All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. I’m still in China, has he done any updates on the issue? He must have
  3. I can't get Discord signed in on this computer, so I'll ask here. It's just eye-candy, nothing serious. 3.1 is a great release and praise all round to SirMortimer and gotmachine for their work In flight, the file manager display is tidy and shortened: while in the Space Center scene, it is not: I looked at the code and found that this seems to be the intended behaviour (IsFlight check here and there). Is the wrap-around a quirk of my particular screen resolution or could this be left over from a wider UI? I didn't really play with Kerbalism before 3.1, so I don't remember anything from before the rework. There's another in-flight limit for overly long vessel names, too, but only for a select few panels (and even the in-flight limit is too wide on my screen, a horizontal scroll bar appears).
  4. @ztoundas @SuicidalInsanity An introduction to understanding drag cubes: Look at the part from each of the orthogonal axes (X+, X-...). The amount of solid surface area is taken and mushed down into an equilateral square. All negative space due to hollow bits is considered and reduces the total area. Drag cube area is not simply a function of how tall and wide the face at that axis is. This number (the drag cube area) is most important for the Y+ and Y- because this axis is where stack nodes and the airflow direction apply nearly all of the time. Once the drag cube area is near identical for the Y faces across all parts in a given bulkhead profile (or a given stack, regardless of profile), this particular problem is squashed. The matter of negative space is the reason why (for example) the Mk3 Expansion drone core should bring players an exceptional lot of trouble. I remember it having a lot of hollow area. Any cargo bays added by mods are the absolute worst as they only have their really thin side walls and practically don't exist in the Y axis view.
  5. Maybe. Starship won't fold its legs anyway.
  6. None of which even remotely indicates a cause or even that Deadly Reentry itself was the cause. All of the parts are indicated by your log as having been successfully processed by Deadly Reentry at which point it ceases to do anything at the Main Menu. It doesn't do anything else at that point and other non-Deadly Reentry procedures begin to occur. (player.log had more to say on the subject than ksp.log)
  7. Yes, the RD-0410, but this is already part of Restock+
  8. It's going to be hard, as Sony is at the top of the big three companies in musical production. Their grip does not even stop there, a case (funny to my perspective) is in the case of digital cameras, where as always the lovers of some brands shoot at each other because, "Canon is the best. NO! Fujifilm is the best! What?! Everyone knows that Nikon has the best products! Impossible, it's Panasonic! etc." while almost all those brand are almost using Sony's censors and chips only.
  9. Full illumination, for now, but I intend to add the light knob once I get more data on what other instruments people would like to see.
  10. I have been trying to use PCR recently with another IVA pack, DE_IVA and it hasn't been working correctly. You can find my struggles with it here and on the comments below it: It has many issues surrounding RPM and custom patches among other things. I'll check out these cockpits once I have access to my PC.
  11. New 1.8.x compatible version is now available. See Original Post for Links and Details. > > > BUG REPORTS GO HERE!!! < < < (I cannae fix what I dinnae know aboot)
  12. Curious because I'm super excited someone took the initiative and made MAS IVAs, did you add the light knob to the IVAs or pre-set everything to full illumination?
  13. Adding realism is different than adding fiction - just because people don't want more realism in the game (which to me would be things like decaying orbits, part failures, complex life support, etc, which are all things which primarily increase busywork while playing) doesn't mean they want things which directly contradict known physics.
  14. Many thanks! I've gone ahead and added your suggested tweak, as well as pushed the now-finished IVA for the Mk3 Cockpit. Additionally, I've made an IVA for the Probe Control Room mod, but I'm uncertain that PCR will run properly without RasterPropMonitor being installed.
