Yemo
-
Posts
1,486 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Everything posted by Yemo
-
Hm, ok, thank you. Then I will rather boost their efficiency somewhat and set their thrust to the same levels as the liquid fuel counterparts (which will most likely become better than the stock KSP ones). So the Karbonite Airbreathers with SETI will be somewhere between the liquid fuel and the Karbonite thrust levels.
-
Thank you for the clarification, for my non-realism "(Re)BalanceMod", I m thinking about using only Hydrogen to prevent the conversion problem. Thus I would multiply the values for liquid Hydrogen components by 4450 (density difference between Hydrogen and lqdHydrogen). So that eg tanks would hold the same mass as before but more "units" (higher compression). The advantages would be compatibility and ease of use. The disadvantages are a minor decrease in realism and the cost differential, since lqdHydrogen is rated at about twice the funds per mass compared to Hydrogen. Any input whether I m missing something or making an error is appreciated.
-
Hm, I tried the TweakScale 1.51 and it threw hundreds of exceptions every time I tried to use a hinge. While one direction worked, moving it in the other one resulted in the issues. Need some input on the procedural parts above, and also about the Karbonite engines. The air breathers have higher thrust when using karbonite than using liquid fuel, which I do not understand.
-
Hm, how about Hydrogen? Your Karbonite mod converts to liquid Hydrogen, while other mods like Universal Storage use Hydrogen together with Oxygen eg in Alkaline Fuel Cells to produce electricity. So is there a way to convert your liquid Hydrogen into the Hydrogen used by Universal Storage, or are those 2 different substances? I thought they are just different aggragate states? edit: Of the same resource.
-
I do not understand why we have liquid Hydrogen and Hydrogen as a resource (or liquid Oxygen and Oxygen and so on). What is the benefit of that distinction (except for a total realism simulation), I can only see lots of issues? Can anyone enlighten me?
-
Hm, I will try again tomorrow and then report back.
-
Hm, I have not experienced that, but I did not perform a lot of reentries recently. So you got TweakScale 1.51 something to work with IR? I seem to have the dll in multiple folders, what exactly did you do to fix it? Not sure about the procedural fairings, I would guess he made the procedural fairings nicer? Though keep in mind, some stuff from Ven's Stock Part Revamp seems to be currently deactivated, especially texture replacer components. On a different note, I m unsure how to implement procedural storage for MCM/MKS/OKS/EPL and Karbonite. This is the proposal from Atrius129: I want to separate Karbonite and Karborundum from it and maybe split the other ones as well. So: 1. New "Karbonite Tank" procedural part 2. Existing "Xenon Tank" retitled to something like "Special Fuels" and extended to include a Karborundum option (and later Argon for KSPI) 3. New "Storage Parts" procedural part, for "Machinery", "Structural Parts", "Mechanical Parts" and "SpareParts" 4. New "Storage Tank" procedural part for the rest Any input on that is very welcome!
-
Hey, I like the work on TweakScale, however your TweakScale version breaks Infernal Robotics. It leads to thousands of exceptions thrown when trying to use the infernal robotics parts outside of the VAB and crashes the game. Using the ExceptionDetector plugin for visibility. The last it showed before crashing was MuMech something exceptions and only infernal robotics only let me control in one direction, using the other direction command lead to the exceptions. The only changed thing between working and not working, was updating from the old TweakScale 1.50 to your newest version.
-
Ah, missed that, thanks. I will remove the parachutes in the next version. Hm, and i missed some TweakScale/FreeScale updates, seems only the latest version had KSP AVC added...
-
You are welcome! Looking forward to the stream! Will have to take a look at how to manage the time zones. Hm, that is some strange behaviour in your install. I used the standard infernal robotics yesterday and the additional chutes are in the parachutes category in my in maxMods game. About the SXT parts, I really like the An/Kn-225 and some other stuff, but after RLA and Ven, I want to add some gameplay stuff first. The parts from Ven are not too compatible with stock and especially the butt-less nature of the rocket engines exposes some not so great visuals... For another cockpit, I had the AR-234 one from Coffee Industries in mind. Though in that pack, I do not like that the NK/KN-12 turboprop (which would fit nicely into subsonicFlight) is not fully animated on KAX level (including sounds)... The procedural Core would be great, but also sounds like quite some work and possible issues. I put it onto my "long-term" dev list. There is a lot of other stuff to do for Procedural Parts, eg MKS-Storage/Karbonite/KAS storage and so on...
