Jump to content

Deimos Rast

Members
  • Posts

    1,392
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Deimos Rast

  1. Bug report (from 1.0.5, but might be relevant to 1.1, if not, disregard): Having more kerbals than the roster list is long (so that they go off the screen) causes weird behavior, and causes the settings/roster/log buttons to be unable to be clicked and get stuck off screen. The resize roster list doesn't really work either, as it just snaps to the next kerbal in line, so you still get the same length, and it can't be clicked in this situation either. I can post screenshots if this is about as clear as mud but it's 3am and I'm le tired. Cheers. (linux 64 lotsamods)
  2. Bug Report: Upgrading a tier 2 launch pad resets the pad to tier 1. Might just be cosmetic, and might just last till it's upgraded, but facility now says (and seems to apply the limits of ) level 1. Log is linked in github issue here. Cheers. (1.0.5) linux 64 bit
  3. Welcome back; downloading now. --edit-- @Patrick Suddeth Small potential problem with your RT config for the antenna: it doesn't delete the pre-existing module data transmitter it would seem. The first bit below should do that. The second bit prevents the player from assuming manual control of their antennas (basically, it let's RT be RT and is in all the RT patches). !MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter] {} @MODULE[ModuleAnimateGeneric] { %allowManualControl = false }
  4. @BahamutoD So...toolbar support? Same with Vessel Mover, I just don't have the real estate on the stock tool bar, and I prefer blizzy's for almost everything except non-super-critical mods. I know you're probably busy fighting 1.1 krakens, and I'm sure it's been suggested before. Cheers.
  5. I didn't see any mention of poor little DERPie in the 1.1 releases, so I went ahead and made a new issue on the git page for DERP for the last point (I'd hate for my comment to get lost in the 1.1 chaos). I noticed the TACLS Life Boat incompatibility was mentioned May '15, so I didn't add that. As a work around, I just added the resources to the pod straight out, and turned off fuelcrossfeed. Doesn't quite work as elegantly, but it's something I guess. Cheers.
  6. Very cool; looks like a haystacks continued with some more doodads, nice
  7. I meant to post this sooner, but forgot. I tried this patch a while back and it didn't work for me. Anyway, this is what got it to work in the end (I wouldn't have know where to look without your direction) ; it's not a patch, just editing the config directly: MODULE { name = ModuleAnimateGeneric layer = 0 animationName = deploy startEventGUIName = Deploy endEventGUIName = Retract } MODULE { name = ModuleAnimateGeneric layer = 1 animationName = rotation startEventGUIName = Spin endEventGUIName = Reverse } You're right about the animation in the VAB being super fast, but normal in space. Unfortunately, there seems to be no "off" button - only reverse. Cheers.
  8. Yeah, that's the one I was looking for, the second stuff, thanks. Is ModuleGimbal supported? I'm currently using what I have below and nothing shows up (I'm using the identical for alternator, and it's fine). Nevermind, seems to work now, oddly. SUBCATEGORY { name = Gimbal icon = ControlSurface FILTER { CHECK { type = moduleName value = ModuleGimbal } CHECK { type = manufacturer value = ABC Corp } } }
  9. So we have the module sas right, with the subfield SASServiceLevel = #. You don't need to include it, but then I think it defaults to 0, which I think is just stability assist (not sure). The issue here is that I have Tweakable Everything mod (although this might be stock behavior for all I know), which I think makes it so you can adjust the SAS level at will in the VAB, so effectively SASServiceLevel just sets the default level of the SAS, not a hard limit (which was my understanding of its intention, but I could be wrong). The checking the wiki just now makes me even more confused, "defines the required level of building development for each different SAS capabilities (markers on the nav ball). " All I know is a level of 1 makes it default to 1, but I can change it in the VAB. Your mileage may vary. I'm currently futzing around with the 3 excellent mini sat's: (henceforth re-named Eny, Meany, and Miny.) Small point: a lot of your parts, but these three in particular, share large parts of their name, which can be kind of confusing. Obviously with the girders, calling them Girders ABC doesn't matter much (and they look pretty distinctive), but the satellites share a pretty common look (as they probably should), well, you get what I'm getting at. The bonus obviously is that all your parts are grouped together, but I think in 1.1 there is the new tagging system, so