PocketBrotector
-
Posts
394 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by PocketBrotector
-
-
It looks like LqdHe3 doesn't appear on Kerbin, Mun, or Minmus with RationalResources. This has considerable consequences when trying to use e.g. FFT with JNSQ. It looks like there are a few different things at play here...
- FFT includes its own overrides to CRP for LqdHe3. These are specified at both the planetary and biome levels but appear to be oriented towards stock and RSS systems, so there's limited compatibility with other systems (JNSQ, GEP, etc.)
- Rational Resources then culls and overrides everything before it (at this point that's both CRP and FFT, since FFT doesn't include "tag = spared" or similar anywhere).
- Rational Resources isn't set up to place crustal LqdHe3 anywhere on Kerbin or its moons. In particular the config for Mun includes an entry for LqdHe3 but it lists "PlanetName = None" - I'm guessing this is not intentional.
I imagine there are a few different ways to address this, but I don't know what solution would be preferred in order to maximize compatibility between various combinations of mods.
Edit: Here's what I'm using to spare FFT's distribution and convert it to use JNSQ's biomes. Seems to work pretty well.
-
17 hours ago, Nertea said:
Side note, I have recently been informed that the LqdHe3 to LqdDeuterium ratio is wrong. Don't know how this slipped through, it must be holdover from a very old version of the mod. A more realistic ratio is about 1L Deuterium to 4L He3 (currently it's 2L D to 3L He), because density of the resources is not accounted for.
Fixing this affects crafts somewhat. Should I actually do it?
I'm inclined to say yes if this will improve the mod long-term. Less painful to do so when the mod is relatively young and fewer people will be affected. The release notes will warn users of a potentially breaking change.
-
I know that the people who use JNSQ may be very interested to hear about the latter feature...
On 2/20/2020 at 9:00 AM, JadeOfMaar said:Never accept rescue contracts in scaled games. KSP does not adjust the altitude range when the bodies are changed and resized. If you know of a mod that fixes this, do let us know, and start using that mod.
-
13 hours ago, VoidSquid said:
But as I said, if I as mod user can have a filter to enable/disable depreciated parts, I'd be happy with that.
How to find depreciated parts is the bigger question. Some parts have been in the past Squad-auto upgraded and moved to \GameData\Squad\zDeprecated. Others though have not but simply have TechHidden = true. Others have T echRequired = Unresearcheable (ScanSat).
Which means there is no one single unified concept what depreciated does mean, and how parts are marked as depreciated.
FE is highly configurable so I think one would be able to set up a category that includes most of these checks and captures deprecated parts regardless of how they were deprecated. That way even if a mod that has not been maintained in a long time and uses some old, subpar deprecation style, its deprecated parts would show up in the filter.
-
I'm sure I'm not the first one to notice, but the extra metal textures for SSPXr are quite nice for a Jamestown recreation.
Spoiler
Spoiler
I could probably make this a true replica instead of just a "reinterpretation" if I borrowed some engines and greebles from BDB, but my RAM wouldn't like that very much.
-
On 1/6/2021 at 12:28 PM, CDSlice said:
Just an FYI, apparently this mod is pretty broken with the current Space Dust release.
The newer v0.3.3 release of SpaceDust seems to work ok with Bunnies installed. I say "seems" because I presume that Bunnies' configuration issues to which Nertea referred haven't been fixed, but SpaceDust itself was updated so that they don't outright break everything.
I've confirmed that scanners and telescopes work now with Bunnies installed (i.e. I can discover, identify, and display resource bands, and telescopes correctly animate). But I haven't figured out what the config errors are in Bunnies, or what (if any) gameplay impact they have. If I do I'll probably submit a PR to fix.
-
Been playing with this today, and while the parts look very cool, I'm not sure everything is working as intended for me. I have both SpaceDust and SpaceDustBunnies installed alongside JNSQ and RationalResources; NFP is installed but I haven't installed FFT yet.
I sent a gas scanner into 300km polar orbit to see what I could discover around Kerbin. However, it says it is disabled even when it is enabled:
Spoiler
The telescope has two slots available to scan twelve different resources, so naturally I stuck six of them inside a 5m fairing so that I could scan all resources at once for a given body. However, most of them display one or zero spectrometers when surveying, and most also don't open when activated:
Spoiler
Log file. Please let me know if there's anything I can do to troubleshoot - thanks.
