Jump to content

DoctorDavinci

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,810

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by DoctorDavinci

  1. DoctorDavinci
    Hey all ... New BDAc has been released for KSP v1.3.1
  2. DoctorDavinci
    Hi all DCK update incoming ... https://github.com/DoctorDavinci/DCK/releases/tag/v0.4.0.0 - KSP v1.4.x compatibility - Migrated custom editor category to DCK_FutureTech (to be released in the coming days) - Active Camouflage, YCSM's, Shileds and Aircraft Armor as well as the other parts are no longer available although are still in DCKinc so as to not break a users craft ... You must install DCK_FutureTech to utilize these parts - Parts will be migrated to DCK_FutureTech in an upcoming release The reason for the migration of the parts is to allow for DCKinc to work without having to have BDAc installed ... parts such as the shields, active camouflage as well as some other soon to be released goodies need to be compiled against BDAc which would break DCK for some users, hence I have decided to migrate all parts to an upcoming mod called DCK_FutureTech DCK_FutureTech will add hit point recharging for the Shields ... Shield and Active Camouflage deployment when under attack ... Active Camouflage (cloak) makes you invisible to radar while active... a NanoTech repair system that uses G.L.U.E. (Galvanized Liquid Universal Epoxy) to keep your craft together by repairing hit points There are a few other things in the works such as a hitpoint balancer, hitpoint editor for in editor editing of hit points and armor as well as manual GPS entry menu and a satellite GPS targeting system Enjoy
  3. DoctorDavinci
    Your best bet is to go ask in the NKD thread
  4. DoctorDavinci
    The HP balancer that I delved into was mainly an exercise in code to see if it could be done. With that being said ... no, the balancer will not be included as a part of BDAc However, if I can get it working flawlessly (as there are a few gremlins that bork it in certain circumstances), I may release it as a standalone BDAc addon ... Please stand by
  5. DoctorDavinci
    Currently it does hp ballancing across the whole craft with the exception of engines, decouplers, launch clamps and Kerbals ... the hp and armor auto calc in BDAc gets all out of whack if the hp or armor values are manipulated on those parts causing the kraken to appear It could be limited to certain parts ... might even be able to make a menu so you could select the part types you want to include in the hp ballancing Good idea, I'll do some digging
  6. DoctorDavinci
    @Warth_IX - So your idea is doable ... here's some preliminary footage of your idea
  7. DoctorDavinci
    This is due to the way the parts were imported into unity ... Their purpose was to be either transparent or invisible and used as armor plating on vessels which is why the texture could become transparent itself when tweakscaling If you change the attach rules in the part config to make them able to be the first part of the craft they will be transparent as well if they are placed as the first part ... not much I can do about that though without redoing the models which I don't know how to do (@SpannerMonkey(smce) made them for me) The curved panels also were imported into unity in a way that makes aero forces not really affect them, kind of like they have a slippery surface type deal So a few minor issues with them hence the name ... Re-purposed Structural Panels
  8. DoctorDavinci
    lol ... These parts have been around since last summer/fall ... They were just transparent/Invisible as the were originally made to act as armor inspired by the personal body shields in Dune I've been asked numerous times to make them visible and usable as structural panels but only managed to get around to it yesterday I'll probably add more sizes and also add a tweakscale patch
  9. DoctorDavinci
    Well DCK runs fine out of the box with only one caveat which is the custom editor category isn't there I will be recompiling it soon with the shields, YCSM's and Active Camouflage (cloak) being removed and placed into a new mod called DCK FutureTech (doing this as it will need to be compiled against the next BDAc release and I wan't DCKinc to be just for switching textures and camouflage sets)
  10. DoctorDavinci
    Hey all ... just released a HP and Armor editor for BDAc v1.1 Work in progress but it does work ... here's the dev forum link:
  11. DoctorDavinci
    HP and Armor Editor for BD Armory v1.1 I now present for your approval the preliminary release of the standalone HP and Armor Editor for BD Armory Continued v1.1 Edit by part type in the SPH/VAB - All Parts, Command, Wings, Control Surfaces, Fuel Tanks and Ship Hull Still a few glitches such as having to click the Save Armor button twice to save the number entered if setting the armor above 500 (this is due to the HP and Armor auto-calculations in BDAc) as well as Engines, De-couplers and Launch Clamps are excluded from editing due to the code in BDAc that causes degradation of performance on any part that has an engine module or de-coupler module as it takes damage INCORPORATED INTO DCK FUTURETECH
  12. DoctorDavinci
