OminousPenguin
-
Posts
91 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by OminousPenguin
-
-
Thanks @Nertea!
Any chance of backporting the latest updates for 1.7.3? I'm holding off updating to 1.8 because a few of my must-have mods are yet to be updated.
-
Love the mod @Gotmachine! Thanks for your hard work.
On smaller vessels I find myself missing a four-way micro RCS block, i.e. a micro equivalent of the RV-105, or following the naming of your other parts, a part that would be named 025T_2xlateral_1xup_1xdown. Is there a reason this part was omitted?
On some craft it makes sense to have one set of RM-025-IL at one end of the vessel, and another set rotated 180° at the other end. However for smaller probes I'd prefer to just have a set of four-way RM-025 around the COM.
Hope this makes sense. Thanks!
-
Just installed this as I've been using external tools for this sort of thing, but I feel like I must be missing something - The slider for Body Orbital Height does not allow for accurate input: Far left is 1km, next value is 80km, next is 619Mm... A box into which a number could be typed would be great!
-
Hi all. I'm wanting to set an exact orientation and rotation so that it doesn't drift over time.
I had a look at the save files but after a bit of futile experimentation with the rotation quaternion and direction vector I gave up.
Anyone got any suggestions for this sort of thing?
Thanks
-
On 3/23/2019 at 8:11 PM, SpacedInvader said:
Has anyone tried this for 1.6.1?
@Phineas Freak recompiled for 1.6.1 on March 25th (thanks). If you could tag it and create a release that'd be great as I think CKAN would pick up on that automatically.
https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealHeat/commits/master
Hopefully just a recompile is needed for 1.7.1 as well.
-
I've been searching around and looking at the krpc source and I can't work out how to get the result of an expression:
dynamic_pressure = conn.get_call(getattr, vessel.flight(), 'dynamic_pressure') velocity = conn.get_call(getattr, vessel.flight(), 'true_air_speed') heatflux = conn.krpc.Expression.multiply( conn.krpc.Expression.call(dynamic_pressure), conn.krpc.Expression.call(velocity) )
If someone can tell me how to get the result of the heatflux expression that'd be great. Thanks.
-
Just a note for those looking for a build of this for 1.3.1:
https://github.com/Ni2Be/ImprovedChaseCamera-by-BahamutoD/releases/tag/Chase_Cam_v1_3
-
Found this mod last night and wow. Thank you @The White Guardian!
-
33 minutes ago, XPi2 said:
Working in 1.2.2?
Yes. As @linuxgurugamer said, his build is specifically for 1.2.2.
-
Working perfectly for me. Thank you!
-
I've been checking this thread occasionally to see if anyone had been kind enough to recompile & fix for 1.2.2.
Thank you @linuxgurugamer - I'll try it out tonight.
-
On 11/05/2016 at 7:22 AM, AccidentalDisassembly said:
Typing in "2000" rather than "3000" in altitude at first makes AAP think that you want 2 meters and it tries to correct sharply for this.
I think the cleanest solution to this problem is to have a short (configurable) delay (about 1 second) after changing the value before it takes effect.
eg. The course reads 195. You want to change it to 210.
1. You clear the 195 and press the '2' key.
2. Internally, the mod starts a 1 second countdown. The mod still behaves as though the course is still 195.
3. Less than 1 second later you hit the '1' key.
4. The mod restarts the 1.5 second countdown. The mod still behaves as though the course is still 195.
5. Less than 1 second later you hit the '0' key.
6. The mod restarts the 1 second countdown. The mod still behaves as though the course is still 195.
7. After 1 second, you haven't changed the value any more and new value of 210 takes effect.This solution means no change to the GUI and no change to how users interact with the mod, it just means the mod doesn't try changing course to '2' and then '21' before you finish typing '210'.
-
On 10/08/2015 at 10:15 AM, Ford6 said:
Any chance of getting this added to ckan?
If FuelWings is compatible with RealFuels, then in CKAN FuelWings should require ModularFuelTanks OR RealFuels.