-
Happy New Year!
I've been wondering what type of material KH's RadiationShielding might represent - partly out of curiosity, but partly so that I can plan how it might be manufactured in-situ using Extraplanetary Launchpads and/or RationalResources. (Both mods have their way of producing non-transferable resources in the right place - Recipes for EpL, and Blacksmith for RR.)
The literature that I've seen commonly cites hydrogen-rich plastics such as polyethylene as an effective shielding material. Is it reasonable to assume that RadiationShielding is polyethylene or something like it?
-
25 minutes ago, antilochus said:
Mostly just for basic stuff like budgeting relay hohmann transfers + circularization. I have never played with ResearchBodies so can't really say... I find there are always things you 'discover' e.g. just today how my latest Eve landers sunk into the ocean. I like to know basic characteristics for fuel budgeting because I hate to run out of fuel when spending hours on interplanetary missions especially when running other constraints like comsat or life support.
The CelestialBodies pdf and dV maps included with JNSQ are probably the best resources. Or you could pull raw values directly from the cfg files. I also recommend the transfer window planner in my sig
-
You beat me by two hours... though I imagine several of us all discovered this independently.
Mine is only 73 bytes though!
-
I agree that this should be implemented. Now that in-flight construction is possible, the first thing I wondered about it was "how can I extend the inventory and propulsion limits of an EVA kerbal"? Command seat-based craft are the obvious choice, whether that's on the surface (rovers) or in orbit (MMUs).
-
1 minute ago, wasmic said:
I want to install Restock+, but I see that a lot of the parts are disabled for those who own the Making History expansion. I do own that expansion, but don't particularly like the parts from it.
So, is there any way to either disable Making History (I have not been able to find a method by searching around), or to enable those Restock+ parts despite Making History being installed?
Everything in RS+ that is disabled by MH is basically duplicative of the MH parts. If you use RS+ with MH, it will make your MH parts look better, which may make you like those parts more. Try it and see.
-
Is there a way to transfer resources to/from parts that are in cargo?
On 12/17/2020 at 5:53 AM, UomoCapra said:* EVA cylinder parts and Jetpacks are refilled when they are transferred back into a vessel from a kerbal.
This behavior breaks when kerbalEVA is patched to use a propellantResourceName other than "EVA Propellant". In some ways this is actually a good thing (we don't need the EVAfuel mod to stop the unlimited free magic refills of jetpack propellant) - but I don't see that it leaves any way to refuel jetpacks or extra canisters.
-
1 minute ago, kerbalxploder said:
Oh? How can I incorporate them into my game then?
You probably don't want to, since they will appear identical to the Making History engines you already have installed. If you really insist, you could find the part config for each and delete "MHReplacement = True".
-
2 minutes ago, kerbalxploder said:
Here are some examples of engines that I dont see:
Unless Im missing something, I don't see the listed engines here. By the way, it was the same in 1.10
Your parts list indicates you have Making History installed. Those engines you listed have a note next to them stating they are disabled when Making History is installed. Instead of separate engines, you get better-looking versions of the corresponding MH engines.
-
Looks like this was suggested back in 2018...
It seems like certain part actions have been arbitrarily left out of the action group assignment system. Surface scanners, for example, can't scan the surface using an action group... instead you have to play "track down the tiny click target" every time you explore a new biome.
-
1 hour ago, jimmymcgoochie said:
Re. the propellant used by the EVA pack- Kerbalism swaps that to monopropellant (which just means you need to bring some along but makes no difference to performance) and RP-1 to Nitrogen (which is the worst RCS propellant for ISP by some margin), so I see no reason why you can’t just write a patch to swap the propellant to anything you feel like; having effectively infinite propellant by just popping back into a pod for a refill is a bit silly though.
Looking at how Kerbalism accomplishes this, I see that the propellant type is defined (and modified) in the kerbalEVA config. So like the other parameters, you can override it but it will affect every kerbal in the universe - no variants allowed.
You’re probably right that jetpack variants would have a niche purpose, but that’s exactly why the parameters should be exposed. Modders who are interested would be able to access them without unwanted effects to “regular” jet packs.