-
Hello everybody, I m the author of the SETI-BalanceMod (link in signature). I changed the TAC ls and Universal Storage wedges for the SETI-BalanceMod as follows: Universal Storage processor wedges provide support for 1 kerbal (using the TAC ls formulae and creating a new processor wedge config), 1.25m TAC ls processors provide support for 3 kerbals and 2.5m TAC ls processors can support 9 kerbals. All masses have been rebalanced to fit into that scheme and make it a little more realistic. Also I changed the Sabatier Recycler to be a Sabatier Reactor, using the formula from the Universal Storage Reactor, including Hydrogen. To make Hydrogen available without using the Universal Storage wedges, I added the resource definition in my SETI-Settings.cfg, if the CommunityResourcePack is not installed. Then I added it to the Procedural Parts Life Support tank, since my mod uses Procedural Parts wherever possible to reduce clutter. There have been no bug reports about it, since this was introduced.
-
New Version 0.8.2 Extended Mod Support Ven's Stock Part Revamp - use both the SETI AutoPruner file and the batch file from the StockPartRevamp to prune everything New/Unused Parts/Textures, updated AutoPruner file Updated AutoPruner file, to prune Ven's fuel tanks and wings and so on... New 0.625m liquid fuel engine rated at 15 thrust, when RLA Stockalike is installed Rebalances & Adjustments All LFO, Mono and RCS engine costs "rebalanced" (quick and dirty, but much better than before) Standard Flat Solar Panel much larger Procedural & Universal Storage RCS tanks @generalRocketry (intentionally without engines) RLA Stockalike LV-T5 Liquid Engine earlier @advRocketry RLA Stockalike MPR-1 Monoprop Engines earlier @advRocketry RLA Stockalike Solar Panels Z-4E earlier @advElectrics Minor Changes and Fixes Removed TweakScale from parts with crew capacity
-
Nah, great pictures are always welcome . About the update, I couldnt resist rebalancing the engine costs... But it will definately be released later today (UTC).
-
Yes. It seems the High Altitude Probe was last changed in an old version, so it is not affected. If you replace its HECS core with a new one, it shows the same SAS features as the other HECS probes and any new built HECS core. In the SETI-PartMod-Squad-ComConElectrics.cfg, HECS gets stripped of all MODULES. I think the great change was, that I reintroduced SAS via the SETI-settings.cfg for the HECS core in 0.8.0 or so. So before reintroducing the SAS module through the SETI-settings.cfg, any mod with an MM statement like @MODULE[ModuleSAS] { %SASServiceLevel = 2 } would just not work, because the whole MODULE was removed. Now with the MODULE[ModuleSAS] back, it works again, so any mod could be responsible. It may have been always there, I just happened to wake it up with 0.8.0...
-
I looked into it but could not find the culprit. I guess I ll just take out the :FINAL hammer in the SETI-settings.cfg, for the time being. Although I m working to get rid of that compatibility inhibiting statement wherever I can...
-
[Retired] Multipurpose Colony Modules for MKS/OKS (0.4.5)
Yemo replied to Angelo Kerman's topic in KSP1 Mod Releases
Hey, this is a great mod and fits perfectly into the clutter reduction principle of my SETI-BalanceMod. However there is one problem: You make lots of use of the :FINAL statement in your modulemanager configs. That precludes any chance of modding those components for balancing purposes within SETI, and thus makes it incompatible. Because of that massive incompatibility, :FINAL statements should only be used for private configs. I used and encountered them before and they are a massive headache for integration. I do not believe any of your :FINAL statements are necessary, and if they are, an :AFTER[umbraSpaceIndustries] statement would do the same job without the unwanted side effects. The change would simply be running a "replace" with Notepad++, exchanging ":FINAL" for ":AFTER[umbraSpaceIndustries]". Thank you very much! -
@Smegghed: Ii forgot to mention that I did not experience any beautification problems with SETI specifically. And for a nice progression career I recommend "Moderate" + 60% science/funds/reputation rewards. @SSGFouts31: Hm, HECS should not have anything besides basic SAS. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, I will investigate.