This would involve asking both @taniwha and @NathanKell to both add something like "provides" : [ "ModularFuelSystem" ] to their netkan files and then having FuelWings require "ModularFuelSystem". The user would then be asked to choose to install either ModularFuelTanks OR RealFuels.
(Currently RealFuels conflicts with "ModularFuelSystem" although I can't see any mod that actually has that name. (Doesn't look like the old Modular Fuel System is in CKAN))
Unrelated, @Tortoise. Is there a reason you didn't add tanks to airplaneTail and airplaneTailB?
-
Thank you for your hard work @TriggerAu
-
2 minutes ago, blowfish said:
AJE doesn't really properly support FSEngine as it stands ... we'd really have to re-create the entire engine module (and that might break some other stuff). Most of the FSEngine features are stock now though, so hopefully FSEngine can be removed from Firespitter eventually and we can work from there.
I see.
Is the recommendation to just use AJE and not Firespitter or KAX?
With Firespitter, KAX and AJE I have so many engines and AJE gives many of them the same name but the FS ones behave differently - It's all a bit of a mess.
For any given use case I would love to be able to compare the stats of the engines and make a decision about which is most appropriate. Currently I need a bit of trial and error in sandbox to find a suitable engine.
-
Thanks for maintaining this mod guys.
AJE/FS.cfg tries to edit @MODULE[ModuleEngines*] in Firespitter parts, but the Firespitter engine module is FSengine so the replacement obviously doesn't occur.
Shouldn't @MODULE[ModuleEngines*] be replaced with @MODULE[FSengine] in the FS.cfg?
-
3 minutes ago, Keniamin said:
I'm doing my best to allow player reuse his planes in further missions, so I don't like PRELAUNCH condition at all. But the idea itself sounds interesting, I'll perform a check in a few days, is it possible to implement reasonable logic on this way.
Maybe just LANDED then? I might have a play around this evening.
-
22 hours ago, Keniamin said:
Yes, you're right. I know this unclearness, but as far as I know there is no useful way to get this around. @nightingale, how do you think, can I make this using current Contract Configurator possibilities?
Might an alternative to the exclude option be to have some sequential objectives requiring that before you start moving, you have a pilot and engineer aboard and not the passenger?
This is entirely untested and off the back of zero experience with contract configurator:
SpoilerPARAMETER { name = VesselParameterGroup type = VesselParameterGroup PARAMETER { name = All type = All title = Pre-flight checks disableOnStateChange = true PARAMETER { name = ReachState type = ReachState situation = PRELAUNCH maxSpeed = 0.1 title = Remain stationary disableOnStateChange = true } PARAMETER { name = HasCrew type = HasCrew trait = Pilot minCrew = 1 title = Have an aircraft commander aboard disableOnStateChange = false hideChildren = true } PARAMETER { name = HasCrew type = HasCrew trait = Engineer minCrew = 1 title = Have a flight engineer aboard disableOnStateChange = false hideChildren = true } PARAMETER { name = Not type = Not hidden = true hideChildren = true PARAMETER { name = HasPassengers type = HasCrew disableOnStateChange = false kerbal = @/passengers } } } PARAMETER { name = HasPassengers type = HasCrew title = Pick up passengers disableOnStateChange = false completeInSequence = true kerbal = @/passengers } PARAMETER { name = VisitWaypoint type = VisitWaypoint index = 0 distance = 35 title = Land your plane to the runway of the Old KSC and drive it to the parking disableOnStateChange = false completeInSequence = true } PARAMETER { name = ReachState type = ReachState maxSpeed = 0.0 situation = LANDED title = Stop your vessel completely disableOnStateChange = false completeInSequence = true hideChildren = true } PARAMETER { name = Duration type = Duration duration = 30s preWaitText = Wait for the passengers to exit waitingText = Waiting for the passengers to exit completionText = The passengers left the board disableOnStateChange = false completeInSequence = true } } PARAMETER { name = KerbalDeaths type = KerbalDeaths title = Flight must be safe (avoid killing passengers) hideChildren = true kerbal = @/passengers } -
I just took the KerbalSpaceCentreOldKSCBusinessFlightContract contract and was confused when sitting on the runway with a pilot and an engineer, the "Has a flight engineer aboard" objective was not met.
