Jump to content

tjsnh

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    942

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by tjsnh

  1. tjsnh
    I strongly suspect this had more to do with how difficult those particular parts are to model, with the engine fairings and such, rather than how they're intended to be used in-game.
  2. tjsnh
    I'm having the same problem as the others, with the window not popping up. What exactly is causing that? Should I just add every "agent" in any mods to the excludedmanufactureres.cfg? I think this (below) is the error from my ksp.log. I've added the Tantares manufacturer to the exluded list, and added this experiment to the excluded list. Same error in ksp.log each tim e [LOG 17:12:50.371] [UIMasterController]: ShowUI [WRN 17:12:51.645] [R&D]: No Experiment definition found with id tantaresTelemetryReport [EXC 17:12:51.654] NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object KEI.KEI.<GainScience>m__8 (.ScienceExperiment x) System.Linq.Enumerable+<CreateWhereIterator>c__Iterator1D`1[ScienceExperiment].MoveNext () KEI.KEI.GainScience (System.Collections.Generic.List`1 experiments, Boolean analyze) KEI.KEI.ShowMainWindow () ToolbarControl_NS.ToolbarControl.SetButtonActive () ToolbarControl_NS.ToolbarControl.doOnTrue () KSP.UI.Screens.ApplicationLauncherButton.OnTrue (UnityEngine.EventSystems.PointerEventData data, CallType callType) UnityEngine.Events.InvokableCall`2[UnityEngine.EventSystems.PointerEventData,KSP.UI.UIRadioButton+CallType].Invoke (UnityEngine.EventSystems.PointerEventData args0, CallType args1) UnityEngine.Events.UnityEvent`2[UnityEngine.EventSystems.PointerEventData,KSP.UI.UIRadioButton+CallType].Invoke (UnityEngine.EventSystems.PointerEventData arg0, CallType arg1) KSP.UI.UIRadioButton.SetState (State state, CallType callType, UnityEngine.EventSystems.PointerEventData data, Boolean popButtonsInGroup) KSP.UI.UIRadioButton.ToggleState (CallType callType, UnityEngine.EventSystems.PointerEventData data) KSP.UI.UIRadioButton.UnityEngine.EventSystems.IPointerClickHandler.OnPointerClick (UnityEngine.EventSystems.PointerEventData eventData) UnityEngine.EventSystems.ExecuteEvents.Execute (IPointerClickHandler handler, UnityEngine.EventSystems.BaseEventData eventData) UnityEngine.EventSystems.ExecuteEvents.Execute[IPointerClickHandler] (UnityEngine.GameObject target, UnityEngine.EventSystems.BaseEventData eventData, UnityEngine.EventSystems.EventFunction`1 functor) UnityEngine.EventSystems.EventSystem:Update() [LOG 17:12:55.504] ocean node ondestroy Also in ksp.log: [LOG 17:23:29.303] [UIMasterController]: ShowUI [ERR 17:23:29.724] ToolbarControl: WARNING: RegisterMod, LoadedScene: MAINMENU, called too late for: KEI_NS, Kerbin Environmental Institute, button may not be registered properly
  3. tjsnh
    I've played around with this on my own for .. quite a while now .. and read, and re-read, the documentation (though I may be blind). I'm trying to remove some requirements from a tech node and can't figure out how. Specifically, I want to remove the requirements from generalConstruction and replace them with only needing "start" tech. Here is the stock code out of the tech tree: RDNode { id = generalConstruction title = #autoLOC_501040 //#autoLOC_501040 = General Construction description = #autoLOC_501041 //#autoLOC_501041 = New equipment to help out in keeping things stable, especially useful when the size of the spacecraft defies the current bounds of sanity. cost = 45 hideEmpty = False nodeName = node3_generalConstruction anyToUnlock = True icon = RDicon_construction-general pos = -1946,1355,0 scale = 0.6 Parent { parentID = stability lineFrom = RIGHT lineTo = LEFT } Parent { parentID = generalRocketry lineFrom = RIGHT lineTo = LEFT } } I've been able to ADD a requirement no problem, but I can't figure out how to REMOVE those existing "parents". Using the same syntax to remove modules from a part didn't work. Before anyone suggests it, I can't just leave them in and leave "anyToUnlock = True" because it won't show up correctly on the tech tree and breaks other things since I've removed stability and generalRocketry from the tree with another patch. So rather than go through the 50 things I tried and how they all didn't work, I'll just ask straight up - what is the normal syntax to remove those parents from generalconstruction?
  4. tjsnh
    I have regular struts unlocked with "start" , still nothing.
  5. tjsnh
    My own, all the stock techs except for "start" are replaced. I need to know which one to restore back in.
  6. tjsnh
    Yes, advanced tweakables is enabled. Playing in sandbox, autostrut appears normally when building something. In my career mode, it doesn't show up and I'm pretty far into the tree. I use a custom tech tree, and have the regular struts unlocked, so this makes me think that you need a specific named tech unlocked to enable autostruts in the VAB/SPH but I can't find any reference to this anywhere. Does anyone know?
