allista

Members
  • Content count

    1,624
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,220 Excellent

About allista

  • Rank
    Sr. Spacecraft Engineer

Recent Profile Visitors

6,102 profile views
  1. allista

    [1.4.5] Global Construction

    You can add MM patch for TweakScale, but why do it, if you simply can make an empty container, then assemble a kit in it without any size restrictions?
  2. allista

    [1.4.5] Throttle Controlled Avionics

    The 3.5.2 is probably compatible with KSP-1.4.2, so what you see is most likely an installation error. Have you also replaced the AT_Utils with the one that comes with 3.5.2? More importantly, share the ~/.config/unity3d/Squad/Kerbal Space Program/Player.log, so we could look at the errors.
  3. allista

    [1.4.5] Throttle Controlled Avionics

    Never removed it, actually. If your KSP/Unity distribution correctly assigns KeyCodes to key events, you can assign anything except Esc and Backspace. If not (like on some win platforms), only alphanumerics do work. That's Unity's limitation, not TCA's.
  4. allista

    [1.4.5] Global Construction

    I may be compatible with 1.4.3, but I'm not so sure about the older versions. Tell is what you'll find. If you're using USI there's containers for all the needed resources to accumulate. If not, I recommend Configurable Containers for the task. There full version with the patches for most of the container parts. As for the the reduced construction speed: this mechanisms is actually implemented from the beginning, but there's a threshold to it. Kerbals won't do a 0.1% percent of work they able of; nobody would And the conversion is very slow compared to most construction requirements (which vary per part). So the intended operation is: first accumulate, then build.
  5. allista

    [1.4.5] Throttle Controlled Avionics

    No mismatch: 1. It's the ThrottleControlledAvionics.user, the user_ is a rogue file that went into the archive by accident. 2. The location is GameData/ThrottleControlledAvionics/ThrottleControlledAvionics.user as you see from the logs (".." meaning "one dir up") 3. Indeed, why not?
  6. allista

    [1.3] - Modular Kolonization System (MKS)

    With the current architecture this could be done in principle, but I need to make another special container module that will not be resizable and be destroyed when the resulting vessel is spawned inside. I consider this a feature request. Thanks for the idea. https://github.com/allista/GroundConstruction/issues/41
  7. Oh... It seems I wasn't paying enough attention here. Reckon I also need to fix this now Thanks)
  8. The code in AnisotropicResizable.cs#L145 does just this: recalculates drag cubes in OnStart. Animations, however they're implemented, should use something like this: MultiGeometryAnimator.cs
  9. allista

    [1.3] - Modular Kolonization System (MKS)

    The part with PR did happen, i.e. the proper version of GC was included in MKS repo. As for the MKS release, I don't really know, but was under the impression that it also did. Currently there's another PR with GC 2.1 that adds the long requested orbital construction to completely supersede ELP; but as far as I know, RoverDude is occupied with his job and family for the last months , so again, we all have to be patient. Life comes first. In any case, you can always install the standalone version of GC, which will work just fine with MKS. The difference with the bundled version is that some parts and features are excluded so as not to interfere with the ways USI runs things.
  10. allista

    [1.4.5] Hangar

    Thanks for the report. I'll recheck tech requirements; they haven't been changed in a while, so you're probably right.
  11. allista

    [1.4.5] Global Construction

    That's an intended limitation. Honestly, I don't think I should've allowed to carry gunpowder grain inside DIY Kits at all; but as it is now, you can pack SF from Kerbin where it's produced. On the other hand, if you assemble a new kit off-world, you don't have the luxury of including resources into the kit because as a rule you don't have any. Indeed, does your base produce SF to add it to the kit from which the separatrons will be build? Even if it did, there's no way to transfer it, because, well, it's solid. This is not a trivial problem, actually. There're a number of resources that are required for some parts to work (consider reactors that use Uranium), but which you cannot produce, transport or transfer; they only come with the parts on Kerbin. It stands to reason that you can take a complete part, disassemble it and add to the kit; but you cannot create such a kit from scratch, because even if you make all the pieces on 3D-printer, they're not enough for the part to work; and 3D printers can produce enriched radioisotopes no more than gunpowder.
  12. allista

    [1.4.5] Global Construction

    I don't think it would, as a part in KSP cannot hold two volumes of the same resource. So there's actually nothing to merge. As for the empty costs -- that's weird! From the configs: GAL 300k + 100u Machinery OAL 450k + 100u Machinery OW 50k IW 3.5k I've just looked in-game, figures almost match (for some reason the parts cost a little less in Editor; also strange). Even full they cost less than you say...
  13. allista

    [1.4.5] Global Construction

    Let me tell you what I'm planning on doing next for GC; after I tend to the long standing matters in Hangar and maybe (fingers crossed) start to implement the translational control via active gimbaling in TCA that I've been long dreaming about. I'm going to work on the docked spawning from kit containers. So that you could actually grow a space station incrementally, next module docked to the previous right away. That's my priority.
  14. allista

    [1.4.5] Global Construction

    Knowing how part joints actually work in KSP, I totally agree. Still, this is a game and one encounters such limitations all the time. That's just what I wanted to ask, provided, if course, that @AlonzoTG have some skill in 3D modeling. There are two problems here: first is texting. I can reshape the nodes to #3, but that would mean to re-texture everything from scratch; which is always triple harder than modeling the objects. But second is: suppose I do it; what will become of the ships that people here are building right now with the current parts? Anyways, judging by the looks of the real space station is pretty standard to make segments considerably thicker than the passages/ports between then; recon this has something to do with pressure inside. And aesthetics
  15. allista

    [1.4.5] Global Construction

    Why does attaching #2 node to #4 node of the fairing bother you so much? It would stick alright and will be held in place with auto-struts. It's enough to lift the thing into orbit, is it not? Other options include: pack them into a kit and build it in orbit; use Hangar's alternative fairings. I like the idea of making several attach nodes using the shroud module, so I'll see what it costs in terms of labor. But unfortunately I don't have that much free time for KSP, and I always prefer adding new functionality in code to adding new pretty models. So to be honest, as much as I like 3D-modeling, all the parts I make are only for MVP, and I try to spend on them as little time as possible.