Jump to content

MiniKerbalShuttle v1.5


DimonD

Recommended Posts

48 minutes ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:

I apologize for not being able, at the moment, to give you a report with more info. But on 1.12.2, Waterfall 0.6.7, things are just really unhappy with this mod. The flood of nullrefs is unending. Again, sorry I don't have the log for you, and if you absolutely cannot reproduce this then I'll reinstall and get a log file for you. I just put the sample craft on the launch pad, and took off.  10mb log file within seconds, no plumes on main engines.

The good news, if you take the turbojet engine cfg from v 1.3 and put it in v 1.2... v 1.2 works (except the waterfall configs, but no nullrefs) . So the new nullrefs are from of the most recent changes made to the mod

Edited by Wackenhut
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, DimonD said:

Version 1.3
Changes:
1. Completely changed rocket model and solid booster

33.png

 

22.png
2. Added small ion engine

IonX10.png
3. Added solar panel for satellites

sp1.png
4. Added a new small booster - KStug

KSTug.png
5. Changed the balance of the rocket
6. Now RCS on Kermes runs on regular fuel, not monoprop
7. Removed the problematic protective cover from JetEngine

 

I also removed stock support, and I hope I fixed all the errors.

Wow how cool it looks, but now put all your energy into the mini station for this mini shuttle.

Edited by Yaroslav Russia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

there are still 3 main problems with the mod i'm afraid, 1 was the turbojet engine wich you did a quick fix for. And then there is problem 2) wich are your configs for waterfall. With the configs installed you get an endless wall of error spam, without it console is crispy clean, so there is something wrong with your configs. And problem 3 is the docking port for the shuttle, the deployable one. When you set it to 'control from here' when you want to dock, the orientation on the navball is wrong, you only get the option of forward or 15° but the orientation should be in the direction the docking port is pointing at, not the way the shuttle points.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 10/13/2021 at 10:21 PM, Wackenhut said:

there are still 3 main problems with the mod i'm afraid, 1 was the turbojet engine wich you did a quick fix for. And then there is problem 2) wich are your configs for waterfall. With the configs installed you get an endless wall of error spam, without it console is crispy clean, so there is something wrong with your configs. And problem 3 is the docking port for the shuttle, the deployable one. When you set it to 'control from here' when you want to dock, the orientation on the navball is wrong, you only get the option of forward or 15° but the orientation should be in the direction the docking port is pointing at, not the way the shuttle points.

First, sorry for the long answer. ..
I will check the bug with Waterfall, also check Jet. The docking port has already been repaired, I hope to update soon with fixes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

is there maybe a name conflict between this mod and another mod? when I have this installed alongside SSPX the Coriolis ring complains that I need 'RocketParts' - but I don't have any mods that use that term. Digging around, SSPX has a bunch of patches that say NEEDS[MKS]. Without this mod, the Coriolis ring (correctly) says I need engineers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:

is there maybe a name conflict between this mod and another mod? when I have this installed alongside SSPX the Coriolis ring complains that I need 'RocketParts' - but I don't have any mods that use that term. Digging around, SSPX has a bunch of patches that say NEEDS[MKS]. Without this mod, the Coriolis ring (correctly) says I need engineers. 

It is quite possible that this is the problem, because having installed only my "MKS" and Waterfall on the clean version of KSP, I did not find spam:

WF.png

It looks,  will have to change the name of the addon again.

Edited by DimonD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This one is pretty similar to another mod:

So you'll need to check if it uses such designation, because who knows if anyone will give reboot to it (unlikely, but possible). I sadly currently can't check it and can't rember what it was when I tried it.

I would suggest to not undergo such drastic namechange but instead to use a slightly less abbreviated form: "MKShuttle" (if it isn't taken too by any other mod, of course).

This will keep user familiarity and also makes gamedata folder name more standing out.

Edited by nothingSpecial
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/4/2021 at 12:57 PM, zer0Kerbal said:

May I suggest then Kerbal Mini Shuttle (KMS)?

This was the first name, I dropped it because I saw an add-on with the same abbreviated name, it is above this post. :D

On 12/4/2021 at 1:34 PM, nothingSpecial said:

 This one is pretty similar to another mod:

So you'll need to check if it uses such designation, because who knows if anyone will give reboot to it (unlikely, but possible). I sadly currently can't check it and can't rember what it was when I tried it.

I would suggest to not undergo such drastic namechange but instead to use a slightly less abbreviated form: "MKShuttle" (if it isn't taken too by any other mod, of course). t taken too by any other mod, of course).

This will keep user familiarity and also makes gamedata folder name more standing out.

"MKShuttle" is quite good, and most importantly I have not found a similar name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The root folder is now named "MKShuttle", so if you've used this add-on before, it will be removed from the game.
2. Some textures have been slightly updated:

(Example)

1.png

PR1.png
3. Added one more solar panel.
4. The model of the DS-1 antenna has been changed, and a new DS-2 antenna has been added:

DS12.png
5. Satellites now use XenonGas for RCS.
6. Changed the position of the main docking port, now when switching to it, it will have the correct orientation for docking.

 

 

DOWNLOAD:

https://spacedock.info/mod/2678/KerbalMiniShuttle

Edited by DimonD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/4/2021 at 2:34 AM, nothingSpecial said:

This one is pretty similar to another mod:

So you'll need to check if it uses such designation, because who knows if anyone will give reboot to it (unlikely, but possible). I sadly currently can't check it and can't rember what it was when I tried it.

I would suggest to not undergo such drastic namechange but instead to use a slightly less abbreviated form: "MKShuttle" (if it isn't taken too by any other mod, of course).

This will keep user familiarity and also makes gamedata folder name more standing out.

That mod only used the "Kerbin Mini Shuttle" name from 2013-2014. After that, it was renamed the Kerbin Shuttle Orbiter (KSO) or for a time, Kerbin Shuttle Orbiter System (KSOS). There isn't a conflict if @DimonD wanted to use it. KSO has passed through several hands, and the current maintainer is idle at the moment:

 

Definitely going to try this mod out - it looks great. Nice work, DimonD!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:

Interested to see how others get along, but for me, this version still creates kabloobabytes of waterfall nullrefs. Steps: sandbox, sample craft on pad, ctrl+alt+f12.

I really don't know much about .cfg, and at the moment I have no idea what is wrong with it, if it does not work correctly, the only option now is to suspend WF support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, DimonD said:

No, since the updated starship has already appeared on the forum, I see no reason to make another one.

oh bummer this thing looks lit. the other ones are realistic for sure but they really just look like steel cans with flappy things welded on. Not a real space ship. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...