@Starhelperdude has some nice ideas above. I’m also interested in a semi-realistic version that’s suitable for spacewalks without being so super-powered that it can also be used for e.g. Minmus landing/ascent. I imagine there’s also the possibility of an atmo-optimized version, or more fancifully, a pack that has air intakes and fans or true jet engines for atmospheric flight.
-
1.11 introduces the EVA jetpack as a discrete, removable/swappable part, which is an improvement in customizability over the old system where it was built directly into each kerbal's EVA suit. However, most of the jetpack's characteristics (linear and rotational thruster power, propellant consumption rate, etc.) is still specified in the kerbalEVA config rather than the jetpack config. It would be good if these were part of the jetpack rather than part of the kerbal, as this would open up the possibility of customized, specialized jetpacks in mods or stock:
- Different jetpacks could have stronger or weaker thrusters. Want to fly on Tylo? Or maybe you want more realistic thrusters that are only good for maneuvering in microgravity?
- Different jetpacks could have different effective specific impulses, and/or different propellant capacities.
- We could specify that a jetpack uses a fuel other than generic "EVA Propellant," e.g. Nitrogen or another realistic cold-gas resource from CRP.
All of these factors together, along with total jetpack mass, could provide multiple EVA propulsion systems with different capabilities. This in turn can be used to provide more interesting choices when planning mission architecture, etc.
-
49 minutes ago, OhioBob said:
This mod has not been updated to support the new scatterer. There is no timetable for when it will.
Just to clarify, what is meant by "new scatterer" here? Is that v0.0722 specifically, or some other version range? I don't mean to sound dense, I just want to make sure that I'm not accidentally inviting trouble by mixing potentially incompatible versions of different mods.
-
I'm using KSP 1.10.1 with the newest Near Future mod suite. According to the version files and CKAN, this should be fine, but actually this is Fine. Parts that have had ModuleCargoPart added to them can't be clicked in the VAB and suffer from severe z-fighting if they have multiple variants available. I created and tested a quick and dirty hotfix and it appears to fix the problem:
@PART:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCargoPart]] { !MODULE[ModuleCargoPart]{} } -
1 hour ago, Gilph said:
Hi, my issue didn't really go away, so I made an executive decision to not use CryoTanks. The boiloff mechanic and different ISRU are complications that I don't really need or want, even though the tanks are awesome.
I replaced the tankswitchforsquad.cfg and now have just the option for RR fuels for the stock tanks. I'd like the same functionality for the NFLV and SpaceY tanks, which does not have the RR fuel options in the menu. How would I create/change a cfg file to apply those options to those other tanks?
Thanks
Looks like that patch makes changes to parts based on their manufacturer name. In the case of NFLV, the manufacturer is Post-Kerbin Mining Corporation, so try creating a config file with the following:
@PART:HAS[#manufacturer[Post-Kerbin?Mining?Corporation],!MODULE[ModuleB9PartSwitch],@RESOURCE[LiquidFuel]]:NEEDS[B9PartSwitch,RationalResources,!ConfigurableContainers/Parts,!ModularFuelTanks]:BEFORE[RationalResourcesSquad] { refVolume = #$RESOURCE[LiquidFuel]/maxAmount$ @refVolume += #$RESOURCE[Oxidizer]/maxAmount$ !RESOURCE[LiquidFuel] {} !RESOURCE[Oxidizer] {} MODULE { name = ModuleB9PartSwitch moduleID = RRStockSwitch switcherDescription = RR Fuel switchInFlight = True baseVolume = #$../refVolume$ } }If that works, you can do the same for SpaceY by changing "Post-Kerbin?Mining?Corporation" to whatever manufacturer name is used for SpaceY tanks (substitute spaces with "?").
-
@JPLRepo Does Glykerol have a presumed volume (liters per in-game unit)? The resource definition in CRP does not define it. I was trying to figure out if it was more like typical stock resources (5L/unit) or most CRP resources (1L/unit)... but if the density of Glykerol (0.012 metric tons per KSP unit) is similar to real-life glycerol (1.261 kg/L), then it would be 10L/unit.
Having a defined volume for glykerol would facilitate adding tankage for it to parts in other mods. Thanks!
Edit:
Found some clues regarding the original design/intent back in ~2014... Evidently it's supposed to be 1L/unit (five liters per freeze) but also one-tenth its implemented density. Want me to submit a pull request to CRP?
