Jump to content

DStaal

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,001

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by DStaal

  1. DStaal
    True... But sometimes you don't want the speed of flying (because you're going shorter distances, and need more precise locations) and hovering does offer advantages in not having to deal with every little imperfection from smooth in the ground. (Or to tear up the ground.) Also, hovering doesn't really care what type of surface you're over - so the same drive system can handle hard concrete, loose sand, wet bogs, and open water with equal efficiency. I think in real life skirted hovercraft are more efficient than flying craft, because they can take effect of ground-effect situations and contain their lift air some. In KSP, it's a way to avoid some of the wonkyness with wheels and helps to deal with uneven terrain.
  2. DStaal
    Resource distribution is all tied to the the random seed in the game, which is unique for every save file. As long as that doesn't change, your resource locations shouldn't change. (And conversely, you should be able to change that number and get a distribution - but it's non-deterministic what that distribution will be. A specific number should always have the same, but other than that all bets are off.) (I suppose if there were changes in the biomes or numbers of planets, that would likely also affect the distributions.)
  3. DStaal
    Better yet, since MM can also target DLL's, a :NEEDS[Konstruction] check will work since there is a Konstruction.dll. So there is a way to target it.
  4. DStaal
    A patch with the NEEDS and FOR wrong will appear to work just fine in the situation where it's supposed to be applied. It will cause issues (and get applied) in the situation where it's *not* supposed to be applied.
  5. DStaal
    And to answer your question, to help you understand MM: you would point NEEDS to KIS (this patch *needs* KIS to work) and you wouldn't use FOR (which basically means 'is a part of', and doesn't affect whether the patch with the FOR is applied at all - it only affects *other* patches: If they have a 'NEEDS' that matches, then they will be applied). Unless you're writing a mod yourself, *never* use FOR. (And even then, only use it to refer to yourself.) It's misuse is probably the biggest cause of bugs in KSP.
  6. DStaal
    Even with TCA, it's good to have a fairly close balance, and to know how to do it. TCA can adjust, but if you don't have something reasonable you'll have a ship that preforms very sub-optionally. (Since all it really does is cut thrust on an engine-by-engine basis. If your thrust isn't reasonably balanced, well, you're carrying engines you'll never have anywhere near full throttle.) There's a mod for that:
  7. DStaal
    It's a bit lengthy. Careful design can help, and Throttle Controlled Avionics can balance it mostly automatically.
  8. DStaal
    Just make sure you have the newest version of both. Whether that's the version you have, or the version packed with this mod.
  9. DStaal
    I've used them occasionally, although I don't believe my current save has them in use anywhere.
  10. DStaal
    One of your other mods probably has a line with with ':FOR[Remotetech]' instead of the ':NEEDS' that they meant to use; it's a common problem. You'll need to figure out which mod, and change/remove the line. (And probably tell the mod maintainer.)
  11. DStaal
    It's fairly simple if you have a GitHub account: Just click edit on the file in the browser, and when you try to save it'll be the default option. (This works well for single-file changes. Multi-file changes are a bit harder.)
  12. DStaal
    You can increase the amount a single Kerbal can lift in the config file. You can use a parts pack that includes lifting parts. Konstruction (part of MKS at this point, I believe...) and the Orbital Utility Vehicle (last updated ages ago) are the two packs that I believe have some. You can use a pack that allows welding. Konstruction again has welding versions of the clamp-o-trons, where they are removed afterwards. DSEV also had a version for a while, though I'm not sure they are currently working. You can tether things together using KAS struts to help. You can tweak the KSP settings to keep a smaller physics delta, which will also help. That covers the options I can think of. All have some upsides and downsides. If you're using MKS already, then Konstruction parts are the way to go.
  13. DStaal
    Just wanted to chime in and say that BARIS looks interesting, configurable, and fun. At this point in time I'm not interested in a part-failure mod, but when/if I decide to do a playthrough with one it'll be the top of my list to try.
  14. DStaal
    I'd say the answer to that question depends entirely on what you want to do, and what (other) mods you have installed.
  15. DStaal
    I believe the charts here are up-to-date: https://github.com/UmbraSpaceIndustries/MKS/wiki/Resources
  16. DStaal
    In addition to that, the flowchart you posted *does* have both MaterialKits and SpecializedParts on it.
  17. DStaal
    You need to switch to things *outside* physics range. The way this mod works doesn't work on vessels within physics range. Oh, and being at night will be a problem as well, yes. There's no real estimation of 'do you have enough power storage?', it's all 'do you have enough power generation?'. (Though the former might be an interesting feature request...)
  18. DStaal
    Unfortunately no, as most of what ribbons are awarded for aren't recorded in the save file. (Unless FF is installed, as it records them.)
  19. DStaal
    Fair enough. I just wanted to bring it up as a possible better technical fit. I do understand the pros and cons and even run both myself, I just thought it might be simpler - especially if you didn't want to maintain what I assume could be a complicated codebase for this one feature.
  20. DStaal
    As far as I know, any links between parts and modules are always 'this part uses this module', never that a module requires a part. (If you ever see 'you need to use this part', it's because that's likely the only part configured to use a specific module.)
  21. DStaal
    Personally, I use both. I don't find DMOS parts ugly either - your parts are probably marginally better, but DMOS's are fine as well. I assume people want to keep their part lists short, either just for aesthetic reasons or for performance reasons. However, I don't see why that should be your problem - they can ask for a partsless version, trim it themselves, or use The Janitor's Closet to help them trim it.
  22. DStaal
    That's an MKS function. If he'd had storage for it, he'd also get a percentage of the mass back as MaterialKits. (Which can be used for various purposes under MKS - notably *most* of the inflatable parts need them to inflate.)
  23. DStaal
    Just looking over this mod, and wondered if a more StageRecovery type return might be better than FMRS-style. (Or if it might even be possible to integrate the main code of StageRecovery in.) Main difference is that FMRS aims to let you take control of each piece of the ship as you decouple, manually doing each part's recovery 'simultaneously'. StageRecovery estimates the recovered value of stages that meet certain criteria (have parachutes; have fuel+control, etc.) in the background.
  24. DStaal
    A minor comment on the Rock discussion: Technically, the Konstruction parts use Rock as well. It's the 'ballast' resource for the counterweights. They can be auto-filled though. (And I'm not sure whether needing a drill to fill them would make sense or not.)
  25. DStaal
    Ah, thanks. That makes sense: I have all of your mods (as well as MKS), and tend to do a replace-if-newer on the full folder when I update. Personally, I'd say either move that .dll into Hanger's folder or always include it in AT_Utils, so that it would be a bit more predictable.
×
×
  • Create New...