that shouldn't be as much of an issue. Speaking of these satellites, brings me to RemoteTech, which I use. I never had the opportunity to combine both types of antenna before in one module (I've done both SPU before though). However, looking at your patch, and having just read the wiki, I see a potential issue. The RT wiki states under the sections for Mode0DishRange, Mode1DishRange & Mode0OmniRange, Mode1OmniRange not to mix with the opposite (Omni with Dish and vice versa): Do not use together (Mode0OmniRange, Mode1OmniRange in this case) with Mode*DishRange, as unexpected behavior may result. Two out of the three RT probes patches do what I think is exactly that, but it might work for all I know: %MODULE[ModuleRTAntenna] { %Mode0OmniRange = 0 %Mode1OmniRange = 2500000 %Mode0DishRange = 0 %Mode1DishRange = 50000000 You could just chop out the Omni Range (assuming you want it to be a dish) ones and it should be fine. Interesting you went to that length for cost balancing. I usually just type in random numbers depending on how cheap I'm feeling, heh. I would say you could raise the cost on the accessories a tad, as long as they're within shot of stock and still retain some selling feature (at least, that's how I like to rebalance part packs). For example, the 888 Probe, or what I'm now calling the NOMAD Series, I focused on the included generator and made him super energy efficient (but sluggish), for long distance missions. That's the concept at least. One final question, as this is getting quite long: where do you see this part pack going from here? You mentioned Remote Tech and filling in gaps, which is cool, since I love that mod. Other part packs to maybe check out that sort of fill a similar niche of modular satellite are: the BoxSat mod, the MicroSat mod and the CubeSat mod. If you're open to suggestions on parts: I've already mentioned my dislike of more fueltanks (although ones that fit niches are cool) and everyone does engines...maybe some solar panels or other energy generation? If you want to go crazy and go for nuclear power/ micro rtg there are a lot of options available, depending on if you want to use plugins, but that's a whole different conversation Cheers
  10. I honestly dont know what it was trying to communicate; oh well. Since i'm here, will KRASH adoption be a 1.1 release feature or sometime after? Perfectly understable if things are up in the air at this point still with the current 1.1 chaos Cheers
  11. I agree with everything you said but I think you might have hit the kid a bit hard lol; never looked at it that way though +1
  12. @Crzyrndm Question about the Saturated Reaction wheel mod: Normally (or perhaps it's a feature of TweakableEverything, I don't know), when a reaction wheel has a torque strength of, say, 1.0, in the VAB, 1.0 actually represents the half way point between 0.5 and 2.0, allowing you to tweak it as desired. When I played with this mod previously, the first thing I noticed was that you lose that feature. Is that some how wrapped up in how the torque gets manipulated by this mod or are we just stuck with whatever is in the configs of the particular reaction wheel in question? I'm thinking particularly of reaction wheels that default to "unbalanced" (i.e. 40 x-axis, 20-y-axis) - I'm sure there are good reasons for that, realism and handling and such, but I just hate asymmetry. Cheers.
  13. @Diazo So is it a me issue (as in me and my legion of mods causing problems) or a code issue? If it's a code issue, let me know if you need anything more (log, details, although should be easy to reproduce, seems 100%). Obviously, no real rush on this one. --edit-- @FrancoisH You have module manager, but do you have the "part.cfg" patch? It looks like this inside if you don't. It applies D's module to everything basically. @PART[*] { MODULE { name = ModuleAGX } } Also, I run a lot of the same mods you do (but on x64 linux), and have tried to run a lot of the rest, but have had serious problems. Some (like Kalculator), would cause the game to not load, others, (like Mission Controller 2), would throw a lot of null refs. I know D is busy fighting krakens with 1.1, so maybe in the mean time, try a fresh re-install of AGExt (to make sure you have the "part.cfg") and/or try removing some mods temporarily (note this could cause save breaks so probably not remove part packs!). Also, SSTU, although I've never used it, is updated a lot and very frequently, so that might be a possible trouble spot. But, your error does mention AGExt specifically, which makes me suspect the missing "part.cfg" or something similar. There are a couple other files like it, best bet is to try a reinstall of AGExt. Sorry to insert myself into the conversation, just trying to help! Cheers.
