All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. Steven Mading

    [1.6.1] kOS v1.1.7.0 : kOS Scriptable Autopilot System

    Well darn. Can you temporarily set the 180% scale down to 100% just to see if that changes the behavior of the bug at all? One change I made in kOS was to move that dialog box offcenter to fix this issue: I don't know if that affects this, but the place it is crashing according to your log *is* the place where KSP checks the corners of that box to see if it's offscreen. Why that would throw a null exception instead of just handling it or refusing to work if it doesn't like what it sees, I don't know. I also know I had the box hanging partially offscreen a number of times and it was fine when I tested anyway. The problem seems to be happening when the box is trying to *close* itself, actually. So I wonder if some weird timing issue is causing KSP to try calling the offscreen checker *after* the box has started to dispose of itself and its not all there anymore, thus the null ref. Also, that box appears only if the game is a newly started save from the beginning, or at least a game in which kOS was just installed and had not been running beforehand in that save. If it's a save where kOS was already installed and used in that save, and that dialog box was already answered, then it shouldn't come back again in that save. Which situation is having the crash happen? 1 - kOS already installed, then start a brand new savegame from scratch. (This is a case that I would expect the dialog box to appear). 2 - kOS NOT installed, then start a brand new savegame, then exit KSP and install kOS, then run KSP and resume that savegame. (a game that was started without kOS, then had kOS added later). (This is a case that I would expect the dialog box to appear). 3 - kOS already installed, the savegame already has the connectivity manager selected, and you continue it as normal (this is the case where I would NOT expect the dialog box to appear).
  3. Yeah, it's completely unrelated. I don't play KSP in fullscreen(a habit picked up thanks to games like ROBLOX and GMod where if your computer is not good enough and the program freezes, you're SoL), so that bug wouldn't have been it. Although it is a very similar result. Thanks for sharing!
  4. 1000 GW Earth-to-Moon emitter with 1% atmospheric loss = 10 GW torch heating the air. Sending the ray from LEO station unlikely has any advantage over the same station in LLO or L-point. So, I guess, either send the ray from an LSO emitter, or place the reactor right on the Moon.
  5. I was considering adding a feature where you would choose the crafts that would be reinforced, instead of shoving extra struts on everything and the kitchen's sink. Not sure how - perhaps a nice looking radial part, and so only crafts with that part would be reinforced. This will also save some CPU juice, as only some crafts would have the extra struts, and not all of them. Of course, a configuration would be added to preserve the old behavior if desired. Sounds like a plan?
  6. @Missingno200 Here's how you reproduce that missing terrain in the main menu in 1.2 and 1.3 (doesnt happen in 1.1.3 or 1.4+) Start new game or resume an existing one. Than go back to the menu, that gets you to see the Mun or Bust Screen. Then Press Alt and Enter. (which takes the game out of full screen) No idea if that's related to your in game bug though. I had experienced the issue before but I believe someone else had already posted a bug report to the bug tracker for it. The menu bug was sort of fixed in 1.4 but it caused another issue with pixelation with stretching the screen to the native resolution instead of just resizing it to a smaller window within the native resolution. Not sure how to get this picture to show in forum. I did this screenshot today
  7. Drew Kerman

    [1.4.X] KS3P

    @jrodriguez did White Guardian push anything to his repo you can compile? Sounded like he was pretty close to done before he vanished again. It's been just over a month since he last logged on. If not I'm just using your last build, which is working fine. Really would like that in-game GUI tho...
  8. kerbiloid

    Star Wars IX: The Rise of Skywalker

    Leia is an off-topic here, but... Are you sure? Compare. (caution: large pictures)
  9. Stone Blue