  7. tjsnh
    I ended up using a script to replace the "title =" string with the partname string on all the .cfg files. Solved the issue, I just load the game client on my 2nd monitor. :-)
  8. tjsnh
    Of all the parts, actually. I'm updating my "master" mod which patches about 800 parts, which used to take a few hours but now it takes a few days for any mods/parts that have localization support. For example, updating my patch for the FOBOS A-R25K Avionics Hub which changes the tech required to unlock it (I run a custom tech tree). The part is Ara_Avionics_1 which is what I need to patch, but there isn't any way to know that the Ara_Avionics_1 part is the A-R25K from looking at the config file anymore since the "title =" string links to a localization reference file (#LOC_whatever) instead of having the part name in it, so for every part I need to cross-reference in the localization files or with KSP open on my 3rd monitor and try to match the part cost+mass to what i see in the config file. So, I was asking if like a spreadsheet existed or something that had the part names from the CFG file (Ara_Avionics_1 , those "names") in one column and the "title" names in another (A-R25K Avionics Hub, those names). I suspect you don't keep something like this, but I had to ask.
  9. tjsnh
    Hey @Beale , I don't know if you have this, so I figured I'd ask just on the off chance. Do you have, in any format, a checklist or anything of the part "name ="s and which part ("title") they correspond to? For example "Alniyat_Antenna_2_1_1" being whichever comms unit? With the localization #LOC_Tantares_Whatever strings in the .cfg files now, its incredibly time consuming to try and cross reference for modding/patching purposes. I don't know if you have any kind of list, but figured it doesn't hurt to ask.
  10. tjsnh
    The old mod "Q orbital systems" had one that folded underneath 180 degrees, I used it use it for just that one part actually! For my 5cents though, REALLY looking forward to the updated neck-to-1.875m tank.
  11. tjsnh
    Those new pods look ah-mazing.
  12. tjsnh
    Ok, some food for thought: Top-left : Soyuz example with all 3 dishes attached. Obviously a "real" craft in gameplay would only be using one, but all 3 used just to illustrate. The dishes are slightly clipped into the orbital module by a couple of pixels. They look good when "deployed", but are shown "Retracted" in the pic since thats what we're talking about. Center-left: That soyuz under a 1.25m fairing, 1.25m tank shown for width comparison. Fairing has to be ginormous to fit around the dishes. Center-right: That same soyuz, under a 1.875m fairing. Perfect fit. Tank for width illustration. Top-right: Showing how the dishes extend up+out from the OM, requiring the fairing to be extra tall above the orbital module. Bottom-right: Showing how the fairing fits without the dishes, LES can almost be attached directly to the docking port (or with a decoupler or a female docking port in-between) I think what might work is for : T-AE15 - simply have the arm swing "up" another 30 degrees or so. This would make the arm pointing somewhat in towards the centerline rather than pointing outwards a bit. T-AE10 - have the arm swing "up" another 10 degrees or so, at least so its vertical, and perhaps make the actual dish and the gold block its sticking out from also flip inwards towards the centerline a bit. A-FG5 Folding Version - have the dish rotate on the arm 90 degrees when "retracted". For example, when mounted like I have in this picture, when "retracted" the dish on the end of the arm would point downwards instead of sideways. A-RM5 - I didn't highlight it in the pictures above, but it takes serious clipping to get this little guy into position. Consider having the "folding" version swing 180 degrees instead of 90, so that when "retracted" its folded up underneath the service module down in with the engine exhaust. The 90-degree retraction makes it basically unusable on a traditional soyuz design, since it would be clipping outside the fairing. The "extending" A-RM5 is the one I used in the top-left example pic, and you can kindof see how about 1/3 of it is clipped into the service module when retracted. Final thought - the LES part - perhaps have the existing part/model with a cylinder underneath it sticking down a little bit as to act as a spacer. That way, the LES part would have a little spacer "built in" that you could stick a decoupler or female docking port underneath without needing to stick any girder or octagonal-strut parts on. This might also make it easier to "close" the fairing onto it in a visually appealing way. Just some random ideas. Also gives us some serious appreciation for the real-life engineering skills it took to design all these folding/compact components for the actual spacecraft.
  13. tjsnh
    Yes, the T-shaped hat thing, the RCS part that goes on top of the capsule below the docking port. Its great for making a 'zond' , but doesn't seem to have an attachment mesh (is that the right term?) and nothing can attach to it except on the node. For example, trying to stick a comms dish on the side to look like the "real" zonds did. Request - I think the Soyuz upper stage flairing out to 1.875 is awesome, like in that pic you posted. But, if you include this, please don't discontinue the existing bulge-tank that narrows on top to 1.25 (even if you do discontinue the 1.25m upper-stage tank), it'll still be useful for making older pre-soyuz R-7 variants like ... well, like the R-7 ... or the Molniya etc. Plus it'll be a fun upgrade to put the 1.875top tank a step or two farther into the tech tree.
