Jump to content

All Activity

This stream auto-updates

  1. Past hour
  2. As per current plans, Invaderchaos will tackle Atlas V separately when he has the time to do so. My work is focused on the classic balloon tank models up to Atlas III. The RD180 has been modelled with the Atlas III mount and I will make the Atlas V mount after coordinating with Invader when its being developed.
  3. Seems this mod might not be playing well with other mods' parts in general, save for a select few. Here's an example of what I had found in my latest KSP log (after it had crashed while loading): [LOG 06:05:22.007] PartLoader: Compiling Part 'NearFutureElectrical/Parts/FissionReactors/reactor-0625/reactor-0625' [WRN 06:05:22.044] PartLoader Warning: Variable rationalBuoyancy not found in Part [WRN 06:05:22.046] PartLoader Warning: Variable rationalPressure not found in Part [WRN 06:05:22.050] PartLoader Warning: Variable lpgLF not found in Part [WRN 06:05:22.053] PartLoader Warning: Variable lpg not found in Part [WRN 06:05:22.057] PartLoader Warning: Variable SSS_Tier not found in Part [EXC 06:05:22.206] NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object FlightGlobals.get_VesselsLoaded () (at <4b449f2841f84227adfaad3149c8fdba>:0) ModuleDockingNode.FindNodeApproaches () (at <4b449f2841f84227adfaad3149c8fdba>:0) (wrapper dynamic-method) ModuleDockingNode.ModuleDockingNode.<SetupFSM>b__142_1_Patch0(ModuleDockingNode) KerbalFSM.FixedUpdateFSM () (at <4b449f2841f84227adfaad3149c8fdba>:0) ModuleDockingNode.FixedUpdate () (at <4b449f2841f84227adfaad3149c8fdba>:0) UnityEngine.DebugLogHandler:LogException(Exception, Object) ModuleManager.UnityLogHandle.InterceptLogHandler:LogException(Exception, Object) UnityEngine.Debug:CallOverridenDebugHandler(Exception, Object) That was just one example of countless mods being affected. Methinks default settings should be given to miscellaneous parts as a failsafe?
  4. Moving onto the Panther. I got 104km high and fell at 1139m/s with my single engine design. I found that multi engines had a lot of trouble with consistent airflow at high altitude. I think maybe bigger is not better with the panther.
  5. Well, that explains alot. I take it I'm on my own when it comes to testing if this mod would really need BDB as a dependency? And sorry for the apparent rudeness, but time is in short supply for me, so I don't always have time to check if the current mod maintainers are really the same people who developed the mod.
  6. I don’t even think the dev team knows the goal at this point. all we have been teased with are large station like colonies. seems the goal to me, is to make large stations while getting around the part count problem.
  7. Today
  8. "Green-field programmers" always think they can do a better job just rewriting other people's code, pronto too!, saving themselves the pain of understanding the original. On top of that, they think their code will be oh-so-much-more-maintainable by others, after they move on -- to greener pastures. The above is pretty much the psychological basis for "the Six Phases of a Project": Enthusiasm Disillusionment Panic Search for the guilty Punishment of the innocent Praise and honors for the non-participant Not pointing at any particular people in this instance, but I never could understand the motivation to "rewrite" KSP to, what?, "make it snazzier", or more "bug-free"... come on. The only justifiable reason I can see for a full rewrite would have been to get the heck off Unity and into some potentially multi-threaded environment. "Just my ugly opinion", as usual, and first to advertize it.
  9. 1/10 You're very new to the forums, welcome!
  10. Replacement. The Atlas parts are the oldest rocket parts in the mod, the aim here to revamp, replace and expand on those parts. We consider the Titan revamp to be point at which the current art style and standard to have been established. Pretty much everything made since then can be considered "final". The Atlas parts are older. (sidenote although the SLV-3X Fatlas parts are technically newer, they were made to match the older parts so they will need to be redone too).
