Jump to content

Dreadp1r4te

Members
  • Content Count

    111
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dreadp1r4te

  1. Yep, I was the one who suggested removing it in your other thread. I posted that comment about CTT dependency before you removed it, so that comment stands redacted.
  2. Seriously ridiculously useful mod right here. Fantastic stuff. I have but one humble request! Would it be possible to identify the type of Kerbal in the crew list? I.e., Scientist, Pilot, Engineer, and possibly a skill rating? This would be awesome for when you're using Kerbals you're just not quite familiar with, or trying to set up MKS Training Akademies, etc.
  3. That's sort of the point behind technologies like this; if Antimatter were ever harnessed as a proper energy source, the ramifications would be astounding; so many things beyond present reach would be suddenly feasible, and challenges of yesterday would seem so very trivial. Take for example current generation aviation versus 1903; in less than 100 years, we went from looking at the sky as a dream to landing on the moon and planting flags. Now, flight is considered considerably more trivial, with children's toys having better flight capability than the flying machine the Wright brothers develo
  4. It was with an Engineer. First thing I thought of. I actually had to use the same engineer to disassemble the engine and fuel tank of my transfer stage because I errr... forgot to equip a decoupler. Shh, don't tell anyone. Speaking of which, where do spare parts go when you scrap a part? Do they go into a spare part container on the attached vehicle, or just a nearby one? A salvage rover might be kind of useful as I've been saving parts to feed to a recycler from my transit stages, using the last of their fuel + lander's descent engines to land them safely.
  5. From EVA, I hovered my mouse over the item, pressed G to gobble it up, hovered my mouse over the target object; held item turned green and I clicked, heard a drill sound, the item resolved into its normal colors, then immediately fell to the ground.
  6. That... is a brilliant idea. Someone should mod a Tricorder along those same principles! Thanks for the tip. I'll give that a shot. However, are you familiar with the term, "Toxic Community?" It doesn't matter if 19 people ask the same question; you bite their head off once and it discourages them from posting at all, which means no more bug reports, no more good communication of issues, all because you felt the need to reply to a comment in a less than directly helpful manner. I work in hospitality, I get asked the same damn question over and over every night. Just relax a bit, man. If you c
  7. And it was absolutely necessary for 3 different people to say the exact same thing about 19 different people asking the same question? Seems a bit hypocritical, doesn't it? Anyway. How difficult would it be to include all the old KAS EVA-attachable items in the EVA items list in the VAB/SPH, and either create a new group for the KAS winches and parts, or include those in the EVA group as well? At the moment they seem to be scattered all over the place. Also, the part mass of some parts seems a bit... heavy.
  8. Well, KSP-I uses Liquid Oxygen, not standard Oxygen. As far as I can tell, the only mod I've seen that uses just plain Oxygen is TAC-LS and similar, but I don't have those so at the moment UniversalStorage is just taking up RAM adding parts I don't need. Is there anyway to simplify this down a bit further on a case-by-case basis? A CFG I can change maybe? Or better yet, which EPL parts are safe to remove that are replaced by USI/UKS parts? Does USI/UKS have its own smelter, etc.?
  9. So in my current install, due to the variety of mods I have, there exists several redundant resources on planets, compounded by the new resource system integrated into the vanilla game. Is there any way to consolidate these into one unifying resource database and disable the unneeded ones? Something akin to Minecraft Forge's ore dictionary, which makes similar or duplicate resources cross compatible with other mods using the same resource? So if X mod adds, say, Copper, and Y mod adds Copper, you can disable one mod's copper generation and use the other mod's copper for both mods? I currently
  10. Tweakscale is a necessary component; previous iterations had 3 copies of each model, each sized differently to accommodate for 1.25, 2.5, and 3.75 size parts; this worked for the most part but unnecessarily increased RAM usage as well as made the part list in game even longer. Tweakscale helps bypass that as well as adding additional functionality for even larger reactors, etc. - - - Updated - - - Huzzah! Thank you so much, FreeThinker!
  11. Oh, no worries! Your english was fine, I just misread it. My mistake.
  12. Respectfully, I disagree. Difficulty should ultimately be up to the end user. CTT modifies stock part unlock positions, other mods, and of course KSP-I's upgrades. All I'm asking is that the KSP-I upgrades be added to the stock tech tree as they were in previous versions. I'm not saying get rid of CTT, just don't make it a requirement. Keep it an option for those that still enjoy it.