    [1.6.1] kOS v1.1.7.0 : kOS Scriptable Autopilot System

    hmmm... I tried to reproduce the issue with v1.1.7 on KSP 1.7.0... even set my screen size to 1024x768... the connectivity manager box shows up well away from the screen border, and dragging it around, it seems to have set bounds that keep it uniformlly quite away from the screen edge... I dont know how it would appear overlapping the screen edge at all.. vOv And every thing seems to be working normally... One thing that worried me, is after getting the choose terminal font warning on the main menu... I went in to the editor to load a craft and add a kos part... clicking the kos toolbar button, when the toolbar is at the bottom of the screen, clicking the "choose Font" button, opens the other dialog, that ends up well off the bottom edge of the screen... and neither kOS Ui is draggable... but its not a problem when in flight scene, and the toolbar is on the right edge of the screen... but again, everything seemed to work normally... vOv And no Wind Tunnel mod installed for me... Sorry I couldnt be moar help EDIT: after Someone's above post (they ninja'd me), I dont have fullscreen enabled, but I do force -popupwindow... I generally run 1440x900 for the game... vOv oh, also, dont know if this would matter, but I force Dx11, and run Electrocutor's Dx Fix...
  10. @ussdefiant - I've moved the conversation over to this thread as it's a ScrapYard issue you are having T/N/I is "total/new/inventoried" (it's ScrapYard recording the builds). I've raised issue #3 for this, but it looks like I broke KCT when doing the latest update. Fairly certain I know what the issue is, but could you please provide your full log on the Github issue just in case.
  11. Someone2018

    [1.6.1] kOS v1.1.7.0 : kOS Scriptable Autopilot System

    The connectivity manager box never appears for me at all (on screen), although i did see it in a non-responsive state after switch from fullscreen to non-fullscreen once or twice over the past week. My resolution is actually large 3840x2160, at a scale of 180% though.
  12. It's a matter of logistics, and wasting a SHLV. SLS gets to launch once a year for several years, then maybe (just maybe) they get to launch twice a year. Better to loft a BA2100, or even a LEO/Cislunar refillable tug/ferry. Any suggested lunar architecture in this thread are already dominated by commercial vehicles. Every component is simply a FH launch. At a cost of maybe 3 BILLION per launch, it doesn't seem worth it to just fly a few astronauts. NASA used to show Orion attached to a Mars mission as the reentry capsule for the return to Earth. That means Orion can stay functional in space for years. As such, I'd launch the thing not around the moon, but to ISS. Park it there. Use SLS to launch useful parts of a lunar mission, then dock something to Orion, and send it to the Moon once the tug is ready. Crew can take CST-100 or Dragon to ISS, then switch to Orion. You need something like 50 tonnes at LEO* (KSC inclination) to get the Orion CSM (26t) to EML-1 (I assume Gateway dv is similar). This seems possible with some sort of distributed launch system. (*I'm assuming the stage that pushes it to EML-1 is using an RL-10 here, so hydrolox, you need more like 70t if you use hypergolics). So we have a capsule that is purpose built to hang around in space for up to 3 years before being tasked with Earth reentry, and we have the ability to send it to a distant lunar orbit from ISS with one FH launch worth of cryo upper stage. Alternately, FH could send a couple hypergolic stages massing more like 35-40 t using reusable FH launches (side boosters, anyway). All this to ISS. During this time, Orion is checked out in space. These launches, if the storable props, can literally be spread out over years if needed. These same vehicles are already set to be tasked with building Gateway (invented because building Gateway was a job for SLS/Orion, lol, now with no Orion required). They are also tasked with delivering 3 parts of a lander to Gateway. A few more commercial launches, and SLS is not needed. Gateway will require PPE and Hab/docking. Call it 2 launches? 3? Gateway: 3 launches (Atlas V, DIVH, F9, FH---depending on payload mass) Assume one Atlas 551 (120M?), 2 FH expended (300M) Orion to ISS: 1 launch. (FH, full reuse, 90M$, or 1 DIVH 350M$) ISS--->Gateway tug: 2 launches (FH) (180M) Lander to Gateway: 3 launches (FH or maybe DIVH). (450M with FH, as much as 1.05 B$ with DIVH) Total cost of launches is 1.14 Billion maximizing SpaceX launches to lower cost. If SLS sends Orion, that eliminates 3 FH launches, saving 270M$... except it then adds 3 B$ to the total cost of our Moon mission. So Moon in 5 years WITH SLS participating is just shy of 4B$, without using SLS at all... a little over a billion. EDIT: The lander parts could be sent cheaper with a small stage attached that uses ion propulsion, assuming it uses storable props, so the 1.14B$ might get cheaper, eliminating some FH expended launches. FH (reused) could put it in an elliptical orbit, then it kicks to lunar with ion.
  13. Today
  14. Challyss

    Problème mission sonde Help

    Pour vérifier, mets ton curseur sur les marqueurs de noeuds ascendant ou descendant. Si tu as une valeur proche de 180 ou -180deg c'est que tu tournes dans le mauvais sens. Ici, la mission tu donne une orbite avec une inclinaison de 177.7 degrés, c'est-à-dire une orbite rétrograde (= qui progresse vers l'arrière = qui tourne dans le sens opposé à la rotation de la planète sur elle-même), et non prograde (= qui tourne dans le même sens que la planète sur elle-même).
  15. Xurkitree

