Jump to content

[1.02] KW Rocketry v2.7 Available - 1.02 Compatibility! - 16/05/2015


Kickasskyle
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yes, in a couple of weeks.

whew! I can't imagine KSP without KWR. Would life even be worth living? Thank you for your continued support of this excellent product!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, since the engines will probably need re-balancing anyways, has anyone thought of good niches for the KW rocketry engines to fill? I've found that, while the LV-T engines work fine, they're a little underpowered at sea-level and not good for lifting a lot, so there is room for lifter engines there.

It's been a while since I took any classes on the subject, but if I remember correctly, ISP scaling (as altitude changes) is heavily dependent on engine bell shape, making the ISP highest at the "design" altitude for the engine. So, would it make sense to have the multi-bell engines have peak ISP at sealevel, and have it drop from there? As far as I can tell, they're mostly there for getting big heavy things off the ground anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I've done some testing and KWR fairings don't seem to work as aerodynamic shields as stock ones do.

I hope this is fixable 'cause i think that KW farming look a lot better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I've done some testing and KWR fairings don't seem to work as aerodynamic shields as stock ones do.

Yeah the fairings need a module added that tells the game they are a cargo bay. Kyle/Winston are hopefully looking into it; in the meantime suffer with the stock fairings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Such a great mod! Does anyone know when it's going to be updated for 1.0?

Kickasskyle wrote on April 27th:

I'm going to take a look at all the balance things once my exams end, but until then you'll have to sit tight. Should be around the 12th or so next month.

Next guy showing up, asking for ETAs in 3... 2... 1...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it should be a moral responsibility for the first post on each page to contain info about the ETA.

Some modders don't like giving ETA's, since they might not want to disappoint people by being late.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it should be a moral responsibility for the first post on each page to contain info about the ETA.
Some modders don't like giving ETA's, since they might not want to disappoint people by being late.

Agreed on the second point, but Mr. Soup has something of a point. Perhaps noting in the OP, hopefully with a dated notation, that the version-break is a known issue and that a new version is being considered. No need to even reference an ETA, or in the alternative, the notation can expressly disavow an ETA. Not that a beleaguered and overworked modder owes users any explanation (I, too, am knee-deep in finals for school right now, ARG KSP!!!) but having it there at the top of the thread does reduce the whine-spam posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

erhaps noting in the OP, hopefully with a dated notation, that the version-break is a known issue and that a new version is being considered. No need to even reference an ETA, or in the alternative, the notation can expressly disavow an ETA.

Modders have tried that before. You still get a couple of post asking about updates/ETAs from people with poor reading comprehension or poor impulse control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still get a couple of post asking about updates/ETAs from people with poor reading comprehension or poor impulse control.

I knew this, and am always saddened by reminders. :( (I did say "reduce," not "eliminate," though... but yeah, you're right.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only ETA I have and always given to people regarding updates to my add-ons is: When It's Doneâ„¢

Plans change, add-on authors sometimes have IRL commitments or have shifting interests towards / away fromthe game. As they make add-ons primarily because of their love of the game, there's no need to have the obligation of meeting some deadline hanging over their heads.

Most add-ons are also released under fairly permissive licences, so if one is really really impatient, one could potentially fork the project and publish an updated version themselves (of course, if the original author has personally asked you to wait, it'd be rude not to do so).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

this mod needs a conversion to KSP 1.0.2

Theres a thing you should do on forums. called "review the last few pages of discussion before posting". It really helps cut down on forum clutter, as the last page or so before your post was people discussing the update. lol.

just sayin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried reading back to find it but couldn't so just going to say it. The remedy for the issues with attaching things to nodes is easily fixed by going to alt F12 menu and go to cheats and tick the very last one that says something about strict part placement. Now I dunno if that's the issues because I'm waiting for the official update but I'm using KAS and the container issue sounded the same and this is how it was fixed! :-) Cheers!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...