Urist
-
Posts
30 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Everything posted by Urist
-
Wouldn't the parachute be another new size (0.45M?) If it were separated. -
Fairings would be good too.
-
Thanks for the image there, I'll see what I can manage. That being said, they do currently lock together quite well, if only in an abstract visual way: Do you have any pictures of your UV mapping woes? I can potentially lend a hand. No obvious problems with the collider, from the looks of things. How about that new "clamber" mechanic that was introduced in 1.0? Does that work in orbit? Could be causing the Kerbal to do some kind of motion, without your input. Cheers, fixed in the vanilla version too. Looks like we need 1.875m nose cones ;-) I Could use existing textures, that's true. But, at the end of the day, even an untextured polygon would be functional, just ugly. I'd rather stick to my strengths and not go anywhere near textures for the moment being.
- 22,533 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- totm march 2020
- mod
- (and 2 more)
-
Yeah, that's not a bad fit. Only problem now is that the crew hatch part is now freakishly small. Cheers, I'll take a look.
-
Heya, I think this is the case. Thanks for the extra context though. I was wondering why the APAS appeared to have a garbled texture in-game, turns out it uses the new Soyuz texture sheet. This is gonna make releasing it impossible until the new Soyuz is finished, unfortunately :-| Might as well squeeze out a Vanity picture though (they seem to be popular). Can't say I understand the sizing, either. It's 1.25m in diameter, which doesn't really work for the Soyuz (Though I suppose it would work with the Salyut parts).
-
Depends if Revenant is including the Block-G in the payload, which isn't quite clear :-) I don't know a great deal about the N1, I'll admit, but in my uneducated opinion: It's an ultra heavy lift vehicle, it should outperform the Proton by quite a large amount. The files are present for both the Soyuz fins and N1 grid-fins. Unfortunately, they're untextured. I could attempt to slap something on them, or wait until Beale is ready to give them a proper paint job. Edit: The APAS is present and textured, I'll see what I can do.
-
Best to create them as separate cylinders, rather than trying to extrude them from the main tank's faces. Generally it will look nicer and use less polygons overall. To dig out one of Bealie-bob's models... Those are 8-sided cylinders. I don't think simple textured cylinders are universally bad, see an example of my crummy old fuel tanks. but with something the size of the Titan II tank, you'll probably want to add a few bits and pieces, I agree :-) .
-
Probably best to just stick to the new naming for these parts now. To not risk doing double the damage. I'm not sure why some of these parts are in a 'misc' folder, or how wise them being that way is, especially when the Lunar Module is an actual craft and not just a miscellaneous part. But, that's not for me to play around with.
-
Okay, I know this bug - it's because the configs currently don't have safeguards to prevent this particular scaling bug. I'll add them, it will take a while though. Cheers, I'll add placeholders. Sorry yeah, it was just a little over a week ago (17th). What's the best thing to do, change it back? Must've been a good reason to change it in the first place. Cheers for this, the bug fixes especially are handy to know.
-
I Really like this video, even sped up significantly, docking is a very slow process. What's with the creaking? Sounds like an 18th century galleon, or does the interior of the Soyuz actually sound like that? I've always found this site useful in particular for references. This experience is giving me the modding itch, that's for sure... I've only made personal stuff in the past.
-
That one isn't my doing, sorry you've lost your satellites... Looks like the "Castor" parts have been renamed, I checked the version history on the SVN and there was a renamed a couple of weeks ago from Castor_Engine_B -> Castor_LM_Engine. You can rename that part back to Castor_Engine_B, that would fix things I imagine.
-
Easy mistake to make :-) Cheers for updating the date. And, recommendation taken - I'll ask a mod if further updates are needed.
-
Cheers for the prompt update. Sorry to be picky, but any chance of getting the date in the title changed to today (24/05/2015 in the UK)? As for updating it myself, though I have Beale's account login details, I've been advised not to use them. Besides, he seems to be checking into the forum in some capacity now (made a post today, last page).
-
I'm pretty good with that, I'll be in touch if you need help. Anyway, here is an updated version of Tantares. Moved ATV parts to 'largeUnmanned' tech node. Included MM patch to remove charring and ablation effects. Added TKS launch abort tower. I've cleaned up the module manager patches a bit also - if you still want the charring effect, just delete "_Extra_CharRemoval.cfg". Moderator Request: Can the [27] in title of the thread be updated to [27.1], and the date updated? Cheers.
