Jump to content

kcs123

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,593

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by kcs123

  1. kcs123
    Not so long ago, I posted example of my launching scripts in other thread. I often use some sort of library scripts with collection of functions in combination of main scripts. You may use it as example how to combine functions and triggers.
  2. kcs123
    More and more you dig, you will most probably found even more hacks that someone put there to workaround of unity problems. Some made by Squad, some by other moders.
  3. kcs123
    Uh, I need one more coffee to be able to diggest everything said But, it is always nice to share thoughts, sometimes some crazy nonsense ideas may be inspiration for better solution, even when such idea is no plausible at all.
  4. kcs123
    It is hard to predict in real life when you will be forced to take a break due to other commitmens. Yemo have released thi mod under ARR licence, but as he mentioned on patreon page, once he no longer be able to maintain mod, he will give licence to someone else, or change it to be less restrictive. So, most probably it is just a matter of time for returning to moding, rather than permanent hiatus. But until it said so, ARR licence should be respected.
  5. kcs123
    It is stll a thing. But for B9 variant of procedural wings. You need to be aware that there is two similar procedural wing mod. One that allow you to construct large wings from just one piece - continuation of first procedural wing mod. And other mod is B9 procedural wing that have limit on wing part size, but with additional features on "J" key.
  6. kcs123
    Hmm. For me in KSP 1.3.1 some of engines were not producing FX at all. Probably KSP 1.4.x broke something more than shaders. I'm afraid that we all have to wait for Yemo to get back from hiatus regarding moding. Until then, either, do not use those parts or pretend you don't see those issues
  7. kcs123
    Off topic: this reminds me of Stephen Hawkings quote "Women find a problem for each solution". Pretty much this can be applied to work with unity game engine
  8. kcs123
    It could be the strength of joints, how it was set. old IR was having joint strenght set way too high and it was still possible to bend joints in some cases. In IR next, joint strength is set to be weaker, but whole behaviour of IR parts were improved, (move limits, not being able to move around axes that is not designed to, etc.). Therefore, while overall behaviour is improved (have a feeling that joints were stronger than it actualy is), it start to bend as soon as you slightly overload above certain limits. I hope that above makes some sense, just speculative opinion based on observation from within game, without looking in actual numbers.
  9. kcs123
    Yes, I think that is the way I created them. Placed basic extendratron first with mirrored option turned on. On top of that extendratron I have put stackable, still mirrored. After that I copied basic and stackable extendratron by ALT + click on basic extendratron and placed them on rear part of craft. At least that much I can recall, I didn' t pay much attention while I was doing this, I didn't expect shaking of parts on runway and could not know that order of placing parts could influence this.
  10. kcs123
    Try on lauchpad to rename craft before launching. Choose craft icon to be "Lander" instead of ship, station, probe or similar that is ofered trough menu on right click over command module part. That, and make sure you meet other requirements, like having kerbal on board etc.
  11. kcs123
    Try to turn on COM and COL indicators in SPH. My guess is that some of those parts have some strange configs that FAR don't recognize properly. If you got arrow on COL indicator then most probably one of part on craft cause that FAR become broken.
  12. kcs123
    Ah, that's good to know and something to consider, to not use truss parts in such combination. Didn't even know that truss is not made as usual physic parts, I always thought that it is similar as empty fuel tanks or structural fuselage part, just of diferrent shape. Even with some other combination of parts placed on truss IR next plugin work just fine, I only noticed odd shaking in such "simple" configuration. When I placed just one pair of extendratrons shaking was not present, only mirrored part issue. If that tiny piece of info helps at all to narrow down issue.
  13. kcs123
    One more thing that I just noticed. Mirrored IR part on craft is for some reason slightly different than original part. On this picture fuel tanks are of same weight placed on extendratron pairs that were placed on craft in mirror symmetry. However, on one side extendratron is offset due to weight in one direction while it is in oposite direction on other side of craft. It is more noticable when IR parts were extended. EDIT: When I have attempted to change min/max values of extendratron trough part right click menu I produced whild shaking of craft for some reason.
