Jump to content

RedParadize

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    866

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by RedParadize

  1. RedParadize
    That's lovely, its a two seater right? I wish it was bigger, like 4.
  2. RedParadize
    OMG Gael is wonderfull! I would prefer if its not the new home of kerbals, It would be nice to have a truely colonizable planet to go for.
  3. RedParadize
    You might want to check without 6.4x. There is weird bug when near/far clip plane are to distanced. Its doubtful but possible.
  4. RedParadize
    @AlimOncul This happened to me before. Look at Mechjeb DV panel and make sure your reference body is Kerbin. Also, make sure that Module manager and Mechjeb are up to date. If all this is ok and you still have the issue, Shadowmage will need your logs.
  5. RedParadize
    User still have to go into advanced feature to find these two, and what they do is not obvious. There is feature that automaticly turn on or off under specific circonstance, and user will only learn it on the spot. Its quite surprising to see your landing gear retract on its own immediately after opening it. I remember that I got surprise like that many times. I wish I could give you more details but I uninstalled TCA some time ago. I don't want to be hard here, its simply that right now we have a 3 inch thick swiss knife and when we pull the screw driver there is 5 other tools that come with it. And: I honnestly think that packaging the interface into separate feature box would be a huge improvement. And I hope you don't take it too hard, I am sure the many of the stuff you implemented in TCA 3 would quickly become a must have.
  6. RedParadize
    SSTU is not the only mod affected by this. Procedural tank had the same issue if I recall correctly, Personatly I don't realy care. On the other hand, crew capacity code is important, I don't want to be eable to carry crew around when deflated. Congrats and keep up the good work! Question: If I want a longer SSTU-SC-BAY-MCB-A. Do I need to add new Assets or can I just repeat the same? Are we gonna have a update tomorrow or later this weekend? I can't wait anymore. Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?
  7. RedParadize
    Hops, I meant Augustus!
  8. RedParadize
    That look realy good! Any of these moon will have atmosphere? I looking for a colonisable planet in fact. Gauss would be a nice desert colony.
  9. RedParadize
    I'm interested as well, as a interim solution. The basic feature would meet 90% of my current need. I am still looking foward improvement of TCA3
  10. RedParadize
    I don't see this as a important issue. Part cost change when you change its content and size as well. The lunch cost displayed at the bottom is the thing to look at. All station have a config cost of 100. Shadowmage obviously didn't balance them yet. But I have a MM config for that! In fact I changed many past cost to my personal taste. As exemple, everything related to Soyuz is extremely cheap, but tweaked to be low/average in term of performence.
  11. RedParadize
    MiniBus docked to DunaTug: Only 15 part with Minibus. 6 radiator because Heinlen is hot sause. I plan to drop DunaTug on my way back. It wont do Kerbin orbit incertion. Nuclear salt water engine are too dangerous for that. I will trow it in a non dangerous orbit around the sun. MiniBUS will do the final trip, drop the TKS and do a direct entry, will see if heat shield will survive! Thanks @Nertea for the wonderfull dangerous and scary engine! @tater Kerbalism is wonderfull. You should definitively take a look at it. About SSTU integration, I have done MM patch for that. I can provide them if you want. Oh, btw my Orion is 3.125 diameter with the SM. It look more right on that size.
  12. RedParadize
    Oh look, only 6 part! There is part intersecting there, who care right? And here is my MiniBus, on its way to Minimus: 2 Part, and everything you need for medium transit! It have enough DV for insertion, rendevous and trip back home. (6.4x scale. 20 days of supply for Kerbalism)
  13. RedParadize
    Windowes: 50% and 75% looks fine for me. can we go for 66% ? If you are already past that point ignore this message. Colors: White would be nice too. Since we can't have a true metalic shader for now it would be a decent alternative. I am curious to see your big centrifuge design. I think I made it clear already but I think that for the biggest and most advanced centrifuge, it would be great to diverge slightly into the sy-fy relm. It kinda make sence since nothing of that size ever have been designed outside of sy-fy...
  14. RedParadize
    I am guilty of that more than anyone else. Note that I still manage to sneak a request on my last post!
  15. RedParadize
    I think there is several tank variant that could be implemented. Personally, I would like to see a variant that of the upper stage that have bottom mount and RCS on top as well. A customizable SM would be awesome too. But if I had to chose, I would rather have you continue with what you are doing right now. All these nice idea can be done with current stuff, it just require more part...
  16. RedParadize
    Thats more than good enough. When you say "that module controls an animation" I am asuming it will also handle model switching right? Because otherwise your big rigid centrifuge would need animation. That looks realy nice! If you want critics the window are a tad big to my taste (they are bigger than the hatch!). The right one on the picture, does the blue thing on top are windows? I would advocate against such heresy, these are realy big for a spacecraft. If you realy want windows on these I would say 4 small circular window would look better and feel more realistic. About the extra details, some external piping and random box/sphere/cylinder to simulate the russian messy design would be nice. specialy on the narrow section. Thats my presonal opinion, others might disagree.
  17. RedParadize
    Allow me to reformulate this issue. TCA3 is awesome, but it have allot of feature that most don't currently use, and these feature are activated by default. You know every feature of your mod but new user don't. The new user will typically want TCA to lunch simple VTOL, for reasons unknown to him engines trust go to 0 and the VTOL won't lift. When the user figure out why, the VTOL will lift but TCA will try to counter every maneuver user do because its on auto-hover. When the user find out how to fix this. He will have to figure out why engine will go to 0 trust after a landing. Same thing with many other feature like auto retract/deploy landing gear etc... On my end, I learned most of these feature but I don't use them often. So when I use TCA again I have to remember the full thing just to lift off a simple VTOL or to land a unbalanced ship. As I see it, there is 3 possible aproach to this: 1: Turn off every advanced feature by default. Thats the most simple solution, Once the user figure out the basic he will learn the advanced feature as he activate them. Its easier to do trial and error when you go one by one. 2: Redesign the UI. Thats more work. Right now the UI is verry compact and thats a good thing, but we can say the same thing about a RL plane cockpit. That design only work if you know what is what. Mechjeb and AtmosphereAutopilot have every feature on separated window. it take more space but it make it way easier to learn. I would love to have your jump to specified location feature, but I never got deep enough into TCA to use it. 3: Bring back TCA 2. I think that would be the wrong approach. It would permanently cut the learning curve to the basic thing. And again I would definitively like to use your advanced feature. Keep up the good work!
  18. RedParadize
    @ShotgunNinjaOk, if I understand correctly, radiation use a template for each planets, then radiation amount is set per planet, but shape and size of belt etc is purely base on the template. Question A: does template are resized automaticly to planets? If yes, base on what? Question B: is there a way to adjust size of a template for a specific planet?
  19. RedParadize