    A few jet part suggestions

    We need Mk3 and Mk1 Drone Cores. Something that smoothly blends with the fuselage, rather than a probe core that just juts out.
  16. Ultimate Steve

    Notre Dame on Fire

    Wow... I was there last summer. It won't be the same again...
  17. Okay, now I'm having another problem. It may not be directly KSP IE, but it's related. At high time warp values, liquid hydrogen cooling doesn't work and I get lots of boiloff even though I have lots of power.
  18. IceTitan

    [1.7.x-1.3.1] Xen’s Planet Collection Revived

    I use it :)
  19. kBob

    Oldtimer KSP Humor

    I'd say pretty much anything @Whackjob did. A lot of that couldn't be done now.
  20. GoldForest

    A few jet part suggestions

    Well, the higher you go, the poorer the performance of the engine. The Goliath has a sweet spot of around 11-15km imo. I feel that a 3m engine would provide better performance, enough that it would be able to easily operate at 15 - 20km, or even higher. Of course, the same could be said about the Goliath getting a buff. Increase the thurst, and it would be able to work pretty well at higher altitude. Hmmm, and I just had another idea. Instead of giving us Mk3 rounded parts, add a Mk4 part family. Now, 5m plane parts are a little big I would think, but instead of going 5m, go 4m. 4.375m to be exact. I feel like this would be a good size for jumbo planes in KSP. And I know I haven't made a case for a 3m engine, but I'm going to go ahead and say add the 3m engine to the 4m airplane parts. 2.5 engines to 4.375 fuselage and wings would be a little small imo. So I am now adovocating for a 3m engine to go with the mk4 parts. And actually, there would be two mark 4 parts, or mark 4 + mark 5): mark 4 rounded (Or MK4A) and mark 4 blended body(Think NASA's SSTO, the X-33 SSTO. Or the NASA VentureStar) (Would be known as MK4B or MK5) Mark 4A part list ideas: Mark 4A Rounded Cockpit Mark 4A Passenger section Mark 4A Liquid Fuel only MK4A LFO tank MK4A Mono MK4A Large wings (Bigger FAT-445's) MK4A Large Tail MK4A Double height passenger section MK4A Double height cockpit MK4A Double height Tail MK4A Cargo bay MK4A Double height Cargo bay MK4A Wheels Mark 4B/Mark 5 part list: MK4B/5 Cockpit MK4B/5 Probe core MK4B/5 Passenger Fuselage (Will be more like a larger Mk3 passenger section) (All tank parts come in two types. Straight or angled. This is to give the triangle appearance of the X-33. Straight vs angled would be done via in game model switching) MK4B/5 LF tank MK4B/5 LFO tank MK4B/5 Mono tank MK4B/5 Wings MK4B/5 Tail MK4B/5 Linear Aerospike Engine MK4B/5 Cargo bay (Only comes in straight sections, no angled sections) MK4B/5 Wheels MK4B/5 Nose/ Nose Cone MK4B/5 Sized RCS Thrusters
  21. So, there were on and off plans for decades to use Masers and IR Lasers and things to beam energy from satellites down to Earth. Could we use the same techniques to beam energy from Earth up to a lunar base? That'd be pretty neat.
  22. Mythical Donuts

    [1.7.x-1.3.1] Xen’s Planet Collection Revived

    Has anyone tried this out yet? Anyone who has, please tell me about any bugs or things that need to be fixed
  23. LordFerret

    Notre Dame on Fire

    You beat me to it. This is but one reason modern buildings won't last... don't last. The first iron / steel & concrete construction was in the mid-1800's, and this deterioration has been long evident. Granite! In another note; I read some commentary today about how the recent interior / exterior (?) laser scan of Notre Dame isn't expected to be of much help in reconstruction efforts. If I run across the article again I'll post a link.
  24. James Kerman

    Rate the location....

    10/10 provided it's in a seaworthy vessel and not a lifeboat.
  25. stupid_chris

    [1.7] RealChute Parachute Systems v1.4.7.4 | 13/04/19

    Being shielded from airflow.
  26. @SpaceFace545 They have provided an excellent wiki with instructions on how to do exactly what you want on the Github Wiki. its a lot of reading, but its a super simple method, and will take you longer to read it, than to make your own whitelist of selected parts. here it is:
  1. Load more activity