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
    No, but I am listening
  2. RoverDude
    Will be updated when the next release goes out - which should be fairly soon, probably within the next week or so (would be earlier, but have an out of town show with the band).
  3. RoverDude
    Yep Which simplifies some things. The reason for not going the other direction is USI-LS - i.e. people use it without MKS, so I did not want to tie an MKS mechanic to it.
  4. RoverDude
    That's because the rate is dependent on where you are, or what concentration the asteroid has. i.e. it is situationally dependent. The part info shows capabilities without crew penalty/bonus at an optimum (100%) location. So actually... it does tell you Not necessarily. Totally depends on the resource concentration on the asteroid or planetary location. Converters are fixed, harvesters are variable because resource distribution is variable. The part info shows max (100%) inputs, assuming you found an asteroid made of 100% ore, or a planetary location with 100% concentration. Working backwards is just a bit of math... a 10% ore spot would have a rate equal to 10% of the max (adjusted for crew capabilities).
  5. RoverDude
    Removed, to make it consistent with USI-LS parts.
  6. RoverDude
    True, though that will likely change (though it is worth noting that the machinery is worked into the mass for balance purposes)
  7. RoverDude
    Yes they are, and it makes perfect sense since it lets you launch and land a much lighter vessel, then kit it out later, either through locally produced resources, scrapping, or shipping stuff in. By design, as noted. And you can always launch kitted out, but you're going to land in exactly the same place. And an expandable part vs. a balanced part that does not have the expansion functionality (i.e. Tundra/Duna modules vs. Ranger modules or the big hab ring) will end up with exactly the same amount of required mass to be operational.
  8. RoverDude
    Note that that eval only takes place once, and is a necessary one to cache the info. As I said before... 128 drills is a bit... extreme.
  9. RoverDude
    It is not a USI thing... it is a stock thing. And stock is already heavily optimized. But 128 drills on a craft is just... a bit much.
  10. RoverDude
    hmm.. not seen that one, log a github issue, try using default UI scaling/settings for now.
  11. RoverDude
    Well you're probably using the wrong drill... but that aside, if you are saying it's fast with UKS+stock, and slows down when you add mods... you probably have a conflict. Ampyear is a known one. Start with that if you use it. Otherwise, re-add mods till you see the performance take a dump and let us know. Another known issue was Kopernicus loaded on an install with legacy game settings... if you use any planet packs, delete your stock settings.cfg and redo them.
  12. RoverDude
    Quick question for the peanut gallery For those who use Ranger modules (talking habs and greenhouses) on your orbital station... why not use the Bigelow analogues that come with the pack? Just seeing if there is something I am missing on this one
  13. RoverDude
    Wiki will be the most current, and is community editable.
  14. RoverDude
    ...And you are changing the cost of Megajoules... which is CRP, and a huge no-no. So seems there's quite the mess here to clean up.
  15. RoverDude
    OP is a bit out of date
  16. RoverDude
    If there's a specific function that's not possible to do, let me know. IMO I can sort 99% of the concerns with a video
  17. RoverDude
    See @Nertea's point above. Screwing with stock resources is kinda a jerk move. Especially when someone who has a very large and popular mod catalog like Nertea says 'Hey - you're breaking stuff'. Plus, ridiculously exploitable so it is also a bad design. I'm not opposed to bad design... it is how people learn. I am only opposed to bad design when it messes with other people. This is just... bad. I'd seriously reconsider this. I mean, it is your mod and all... but there are ways of handling breaking mods, and I'd rather we not head down that path.
  18. RoverDude
    This is kinda up for debate, given it breaks stuff (and whether it even makes sense is an entirely different discussion). I expect there are other ways of solving whatever problem it is you're looking to solve, without introducing a breaking change to one of the most basic resources in the game. And I agree with @steedcrugeon - this seems a weird place to put such a sweeping change.
  19. RoverDude
    Sorry, no real value in me promoting something I disagree with. What patches folks do on their own is their call.
  20. RoverDude
    @FreeThinker, that is VERY uncool to patch CRP resources, esp given you should know better.
  21. RoverDude
    There are some changes in 1.3.1 that should sort this.
  22. RoverDude
    Except that's incorrect, xenon gas is also required to operate the drive. And I would not put forth unobtanium in any argument referring to something as unrealistic Mod is not going to change, so I think we can put this dead horse to bed.
  23. RoverDude
    This technically applies to any resource, @Terwin. Dirt just happens to have a really high abundance rate.
  24. RoverDude
    You can use CCK as a framework for your own categorization, or use the existing ones we have. So using CCK to have a catergory for your own mod is completely appropriate (a lot of us do it). This does not mean it is one that gets bundled with the main distro. That's reserved for categories that are actually shared (Rovers, Life Support, etc.) Except I am not aware of any other cross-mod category standardization out there... i.e. the choice right now is either use the one already out there and being used cross-mod/cross-author, or decide to make a new one-mod/one-author standard (which is not really a standard).
  25. RoverDude
    Sorry for being repetitive, but CCK is less about the underlying code (which is pretty trivial), and more about establishing standards, and (most importantly), about having people agree to and implement the standards. Not a user of FE myself so I really can't speak to whether it does the same thing from a technical standpoint, but I can say it is not really comparable to CCK from a community/adoption/standardization standpoint.
×
×
  • Create New...