Jump to content

Phineas Freak

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    1,315

  • Joined

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Phineas Freak

  1. Phineas Freak
    @narhiril are you are modifying the cloud configs by hand? If so i would highly reccommend to not do that and instead build the config(s) using the EVE interface. It is easier and error-proof.
  2. Phineas Freak
    @Micky without logs (or even following the OP instructions) there is nothing i can do. Make sure that you have correctly installed the prerequisite mods and that they are compatible with KSP 1.2.2. @Observe the PQS textures did not turn out to be as good as the old native EVE terrain feature (unfortunately broken since the Overhaul) and users have reported in previous posts a big impact in performance. I will remove them in the next Release Candidate. @AndrewDrawsPrettyPictures congratulations for the release! I will add a link for your topic in the RSSVE OP.
  3. Phineas Freak
    @Round Earth Skeptic if the part does not expicitly define that is compatible with RO then it is not compatible. RO also carries the RF patches so you won't have any RF features.
  4. Phineas Freak
    @MAFman take a look at this implementation, specifically developed for kOS.
  5. Phineas Freak
    And that would require a complete re-write of the EVE configs. Sorry but no. You are free to port them to the old EVE though, the lisence allows it.
  6. Phineas Freak
    @KerbalMan23 from a quick look inside the BA cloud configs it seems that these were made with the old EVE release (pre-KSP 1.0). The new "EVE Overhaul" does not provide a nice way to get the same features as before.
  7. Phineas Freak
    @MaxL_1023 RO uses a plugin to achieve the CoM offset: MODULE { name = CoMShifter DescentModeCoM = X, Y, Z } Where X, Y and Z are the vectors that offset the CoM. Apart from making a custom plugin that only implements that, the solution that @MeCripp provided is a fine alternative (but not toggle-able on the fly).
  8. Phineas Freak
    I really hope that you mean KSP 1.1.3 because you are SOL if you updated to KSP 1.2 for RSS/RO/RP-0. Almost none of the mods that work in 1.1.3 are compatible with 1.2. Your best bet is to download the latest stable versions of the required mods for KSP 1.1.3 and do a clean install.
  9. Phineas Freak
    Thank you! I am really happy that you like it! I have seen that happening without any visual mod (stock RSS) but i am not sure if i can change the camera depth enough to remove (or decrease) the rim. I will do some tests and report back. I suppose that these are the stock fairings? Although i have not seen that before (either with this pack or with other visual mods) it is more likely to be an issue with Scatterer. Does it only happen when the craft is inside the atmosphere?
  10. Phineas Freak
    @COMMON NAMES please follow this guide:
  11. Phineas Freak
    @harlikwin correct, KSP 1.1.3 is the latest KSP version that RP-0 works. And the update for the next KSP version will be ready SoonTM. FASA is not officially listed due to some bugs from the KSP 0.90 --> KSP 1.0 update. You can download it from the official RO repository though. Be careful with the landing legs because they have not been updated yet.
  12. Phineas Freak
    You need to install either SMURF or ROMini to play with RSS-non-RO. SMURF modifies the mass fractions of the propellant tanks while ROMini also rescales the parts to have a proper aerodynamic behavior.
  13. Phineas Freak
    Any quick image reference for that? If it includes fake glow then i will not consider it.
  14. Phineas Freak
    @KerbalMan23 the Astronomer type? If the answer is "yes" then it is not going to be implemented. Now, if you mean planet shine then yes, when the next stable version of Scatterer implements it.
  15. Phineas Freak
    @HoloYolo as @Theysen says, i do not support CKAN (too much hassle setting up the required sub-packages and very prone to break when the dependencies and/or KSP have an update), although it is possible to install the required mods via it. You have to be extra careful to remove the BoulderCo folder though. I had the idea to search for the BoulderCo folder and delete it automatically but i do not think that this is ethical (or allowed) in the context of this mod. If it is then i would like to know.
  16. Phineas Freak
    That is exactly what we want to avoid, copying and pasting already existing configs. You have to use the new engine loading system by defing the following in your RSRM config: %engineType = RSRM And the part will automatically have the correct thrust, Isp and thrust curve. You will need to add the propellant thought. A better example is the RO RSRM (5 Segments).
  17. Phineas Freak
    @DrLicor RO already includes global configs for the RSRM. I would suggest to take a look at them so to avoid doing duplicate work.
  18. Phineas Freak
    @aquilaspqr the Stock Size Real Solar System is what you want. It keeps the scale of the stock KSP but using the RSS bodies.
  19. Phineas Freak
    The model is an approximation (as others have mentioned) but this does not mean that you don't get accurate results. When doing replicas for example i end up within 5% of the overall dry mass of a launch vehicle. And that discrepancy is not caused by procedural parts but from other, unrelated parts. I recall making an Agena D that it ended up having the exact inert and gross masses as the real thing, along with exact volumes of the tanks.
  20. Phineas Freak
    Yes it does. But you have to remember the shape of the tank: if you want the math to make any sense then you have to use cylinders. Doing a quick test with a tank like that (1 m in length) you get: 1 m diameter: 675 L / 12.57 Kg 2 m diameter: 2700 L / 50.27 Kg 4m diameter: 10800 L / 201.1 Kg The mass and colume values now are exactly quadrupled between the different sizes (at least within the errors of the measurements).
  21. Phineas Freak
    By increasing the diameter from 8.4m to 16.8m i got a dry mass of 121298 Kg. So, the end mass is closer to the quadruple of the initial dry mass (exact multiplier: 3.69). @Sol Invictus to remove the version warning the only thing that you need to do is to recompile the PP source with the new revision number. The rest are only needed for updating the distribution metadata.
  22. Phineas Freak
    @StoryMusgrave is right. The stock Procedural Parts settings do not make any sense for replicating existing hardware. @SirusKing using your tank example under RO i got: Diameter: 8.4 m Length: 39.8 m Volume: 2.05 ML Dry mass: 32807 Kg Gross mass: 763997 Kg (LH2/LOX mixture at 97% utilization) A pretty accurate result for a Shuttle ET i have to say (SLWT variant). (the length is of course wrong since i the "FilletCylinder" tank shape was used and no interstage exists)
  23. Phineas Freak
    That explains it...i did not check carefully the name of the branch!
  24. Phineas Freak
    @Starwaster didn't @blowfish add back the TF integration with the latest dev commit?
  25. Phineas Freak
    OK, the multiple buttons are fixed. The only remaining "button" issue is that it shows up in the Main Menu but this is not critical for the correct operation of FAR. Edit: found another way to make FAR duplicate buttons: Load a save from a fresh KSP instance Exit to the Main Menu Reload the previously loaded save. At this point, two FAR toolbar buttons will appear. Upon exiting to the Main Menu again only one will appear though. if you load the save for the third time you will get two buttons again but no further duplications.
×
×
  • Create New...