-
I'd like to see them, if you do make them :-) Would be interesting to see what you change. The TKS cargo bay bug that was covered a few pages ago, that seems to have been fixed already, at least on my local copy. I'll stick up a new version on Kerbal Stuff tonight, with a few of the bug fixes. Heya, something like this? Edit: This patch doesn't work for some reason. Edit Again: Probably because I've accidentally cleared the '[]' brackets. @PART[Alnair_Crew_A] { @MODULEModuleAblator { %charMin = 1.0 %charMax = 1.0 } } @PART[Alnair_Crew_C] { @MODULEModuleAblator { %charMin = 1.0 %charMax = 1.0 } } @PART[Tantares_Crew_A] { @MODULEModuleAblator { %charMin = 1.0 %charMax = 1.0 } } @PART[Polaris_Crew_A] { @MODULEModuleAblator { %charMin = 1.0 %charMax = 1.0 } } @PART[Almach_Crew_A] { @MODULEModuleAblator { %charMin = 1.0 %charMax = 1.0 } } @PART[Spica_Crew_A] { @MODULEModuleAblator { %charMin = 1.0 %charMax = 1.0 } }
-
Nope, one of the nozzles has a 5° rotation. It flies away from the rocket without any input (And with SAS on and off). The removal of the charring effects was mentioned a few pages back. Could get rid of it (Personally I really dislike that shader), but I think it would be a little cheeky of me to march in and make a major aesthetic change. On your new method to find Mass, you've got me beat there! I like it. So, passinglurker's unified theory of capsule mass: (Hope I didn't mix up anything there). Seems like a really nice way to ensure balance. Cheers. :-) Edit: ECS = Electric Charge Capacity? My brain isn't working today.
-
Huh, can confirm! Cheers. I've gave it the same config (or mostly the same) as the Soyuz LES. I'll give it a test in-game in a wee while. Edit: If it comes to me giving the parts names and descriptions (As is the case with this new LES), I wouldn't expect them to stay - Beale will probably want to change them. Edit Again: Seems to be working, aside from missing a texture (I think the Spektr pod needs re-exporting from Unity for this to be fixed). Not sure why it was sitting around un-implemented...
-
I think the amount of ablator should probably be reduced, even with the harsher heating of version 1.0, I barely used more than 50 units on a regular descent. Thanks for checking it out! Looks like a VAB bug then ( phew! :-) ). I'm no engineer, but a heatshield in front of the air intake? ;-D Nice craft, anyway! I see, I've never noticed how out of whack the stats were. I do like your idea of a unified way of calculating capsule mass. How about something like (0.25 * Crew Capacity) + (log(Reaction Wheel Torque)? This gives 0.977 mass for the Soyuz capsule and 1.653 for the TKS capsule, seems like a fairly sensible way of doing it? Anyway, cheers for all the info, it looks like the current situation is a bit chaotic. There's a link on the front page to Soyuz TMA textures by planeguy, they should be currently working right?
-
Thanks for digging into this further :-) Bringing the vanilla RCS engines into the mix does definitely confuse things. Might be an error with the thrust display. Can you confirm the TKS's apparent thrust offset affects it in flight? (For example, take it into orbit and try to fly in a straight line). I'll try this myself too. Cheers.
-
Right, I'll give the capsules a once-over (time to break out the spreadsheets!). If I've been following the news correctly, version 1.0.3 should be out fairly soon, and represents the end of any major changes to the aerodynamics system?
-
If it's a bug, than that's a shame. TKS is probably the coolest looking spacecraft in the whole mod. The TKS cargo bay with the sliding doors is extremely useful for bringing small probes and modules into orbit. Interesting. I've taken a look at the setup of this engine in Unity. There's some kind of floating point error going on with the transform rotation, but nothing that could cause that large amount of thrust deviation. Furthermore, having a look at the config file, it doesn't have even have a gimbal. Points to some kind of unequal mass-distribution you have going on with that TKS craft there (Could you check the fuel levels in the radial tanks for me?), very confusing to say the least. I'll try and recreate this problem myself. Also, thank you for demonstrating the spoiler function, that will be useful :-) Edit: Right, I can confirm this bug. Very strange I have to say, though I haven't used those engines many times in the past. I'll give re-exporting them a try and see if that fixes things. What needs updating? If you have some suggested changes, I'd certainly be happy to take a look at them :-)
-
I can appreciate how this may look. I've sent an e-mail to Beale, so hopefully he can get in touch with a moderator and sort things out. Also - he's fine :-) . I'm digging through the Unity project at the moment to get my head around things. It's possible the config files for these engines (I assume you mean the Soyuz rocket?) are pointing to non-existent or wrongly positioned nodes causing this bug. PREFAB_PARTICLE { prefabName = fx_smokeTrail_aeroSpike transformName = effectTransform emission = 0.0 0.0 emission = 0.05 0.0 emission = 0.075 0.25 emission = 1.0 1.25 speed = 0.0 0.25 speed = 1.0 1.0 localOffset = 0, 0, 1 } The node "effectTransform" does exist, but I'm not sure it's orientated correctly. The last time I made an engine, "ModuleEnginesFX" didn't even exist, so I'll have to scrub up on how this effect system works. That being said, can't reproduce this one myself (Vanilla installation + Tantares), do you have a list of mods? :-) Thanks for the info mate, I'll be in touch if needed. I'll keep out of his account in that case (Aside from using the Kerbal Stuff login, but I assume that's unaffiliated?).
-
That's understandable. I'll try to get in touch with him to drop you a message, or whatever's good.
-
To play devil's advocate, he's been using his real name on the Twitter account, so it's not exactly exclusive knowledge ;-) But, what can I say - I'll be around and I'll fix things (hopefully sort out some of these balance issues I've been reading about too).
