• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Aatch

  • Rank
    Bottle Rocketeer

Recent Profile Visitors

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

  1. O.o I wasn't sure what these meant, so I looked at the pull request from HoneyFox that implemented them. For those that can't read code, I'll elaborate: The first point allows pitch-controlling surfaces to deflect some percentage of the current AoA, from -200% to 200%. The second point simply scales effect of the relevant input. So at full pitch a control surface set to a Pitch % of 50 will pitch 50% of it's maximum deflection. Useful for elevons where you have too much pitch or roll authority, but not enough space to split into elevators and ailerons.
  2. Like the idea in general. However, I find the B9/Firespitter way of switching parts/models a little clunky. It's fine, and only working with the tools available, but I'd prefer to see a menu, maybe like a sub-folder, for these kinds of parts. This makes it easier to see the various sub-parts ahead of time without needing add the part, flick through the options and then see if it's what you want.
  3. I would like to see better handling of detached sets of parts. Right now they only have attachment nodes where you detached them, which makes trying to re-arrange crafts (especially planes) a pain. It's a little thing, but I'd like detached blocks to function more like normal parts. Setting up staging is an exercise in frustration for complex crafts. I'm not sure how to fix it, but having it be a bit smarter about where it decides to place things in the staging stack, taking into account which sets of parts are controllable would be nice. Otherwise, I don't have anything I feel strongly about that hasn't already been confirmed (root changing being the biggest).
  4. I like the idea, but I think that some of the example functions are too powerful. Anything that allows it to be pretty much an autopilot is a little too far for my tastes. Delays and similar make sense, but I'm wary of conditionals and having action groups directly control the craft beyond "turn engine on, turn engine off".
  5. Ah yes, I see that now, just a little difficult to figure out which system is doing what. Still, probably a good idea to keep related projects in mind while working on this.
  6. Ok, so this doesn't get too fragmented, there are currently two projects related to resources going on: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/61605-Modding-Team-Wanted-the-Resource-Expansion-Module-Project and http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/64595-Open-Resource-System-%28ORS%29-Mod-Resource-API-version-1-0-0 We probably don't want to end up with a million different ways to handle resources, so it'd be nice to work together to make sure there's only really one canonical way to do this.
  7. Hey, so the spawnEVA method changed to take an airlock argument, which broke the assembly when it tried to call the 2-argument version. I fixed it up and also made a change that fixes up the disappearing crew portraits that I saw. I've added the patch as a unified diff below. --- VanguardTechnologies/ModuleCrewCompartment.cs Sat Feb 23 13:41:16 2013 +++ VanguardTechnologies/ModuleCrewCompartment.cs Mon Dec 30 15:55:57 2013 @@ -32,10 +32,13 @@ ScreenMessages.PostScreenMessage("No hatch is activated", 3, ScreenMessageStyle.UPPER_CENTER); else { - ProtoCrewMember m = part.protoModuleCrew[0]; - part.RemoveCrewmember(m); - h.part.AddCrewmember(m); - FlightEVA.fetch.spawnEVA(m, h.part); + ProtoCrewMember m = part.protoModuleCrew.FirstOrDefault(x => x != null); + if (m != null) + { + part.RemoveCrewmember(m); + h.part.AddCrewmember(m); + FlightEVA.fetch.spawnEVA(m, h.part, h.part.airlock); + } } } --- VanguardTechnologies/ModuleHatch.cs Sat Feb 23 13:06:46 2013 +++ VanguardTechnologies/ModuleHatch.cs Mon Dec 30 15:59:05 2013 @@ -26,10 +26,13 @@ ScreenMessages.PostScreenMessage("No crew compartment with crew found", 3, ScreenMessageStyle.UPPER_CENTER); else { - ProtoCrewMember m = c.part.protoModuleCrew[0]; - c.part.RemoveCrewmember(m); - part.AddCrewmember(m); - FlightEVA.fetch.spawnEVA(m, part); + ProtoCrewMember m = c.part.protoModuleCrew.FirstOrDefault(x => x != null); + if (m != null) + { + c.part.RemoveCrewmember(m); + part.AddCrewmember(m); + FlightEVA.fetch.spawnEVA(m, part, part.airlock); + } } } @@ -44,6 +47,7 @@ ProtoCrewMember cmember = part.protoModuleCrew[0]; part.RemoveCrewmember(cmember); c.part.AddCrewmember(cmember); + vessel.SpawnCrew(); break; } } --- VanguardTechnologies/ModuleEjectCrew.cs Sat Oct 26 18:16:12 2013 +++ VanguardTechnologies/ModuleEjectCrew.cs Mon Dec 30 15:58:22 2013 @@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ kerbal = p.protoModuleCrew[0]; if (kerbal == null) //Probably not necessary continue; - print(FlightEVA.fetch.spawnEVA(kerbal, p)); + print(FlightEVA.fetch.spawnEVA(kerbal, p, p.airlock)); maxUses--; print(maxUses); for (int i = FlightGlobals.Vessels.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--)
  8. I found a couple bugs in the VanguardTechnologies.dll code, mostly seemed to be related to changed in 0.23. I'm working on fixes, do you want me to send you the diff when I'm done?