  11. I once asked in the Kerbalism thread but unfortunately nobody there could help: Does anyone have current BDB-configs for Kerbalism? Especially Science? Skyhawk Science System has some but unfortunately inflatable habitats don't work anymore and there are some more problems in combination with Kerbalism. Unfortunately @CessnaSkyhawk is currently not active.
  12. Are these gonna be added in line with the existing Atlas parts or are they replacing the old set? (and I apologize if this has been answered previously, just want to be sure).
  13. Sorry to say it like this but: 1. nowhere did @bigyihsuan say anything about YOUR or HIS problem. @bigyihsuan merely gave you an answer to your question. 2. you are talking to @bigyihsuan as if it were his mod. But he is not the modder. The modder is @CessnaSkyhawk, which isn`t active since a few months. 3. I find it presumptuous to judge how others do THEIR mods. Whether this techtree would have worked with other mods is irrelevant here. The fact is that this techtree was created specifically for BDB. And a lot of people play with this combination. If you don't like BDB or this techtree then just don't use BDB and use another techtree. Nobody is forcing you to use mod x or y. But back to your question and to give you a simple answer: Answer: Because the modder @CessnaSkyhawk wanted it that way.
  14. The devs basically said that the reason you build colonies is to get the resources and infrastructure to build and supply ships from anywhere but Kerbin. If you don't want to do that, then colonies may be a bit hollow for your gameplay experience. Why play ANY game? Why do ANYTHING except the bare minimum to keep ourselves alive?
  15. STS again. Snore... A dirty secret inside NASA (ignored by management) that it had a 1-in-100 probability of catastrophic failure. For thirty years... We on the moon yet? You know the saying: "if you can't lead and you can't follow, get out of the way"
  16. If you wish to maintain this mod in Dr. Jet's absence, then I'd like to add one more bug report: Note: Too many warnings were displayed when I received this error message in-game. The rest would've been posted to the game log, but it tends to exceed over 100MB in size, making it all but unreadable for me. Anyways... --- B9PartSwitch - Serious Warning --- B9PartSwitch has encountered a serious warning. The game will continue to run, but this should be fixed asap. Initialization errors on ModuleB9PartSwitch (moduleID='DegratationRateSwitch') on parts ChopShop.SSP1small, ChopShop.SSP2, etc. subtypes 'level1', 'level2', 'level3', 'level4', 'level5', etc. Found more than one matching module. Hopefully, some answers could be found for those among us modders, both old and new (I'm the latter), who'd be interested in maintaining this promising mod for modern-day KSP1.
  17. Hi! I´m trying this update but when it loads on the launchpad the Behemoth core explodes
  18. isn't that the point of the game? You build your rocket, and you account for the types of engine, fuel, the total weight, the different stages. You plan everything in advance, based on the kind of mission you want to do. if the game is just going to put you into an orbit, why bother adding the first 2 stages, and why bother caring about drag? being able to put a massive, fully fueled lander in orbit, docking it with an interplanetary stage that you also launch from the surface is part of what makes the mission fun for me. You can use the cheat menu if you want to cheat your vessel into an orbit I guess, but the last thing I would want is that the game plays itself for me...
  19. No. Warship classes simply have predecessors and successors. The reason "generations" of fighter aircraft came about was mainly because of the bird [lol, this is getting auto moderated and changed to bird] for tat development of aircraft during the Cold War. US develops F-100 to counter MiG-15, Soviets develop MiG-19 and 21 to counter F-100 (although bomber interceptor was the primary role), Americans develop F-4 to counter MiG-21, Soviets develop MiG-23 to counter F-4, Americans develop Teen Series to counter MiG-23, Soviets develop MiG-29 and Su-27 to counter Teen Series. (If the Cold War had not ended, perhaps we would be seeing sixth gen fighters entering service now, having gone through the F-22 vs. MiG-29/Su-27 and then MiG-1.44 or Su-57 vs. F-22 in the 2010s) A similar dynamic existed with tanks, which is why the M1 Abrams is a 3rd generation MBT. The Americans develop the M60 to counter the T-54, the Soviets upgun the T-62 from 100 to 115mm to counter the M60, the Americans develop the M1 to counter the T-62... later upgraded to counter the T-72. It kinda ended there though, which is why the Abrams' design dates to the 1970s. The Soviets had a 152mm upgunned T-80 in development called the Object 292, which perhaps might have kicked off the race for a 4th gen MBT in the 90s had it entered service, but it didn't escape the collapse of the USSR. Tanks like the Type 10 and K2 have been called 4th gen, but it is questionable because they are just better versions of third gen designs (namely the Type 90 and K1). In contrast, ships have not been designed to specifically counter other nation's ships since the 1930s. Since the end of WWII, new ship classes are mainly designed around carrying new technology for countering all ships, not just one specific class. Ships also vary greatly between nations, for example, with Russian ships focusing on the anti-surface warfare mission, American vessels on land attack and ballistic missile defence, and Japanese ships on ASW.
