Jump to content

RoverDude

Parts Hero
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    9,074

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by RoverDude

  1. RoverDude
    I support this. It's reasonable, and makes sense. Regarding stock balance - if specific parts have balance issues, the best thing is to note that issue in the suggestions forum in a constructive way (example: with 1.0 we level set all of the LFO tanks to have the same fuel/mass ratios, etc. since some were out of whack). But said balancing is really out of the scope of CCF.
  2. RoverDude
    I'll leave it at this - a lot of design considerations were taken into account, and a lot of levers were built in to support the new design mechanic of the MPL. The various caps are pretty core to that. The Eeloo data size was something not caught by QA (or experimentals), so I'll take a peek at how best to handle that.
  3. RoverDude
    One hab per two kerbals is completely by design, so that bit will not be changing. Just because you can physically stuff fifty people in your house for a party does not mean your septic system can support fifty people in there 24/7 for years on end
  4. RoverDude
    Feel free to toss a pull request
  5. RoverDude
    That would certainly make it a lot easier on the content creators (since at that point it's merely a case of opting into alternate career tree(s)).
  6. RoverDude
    And that is the bit I fundamentally disagree with, Reality is that there are mods that are incompatible and will always be so (i.e. KSPI has a radically different balance than, say, NFE. And that's ok), and if a modder is not interested in supporting CCF, CCF should do the right thing and not become a support issue spawner by taking in MM configs that undo a modder's work, Simple as that. At the end of the day, the balance that a content creator feels is appropriate to their mod should be respected. As I said at the beginning of this thread, most of us have already sorted this - we balance against eachother, or balance against stock, or some combination of the two, and it works. Pretty much what I see CCF offering is contract progression and another tech tree, and that's fine.
  7. RoverDude
    No, works perfectly fine either way. I personally put them on both. Also - flags show up on the NBS which can be super handy when trying to zero in on a nice landing site and you have no handy terrain features to get your bearings off of.
  8. RoverDude
    Feel free to share those ideas on the suggestion forum then. The logic was that there is simply limited storage space in the MPL - and it's a tweakable value (like several others) that allow for tradeoffs, etc. when using the partmodule.
  9. RoverDude
    The key is non invasive - i.e. where I think this project went off the rails is when it went from 'let's all just agree to get along' and by 'let's all', I mean modders - i.e. the people actually making the content. Tech trees and contract packs? Awesome. Rebalancing? No bueno. Pick stock as your yardstick, because it's what most people code to. Don't do silly things like change how fuel tanks or science work. And you will see a lot more adoption. Because at that point, it's just a matter of making sure we level set to stock, and pick where we go in a second tech tree (which is pretty easy peasy). And again, by 'we' I mean the people making the content. (edit) And yep, there would need to be appropriate tech tree nodes. But the person selecting where their stuff goes is the original content creator. i.e. this project should not include configs for anything other than stock (and leave the stock nodes in there so all mods have an intelligent fallback). And by that I mean stock nodes, not stock configs, since that's what most of us balance against. And if you change the definition of stock (i.e. fuel tanks) then we either have to maintain two configs (not cool) or accept that our players that use other tech trees, etc. are kinda out of balance now (also not cool).
  10. RoverDude
    I concur. Personally, I balance my stuff against stock, and where there is not a stock analogue, against the work of other modders that I enjoy working with (Nertea, etc.) and that has worked pretty well (it's also where we got CTT - who's very non-invasive nature I am a big fan of). I am going to respectfully ask that alternate configs NOT be included for any of the USI mods, because alternate tech trees and rebalances have caused me support headaches in the past.
  11. RoverDude
    For clarity - the only time we do planet-wide comparisonsis with cutoff. If you look at the orbital display, you will see the planetary actual average for each resource. You also get this same average when you use the M700's context menu. An orbital NBS without ground truthing will give you an average for the biome as you hover over it (still an average, but at least lets you know which biomes have the best hot spots). Also, biome unlocking actually affects your orbital survey - just remember you have a very limited set of data points, so it's still a generalization.
  12. RoverDude
    The data cap is there to prevent over-stuffing (we wanted to encourage people to visit their bases and stations once in a while). Looks like you found an edge case, will take a peek
  13. RoverDude
    Thanks for the insight I like seeing stuff like this, since it helps me balance things accordingly.
  14. RoverDude
    tbh I've had no issues using it in high orbits, but then that's probably just a matter of being used to it's mechanics (which I should be - given I wrote it ;)) the snapshot is a fairly large area, and the biomes end up being clearly marked on any given snapshot. I usually take a snapshot of an interesting area, then look at it and evaluate it while I orbit over to the next spot.
  15. RoverDude
    FYI @Geschosskopf thats not quite right RE biomes. Without ground truthing, you get biome data on the NBS and it includes the biome average. So a common practice is to have an NBS on your same orbital satellite that did the initial survey, and use it to narrow down the biomes. Since the NBS also includes terrain data it's pretty easy to get a feel for what biomes are where, and to scout out areas worth more investigation before your first rover hits the ground. (For the thread in general, this is why we don't consider it an insta-scan - it's a mini game unlike anything offered up by prior mods).
  16. RoverDude
    You may want to read the patch notes... there were significant ISRU changes in 1.0.5. Orbital scans show the average off of limited data points. As noted before, this is just to give you a rough idea of where to look further with an NBS, and an NBS can be done from orbit if so desired ( @Geschosskopf has a tutorial he linked above). And every save is going to be different. Bottom line, if you are bypassing the prospecting part, you're effectively just making a very rough guess.
  17. RoverDude
    Probably not as fast as you just loading the mod and taking a look
  18. RoverDude
    At this point there is no plan for a non-stock IVA for the emergency shelter.
  19. RoverDude
    As noted, that's a separate issue and likely has a just as simple answer. Usual deal, start with the ship in question, watch how it behaves while focused as warp ramps up, look at the status messages.
  20. RoverDude
    Not outside of modifying stock code, no.
  21. RoverDude
    Prospecting - the orbital scanner simply tells you areas that are potentially worthy of looking into. Those numbers represent an average for that biome. If you want better rates you *REALLY* need to use the surface scanner and ground truth a biome or two, then use the NBS to find potential spots. You are absolutely shooting yourself in the foot if you only depend on the orbital scan. The shut down discussion was for another poster, not you. Because it is intermittent it is very likely a physics hop, especially since I saw you were on a slope. A way to test this is to hop back and forth with a minimum time lapse. Since you were able to operate at max warp (which exceeds the default lerp cap) I am inclined to think your issue is physics hop.
  22. RoverDude
    Not a bug - asteroids when using this mod are significantly less 'fluffy' and also a lot larger. You can either disregard said missions, or mine the asteroids out first, or hunt for a fluffier one (mass and size multipliers are randomized).
  23. RoverDude
    FYI - your asteroid drill mass loss was actually fixed in 1.0.5 What *MIGHT* be happening (and again, this is why I am asking a lot of specific questions) is that in the physics load your ship is 'hopping' just enough that it thinks it is flying, and shuts down the drill. This is especially prevalent on uneven terrain/slopes. Option B is intermediary storage based on the timewarp lerp - hence why I asked how it behaves as you go to max warp.
  24. RoverDude
    Ok - let's start. Does the drill remain operational upon your return or is it shut down? If shut down, what does it say in the status message? Do all drills shut down, or just some? If you warp manually, will it work happily at max warp? I have two thoughts., answers to questions above should narrow it down nicely. (edit for clarity - what I mean by status message is if you right click on a shut down drill, there will be a message).
  25. RoverDude
    Show your vessel and I'll be happy to help troubleshoot it.
×
×
  • Create New...