  14. Yeah the engine heat is 1200, where stock srbs put out 550 iirc. The file path looked fine i thought; strange that i had working running audio; could be the wrong fx bundled? Seems unlikely, but only idea i have atm. Anyway, i hate to say it but i gutted the poor engine and stuck an lv909 in there as a placeholder. I need something for the glamour shots, you know? --edit-- Figured out the engine issue: user error. I've been doing this all day, not sure why this slipped my mind, but I moved your parts to a different directory so "PanzerLabs/Ksat/FX/FX_Lightning_01" that the particle effects point to no longer works, but your "mesh = model.mu" still does. Sorry about that. Probably time to call it a night. Ciao.
  15. I like the simple iva option honestly, rarely use them, as long as it gives a portrait, I'm happy
  16. Can anyone tell me where the Engine subcategory config is hiding please? I've found the engine category config and the names and icons config. Looking at the wiki, looks like I can do a propellant check for the engines (which I'm guessing is just what the subcategory config consists of). Still, I like having visual reference material. Anyway, great mod; hope to see it in 1.1. Cheers.
  17. Wait, is there a 1.0.5 version where the acorn actually does something? Did i miss an update?
  18. Hey there! I just downloaded your parts pack and had a rummage through the configs (loading up the game as we speak to check them out, but takes a while, so I figured I start my response): in short, I like what you're selling (so to speak)! You're visual style is very different than most other probes out there, and I rather like it (and your logo art too, and the display on T1000); not sure how to describe it, but it has a more "industrial" look too it, while not straying too far from stock. Very cool. If you're open to some constructive criticism (and this comes from just reading the configs, I'll update accordingly when I get to the VAB)...? If not, that's cool, and you can skip this next part. The download includes two copies (different versions though) of module manager. I think one is for the 1.1 release though? You probably mention this somewhere in a readme, or in the OP. Yup you do. Nevermind! Your girders specifically mention fuel cross feeds, yet all of them lack the snippet "fuelCrossFeed = true". If you wanted to get extra fancy, you could add in the fuelcrossfeed module, like so: MODULE { name = ModuleToggleCrossfeed crossfeedStatus = true toggleEditor = true toggleFlight = true } Just make sure the crossfeedStatus and fuelCrossFeed agree (if you include them both). A good overall selection of parts; most people do just engines and fuel tanks (Gods, it's always more fuel tanks), but you've covered a lot of bases here. Nice. Pricing. Expensive stuff! Although, there seems to be a consistency to your pricing (main/big parts are expensive, accessories less so), so perhaps that's a brand decision? It might be that I'm a cheap skate (I am) and used to being stuck in early career games (I am), but 17k for a probe core seems a lot. Granted, you do get a lot of bang for your buck (feature wise), so maybe that's what PanzerLabs stands for: quality products at premium pricing. Nothing wrong with that. Your accessories (communications equipment, batteries, etc) seem in line with stock and mods. Your 888 Probe has a ModuleSAS with "SASServiceLevel = 0" ...is that intentional? If you want to disable it, why not just remove it? Because as it stands, I think the player (at least with TweakableEverything) can just manually raise it to whatever level in the VAB. Game has finished loading, off to the VAB with me. Good show! --edit-- After tooling around in the VAB a bit, I have to say, my favorites are the 888 probe and the T1000 Probe, especially the 888. (Just a word on the T1000 display: I had a chuckle, but I think it'll cause you some grief down the road. My 2 cents.) Now to figure out what to build with them... --edit2-- The bolt engine doesn't have a particle effect; I believe that's because it's missing "runningEffectName". I believe the effect name in question is "running" (so "runningEffectName = running" might do the trick, untested though). I have the sound effect, just not particle. It also overheats incredibly quickly (and actually just blew up on me in the space of writing this) before even finishing the small fuel tank that fits in the cubby hole of the 888.
