NecroBones
-
Posts
4,820 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by NecroBones
-
-
On 3/27/2017 at 5:03 PM, eberkain said:
The Tweakscale config is missing 3 parts, not sure if those were left out intentionally or not. Also need to add the engine behavior to engines. Here is an updated file.
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_wAo_KZdHCrclNWQm1CUGdGSkk
OK cool, I'll add that. Thanks
-
On 3/27/2017 at 7:04 PM, Moiety said:
I like having them to be honest. The 'fix' is easy enough if something does happen. In any case I think they add something that no other mod has
.
On 3/27/2017 at 7:50 PM, Calvin_Maclure said:Personally, I always remove them. Very rarely do I use them, in fact. Very.
I guess another option would be to create a separate MM patch that disables them, that can be optionally downloaded if desired, and otherwise leave it as-is. Something to think about.
-
On 3/25/2017 at 9:22 AM, StahnAileron said:
Minor issue I came across: The Oscar-B tank is getting two mesh/texture switching options rather than just one. I checked the CCC cfg for it and noticed it checks for IFS, FS, and B9PS. I seems to be applying the IFS/FS function and the B9 one. All the other parts seem to work properly, so I compared the configs. The Oscar-B is the only one that has a specific NEEDS[FuelTanksPlus] entry along with the combination one (which includes FTP anyway). Feels like MM is taking EITHER NEEDS as true and applying the changes rather than requiring BOTH to be true.
It's not a big deal, though it did confuse me the first time I came across it. I have all three switcher plug-ins installed to support all my various mods. (I kinda wish all the modders would get together and just settle on one switcher plugin rather than having 3. Though I admit that several big mods seem to agree on B9PS, switching over from IFS.)
The amusing thing is that this is already fixed. On my side. And I've been sitting on it for a few months. Heh.
I've sometimes not pushed out changes if they're really small, and I don't have anything more pressing to push out with it. But this has been sitting for a while now, so I should probably just update it.
-
On 3/25/2017 at 10:11 PM, AaronLS said:
I have this same issue, seems I'm on newest version 2.7.5 of module manager. Any ideas?
This is explained in the troubleshooting section, in the main post at the top of the thread.
On 3/4/2017 at 0:59 PM, Moiety said:There seems to be a problem with the shrouds when certain engines are attached. I'm not exactly sure which engines are affected, and whether this is a problem with that particular engine or with FTP. I've only encountered this issue after a restart of the game. It seems the attach-point is off or something
On 3/4/2017 at 10:09 PM, WuphonsReach said:It's a bug in stock KSP with shrouds (you can see it on the stock engines like the 909).
I'm highly tempted to remove the shrouds completely, at this point. I don't know if anyone really gets much use out of them, and it keeps causing problems under the recent KSP versions. Anyone have any objections? It probably won't happen immediately, since I'm sitting on a few updates as it is, waiting to have some time to give things the proper treatment.
-
On 3/26/2017 at 1:02 PM, mdailey403 said:
So, I don't know if this was by design to remove it from the game or not, but when I updated this mod the SY-DP7 7.5 meter docking ring was not showing up in the tech tree. This caused every design I had with this part to fail loading on the launch pad. I discovered the issue was in the SYdocking7m.cfg file in the Gamedata\SpaceY-Lifters\Parts\Docking folder.
By opening the .cfg file in notepad, I was able to modify the line TechRequired = -1 to read TechRequired = composites. This added the part to the tech tree and allowed me access to my designs again. I am not sure where it was originally supposed to go in the tech tree.
Something is wrong with how the MM patches are executing in your build, then. That part is disabled by default, but is configured to be enabled if SpaceY-Expanded is installed. Are you running with Expanded installed? Since it's 7.5m, it should only be visible when that's there. These patches disable themselves if HPTechTree is installed, to favor its rules instead. Are you using that?
-
16 hours ago, eberkain said:
Tweakscale config includes ladders? Kerbals are always the same size, so that seems like something that shouldn't be tweakscaled.
Yeah, that might be a bit of an oversight.
-
On 2/22/2017 at 9:32 PM, Jacksonion said:
Hey i was going to ask if you have any free time can you help me with something i dont know how to land on planets?, and all the tutorials dont help at all!
Oh man, I haven't even had the time for working on the mods lately. There are sections here on the forum for getting help though, and lots of great advice out there.
1 hour ago, pap1723 said:Hey @NecroBones!
I love these launchers. I am building a new career save and I will be running it in Quarter Sized RSS (2.5x scale of Kerbin). My question is about the RSB Stock Configs. Are they based on only stock sized planets, or are they built for a bigger planet like this?
They're based on the stock parts, actually. Here's how the breakdown works:
By default, RSB uses real-world mass, ISP, and sizes for everything, even though it's using the stock fuels. It just packs the right amount of those fuels to give it real-world performance, and ignores the stock game's normal fuel densities.
