dave1904

I found a problem with cyrotanks making the T400 have negative mass when filled with LH2 and Nertea from cyrotanks discovered that some of the tank masses are a bit inconsistent. The T400 is twice the size as the T200 yet its dry mass is 300KG lighter. T400=50KG dry (With LH2 it is -150 and thats how I found out) T200=350KG dry That seems to be an oversight. So far only the T400 stands out. X360, X720 and T200 seem to have perfect dry masses.

wow cannot believe you figured that out because it is only one part and exactly that part that is bugged/unbalanced. The T400. Cheers.

I found a bug but do not know who I should report it to. @Nils277 or @Nertea. When I use the K&K fuel containers with LH2 and LOX it has -mass and causes the typical negative mass issues. I have tested it with only B9part switch, cyrotanks, planetary base system and resourse pack to make sure its isolated. Since the patch is in cyrotanks I used this topic.

There are plenty of teasers released 1-2 years ahead of release. Just think of other take two games like gta and red dead. I do not understand it myself but companies like that have researchers studying it I suppose.

what do you mean year after year? Its been 9 years since ksp1 came out. Compare 2011 ksp with 2019 ksp and tell me that its not a totally different game improved on in ever way. Most of that was free and the devs did not have to make a single update after 2016. The game was finished. They did that for free. In 4 years after release they have only added 2 dlc yet given us 8 major patches. 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 etc. They are adding loads of content in KSP2 and you complain about 1 thing. That is cheap simple as that. If KSP2 is a good game at release and promises are delivered I will gladly pay the full price because people should reap what they sow. If it is bad I will not give them a cent and boycott it. Speaking of standards.... Publishers that release game after game without improvements do not get a cent from me. I boycott them. I do not wait until they are cheaper for my own convenience. The only game I buy every year is formula1. BTW, its an entertainment product. If I want to be entertained I will not wait 6 months for it. I want to be entertained now. Its not a car. I do not need to be a smart buyer. If I will enjoy it I pay.

Please do not say its the price tag stopping you. Your argument is not the price but the single parent part issue. You should have made that the title. I get you want the attention but people will focus more on you then the issue because the title makes you sound cheap. If you would play the game if it only costs 20euro then you not only sound cheap but are cheap. I'm just going to eat dry bread and ketchup so I can afford it at launch.

You should upgrade the GPU. I max out 3.5 gbs of vram for reference. 1.8.1 is running excellent for me. 105 mods and FPS are at 60 for normal craft and 40 for 100+ parts. The FPS does drop to 30 when I use the Alcor lander but that mod is to nice to avoid. Your pc is faster than mine in everyway but GPU. I have a 4770K, 16gb and 970 with 3.5gb of ram. I do not know the single core performance difference between the 2 but I think they would be similar. Pick up a second hand GPU if you only play KSP. I am sure there are plenty of 4gbs ones around.

the more ram you have the more ram you will use. Just remove 16 and then start the game. Programs will use more ram the more they have. You cannot simply say your games requires a certain amount of ram. Base EVE on its own is not that bad at all. I am using it without scatterer and the performance is excellent. It not nearly as nice looking but 60 fps in ksp is so nice. What I do not get is that you have an 8 core cpu, 32 gigs of ram and are still running a 750ti? What cpu is that?

I have no idea but was curious. Hopefully someday someone can fix it because It would be so nice for a mod like this to be ported to KSP2. Visually the parts are a work of art. I am pretty grateful for your efforts keeping this up to date. Another thing I think you should consider is rescalling the thickness of the wings. Maybe put less fuel in them to balance it or not but personally at least I think they are far more appealing. Maybe they are to thin but personally I think 0.5 the scale is perfect. Keep in mind image below has a wing at 120% tweakscale.

Forgive my ignorance but what is the deal with that issue anyway? Can it not be fixed somehow without world stabilizer?

the center of mass of the robot arms should be offset.

Edit: nvm

This is not a remote tech issue but an issue related to it. Why is it that when I use this cfg that robotic pistons stop working? They only work with action groups but not in action menu. Been using radio free kerbin and noticed it. Then I started to look into the matter. The pistons will work normally on every command pod except the shuttle cockpit patched. How does remote tech handle it? @PART[mk3Cockpit_Shuttle]:FOR[RemoteTech] { %MODULE[ModuleSPU] { } %MODULE[ModuleRTAntennaPassive] { %TechRequired = unmannedTech %OmniRange = 300000 %TRANSMITTER { %PacketInterval = 0.3 %PacketSize = 2 %PacketResourceCost = 15.0 } } }

I have been testing this today for 2 hours(making sure I used both planets at the same angle) and all evidence suggests laythe is better. I never really put much thought into it until i realised that laythe is just a bit smaller than tylo and its closer to jool. The soi is smaller sure but the difference in velocity is significant. Obviously tylo is better for getting to bob and pol but for vall and low jool circular orbits laythe is far more effective.

You sure? You should try using laythe and then compare the orbit afterwards.

I think I know the answer but without aerobraking what moon is better to get a capture around Jool.

before half life 3 for certain.

Lol, that simple. Cheers.

Oh, same here.

Just try it.

could have sworn I tried that yesterday but it is working. Thanks man!!!

Tryed both @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleScienceContainer,ModuleCommand]] @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleScienceContainer|ModuleCommand]] It will not work. The patch is simply not being applied. Its driving me insane.

I want all command modules in game to have science containers for convenience. I made this patch @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleScienceContainer]] { @MODULE[ModuleScienceContainer] { canBeTransferredToInVessel = True canTransferInVessel = True showStatus = True } } Problem is that kerbals have science containers to but I do not want that. I was thinking that if it has ModuleCommand and ModulesScienceContainer it would remove the issue. (All Crewed Parts have ModulesScienceContainer and ModuleCommand) My question is how do I apply a patch so it require 2 modules. .@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleScienceContainer????????ModuleCommand]] or something total different?

Cheers man, thanks alot!

Working now with yellow "warnings" BTW I am only using the docking ports and pressurized mating adapter an from CX aerospace.(I delete any parts from mods that I do not need since it makes the install cleaner and faster) Could delete the tweakscale config in Cx Aero anyway since it only seems to patch module command. Should I delete CXA_TweakScale.cfg or just leave it? I like to delete unnecessary patches anyway.