot Rockets mod.
So it was probably an issue with the nasa engines.
-
Upgraded radiators can get a lot hotter. For upgraded reactors, this is a must. However for unupgraded reactors it has the unfortunate effect of being able to get near the same temp for the reactor thus killing off efficiency. I don't think there is an option to use unupgraded radiators in the VAB but there probably should.
Upgraded radiators are never worse, and unupgraded radiators are never better. The only difference that upgrading makes is that the radiator can reach a higher temperature before shutting down. An unupgraded radiator will overheat and shut down, while an upgraded one will stabilize at higher temperatures. If the equilibrium temperature is close to the temperature of your reactor then you get low generator efficiency. So upgrading your radiators doesn't mean they will be more effective with your low-tech low-temperature reactors.
Short answer: add more radiators. Or upgrade the reactor!
-
A useful thing to note about radiators in this mod is that both upgraded and non-upgraded radiators will dissipate exactly the same amount of heat at the same temperature. The only difference is the upgraded radiators have higher temperature caps and thus can dissipate a LOT more heat when at their maximum temperature. The Waste Heat Management page has some formulas you can use when using electrical generators, so that you can determine how many radiators you need in order to achieve the efficiency you want.
Yeah this needs to be repeated. Some of us misinterpreted Fractal earlier in the thread when he seemed to imply that upgrading radiators first is somehow counter-productive, when in reality it does not have any negative effects. You just have to keep in mind that upgraded radiators will behave exactly the same as unupgraded radiators with low temperature reactors, so you can't get away with using fewer of them with low tech reactors.
But then the waste heat UI in the next version should clear up all this confusion anyway.
The Linux Thread!
in KSP1 Technical Support (PC, unmodded installs)
Posted
I do. Nvidia GTX 750ti and 343.36 drivers, Manjaro linux. That minor glitch wouldn't bother me if I could get AA to work...