  20. Interesting. Thanks for the information about what that line was supposed to do. I'll consider replacing that FOR with NEEDS or AFTER, and then trying to load the game once more, before having to consider uninstalling the mod. By the way, I'm only recently starting to learn how to develop mods for KSP, but I don't know where to find an in-depth guide on how to make mod patches like these. Any idea where to look?
  21. More like STS just came way too early. As I said in another thread, STS was the definition of something "ahead of its time." Rapid reusability wasn't lost back then because of lack of funding, it was lost because of technological limitations. No amount of funding would have made it work. Now is the time.
  22. The way it is supposed to work is this: Tony is from Universe A (let's call it Track A). They journeyed to Tracks B, C, and D to get the stones. They use them in Track A to fix everything. Steve goes back to Tracks B, C, and D to return them. No paradox. There is a big "upset" but it is only in the form of the events past Guardians of Galaxy Vol. 1 (Track D) never taking place, because Thanos and his army from Track D have been snapped out of existence. But that doesn't prevent them from traveling back to B, C, and D to return to the Infinity Stones. It wouldn't have worked to "freeze" Thanos- which I assume refers to putting him in a time loop like he did to Dormammu. Yes everyone could live, but they'd be stuck reliving the same few moments over and over again. Dr. Strange said he looked ahead at all the possibilities of the coming battle, and probably realized Thanos' will was too strong and he would never give in. Thus the only way was the way he chose (let everyone die and then fix it with time travel). The first method you speak of involves something called the Novikov self-consistency principal. As you say, whatever you want to do in the past, you either already did or failed to do. The problem is this would mean not only is there no free will for sentient beings, it would mean everything in the natural world is "on clock work" too, by virtue of sentient beings being part of the universe. That means not only are you destined to say, go back in time but do nothing significant that causes anyone to notice in the historical record, it also means things like the exact moment leaves fall, when solar flares occur, the exact day winter occurs, etc., are all predetermined and cannot be altered. Put simply, there is nothing random in the world. Such a theory would be very depressing, as it means nothing you do has any consequence and there is no real choice. It would be mind boggling to think about and would lead to the erosion of morals and society. It does nonetheless have numerous proponents. The second method is sometimes said to invoke the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. The problem of Schrodinger's cat is solved. Rather than having to deal with the question of how a cat could be both dead and alive due to a particle being in two different states until observed, there is simply one "world"- again, I shall call it a Track- in which the cat is dead, and one in which it is alive. The problem with this for me is it implies everyday life in the normal flow of time is also akin to time travel. When you decide whether you want to have Coke or Pepsi, you "journey" into a different Track depending on what choice you make. This then raises the question of whether it is actually feasible to "journey" backwards at all. Because natural time travel, which goes forward, does not involve you physically travelling to another Track, you remain in your own body and outwardly experience nothing. So what would travelling backward even be like? Would you even truly be going backwards, or would time simply take a U-Turn for you and continue to go forwards, but outwardly appear as if you were travelling backwards? "Suppose... time is round."- a line from A Scanner Darkly by Philip K. Dick, 1977.
  23. Since planes have generations (for example, F22 being 5th generation fighter), does warships also have generations on how they developed over the ages? If so, what's the current generation we're currently at?
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...