When you add the stock-alike configs, it rescales everything into standard stock diameters, and then changes the fuel amounts to match the stock densities. That is, the fuel capacity is what you would expect if you used stock tanks of the same size. The engines are given mass and thrust values, as multiples of existing stock engines with similar roles.
So what that means is that the RSB Stock numbers aren't designed with a particular planet size in mind, but rather they cooperate with the stock parts in intuitive ways, so that they can be mixed and matched meaningfully. If the stock parts are useful in the scale you're working in, then RSB Stock will work too.
-
On 2/23/2017 at 4:43 PM, Alexoff said:
Have you any plans to create some big batteries, monoprop tanks, solar cells, reaction wheels etc?
Can you create some single 10 m engine? Its so annoying to place 42 vectors to thrustplate...
My plan has been to add a few more adapters, to use with the E1 engines and the like, rather than a single 10m engine. Right now there's the 4x 3.75m adapter for 10m to do that, but I think I still need to add a 5x (and maybe 7x) adapter too. It's less painful using those with the E1 engines, than doing 42 vectors, for sure. But even the Vectors should be somewhat manageable with symmetry.
-
On 2/23/2017 at 5:37 PM, Laguna said:
I'm trying to make a part using two of the FTP dome tank models manually welded togther, but only one of them gets the texture mesh and switching capability (using IFS). Is there a way for the texture meshes to be applied to both of the part models, either individually or collectively? Simply including a second mesh-switching module doesn't work, just duplicates the variant buttons.
That's sort of tricky. I haven't really tested with it, but I think the mesh switchers don't handle it well when there are multiple objects with same-named meshes that need to be switched. I think IFS will switch one, but leave the other z-fighting? This might be a good request on the IFS thread.
-
On 2/27/2017 at 1:42 PM, gilflo said:
I am having issue with the big blue and white landing leg, gliding on very light slope
12 landing legs to support 250T on Eve ground and it skids on any light slope
Yeah, unfortunately I can't do much about that. KSP's overhaul of wheels and landing gear has changed how friction and suspension works. I'm at their mercy.
-
13 hours ago, Rodger said:
I wonder, would it be possible to get another colour scheme for your texture switching parts - Ven-alike matte grey? Even without hand drawn details like Ven's, just a plain matte light or dark grey option would make your parts fit in with Ven's nicer
Yeah, that might be kinda cool. I'll add this to the to-do list.
-
On 2/16/2017 at 5:43 PM, raptor_xxl said:
Hi, I have real fuels and Space Y (Heavy Lifters and Expanded) mods installed and the 7.5m fuel tanks have very little volume, less than 3.75m. How can I configure them to have appropriate volume? The 5m and 10m tanks have proper volume
Yeah, RF and/or something that interacts with it is doing something funky. I'm not sure where the issue is yet. The only other person that was reporting this, never sent me a log. I haven't had the time to set up a modded installation and track it down separately (I've had little time for modding recently). Can you send me your KSP.log? You can put it on dropbox or something. I'll certainly take a look. Just make sure to delete ModuleManager.ConfigCache in GameData before firing up KSP to generate the log, that way it logs everything that MM is doing.
-
On 2/16/2017 at 6:08 PM, Jacksonion said:
I mounted skylab on the top of the saturn v rocket
Dang, that looks awesome!
-
On 2/14/2017 at 9:03 PM, Loren Pechtel said:
Gigantic rocketry has a 7.5m docking port but Colossal rocketry does not have a 10m docking port.
Yep, no 10m docking port. At least for now, that was an executive decision. They're always a weak point, making craft flimsy, etc, and I figure 10m will mostly be used for launch vehicles anyway. If there's enough interest, I can always add one.
On 2/16/2017 at 9:21 PM, Firemetal said:So quick question. I'm probably missing it in the OP but whatever. I downloaded the RO pre-release for 1.2 along with SpaceY and am unable to use the parts much since they literally say "Non RO". So where is the RO download? Thanks.
Fire
That's all controlled on the RO side. I don't think they fully support us.
-
On 2/21/2017 at 11:41 AM, DuoDex said:
I asked @NecroBones about this, I think there is a way to have more than one smokePoint - there are many mods that have two engine nozzles in one part that work fine.
Multiple smoke points is something I'd expect to work, but I haven't really tested it (that I can recall off hand). Most of the stock parts, and also my multi-engine parts, use a single smoke emitter right in the middle. It's a bit of a framerate saver.
Multiple prefab emitters can be done, but they have to be assigned separate names (which are often missing in stock configs).
-
On 2/8/2017 at 6:48 PM, spec111 said:
Hello! Nice mod! Why i cant rezise Fenrir SRB but can resize other SRB?
