Bit Fiddler

ah well this is good as I decided the second convert-o-tron was just too much weight, cooling, and power etc. so I left it behind. but I did keep all 4 drills; for aesthetic reasons... ya the most important aspect of rocket building is they must look cool. but any way I took the 4 drills and 1 converter... so I guess that will work out for the best any way, as finding a rock at 100% is probably not going to happen that often.

hey thanks... so I assume the gold digger is the same as a "Jr." and will give me 1 ore/second on an asteroid. and the convert-o-tron 125 will process 2.5 ore/second for monopropellant. thus if my rig has 4 gold diggers I in theory could support 2 convert-o-trons. (with a bit of waste). I guess I will build it as such; and launch it. I just hate to spend this cash, and all the time necessary to get my rig to an asteroid, and have the math be wrong... oh well I guess that is why there are save games.

it seems the inline clamp-o-tron does not have CLS setup. or if it does I guess something in my install is messing with it. I built a craft using this part and it is not passable. I looked through the CLS .cfg files and did not see it in there but there is a lot to look at so I may have missed it , and something else is causing this problem.

so.... can anybody tell me from experience what the rate will be on an asteroid for the gold digger?

where can I find the "base rate" of the drills. the description in the VAB tells me it is 100% on an asteroid and 30% on a planet, assuming I am reading that correctly. and I get bonus for having a scientist along I guess... but I do not see anywhere that tells me what the base rate is.

could we get some of the small triangular end cap doo-hickies that are just "Cargo" pods so we can load in extra fuel or life support supplies etc. if they were built to use "Configurable containers" mod then we can just pop them on and configure them to hold what ever we want. and actually if they were to be a bit taller and round off the end of the pod like in a "nose cone" sort of shape that would be cool too. they could hold a bit more and be aerodynamic if we use them like a drop tank. secondly, what about a docking port rather than just a decoupler. this way the pods can be reattached.

hmm... I guess I need to start digging in my mod list to find what mod is causing this...

I am trying to make an otter sub, however I cant get it to sink. I have placed the ventral tanks and the radial tanks on either side of the pod, yet the pod will not sink. there si just too much buoyancy in the pod itself... is this a bug or have I got something messed up?

hello I am missing a part on a craft file "ChopShop.SSP1". The post on the previous page said to replace the old part name with this new part name? but my game tells me I am missing this new part so I am not sure what to do. EDIT: ah ok I found it. in the tweakscale.cfg file it is calling it "ChopShop_SSP1small" so I replaced all instances of "ChopShop.SSP1" in my craft file with "ChopShop_SSP1small" and all is well.

ah I see, oh well... I guess there is not much to do about it then. But you knew this, as it is yours, you have thought of all this already. oh well if you can see your way to adding in 2 more parts, the thin versions of flatbed and cargo bay would be great.

ah well.... the model switch is an issue I guess. I forgot about the fact the cargo bay is protecting things from the airstream... what about making all the flatbed / cargo bay parts be a model switch of themselves. as in 1 part that is the flatbed part, and model switch it to be thin/single/or double length?' also extra parts can be moved to "hidden" parts to maintain old rovers, but not allow new rovers to select them. and then at some point in the future removed completely and added to a "legacy" pack for those that may need it.

could we get a flatbed piece in the "thin" format? EDIT: Also if the Cargo Bay and Flat Bed parts were combined to be just another model switch as the flatbed does already that would reduce part clutter as well as give us the "thin" format for the cargo bay, assuming you make this part.

I like the idea of this mod but I have run into a problem. it uses IFS for the texture switch. on the surface this is not a problem, except IFS is incompatible with configurable containers, and this is required by rover dude's mods. so I was wondering if it would be possible to make is use other texture switchers as well, so it could work with Fire Spitter's switcher or configurable containers' switcher etc.

ok so I ran a clean install with only Airplane Plus and Kerbal Engineer. It still reports thrust as 3.5kN in KE rather than the 35kN reported by the part description. so not sure if this is a KE problem or an Airplane Plus issue. or if this is normal behavior and should just be ignored.

oh are these optimized for FAR? maybe I need to look into that as I am not using FAR, but I know it makes the atmosphere less dense or something that allows faster airplanes.

