Jump to content

entropy--

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    48

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by entropy--

  1. entropy--
    This worked well, and solved my problem. I added it to all Near Future Launch Vehicles Cargo bays via this patch: // Fix for making FAR work with some NearFuture parts that othewise have wacky vertices. // TODO: Apply this fix to the other NearFuture parts in need of it (there are more). @PART[cargo-5-*]:NEEDS[NearFuturePropulsion]:AFTER[FerramAerospaceResearch] { @MODULE[GeometryPartModule] { %forceUseMeshes = true %ignoreIfNoRenderer = true } }
  2. entropy--
    Great, will try it a bit later and report back.
  3. entropy--
    I'm playing with Near Future Launch Vehicles, and FAR seems to get the vertices wrong for some of those parts. The screenshot below shows a 5m rocket that has a visually invisible but aerodynamically very detrimental "band" around the "N50-2 Cargo Bay" part. Any idea how to fix this?
  4. entropy--
    I have a question about the "Graphite Umbrella Radiator". The description states "A high-diameter heat shield with the panels extended", but whenever I attempt a reentry with it extended, it just breaks away when the going get though (no matter which way it faces). Is this supposed to work for reentries, or not?
  5. entropy--
    Ok, go it. Even so, it's kind of cool I think: you can imagine the super-high-voltage power network with big thick cables for engines and such, and then just a regular low-voltage power network for lights and SAS and wheels. There should be an optional patch to rename EC to Minijouls, just as a fun factor upgrade.
  6. entropy--
    By the way, I was wondering around the meaning of "Megajoules". Is this like the high-powered version of the EC circout? Can I convert EC into Megajoules and the other way around?
  7. entropy--
    I think the Alternate Resource Panel mod looks at actual resource run rates to display the time until a resource runs out. So, with your base in "Duna" mode (that is, not on the pad, since you get some resources for free there), just wait a bit and then take a look at the Alternate Resource Panel time remaining. You may need to actually use hyper-edit your prototype base to Duna to test for all the conditions right (e.g., solar panel output). That's what I ended up doing to test the fine balance of things after loosing a couple of missions (each worth several hours) to really small imbalances in the life support cycles.
  8. entropy--
    If breakdowns were a thing, then it would be natural to do something like a low % without an engineer, and then up from there to 100%. But since in stock there's no such thing, doing 100% without an engineer and then a bit up from there with the engineer seems more natural. That is, the engineer is tweaking things; he is neither operating, nor fixing things.
  9. entropy--
    My vote goes to option #2. This kind of equipment should just work fine on its own (if we ignore braking and spare parts). Lots of people have water purifiers at home, and most of them are not engineers . Kerbals probably managed the same levels of quality!
  10. entropy--
    Also a question: With the Fuselage Junction parts in place, I've started making a space station "template" that can be lifted up in one go and even flowed around atmospheric planets by a tug-plane attachment. The one thing that seems to be missing is an Mk2 form factor station "tube", that is much lighter than the crewed parts, but is passable and works well with the junction parts. Are there any plans for such a part?
  11. entropy--
    Is there an IVA with RPM for the Mk2 Inline Cockpit somewhere?
  12. entropy--
    I think the interior attachment nodes of the M2X_Servicebay are missing when it's in structural mode.
  13. entropy--
    That's not the current description. The current description is "Rated for up to N Kerbals, with an efficiency multiplier of about X." This is what started this entire sub-topic
  14. entropy--
    TIL Let me restate my point in more serious terms then: With the current description, it takes a long hard look at the config files, lots of in-game experimenting, or digging around a forum to figure out how the converters actually work. This makes the mod not just "advanced" but downright unfriendly to new users. Why not alleviate that if a string update is all that it takes?
  15. entropy--
    Depends on your target audience I guess ... Microwave ovens still cary a warning text instructing you not to use it to dry your pets . In any case I think "At full efficiency, the converter can keep up with the [waste resource] generation from up to N kerbals." + [Text about specialist impact]. Sounds like the clearest way to say this. I'd love to see the descriptions updated. Can one contribute patches to this mod?
  16. entropy--
    What I meant to say is that it still works with more Kerbals, but you burn through your supplies faster (since it's not keeping up). Depending on your mission duration, it might still be better to not add another converter.
  17. entropy--
    That doesn't sound right does it. I must admit to not spending a lot of time looking at it. I'll check it again. In the meantime you can change the part configs to : UseSpecialistBonus = false for the converter parts. @JPLRepo I just tested UseSpecialistBonus = false and it works like a charm (that is, you get what seems to be the "intended" efficiency out of the converters). A few notes while I was in there: Recycler_CarbonExtractorLarge375, Recycler_WaterPurifierLarge375 and Recycler_SabatierCarbonRecyclerLarge375 have the wrong conversionRate / mass ratio, which seems to be 6.375. All these 3.75m parts have conversionRate / mass = ~4.3. Beyond the conversionRate / mass ratio, the actual mass of the the converters scales rather strangely across 1.25m / 2.5m / 3.75m. What's the assumption here for scaling? Regarding the updates for the part descriptions, wording it as "supports up to N Kerbals, with an efficiency multiplier of X" sounds incomplete, since the converters just work all the time with their , and you get more or less of a multiplier depending on how many Kerbals you have on board. Perhaps it could be updated to something like: "At full efficiency, with N or less Kerbals, your [resource] will last X times as much. With more Kerbals, your mileage may vary, but it's definitely worse.". N is the number where the number when the waste product output of those Kerbals equals the INPUT_RESOURCE * conversionRate of the converter.
  18. entropy--
    That's just awesome!
  19. entropy--
    @EvilGeorge Makes sense, thanks for the answer. Just curious, is this system completely parallel to the stock game Ore -> ISRU system? Or do I need to have both drills on my ship to be fully ISRU capable?
  20. entropy--
    @EvilGeorge Just curious, why is there no regolith on bodies with an atmosphere? I am pretty sure Duna, some ares of Kerbin (e.g., deserts), or the wastelands of Lythe should be full of regolith, in the real-world interpretation of the term, anyway.
  21. entropy--
    Looking at the cfg files a bit, if I want to create a make-shift Closed Cycle Gas Core Reactor (and I don't really want a new model), would it be fine to just make a +PART copy for the FIRGaCo, and then replace that reactor with the one in the KspiLightbulb? Something like: +PART[FIRGaCo] { @name = // TBD // Modify the other VAB text labels -MODULE[InterstellarFissionMSRGC] {} MODULE { name = InterstellarFissionPBDP // Copy the rest of the stuff from KspiLightbulb } } Are there any other important changes that need to be made there?
  22. entropy--
    Damn. I'd contribute to an artist making one! Where do I sign up?
  23. entropy--
    Possibly silly question: Why is there no Closed Cycle Gas Core Reactor without a built-in engine? I would love to attach a Thermal Turbojet/Ramjet Nozzle to such a reactor.
  24. entropy--
    It's already unlocked.
  25. entropy--
    @FreeThinker Thanks for the updates! And onto the next question I can't seem to get the Thermal Turbojet / Ramjet Nozzles to vector at all. They don't respond to turning input, even though the table lists them as "highly maneuverable" .As you can imagine, this makes the rocket really hard to control. Any ideas on what I should check?
×
×
  • Create New...