    My friends above have answered most of your questions and I can provide the final one for you ... The answer is that it would be possible, however some code would need to be written in order to achieve the end result of balancing HP over an entire craft as it takes on damage This is doable although it could get quite complex in the code implementation ... As it stands, I have created NanoTech that repairs your craft using GLUE (Galvanized Liquid Universal Epoxy) which will be released in DCK FutureTech in the coming future but I'll delve into this idea and see if it is something that can be easily achieved ... Thanx for the suggestion
  13. DoctorDavinci
    Re-purposed Structural Panels This is a simple parts mod that uses the transparent/invisible Aircraft Armor models from DCK Aircraft Armor Re-textured to be made visible and added DCK texture switching support The Structural Panels show up in the Structural Category No conflicts with DCK Aircraft Armor (can both be installed) https://github.com/DoctorDavinci/StructuralPanels/releases Licensed under GPLv3
  14. DoctorDavinci
    So those panels are the same shapes and sizes of many of my DCK Aircraft Armor panels ... Perhaps I should make some adjustments and make them no longer invisible/transparent? So tell me, why would you pay for parts when you can get them for free?
  15. DoctorDavinci
    Did you happen to install Module Manager?
  16. DoctorDavinci
    I understand that you raise a pertinant issue in regards to what the licensing allows, however at the very least @War Eagle 1 was being respectful of other peoples creations and wanted to be sure that they did not step on anyones toes which I give salutes to (thank you sir )
  17. DoctorDavinci
    Not just me, I'm only a small part of the BDAc team ... there are 6 other developers that maintain this mod @Papa_Joe, @jrodriguez, @SpannerMonkey(smce), @gomker, @TheDog and @Eidahlil So yeah, explosions everywhere
  18. DoctorDavinci
    Yes, a bug is a bug ... however being the squeaky wheel that consistently brings up the same concern when you have already made the team well aware of the issue makes at least myself to be reluctant to even address your issue as it really is an insignificant one in my opinion when compared to what the BDAc team has been working on TL;DR - We are well aware of this issue and will address it in a time that is convenient for us to address it We are currently trying to get BDAc up to snuff with KSP v1.4 which will add a whole new armor and damage system to the works as well as multiple targeting and guidance improvements as well as some additional hooks for other modders to have access to so as to be able to better control what their mod is doing in relation to the devices that are being utilized (devices meaning Radar, Missile Engagement, under attack trigger and other systems that we have put in place for other mods to access) Bigger things are in play at this present time than the small issue of a user not wanting to set their vessel up to use BDAc as it was designed TL;DR ... We will get to it when we get to it ... please stop poking the bear As stated earlier however ... If you wish to compensate the BDAc team to drop the KSPv1.4 update to address your concern then by all means I can provide a PayPal account you can send funds to
  19. DoctorDavinci
    You do realize that we don't get paid for maintaining and improving BDAc so issues may or may not be addressed immediately On the other hand if you wish to actually pay for the service I'm sure the rest of the team would agree with me that we would be willing to drop everything we are doing to cater to your needs Let me know if you want a paypal account number to send the funds to
  20. DoctorDavinci
    Lets hope this is the case, however closing this thread is the best course of action for the reasons posted above
  21. DoctorDavinci
    Please lock the following thread Thnx
  22. DoctorDavinci
    @Vanamonde - Would you kindly lock this thread as it appears that no matter what it keeps reverting to either personal attacks on ones character or it keeps getting derailed by those who wish to address an issue that, although related, has no bearing on the purpose of this thread ... Please see my reasoning below 1- We now have some answers ... 2- We also know that Squad (and by proxy, T2) are well aware of the concerns raised by myself and others in regards to the content of the information that they are having KSP send back to them 3- Further discussion and speculation is no longer required in this matter as the cat is out of the bag and I am quite confident that we will have an official response in the coming days 4- Keeping this thread open is just an invitation for more personal attacks and conflagration of the issues at hand which is a detriment to honest inquiry I therefore humbly ask that this thread be closed DD
  23. DoctorDavinci
    True ... However I am not detracting from the concerns raised by the above user, only trying to make it clear that his EULA concerns are better suited in the EULA thread as this thread is meant as an inquiry into what information is being sent and not what the EULA says about it This is what I mean by derailing and de-legitimizing this thread
  24. DoctorDavinci
  25. DoctorDavinci
    I want to thank you for de-legitimizing the purpose of this thread (notice the sarcasm?) By dragging your conspiracy theories and uninformed position into this discussion you have completely de-legitimized the concerns raised here Bravo ... Good for you ... Thank you so much for making a legitimate inquiry into a farce
×
×
  • Create New...