On 12/1/2014 at 10:09 PM, scottpaladin said:Hm... I think you're right.
I had pulled my original density value from the entry for water in the CRP way back when I first started working on this but it would appear that I probably screwed up the decimal place. So that'll be fixed next time I push an update.
If anybody wants to implement the fix themselves just edit the cfg:
RESOURCE_DEFINITION{ name = Glykerol density = 0.0012 flowMode = ALL_VESSEL transfer = PUMP isTweakable = true unitCost = 0.8 } -
1 hour ago, Gilph said:
Stock tanks dont use EC because they dont have boil off enabled. I believe I saw this earlier. Is that true?
This is really a question for the CryoTanks thread, I think. Stock tanks have boil-off and can be refrigerated with EC, but it is toggled off by default; you can enable it in the right-click menu.
1 hour ago, Gilph said:My ISRU has both Hydrolox and LH2+OX choices, and Methalox and LCH4+Ox choices. You had verified earlier that they are the same, so why do I have 2 choices for the same output. Did I overinstall a patch with too many options??
This sounds like one set of converters is from CryoTanks and uses stock Ore, and the other is from RationalResources and uses Water or similar. The outputs might be the same but the inputs are likely different.
-
@OhioBob Thanks!
I've now updated the launch window planner to include all bodies in GEP_JNSQ. Initial comparisons to the Transfer Window Planner mod shows fairly consistent results (~15k dV for Kerbin -> Grannus/Nodens in 60-70 years; ~40k dV for Nodens -> Taranis in 7 days; etc.)
[1.12.x] BetterCrewAssignment v1.4.1: Smarter by default. Remembers your choices. No UI.
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted
@Snark , I'm getting some exceptions from BCA in KSP 1.11, accompanied by heavy UI lag in the VAB whenever a crewable part is added.
My crew assignment configuration:
//Default all crewable parts to empty by overwriting BetterCrewAssignment’s configurations @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCrewAssignment]]:FINAL { @MODULE[ModuleCrewAssignment] { @defaultAssignment = Empty } }Mod list:
000_ClickThroughBlocker
000_FilterExtensions
000_FilterExtensions_Configs
000_Toolbar
001_ToolbarControl
B9_Aerospace_ProceduralWings
B9PartSwitch
BetterCrewAssignment
BonVoyage
CommNetAntennasInfo
CommunityCategoryKit
CommunityResourcePack
CommunityTechTree
CryoEngines
CryoEnginesNFAero
CryoEnginesRestock
CryoTanks
CustomBarnKit
CustomPreLaunchChecks
DatedQuickSaves
DeployableEngines
DistantObject
DynamicBatteryStorage
EnvironmentalVisualEnhancements
GEP
GEP_JNSQ
HeatControl
HideEmptyTechTreeNodes
JNSQ
KAS
KEI
KerbalAtomics
KerbalAtomicsLH2NTRModSupport
KerbalEngineer
KerbalHealth
KerbalJointReinforcement
KerbalKonstructs
KerbalRenamer
KerbalReusabilityExpansion
KerboKatz
KIS
Kopernicus
kOS
KSP-AVC
KSPRescuePodFix
LB_KSP_Configs
MagiCore
MarkIVSystem
MechJeb2
ModularFlightIntegrator
ModuleManager
NavyFish
NearFutureAeronautics
NearFutureConstruction
NearFutureElectrical
NearFutureExploration
NearFutureLaunchVehicles
NearFutureProps
NearFuturePropulsion
NearFutureSolar
NearFutureSpacecraft
OSSNTR
PartOverhaulIntegration
PlanetShine
QuickMods
RationalResources
RationalResourcesParts
REPOSoftTech
Restock
RestockPlus
SCANsat
Scatterer
SituationModuleInfo
SnacksSupport
SoundtrackEditorForked
SpaceDust
SpaceDustBunnies
SpaceTuxLibrary
StageRecovery
StationPartsExpansionMetal
StationPartsExpansionRedux
Trajectories
TriggerTech
TriggerTech
Waterfall
WaterfallRestock
WildBlueIndustries
ZeroMiniAVC
Please let me know if there's anything else useful that I can add to my report. Thanks!