Just replied over in the other thread. Since the SRBs are in the main SpaceY pack, it's best to continue it there.
-
On 2/8/2017 at 6:48 PM, spec111 said:
Hello! Nice mod! Why i cant rezise Fenrir SRB but can resize other SRB?
Hmm. They're all covered in the TweakScale config. Are you using the latest SpaceY version? I could probably look in your log and see if it's doing something strange.
On 2/12/2017 at 4:31 PM, eberkain said:The small SRBs act really weird when using the Variable SRB Limiter mod, I can set it to start at a 2.0 TWR and end at a 2.0 TWR, and it does, but what happens is it spikes up to like 10 TWR in the middle and burns out all the fuel in a few seconds. The mod works correctly with stock SRBs.
Unfortunately that's going to be a question for the SRB Limiter mod's thread. I don't have any configs to control how it does its limiting and thrust curves, so it's all on their side.
-
On 2/4/2017 at 1:40 AM, Iso-Polaris said:
I figured out why , In the modular fuel tank patch in SpaceY expansion, the numbers should be 10 times larger to match its actual volume. Missing '0's there.
I double-checked with MFT's configs for the stock tanks, and the volumes are defined as a sum of the original LFO amounts. I'm adding wildcards in the MFT patches so that it catches all of the tanks and sets it accordingly, but these numbers appear to be what MFT is expecting. There's probably a different mod hosing up the numbers on your side (unless it's just one or two tanks that I forgot to add to the MFT patches). RealFuels (if you're using that) does a bunch of its own data mangling, so it's possible the patches are stepping on each other or something. I'll need to see your log to diagnose further.
-
On 2/4/2017 at 1:56 AM, Grease1991 said:
I've mentioned the issue on the other respective thread but there seems to be tank definitions in FTP that are not defined in MFT, which causes a weird bug where the tank in question freezes in place at launch, the particular definition that i found was the "Cryogenic" which can't be found according to the debug window.
Hope this helpsI'm not sure where Cryogenic came from then. LOL. Either MFT removed it at some point, or it was a RealFuels thing, or something. I've removed that assignment for the next version. I'm also switching the MFT patches to use wildcards, so that it catches all of the tanks.
-
With the mesh-switching (technically I'm swapping meshes instead of textures), it needs to have a config present to disable the meshes you're not using, otherwise you get the flickering. In the SpaceY patches folder, there's a color-changing config, and one of the rule sets in there is designed to disable the switching when the switcher mods aren't present. It just needs a copy of the disabling patches that handle those meshes, I think. There will be duplicate mesh names in a welded part, so I'm not sure if it'll play nice or not.
-
13 hours ago, Helbrecht said:
I just got the Welding mod and it works well, except it causes all SpaceY parts to have flickering meshes, does anyone know of a way to fix it or maybe remove most of the meshes so it only has one left.
The new welded part would need to have the SpaceY color-changing MM configs applied to it. Unfortunately that's probably going to be a manual process, unless the welded parts use a predictable naming scheme where a wildcard can be used in MM to apply it. Ugly in any case.
-
7 hours ago, Iso-Polaris said:
Existing stats? In real life? One thing I know about rockets IRL is that bigger fuel tanks usually hold more fuel.
Dude, no need to take an attitude on it.
These tanks work fine for their intended uses, with correct capacities, when there aren't any bad mod interactions. ModularFuelTanks settings are included as a courtesy, and no one else has reported problems with it until now.
I started with stats from ModularFuelTanks itself, or another mod that uses it (not sure which, it was a long time ago). A few entries are missing, and I'll look into that. But so far, I'm not even sure if we've identified that as the source of the problem.
-
On 2/4/2017 at 0:57 PM, WuphonsReach said:
Here's a MM config that makes the LETech ladders compatible with KIS (as in, they can be carried around by kerbals and manipulated).
The reason for keeping volumes < 250 is because a KIS back pocket is only 300 units. I tried "Carried=true", but that resulted in some oddness.
By default the 5m and 8m LETech ladders are around 2500-4500 KIS volume units. Way too large for a part that is not that massive.
Oh cool. I'll add that. Thanks!
-
On 2/4/2017 at 1:40 AM, Iso-Polaris said:
I figured out why , In the modular fuel tank patch in SpaceY expansion, the numbers should be 10 times larger to match its actual volume. Missing '0's there.
Think so? I had based them on some existing stats a long time ago, and kept multiplying for the larger tanks. I'll have to double-check.
These tanks work fine for their intended uses, with correct capacities, when there aren't any bad mod interactions. ModularFuelTanks settings are included as a courtesy, and no one else has reported problems with it until now.
[1.2 - 1.4][WIP] Joolian Discovery v0.8 (2015-08-14)
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted
Eventually, yep. Everything's kinda been on hold lately, but I don't plan for that to be a permanent situation.