  14. tjsnh
    So, a little unsolicited input. I've played around with the soyuz spacecraft and booster parts extensively, and made significant attempts to tweak/rescale them to better "fit" the real soyuz. A few thoughts on the topic in no particular order: As was mentioned by others, the current Soyuz/R7 stack results in a significantly "fat" payload fairing. The R7/Soyuz booster parts ought to be 1.875 instead of 1.25. Really, they should be closer to 1.5 (if the soyuz remains 1.25) but I know you don't like to add oddball sizes. Even if the side-booster bottoms were 1.875 too (as with the "old" tantares, where the side boosters were 1.25 like the center tank), this would still be great. A little playing around with scaling up the center-tanks to 1.875 and leaving the side-booster tanks as they are now (1.875 on the bottom) produces a REALLY nice looking booster! Resizing the existing parts via cfg file produces ... flawed ... results. (mesh issues I think, but I'm not sure) The soyuz, with solar panels, and comms stuff on the orbital module, requires a fairing that extends almost out to 1.875 as-is today, even with all the parts clipped "inwards" slightly to conserve width. The comms dishes, even when "folded up" and retracted still protrude outwards significantly, enough to need the larger fairing, and also stick "up" quite a bit necessitating the need of a structural/spacer part between the docking port and the LES to keep the fairing "pointed" a the top, if that makes sense. The 1.25m Soyuz crew capsule still looks/feels significantly too small for more than one crew member to "fit". For my 5cents, a 1.5m soyuz with a 1.875 booster would be the ideal scale, but I know you don't like oddball sizes (1.5m being oddball) and it would involve rebuilding probably a dozen parts to get the soyuz spacecraft to that size (PM/CM/OM/Solar/Comms/ports/etc). The RCS top-plate part from the LK lunar lander makes a GREAT top for a "Zond 5" type craft, but the attachment mesh is .. nonexistent? Despite any of these issues, the Tantares 'stack' is still the best Soyuz/R7 system available in KSP - BY FAR.
  15. tjsnh
    I've always had that problem with the LK ladder. I usually have to do some _VERY_ careful clipping/repositioning to get it to line up right.
  16. tjsnh
    VERY nice!!!
  17. tjsnh
    I noticed that too in the images I've seen of the mock-up prototype, but haven't seen them referenced in any docs or diagrams. Its possible the inner section on the mockup folds up under the connecting arm - which lacks a joint, and would otherwise be unable to fold down. This theory/guess would also explain what looks like a hinge assembly where the leg strut connects to the outer rim of the base on the bottom. Either way, lots of creative possibilities for someone who's better at animations than I am to work up a part ;-) ;-) ;-)
  18. tjsnh
    The final design had them fold down, around the outer edge of the last stage. There isn't currently a way to replicate this in KSP, and (again ignoring the horrendously complex booster) its really the main "missing part" to re-create the LK. In one of the earlier designs, they folded up with a joint in the bracing arms. The idea behind this system was to spread the weight out over as much surface area as possible, and allow the LK to stand upright even if one of the landing legs snapped off on impact or something.
  19. tjsnh
    Yes, that. From what I've seen the base (pictured) has a pass-through hole where the return stage uses its own engine for the final phase of the landing burn, as you explained, but this stage was supposed to have a small amount of fuel in it (but no engine) used for that final-phase suicide burn, as they were trying to save every kg of weight for the return stage. The base in the picture would be left on the lunar surface, somewhat similar to how the US LEM used its landing stage as a launch platform. In either case - those landing legs are a desperately needed part, theres no analog I've seen that folds upwards the same.
  20. tjsnh
    For the most part - yes. The folding-L-shape landing legs are the main thing thats missing, followed by the decoupler you mentioned. Though - a slightly thicker version of the hollow fuselage segment which contains a bit of fuel would always be great, the "real" design called for the return module to ditch its descent fuel tank on the lunar surface similar to the US LEM. The chute/commsdish/LES assembly on top is ... probably going to be quite a challenge. If you can get some folding-umbrella-dish or something with a node on top of it for the LES that would be pretty epic to mount on top of your existing LK 'chute
  21. tjsnh
    Yes, but it'll be at least a week or two - I have to adapt a few things relative to the "making history" expansion, and figure out a few tech tree bugs (seems the newer squad parts don't behave properly when you try to move them around in the tech tree...) which is taking longer than I thought.
  22. tjsnh
    Well we're halfway there at least! ;-)
  23. tjsnh
    I had an issue with the vostok parachute displaying similar behavior. Opened, but seemed to produce no drag. (It actually happened while streaming on twitch, a bunch of people got to see my confused face as Jeb pancaked into the side of a mountain a few times as I tried to cheat my way out of the situation lol) I gave up trying to fix it,and just substituted in a different 'chute in my .craft The soyuz/va chutes (all of them) are working fine for me as recently as yesterday.
  24. tjsnh
    Might be some light espionage at work here ....
  25. tjsnh
    When I have trouble getting a contract to come up, its usually because I have too many on the list at that "star" level. I'll have a look though - about time for an update to this pack anyway. :-)
×
×
  • Create New...