Jump to content

Jade_Falcon

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    65

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Jade_Falcon

  1. Jade_Falcon
    We definitely need someone with a bit more experience to take a look, havent made a whole lot of headway getting things (i.e. the particles) to work with the new versions of KSP.
  2. Jade_Falcon
    Ive taken a look at the code and done some testing, the issues that would need to be fixed are the particle system code (the particle system changed during the Unity version change of KSP), and possibly the code that makes leaks er, leak, but IIRC thats fixable via the cfg files. This mod is actually pretty well documented, and the code does have comments explaining functions throughout, but Ill admit I dont currently have the coding knowledge to fix the largest issues. @EnzoMeertens has been away for awhile, real life has a way of taking precedence, so Id imagine someone with a bit more mod experience would have to pick up the torch. Ive been looking at the code off and on in Visual Studio, but I wouldn't hold your breath on the strengths of my efforts!
  3. Jade_Falcon
    I noticed that ScrapYard recovers RealChute modules, but never automatically applies them in the editor. The problem is that you end up with a stockpile of used modules, and then right clicking on the modules in flight or in the editor noticably slows down KSP. (Not to mention all of the modules in inventory) Could auto apply be set to also install the used modules?
  4. Jade_Falcon
    Found out what the "blue flare" is coming from, the EZ_Particlez dll in KKS-Mod, Ive been looking over the code and configs to see if it can be fixed for 1.4.1. Right now you can just remove that directory from your install to not see it.
  5. Jade_Falcon
    Awesome, would love to see this mod live on in KSP 1.4.x, the ejection seats and EVA chutes are great! Thanks!
  6. Jade_Falcon
    Sure, will do! Edit: I just tested it again, 1st with a totally stock vessel, and again with the KW Rocketry Rebalanced Globe SRBs that I got the failure to ignite message before, but it didnt occur again. so its possible that whatever was going on doesnt occur in the latest build. Now the messages occur at stage as expected, with spectacular results (and giving LES rockets a purpose)!
  7. Jade_Falcon
    Re: Antenna failures, I did have one, but it still let me deploy and transmit science with it. It was a Coatl Aerospace CA-A10 antenna, so I don't know if that was the cause. Its the only antenna that's failed so far, so Ill have to equip some stock antennas and see how those go.
  8. Jade_Falcon
    So far so good! The only thing Ive noticed is that you get the SRB failed to ignite warning before youve actually started the SRB.
  9. Jade_Falcon
    I'm not currently using Kerbalism in my current 1.4.1 career game, but what I used to do is limit my max warp speed, and it would usually stop before things got too bad.
  10. Jade_Falcon
    Seems to work in 1.4, save for a weird graphics artifact (a bright blue flare) thats always present, even in the VAB.
  11. Jade_Falcon
    Its true that there is a lot of idle time, but also consider that a device, particularly a mechanical device, that is sitting unused can experience other forms of wear as well, as mentioned on page 10. I wont quote the whole page (its an interesting paper, worth a read): "...Long periods of storage or transit in space often precede their use. Mechanical systems can lose lubricant or gather corrosion that leads to later failure." So the failure model in UPFM may not be too far off; I've had some long missions that went relatively well (but I do a lot of ground testing and test flights too), and only a few that a critical failure made things unsalvageable, like an underthrust on the only engine that make circularization impossible, or a tank leak on the only tank of the last stage of a launch vehicle. But that makes it a challenge, "space isn't easy."! One thing that was mentioned in regards to the chart on page 6 and Voyager, they did workarounds and remote fixes to keep the mission going, something that isn't in UPFM. That might an interesting mechanic that could counter minor failures on long flights. It wont fix a fuel leak, but might be able to "jiggle" free a stuck actuator on a deployable panel, or compensate for a reaction wheel failure. But only might, sometimes its just broken.
  12. Jade_Falcon
    Looks like :FIRST did the trick, the affected tanks all have safety ratings now (which are quite good as those tanks have been used a *lot*!). Thanks! And so far, the change seems to play well the ConfigurableContainers, all of the functionality that was there before seems to still work now.
  13. Jade_Falcon
    I did try the suggestion of the FINAL patch without success (although it didnt seem to beak anything either), so Ill provide some logs to take a look at when you have a moment. EDIT: Looks like it may be due to Configurable Containers mod, I removed it and those tanks are now tracked by UPFM. It looks like that mod gave that tank the ability to be switched between Xenon and Argon in the editor using the detail window\Tank Type dialog. Initially I thought it may have been due to Interstellar Fuel Switch since it also interacts with the taanks, but that doesnt seem to be the case. The Oscar-B Fuel tanks are also tracked now, but interestingly, they still have their Tank Type edit functionality.
  14. Jade_Falcon
    Looks like its not attaching, the 'Trash Part' button is missing. Re: Shielding, thanks, Ill add it!
  15. Jade_Falcon