I looked in the config file and saw that the requirement is actually for 2 Engineers.
Looking at the code that generates the contracts, I see that this line takes the requirement for 1 engineer and adds the number of engineer passengers to the minCrew requirement.I can understand that the "Has engineer" requirement should not be met by the passenger, but there must be better ways to achieve this that do not result in this unintuitive user experience.
-
13 hours ago, inigma said:
should work. anything in debug? or Alt+f10 CC debug?
I didn't know about CC's Alt+F10.
It says the PartModuleUnlock requirement is not met. I'll investigate.
Edit: I investigated..
The problem is FAR removing the ModuleControlSurface module and replacing it with FARControllableSurface.
Solved with a MM patch:
@CONTRACT_TYPE:HAS[@REQUIREMENT[PartModuleUnlocked]]:AFTER[ContractConfigurator] { @REQUIREMENT[PartModuleUnlocked]:HAS[#partModule[ModuleControlSurface]] { @partModule = FARControllableSurface } }Maybe change it to require either ModuleControlSurface or FARControllableSurface?
-
Does anyone know if Squad are continuing to work on wheels or are they satisfied with their current ridiculousness?
-
I'm not being offered the Glider contract.
I have unlocked the seatExternalCmd and the R8winglet which has a ModuleControlSurface.
I have no other contracts pending. I have completed:
- Join SSI Aerospace!
- Purchase command seat tech.
- Purchase electric vehicle tech.
- Purchase flight control tech.
- Purchase structural tech.
I have CommunityTechTree and UnmannedBeforeManned which rearrange parts but looking at the contract cfg I can't see how that would matter so long as the required parts are unlocked.
I have KerbinSide GAP but that just adds more contracts so I dont see a conflict there.
Using ContractConfigurator I have all contract types turned off except for GAP.
Any help would be appreciated.
-
10 hours ago, Jarin said:
Anyone tested to see how the 1.0.5 release works in 1.1?
Literally 4 posts up:
On 04/04/2016 at 0:08 AM, run1235 said:just want to report that Take command still has some functionality in 1.1 BUT it puts the kerbals "into" the ECS as if it were a command pod and since the ECS doesnt have an escape hatch, you cannot eva the kerbal out to put them in the seat.
The latest off github seems to be working fine for me.
-
On 12/04/2016 at 0:34 AM, KingKaiser said:
To be honest I'm not quite sure whether it's me or the mod, but I've this to be really hard to impossible to use with a joystick.
In the stock game, the control surfaces adjust a lot smoother to the input of the joystick, whereas the procedural dynamics surfaces can only go form 0%-10%-100% deployment, and no in between. At first I thought that the Pitch-Yaw-Roll % tabs would indicate the limit to which the control surfaces would deploy and the bottom tab would determine the precision to witch those deploy (for instance, having it on lower values would mean I'd have to pull harder on the stick to increase deployment). But I after extensive testing and a lot of frustration this wasn't the case. I could only go all or nothing which made for impossible takeoffs and terrible flying.
So please, if there is a fix to this problem already, can you let me know how I would able to gain more control using a joystick, and if there isn't, will you please provide one? Thanks
They worked fine for me with AFBW:
That was in 1.0.5 of course.
(Request) Wireframe terrain visualisation for dark sides
in KSP1 Mods Discussions
Posted · Edited by OminousPenguin
Clarify title
Hi all,
I like playing with Planetshine and no ambient light, but this does make the dark side of planets and moons entirely dark. I can't remember what they look like stock but I assume they're still pretty dark.
Some modern flight HUDs have synthetic terrain overlay enabling the pilot to see where the ground is, I assume using radar but conceivably using a hightmap and the fact the plane knows it's exact position. Here's an example:
So here's what I'd love to see in KSP:
disasterfun and not just a 'god mode night vision'So what do you think? Is this feasible? Is it something you'd be interested in?
Perhaps a terrain shader would be a reasonable way to implement this?
Looking forward to reading your thoughts.