  13. Make them cost as much as you want, but I don't want to have to spend double the science to unlock, say, USI Kolonization modules. You have the right to dictate how much science this mod's parts require, not how much science another mod (or vanilla part) requires. Not everyone wants to play that super grindy-hard mode game. If I did, I'd learn Korean and play their MMOs.
  14. FAR was not a requirement, it was "strongly recommended" due to the weight of B9 parts and the existing aerodynamics not properly providing enough lift. The new stock system is more than sufficient; I'd put it on par with NEAR in terms of aerodynamic accuracy; not quite as harsh as FAR, but still rooted in realism. - - - Updated - - - Do that and you may as well call the game "NASA Space Program" instead. There is a point where too much realism lessens the fun; better to keep that as an optional mod for those that want that much realism.
  15. There's nothing wrong with this, but supporting the stock game should be a priority also. You can integrate support for both using conditional MM configs; i.e, using the HAS command to identify if an install has CTT and applying the relevant nodes, or !HAS if it does not have CTT. I'd be happy to learn and write the MM script for you if you can furnish a list of all the Node names required to unlock the advanced upgrades, as well as additional nodes where Interstellar tech would be unlocked, like Fusion Power and Adv. Fusion Power, which are not present in the stock tree. EDIT: CTT is not an e
  16. I'm reasonably certain that now that the tech tree is just a CFG file, you can add nodes to it to unlock the advanced features via a module manager patch. This would make it possible to incorporate this with the stock tree while still maintaining its stance as a endgame mod.
  17. Okay, but why no implementation with the stock tree? It would be just as easy to implement.
  18. That's a perfect sum-up. KSPI-E is a great mod and the developer is making great strides towards getting it all working in 1.0.2, but the direction he's taking it is... less than ideal. KSP has this really unique balance of realism and comic mischief that makes it fun; mods like TAC-LS and KSPI-E try to make it too serious, and that ruins the fun for me. My biggest complaint about KSPI-E is its dependence on Community Tech Tree, the monster tech tree abomination that takes 5 months of real gameplay to unlock anything meaningful. I have a career save right now that had a bunch of cool stuff un
  19. Techmanager is no longer supported because it's no longer required; the Tech tree is now a CFG file that can be modified easily with MM. I'd really like to see an MM script added to this mod so that it can be used fully with the stock science tree for those of us who don't want a super ridiculously grindy experience. I lack the know-how and time to write such a script, otherwise I'd just do it myself.
  20. Will doing this still allow unlocking the advanced modes/upgrades for the reactors, etc? Back in the day we had to use Treeloader to get the Interstellar Tech Tree, which was more complicated than stock tech tree but less complicated (and expensive) than CTT. I remember using Boris' maintenance version in .90 and it had an option in the Tech Tree which tech tree to use; you could select Unofficial KSP-I and (supposedly) the upgrades would still work. Any info would be helpful!
  21. Hey guys, I'm having a problem with this expansion where all the models appear black. This only affects the new Rework models, not the original IR parts, as those seem to be working fine. I'm running ATM Basic to cut down on a little memory usage; coupled with OpenGL mode I'm able to play with a surprising amount of mods. Could ATM be the culprit here? It doesn't have that effect on any other mod. I tried clearing the PartDatabase CFG file as mentioned in the OP but no dice. Any ideas? EDIT: Belay that; but you might want to check with the CKAN distribution to see if it's pulling the full/corr
  22. So I prefer the older custom Interstellar tech tree over the new, insanely complex and expensive Community Tech Tree; is there any way to get back to the Unofficial KSP-I tech tree?
  23. So when 1.0 came out, I resolved to add TACLS to my mod lineup to make things more... interesting. I wanted to be able to set up colonies, which MKS/OKS allowed me to do just beautifully, and integrating with TACLS so that I actually had to make resources with those colonies to keep them alive sounded like a fun idea. I was a bit hesitant because I try to avoid mods that are "too complex" because I feel they're not quite in the spirit of Kerbal... just my opinion, mind you; the mods themselves are fantastic but it took some doing to convince myself to try them. Lo and behold, when I went to KS
  24. This may be true, but it's extremely limiting in terms of applications; since I can't go to C7 Aerospace and request a fuselage with fuel storage for Liquid Hydrogen and Oxygen as I could in real life, I simply can't use these on SSTOs. The problem here is that you're limiting functionality based on partially implemented realism; if you added an MM script to make all fuel tanks have the option of being a powered cryostat and contain the advanced fuels, that would be acceptable, but since only a handful of fuel tanks currently support them, it's very limiting.
×
×
  • Create New...