    Lol You should not follow me! I ask stupid stuff to everyone, Thats all I do!

    1. CobaltWolf

      CobaltWolf

      Does following even serve a function anymore? :P I never get any notifications or such from it.

  20. RedParadize
    @Shadowmage Just a trough, I know its realy early but do you think the future mechanic to make a ring in orbit would also work on the ground? I always wanted to have a very simple ground base setup. Like a single part that do it all. With your future deployable centrifuge mechanic, I think it could be possible. Something like a relatively light core module would be drop on a planet, then it would require like 200 tons of non extractable material to make it fonctional. Once fonctional it would hold +20 kerbal and have EPL lunchpad capacity. I am obviously not asking you to create that part. But it would be cool if your code would allow that eventuality.
  21. RedParadize
    Thats not what I said. From what I understood, you wanted a texture switch that follow content type. My answer is it should be selectable just as regular SSTU tank. Sorry if I was not clear. If you want I have MM for 6.4x that adjust every engine separately. I must warn you that it is balanced to my personal taste. For example the RL-10 have more trust than it should. I am not that patient when manoeuvring. I have been thinking about doing a more simple MM that multiply trust and ISP, divide mass by using a single formula applied to all. The thing is It won't work correctly for every part (and also won't adjust it to my taste). @falken Is also looking for something like that, so I might end up doing it anyway. It will end up looking like the global MM patch near future propulsion have. I also have few custom tank setup like shielded, carbon, and carbon shielded. They are more expensive than original and sadly they are available at start in campaign... I also added some engines variant , pods that are just KIS cargo, buffed SM... extra tank resource type for Kerbalism, NFP NFF and probably other thing that I forgot about.
  22. RedParadize
    I think that the same mechanics tanks currently use is preferable. You can still chose to give fuel section a different color, or go for everyones the same if you wish. Its less restrictive that way. Regarding service module. As they are right now it is much better to use a SSTU tanks + engine, they are lighter, contain more resource for similar volume and you can put a better engine behind them. In my custom SSTU build I buffed them quite allot. I think its something that should be done as well in stock SSTU.
  23. RedParadize
    @PappysteinAnd thats why I don't use CKAN. For your testing. If you use HyperEdit, quicksave and reload after editing. It fix most of the bugs (as far as I know). If you still incounter the bugs, do the same test in a regular lunch or on the ground with as few part as possible. And if you still have the same issues, make sure to provide your output_log!
  24. RedParadize
    I will give you something for this tonight. IF i don't finish too late.
  25. RedParadize
    Good luck in your studies, Hope its related to what you did for KSP. If not its a waist of talent.
×
×
  • Create New...