    @severedsolo I noticed that UPFM does not provide Safety Ratings for the PB-X150 and PX50R Pressurized Gass Containers (but oddly the larger versions of these tanks do have ratings). Is this something that I could change via a config edit? Also, I use UPFM along with KerbalHeath, which has Radiation Shielding. It seems that the shielding is treated as a tank by UPFM, so if a leak develops, all of the shielding is lost. I dont mind the fact that the shielding can be compromised (I like the challenge!) but in my mind it seems that if shielding failed on a craft it wouldn't completely fail all at once. KerbalHealth uses pretty small number for the shielding, for most parts its a single digit number, so a failure drains out the shielding pretty fast. Would it be possible to have UPFM to be able to handle shielding differently than tanks? My thought would be either a slower failure rate, or just a random percentage loss of the maximum amount (similar to how underthrust works).
  16. Jade_Falcon
    Could this also keep data being typed into a window (i.e. a vessel rename entry) from triggering the hotkeys for installed mods? In my case, typing H changes the camera mode of the view in the background. Pretty minor, but it would be nice.
  17. Jade_Falcon
    Kerbalism had a pretty good treatment of radiation belts around bodies, and solar flares, Id say a similar treatment would be both fun and easy to play.
  18. Jade_Falcon
    Agreed, Ive been using KCT (Beta) and ScrapYArd (latest), both have been working well on 1.3.1 for the last few months.
  19. Jade_Falcon
    Excellent, thanks!
  20. Jade_Falcon
    Ive occasionally seen this happen, but I dont have either one of those mods installed. Sometimes they red-out, sometimes they black out. In the most recent instance one kerbal died. Its a bit inconsistent, but it seems to happen most at the higher timewarp levels (above 50X)
  21. Jade_Falcon
    @Yorick1234 It looks like a few other mods are throwing errors as well, Id try to resolve those first, then try to get this mod going. Re: the dialog screen, I havent tried this mod out yet, but Ill have to give it a go on 1.3.1, it looks like it would play quite well with Commnet Constellation, and eventually RemoteTech 2.0 once development on that wraps up. @xaMP Perhaps you should fork this with credit to the original author(s), it doesnt look like they have been around for a while...
  22. Jade_Falcon
    So far, no issues, seems to work as expected! The only thing I noticed was that the Big Project Fund amount doesn't need to display more than 2 decimal places. Will run through a few more months and see if anything goes off the rails.
  23. Jade_Falcon
    I dont mind it being implemented as a strategy, but how would that work for mods that change the strategy system, like Strategia? Not that you want to have to plan around other mods, but IMO strategies make a lot more sense with it. (I think it would definitely be a Strategia-esque type of strategy, and thats a good thing!) @larkvi I agree, its would be an essential strategy, especially once you start working towards the higher end of the tech tree and for funding the construction of advanced facilities and additional launchpads. I think it would also make more sense than all of the other strategies (IMO the strategies work best when they are designed as a planning tool, like this would be) Having said all of that, I think my vote would be for it to be a percentage, either through the GUI, or on the back end as a setting. If though the GUI, technically you still could only use it as needed, if you can set the percentage to 0. (Just in case the strategy implementation proves problematic)
  24. Jade_Falcon
    I like the "diverted funds idea, Ive been using the second workaround myself, banking funds for the largest upgrades (upgrades that are significantly higher than 1,000,000.) scrapping built but unused craft. Im not sure how it would work code wise, but my thought would be that you would have a "divert funds" button for your long term project (maybe 100000 or 500000 per button press), and that amount would be logged somewhere, and when you are ready to execute the project perhaps an "inject funds" button that would add the logged amount back to your current funds. Maybe keeping it to a round number would allow adding funds the same way the cheat in the debug console adds funds. (That might work around KCT overriding the building upgrades since its using the funds the way you always would.) One other way to approach it would be having a set amount diverted at the end of the month, every month. Kind of like a budget line item for facility improvements.
  25. Jade_Falcon
    Well, I do like it as a failure mode because it can happen, so I'm not sure Id like to see it go away completely. My vote would be that instead of it always resulting in a catastrophic failure, it could go either way; there would be a chance that the leak is detected and the engine shutdown to protect it (then you could repair it or work around it), or there is a leak severe enough that the engine is lost. Another way to go is that it would be shutdown, and if you tried to start it again, then it catches fire and explodes. Kind of like the engine fire detection on an aircraft: You can leave it running, shut it down and see if it goes out, or just pull the fire handle. Of course, leaving it running is at your own peril. But either way, I dont mind that particular failure, its made for some interesting launches! Sometimes the mission can still go on (or the craft can do an alternate objective), sometimes it ends in spectacular failure, it always ends up fun!
×
×
  • Create New...