Jump to content

[1.2.2] Stock Part Revamp, Update 1.9.6. Released Source Files!

Ven

By Ven
in KSP1 Mod Development

 Share

Recommended Posts

BudgetHedgehog

BudgetHedgehog

Posted
Posted
Uh guys? Where did Mainsails go?

They're there, they look like the main engine on the bottom here (credit /u/dallabop on reddit)

s5KYRyi.jpg

Anyway, @Ven, there's a small gap between the Poodles fairing and the tank if it's used on a 2.5m stack. If you attach it to the higher 1.25m node, obviously the gap goes, but so does the tankbutt. Not sue if the Skipper does the same, haven't tried it.

55tlhc0.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
I.O.M.

I.O.M.

Posted
Posted

Anyway, @Ven, there's a small gap between the Poodles fairing and the tank if it's used on a 2.5m stack. If you attach it to the higher 1.25m node, obviously the gap goes, but so does the tankbutt. Not sue if the Skipper does the same, haven't tried it.

That gap seem to be related to the tankbutt generated by the Poodle. Some 2.5m parts have no gap (the 2.5 Cryo LFO tanks are fine, for example). Interestingly, if the Poodle is your root part and you connect a 2.5m part to it, it doesn't generate a tankbutt and won't have a gap.

Some visuals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sp1989

sp1989

Posted
Posted
I'm pretty sure that heat shield bug happens in stock too.

I thought that too. I guess I assumed because I looked at the stock bug fix and figured it would be there. Anyone if it's not VSPR issue then I still confirm the radiator issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ven

Ven

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I thought that too. I guess I assumed because I looked at the stock bug fix and figured it would be there. Anyone if it's not VSPR issue then I still confirm the radiator issue.

I can't think of a reason why the radiators would not be saving their deployed/retracted state on my end. I used the same animation methods on the solar panels, ladders and other things, so if the problem is animation based, then the other parts have the same problem as well.

Actually, are the radiators actually retracted after a reload, or only visually (they look folded, but the game treats them as being deployed)? I don't know how anyone would test that (accurately) however.

My best guess is that it is a problem with the stock radiator module.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ven

Ven

Posted
  • Author
Posted
You may want to look at the Materials bay, it seems to gotten a little pudgy around the middle! (It's not 1.25m atm, downloaded the latest version from github as of 10/12/2015...)

thanks for posting this, but I believe you may be using the wrong github version. The one listed in the OP is an older release edition.

https://github.com/VenVen/Stock-Revamp and download the .ZIP. Unless this is the one you downloaded, then I guess I have another thing to look out for and fix. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sp1989

sp1989

Posted
Posted
I can't think of a reason why the radiators would not be saving their deployed/retracted state on my end. I used the same animation methods on the solar panels, ladders and other things, so if the problem is animation based, then the other parts have the same problem as well.

Actually, are the radiators actually retracted after a reload, or only visually (they look folded, but the game treats them as being deployed)? I don't know how anyone would test that (accurately) however.

My best guess is that it is a problem with the stock radiator module.

No that's the precisely the issue. They only appear closed. If you right click the radiators the option is retract. When you do that they open and then close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
robson1000

robson1000

Posted
Posted
Actually, are the radiators actually retracted after a reload, or only visually (they look folded, but the game treats them as being deployed)? I don't know how anyone would test that (accurately) however.

That's exactly what is happening.

It was tested on stock game, with simple quick save and quick load on the launchpad.

I just tested stock radiators, and they don't have that bug.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Prezombie

Prezombie

Posted
Posted (edited)

I installed this with CKAN. It shows this to be version 1.8.1 in CKAN, but ingame, AVG calls it version 1.8.0 and claims the latest version is 1.8.5. What's going on?

Edit: According to the description of The "LV-T15 "Dachshund" Liquid Fuel Engine", it can't be throttled. Shouldn't the minthrust be defined as 210 like the maxthrust, instead of 0? Also it really should have a token entry cost.

Edited by Prezombie
Link to comment
Share on other sites
sharpspoonful

sharpspoonful

Posted
Posted

@Ven

Is there a way to disable or remove the RCS thrusters in the Mk.1-2 Command pod? It makes using the SDHI parts pack really hard as it creates hard-to-counter torquing when adding on other RCS thrusters. I can see the need for them in other situation, but on the Orion there are no RCS thrusters implemented in the pod itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
blowfish

blowfish

Posted
Posted
on the Orion there are no RCS thrusters implemented in the pod itself.

I don't think that's actually true.

You can disable the RCS ports on any part in flight. If you have the tweakable everything mod, you can disable them in the editor. If you want to get rid of them entirely, you can use this patch:


@PART[Mk1-2Pod]:FINAL
{
    !MODULE[ModuleRCS] {}
}

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sharpspoonful

sharpspoonful

Posted
Posted (edited)
I don't think that's actually true.

You can disable the RCS ports on any part in flight. If you have the tweakable everything mod, you can disable them in the editor. If you want to get rid of them entirely, you can use this patch:


@PART[Mk1-2Pod]:FINAL
{
    !MODULE[ModuleRCS] {}
}

Sorry, I meant to add to my knowledge to that statement. I have never seen or read of the Orion capsule actually having RCS thrusters on it, but I have not caught up on current affairs.

Edited by sharpspoonful
Link to comment
Share on other sites
blowfish

blowfish

Posted
Posted
Sorry, I meant to add to my knowledge to that statement. I have never seen or read of the Orion capsule actually having RCS thrusters on it, but I have not caught up on current affairs.

All of the pictures I can find show thrusters pretty clearly (e.g. this one). Not sure about text sources but it seems like concrete specs are pretty hard to come by anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sharpspoonful

sharpspoonful

Posted
Posted
All of the pictures I can find show thrusters pretty clearly (e.g. this one). Not sure about text sources but it seems like concrete specs are pretty hard to come by anyway.

I have not read any text or seen actual mockups detailing RCS placement, but there you have it in that concept art. Here's me being sheepish. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NathanKell

NathanKell

Posted
Posted

Further, it would be impossible to control reentry without RCS, and that would be...very bad. The shielding is probably rated to survive a purely ballistic reentry, but you'd lose any ability to control landing zone or mitigate Gs, and you'd be stressing the TCS.

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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...