  14. kcs123
    I found something different. I created some simple craft in attempt to reproduce issue. Extendratrons close to probe(craft root) have some limits set while other pair have no limit set. As soon as physics calmed down on runway, craft started to shake violently. Screenshot is not able to catch whole thing properly, but it is visible that free moving extendratron part is out of regular position on axis where it should not be able to move: With just one pair of extendratron I didn't have same issue. Tested with KSP 1.3.1, I still didn't downloaded 1.4.1 to test it.
  15. kcs123
    It is mentioned recently, but it was out of scope/time available for linuxgamer to fix it. Clicktrough GUI and translation improvement was made at that time.
  16. kcs123
    No, I didn't started outside of part limits. On my craft one extendratron was not enough and combination of basic extendratron and stackable extendratron gives too much range. I checked how much range I need to both of them to get desired limited position on craft, to prevent having dangerous position. I readed those positions in flight and reverted back to SPH. In SPH I set desired limits and check those in flight. Parts were extending beyond new limits I set, but still inside physical limits of parts. Strange thing is, I just checked again, to make a craft where you can reproduce issue and I could not reproduce it again. It behaved like it is intended to behave. I havce no idea how I was able to move them beyond limits like first time I noticed and reported this. Sorry about that if it is false bug report. I will try to keep eye on this one and keep notes how to reproduce bug if possible. Something strange is going on here. I don't recall if I was having some load on parts when I was testing it, maybe load was pushed extendratron slightly over desired limit and that allowed to keep part moving further ? Have to try some experiments to see if I can reproduce it.
  17. kcs123
    Welcome to forums. Your question is answered literally 3 posts before yours. It is always good habit to check at least 2-3 latest pages on forum thread. There is always high chance that any issue you have is already being answered recently.
  18. kcs123
    Well, it is up to mission creator to specify what kind of mods player need for his mission. It is not for mod creator to worry about it.
  19. kcs123
    Hard to tell and predict. I hope that Yemo will be able to sort out real life commitments, so he again can have time for moding. Or pass the maintenance torch to somebody with more free time for moding. Within this community is always someone skilled and willing to help, so it is not unreasonable to say that it will be updated at some point. Just hard to tell when it will happen or who would do it.
  20. kcs123
    Yes you can, other reported that it works fine. However, since it was not updated for a long period of time, you might enconter something that is not properly balanced, but not too much and not something gamebreaking.
  21. kcs123
    No worries, just reporting whatever I can notice so that you can have better quality plugin when it is finished
  22. kcs123
    Gallery with small bugs noticed: You can set limits in editor under advanced options, but that limit is not respected in flight, you still can move parts in full range. Move to preset works properly, though. Not a big issue with simple craft with just 2-3 IR groups, but can be difficult to manage when number of groups grows. Old plugin was having option move to next/previous group on buttons instead of drag&drop. Drag&drop is good enough when craft is simple, but as soon as IR parts number grow, it become more difficult to move some part from group #1 to group #4 when each group contains 10 or more parts. And a reminder, when using FAR, COL is not updated properly in SPH unless you move some part around: In flight it seems that it behave properly, but I still didn't make any extensive tests, though.
  23. kcs123
    Speaking of that, I can't recall when I was using some software that is 100% bugs free, including ones that I developed for myself
  24. kcs123
    Well, MM is updated too, it is possible that they have reverted back to previous behaviour or made it in a way that MM just ignore that "for" command and prevent unwanted log spam. Just a speculation that have to be checked and confirmed. I haven't look in MM thread or it change log yet.
  25. kcs123
    SETI was defined as compatible for wider versions in CKAN metadata. Since it is mostly just MM patches, not much is broken unlike mods that require plugin recompile. If you have edited config files to get rid of error messages and updated KSP over existing KSP 1.3.1. version, you should be fine. It is always possible that some things won't be properly balanced if SQUAD made significant change to some parts, but it should not be something that will make game unplayable.
×
×
  • Create New...