  15. Not that much. 2011. I read Slashdot since 1999.
  16. The VW Golf is done, so we move on to our next project. The cage is pre-fabricated, that will speed up things. Starting with the body: Some copy and paste: Adding chassis and testing the doors: Trunk lid, can't open (yet): TBC
  17. I've just completed this awesome challenge. This must be one of the most difficult things I have ever done in KSP, but it was well worth the effort. Mission report here: and here: https://imgur.com/a/di5MCog In short, I completed Levels 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the challenge, all within a single mission. With a craft <500 tons, <250 k$ and no ISRU (apart from drilling for ore as required for level 4). Some notes: 1. I used Infernal Robotics to turn my lander into a boat, driven by paddle wheels. I think it would be possible to make similar paddle wheels with the robotics parts from Breaking Ground, but I don't own it. So I hope the organizer agrees with my decision to use IR instead. 2. I accidentally forgot to disable Hyperedit on the first part of the mission. Rest assured I did not use it for the actual mission (I did use it to test my lander, but not on the actual mission). 3. In my opinion, drilling for ore is harder than the ultimate challenge (at least drilling ore from the seabed as I did). The 250 kg of extra payload made it quite hard to design a return vehicle capable of reaching Eve orbit.
  18. I have a similar design tourist pod and even in stock scale it either needs gridfins (Kerbal Re-useability Expansion) at the top or ballast at the bottom (or both) to remain stable without SAS. Even with gridfins & SAS, it tries to go sideways under physics warp, it just doesn't go too far, and survives. Airbrakes serve the same purpose - but as you noticed - have a nasty habit of exploding from overheating.
  19. Well Jeb's my uncle, looks like the stock drone core also has holes! I should have checked, because my solution didn't work perfectly, and the drone core's auto-calculated figure may be erroneous as well (like the stock structural tubes, which are known to have this issue). My example ship there does have the drone core in it, immediately before the parts I had the menus up for in my original shot. So I inverted the stack, and here is the result after adding the calculated stock drone core to the .cfg of your rcs part. I tried to match speed and AoA so the drag figures should be under similar conditions. You'll notice that the battery is still very high, so that's not right. Though it has no holes in it, it does seem flawed, and now I recall it was problematic last time I used it, but that is unique to itself and it doesn't seem to effect the following part. Meanwhile, the drone core does also appear to be increasing the drag of the part following it (the crew cabin, which was at 0.26 in my original shot, vs 9.2 now). However it's own drag is no longer being effected by the RCS part? I'll try some more configurations. Something is screwy but I feel like I am close. Something about those YP and YN values looks inconsistent. Later I'll do some examples of my missing portrait GUI.
  20. Over the past week or so I have been doing the Eve rocks challenge: And what an amazing challenge this has turned out to be. To recap, the challenge asks you to do one of the following: Additional points can be scored if your mission satisfies one or more criteria for efficiency / difficulty: I chose to make the challenge even harder for myself by doing multiple levels in a single mission. In short, I collected 4 surface samples AND 25 ore from Eve, as well as 1 surface sample from Gilly. All with a craft with mass of 477 tons which cost 235046 credits. And I did not use ISRU, other than drilling for 25 ore. I did not try to optimize mission time, my mission lasted for more than 2 years. All this means that I completed Levels 1, 3, 4 and 5 simultaneously, with separate samples for each mission. As far as the score goes, this gets me 1500 + 250 + 250 + 325 + 25 = 2350 points from completing level 5. I have no idea if I am allowed to add the points for the other completed levels to the total, so I'll leave it at that. I've written a full mission report here: https://imgur.com/a/di5MCog. And finally, a heartfelt THANK YOU to Johnster_Space_Program, for running this awesome challenge.
  21. Today
  22. If the soviet union ever made a nucler engine if they did i will like beale to make these engine with green plume
  23. I like the idea of part failure but I think their should be a set amount of failures/part/game For example you start with simple SRBs and each should hold a failure rate of something like 1%, after the first failure the fail rate on that part should fall to .5%, after another .25% and after another the part could be considered "perfected" and no longer fails as all the kinks have been worked out. The max failures or fail rates could be tailored to each part dependent on the complexity of said part. That said, I dont see star theory implementing part failures into the stock game though but seeing a similar mod would be nice.
  24. Doesn't it strike you as odd that he's apologizing for his English while writing in Russian? Makes me think there was an autotranslator derp involved.
  25. Only if taken to extremes... since such drives expend fuel so their are limits on range without refueling.
  1. Load more activity