Jump to content

Nergal8617

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    209

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Nergal8617

  1. Nergal8617
    That's true; should probably keep the K.I.S.S. principle firmly in mind but Rover usually does.
  2. Nergal8617
    RoverDude did say that you would be able to disable the part failure just like you can with the current wear mechanic. I personally don't like getting varying outputs from my converters so I always turn off the wear mechanic in my games; I actually like the idea of part failure if you don't do maintenance. As for being repetitive, that's what workshops with automated maintenance are for.
  3. Nergal8617
    This is what I use them for, mainly in orbital station construction; all of my stations get constructed by remote before the crew ever gets sent up.
  4. Nergal8617
    Well, after looking at the configs for the parts, it is theoretically possible to modify them so they will work with the stock ports; however, I have no idea if doing so would result in some odd behavior or potentially game breaking errors.
  5. Nergal8617
    I have to agree with goldenpsp on this one. Not trying to be mean or rude, but you are choosing to use two different types of port when you don't have to in order to prevent what is ultimately user error.
  6. Nergal8617
    Why not just use Konstruction ports all around? They still work as a regular docking port, you don't have to weld them.
  7. Nergal8617
    I've always found attaching bases to the ground to be a bad idea, it tends to invite the Kraken since your vessel can and will move a little(up to half a meter if I remember correctly) every time it loads. Which is one of the reasons I like building bases on Minmus out on the Great Flats.
  8. Nergal8617
    No, the port sizes need to match or it's not going to work.
  9. Nergal8617
    Construction port issues should be in RoverDude's Konstruction! thread. To answer your issue however, stock ports and construction ports don't work together, i.e you can't dock a stock port to a construction port.
  10. Nergal8617
    I was lucky enough to have a son, though that has it's own headaches. I remember what I was like as a teenager...
  11. Nergal8617
    Yeah but it has no bearing on a USI-LS config since Kerbalism and USI do not work together; Kerbalism overrides the stock catch up mechanic that USI depends on. That being said, I don't know if Kerbalism and Nertea's mods can be used at the same time so there might be a reason for a Kerbalism config for these parts.
  12. Nergal8617
    I love this idea and would love to see it, or something like it, get released. I'm always struggling with mounting kontainers in an aesthetically pleasing way.
  13. Nergal8617
    Never mind.
  14. Nergal8617
    As far as I am aware it has always been SSPX, I really don't know where SSPE came from. Take a look in the patches folder provided with the mod and you will see they are all named things like SSPXCommunityTechTree.cfg
  15. Nergal8617
    If I remember correctly, you are not supposed to be able to refuel the Emancipator.
  16. Nergal8617
    Unlikely to happen for EPL since it is no longer officially supported by RoverDude.
  17. Nergal8617
    Yes, they will be in the new Station Parts Expansion which has not yet been released. It's still in development and Nertea enjoys teasing us with awesome pictures of new and redone parts
  18. Nergal8617
    From everything I've seen that Nertea has been teasing the new SSPX is going to be even better than the existing one. I for one am waiting as patiently as I can for it to be released so I can play around with it
  19. Nergal8617
    Would it be possible/easier to just patch in an MaterialKits cost to the existing animation?
  20. Nergal8617
    That part has been deprecated.
  21. Nergal8617
    Yes, with the Kolony Growth turned on in a Colonization module you will get births if you have crew capacity available. Check here https://github.com/UmbraSpaceIndustries/MKS/wiki/FAQ#kolony-growth Not into orbit, no. As far as I know there is a plan to implement a feature that will allow this but as things currently stand if you want to send resources or supplies into orbit you have to send them up on a rocket(or spaceplane).
  22. Nergal8617
    I'm not sure how you would accomplish this with the current set up, I am sure it would require additional coding and added complexity so the chances of it happening are slim. Honestly if all you are looking for is to limit your design choices the simplest answer is to not use the tanks you want to remove the ability from when designing your spacecraft.
  23. Nergal8617
    I'm going to guess no because from looking at the config files and then digging into the source code, the cooling cost is not set on a by tank basis. It is set by the SimpleBoiloff dll based on the fuel that is actually in the tank and whether or not it needs cooling to prevent boiloff.
  24. Nergal8617
    I figured it off the size of the cupola, that thing is tiny. Looks awesome though, it's gonna be a great day when this comes out of dev.
  25. Nergal8617
    True, I've always preferred Ground Construction for building larger rovers in situ, no need to assemble parts just plop down a DIY kit and build that.
×
×
  • Create New...