-
MCM/MKS/OKS uses the node as far as I know. They are not supported at the moment, though with the recent 0.4.4 of MCM, that might change next week. I m not too happy with the CTT in that branch, but further down the line you get some nice TAC life support recyclers... You are welcome. The SETI supported mods will approach the RAM limit as well, given the current progress and the stuff planned for the future. The pruning will only help a little in that regard. However finding stuff in the assembly buildings is much easier now. Be sure to link your stream in this thread, if you try it out. I m relatively busy in rl at the moment and can only mod in the odd hours in between, but maybe one of those odd hours is during your stream time and I can answer questions in the chat. The CTT includes the whole stock tech tree, so every mod for stock should appear there as well. There are however 2 problems, especially with the "realism" based parts packs. 1. SETI starts with probes, while somehow those part packs often put manned capsules at the start like stock does. Which of course breaks the early game. 2. The realism part packs orient themselves around some real values. So eg in Tantares you have a 1.3ton capsule which can accomodate 2 Kerbals and a 1.9 ton capsule for only one Kerbal. And they have only miniscule ingame differences in terms of modules/capabilities. So they follow real life weight differences without providing real life capability differences which would make up for that... Thus they only work for roleplaying, while SETI tries to maintain at least some stats balancing. I recommend trying SETI with just the supported mods (and the odd additions, if you need them for your gameplay, like Kerbal Construction Time, B9Aerospace stuff, InfernalRobotics model reworks and so on), but leaving those "realism" packs for another time. At least until you have a feeling for the intended "balance". With all the mods listed in the OP and the addition tomorrow, the core of the tree should be pretty much fleshed out. And then the sides get more attention, like MCM/MKS/OKS and so on.
-
ad1. CommunityTechTree, strongly recommended for the SETI-BalanceMod (link in my signature). ad2. Squad made the "interesting" decision to make facility progression totally unmoddable. ad3. ContractScienceModifier, actually a requirement for the SETI-BalanceMod. ad4. ContractConfigurator contracts, another requirement for the SETI-BalanceMod, a lot of great stuff already, but a lot more to come. ad5. SaneStrategies, you guessed it, required for the SETI-BalanceMod... And about the traits, they are also nearly unmoddable, no idea why Squad wants them that way.
-
So, anyone interested in extending the SciFi related anomalies? I do not know how/if possible, but the anomaly contracts by nightingale made the game much more interesting to me and other veterans.
-
For a grand career game I would recommend "moderate" + 60% science/funds/reputation rewards. Since the rewards slider makes the game more "challenging", while the penalties slider just makes it more grindy, in general. I wanted to keep the designs of mono and liquid separate. Mono gets the grey and grey + blue colors, while liquid gets the grey + yellow/orange colors. The sizes/nozzles won't fit anyway at the moment. I want to keep the next update small and simple, so probably tomorrow. Not sure about the TweakScale issue, some command parts seem to be scaleable, other are not. I might be able to delete the TweakScale MODULE after it is added. Thanks for the report.
-
I just took a quick look at the Stock Part Revamp (without Texture Replacer, of course, buggy mess...). It does not look like too much trouble for integration. Some stuff will be redundant. But I do not really care at the moment, if there are 2 LV-909 (with different textures) around, or two 45° thrusters blocks... I rearranged the monoprop stuff a little, balancing your wish for earlier throttle and my wish to keep flightControl relatively clean. About the LV-T5, since I made the "Kingfisher" a monoprop engine (better fit with artwork), we now lack a stack liquid engine between 5 and 30 thrust. The easiest way would be, to just clone the LV-T5 into a LV-T15 and put both of them at advRocketry, would that be ok? So I m really considering a minor update tomorrow or so, including the changes above and a quick & possibly dirty inclusion of Ven's Stock Part Revamp (since I m still very familiar with the RLA inclusion I know precisely where to put most stuff without much thinking about it).
-
You refuse to use mods because you want to play the game as it was meant to be played. You fear that mods upset the "balance" of the game.
-
Thank you! 1. As far as I know, I can not restrict the length of the procedural SRBs below 2.5m (there seems to be some kind of restriction according to a dev comment in the file, not sure what it breaks). 2. Besides using SaneStrategies, I havent tinkered with the strategies at all. That would require quite some testing in a long running career game, for which I do not find the time at the moment. For me it is either playing a long career, or adding/testing/balancing parts for the foreseeable future.
-
Thank you for the consideration, then it is the same problem as with KerbalMass. Can you somehow delay the AGX loading until after the mm patches? As far as I can see, time of loading should not affect AGX functionality, as long as it is before loading a savegame/starting a game. There are quite some configs accumulating, from AGX to KerbalMass, RemoteTech, TAC life support, and so on. It would be great if those could be controlled by MM, making the update process much easier and allowing the distribution of micro mm patches. Eg an mm file that sets AGX to non-career, RemoteTech to no-time-delay, KerbalMass to something that floats with Better Buoyancy and so on.