well not just speed it will not get off the ground. top speed is like 80kph this reminded me of another plane I made a few days back who's performance was very underwhelming. so I loaded it up and checked it out. again KE and in flight agree the thrust of this engine is about 1/10 of the rated value. this one will fly ok but it topped out around 100kph. I would have thought easy 300 to 400 or more. this should be a very fast fighter. I am beginning to wonder if some mod out there is doing a blanket nerf on engines. EDIT: I just swapped out the engine on the P-38 inspired aircraft for one rated at 60kN and while KE does not report 60 as I would have expected it does show the thrust at 45kN which is a far cry better than the 3.5kN I was getting off this mod's engines that were rated at 35kN. so this brings me back to the question are the engines in this mod somehow broken or is another mod altering them with MM or something to cause this?

yes I have had this same question. I bind the 3 throttle modes to action groups and in flight I switch between them, but I see no difference in thrust or speed or anything. so I am not sure what exactly they are doing. also it seems the K1710 is somehow nerfed. the tooltip tells me it will produce 35nN yet Kerbal Engineer only shows 3.5kN and in flight the tool tip seems to agree with KE. and to back all this up this aircraft cant get off the ground. the craft only weighs about 8500kg as you can see. I would expect 2 engines of this size to have no problem getting this thing up to 200 - 300m/s maybe even faster.

well that function can be done already by using procedural parts, if you do not do so now, I would check it out. I just tossed that in as an example, what would be more interesting to me even is to adjust the width of the tank and not the height so it becomes an oval shape. or on the wing parts you could adjust the length or width and not the thickness to get a better match for the shape you try to make (similar to the b9 procedural wing idea) but for other wings and, well, any part really. not sure if this type of model deformation is even possible however.

can we get the adjustments like length and thickness etc. to accept text input? so in addition to clicking the slider along we can just enter the exact value we want? and secondly when ever I hit "J" on a control surface to edit the properties the control surface reverts all rotation I have done to it. so I have to adjust the size a bit, then re-rotate to see if it is correct, then hit "J" and dump rotation to adjust it a bit more, then re-rotate it to check size...

is it possible to get TweakScale to only scale a part in 1 or 2 dimensions? so I can make a fuel tank longer but not change the diameter for instance.

that would work too. it is just since the mod is already doing virtual camera shots it could just as easily do this without our having to rotate and setup the shots manually. I would however be just as happy with a way to get exact rotations and exact distance as you said.

would it be possible to get a function button, that with a single click will take several screen shots to get all the views of the craft. such that we could paste them into gimp and create things like this... it could actually be a new "Page" on the controls I guess, that we could select the 6 views with checkboxes and then it would snap those selected views for us to work with. it would read the ortho graphic or perspective toggle that is already there to determine that aspect. and it would position the camera exactly centered on the COM, and at the exact same distance for each view. and secondly the "zoom" buttons that set the distance. if this would not just be clickies, but let us enter a number in a text field that would be great as well. this way I can set this distance at say 10M for every craft I photograph in this way, and it will make all the pictures be "in scale" to each other for every other craft.

Oh yes thanks, this is exactly what I wanted. lol cattle car to the stars.

ah doing both... the lights on the runway are exactly this mod. but since you were talking about the 3d models and how emissive works I was just asking some questions. the modeling I am doing is for something completely different. and in fact would have no emissive on it at all.

so... I used the KT6-c to not make a v-22 and I have a few questions... every part on this plane is basically a fuel tank. the wings have fuel in them, every hull section other than the cargo ramp part are fuel tanks. the bulges on the side of the hull are saddle tanks full of fuel. all told this aircraft holds over 1K units of liquid fuel. yet the Isp on these engines is such that this will only run them for about 1 hour. my question is are these engines really this inefficient? or are the fuel tanks on this craft just very small volume wise. as in reality an airplane with this much fuel on it would fly for days. this much meaning this much of the aircraft dedicated to fuel, as each of these fuel tanks by over all volume may be only using something like 5% of the available volume for fuel. but ya... to get any sort of flight time on this airplane it needs to be so big the engines will no longer have enough thrust to lift it. so is it a problem with the engine Isp, or a problem with the design of these fuel tank parts? secondly in the action group setup I see 3 throttle options? "Hover" "Cargo" and "Normal". what are these and how do I use them? I attached them to action groups 1, 2, and 3, but I did not see any change when I pressed those buttons. and lastly could you maybe add the rotor folding function, so they fit inside my aircraft carrier better? the rotating wing would be cool too, but even just folding rotors would be great.