  19. Holy cow...that's incredibly impressive. I suspect I am in a similar situation as you (hoard mods, organize them, although not in a master spreadsheet, just spreadsheets of parts, reorganize configs and file structures, etc), so I can appreciate the level of effort you have gone to, especially settling on a single organizational system. When I ever get around to switching to 1.1 (who knows when that will be), this will most likely be useful, and I will most likely make my own sheet to keep track of stuff. Are you open to feedback? If not, that's cool, since this is a pretty personal matter (organizational preferences). If you are, maybe make a trimmed down version for the public? There is a lot going on here, and it's clear that it's very individualized. I doubt the average user needs to know every revision or hand that's touched a mod (you or I might find it interesting though). I found myself continually scrolling up to the legend at the top to see what things meant, and that's a bit of a scroll. Lastly, color choices....I'm more of a earth tones kind of guy myself. (I suppose maybe you were going for a "highlighter" look? Which doesn't work if you highlight the whole page, heh). Overall though, yeah, this is really useful. Thanks! Also, isn't there any software out there better than a spreadsheet for grabbing links to this sort of stuff? Seems like you set yourself up for continually checking, manually, link validity, which would be a nightmare. --edit-- Really people? 1/5 stars for the man who single handedly catalogs 600 some mods for 1.1 compatibility and ya'll don't even leave a comment? It ain't perfect, but really? Imma go flip a table...
  20. Thanks a bunch; was just about to ask about this as I love it dearly.
  21. @iamchairs if/when you decide to take a peak at this for 1.1, any chance you look at making it compatible with Kerbal Construction Time (and soon to be KRASH)? Specifically, I am referring to the "accidents" and their simulations. It would seem (or else I'm even worse at this game than I thought) accidents in the simulation are still counted toward opinion modifiers. It should be as simple (I would think) as looking at when events get reverted (timestamps?). You could ask @magico13, who heads KCT, but simulations will be eventually getting outsourced to the KRASH mod. I think the temporary workaround might be to just change public opinion modifiers in the government config, but then you kind of get a one dimensional government. Looks like I'm playing as USSK for a while...
  22. @Diazo I know you're probably busy fighting 1.1 krakens and what not, but I know you had some issues recently with EVA kerbals. Not sure if this is related, but when you EVA a kerbal and then reenter the vessel, it seems to trigger the new docking mechanism you implemented, requiring you to go into the AGExt options and hit the next vessel button once, then it works and the vessel hotkeys return. Maybe it's working as intended (I've heard eva kerbals exists a sort of quasi-vessel, so this might be necessary for all I know), in which case, feel free to ignore. It's just a tad awkward is all. Case in point: I did a last minute eva to grab a report before the reentry fire and flame effects started, but when I reentered the capsule, I lost access temporarily to all my preset decoupling and braking hotkeys. By the time I realized what had happened and fixed it, it was too late, and I ended up just switching to Part Commander and mashing all my decoupler buttons frantically. The reentry was rubbish to start with (hence the elaborate setup I had planned), I survived, but my ship kind fell apart (to be fair they usually do anyway). Not sure how to fill out the insurance form though... The point of my story is when it's just a normal EVA space walk, it's not that big of a deal, but in my situation, it probably should have cost me a kerbal. Totally not trying to make you feel guilty or anything. Like I said, I imagine you have your hands full with 1.1 business. Just some food for thought. And if you get an insurance claim in the mail, maybe you'll understand the context Cheers.
×
×
  • Create New...