Skyrunner84
-
Posts
21 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Skyrunner84
-
-
First off, I have used this mod in the past. I really like this concept. It makes you think a bit more about making Satellites that will last. I am thinking about adding g this to my current save.
I have a few quick questions. Is this mod still under development? Does anyone know if it is working in 1.7? Have any of the old bugs been fixed?
Thank you for a great little mod.
-
I am having a problem, I'm hoping someone here can help me with. Sorry i don't have a lot of time as I am writing this (kid's boy scouts starts soon). I am working with a fresh copy of KSP 1.6.1 and RT 1.9.1. I am trying to use Bluedog Design Bureau probes. Every time I set a probe that has a built in antenna, the antenna does not show up to be activated. I have also noted a new tag in the probe info labeled "tech perk" that indicates the probe has an omni antenna that has a range of 35km (also i am working on a rescaled system of approximately 3.2x). Anyone have any idea why this has happened?
-
On 1/4/2019 at 3:27 PM, Tybot said:
It does not fully work for 1.5 yet, so 1.6 is still a ways off.
I have been playing a heavily moded career in 1.5 with no issues that i have noticed. Can you give me some stuff to look out for?
-
On 9/22/2018 at 12:04 PM, dlrk said:
It's not BDB, ullage simulation is stuck on for me, and I don't have BDB
I know... it is for me too. The thing is that this mod uses CFG files to configure the number (and type?) Of ignitor and to determine if that engine uses the ullage simulation at. The idea is that some specific engines would have the ullage system disabled regardless of the difficulty settings. For example if you had a radial vernier engine that you always wanted to start regardless of ullage, you could set useUllageSimulation to false for that specific engine. My workaround is that you need to find the CFG files that configure the engines that you use (whatever mod engines like BDB or stock). You then look for a line that says:
useUllageSimulation = True
and change "True" to "False".
If you dont find that line in the CFG file for the particular engine you are using, then try adding it. My guess is that these variables in the CFG files override the settings in the difficulty menu.
I'm sure that this is just a minor bug. I'm guessing that the code probably applys the CFG setting after and without respect to the difficulty setting. It would be interesting to try using an engine that does not set useUllageSimulation and see how it works.
Just so we are on the same page the CFG files I am talking about are the ones that come in the engineIgnitor folder with the mod.
-
I have tried turning off the ullage simulation in the settings. Also tried to set the chance of unstable restart to 100%. Nothing works. Just to note these settings were made in a new career save.
Like I said these settings are also being set in the BDB config file. Is it possible that that CFG is making the settings stick regardless of the game difficulty settings?
-
On 9/20/2018 at 9:48 PM, Godit said:
I'm seeing the same thing. No matter if I disable the ullage system or turn the chance to ignite up to 100% the engines (with ignitors) still won't start reliably.
I have done a workaround for this issue. I think I may have misunderstood the variables. Anyway I edited the config files for the engines that I use so that useUllageSimulation = Fales. It works and is fairly easy to do using a text editor and the search and replace. Since I am only really using BDB I just edited that CFG file.
I also tried to edit the number of ignitors on some of the engines to be more realistic. For example the old Atlas sustained engine IRL was always ignited on the ground along with the main boosters. The CFGs that are distributed with this mod have that engine with 6 ignitors (I think). Unfortunately I have not been able to get these changes to work.
-
@linuxgurugamer thank you for all the work you put into these mods. I just have a few questions.
Is this mod still being developed? I understand it is probably hard to develop a mod that you wouldn't use.
I have been having a slight problem. I know the ullage system is broken. So I turned it off and started a new career. Unfortunately the setting does not appear to be working because the ullage system still prevents ignition.
I was poking around the code and I think I may have found the issue. I am certainly not a C# programmer. The only coding experience I have is C++ in embedded SOC systems for small projects. And this is only a hobby at best.
So I noticed 2 variable that appear to be tracking the setting for the ullage system. The variables are:
useUllage in Settings.cs (defaults to true) and useUllageSimulation in engineignitor.cs.
I see a check of the useUllageSimulation variable in engineignitor.cs but I dont see where this variable will get set to false by a check of the useUllage variable from the settings menu?
Am I wrong with this or am I just missing something? I would attempt a fix myself but I regrettably dont have the experiance to work through this problem myself.
Of course any effort you put into this mod or any other mods is greatly appreciated.
-
Sorry for the repeated post. Apparently this site does not like to play well with my phone.
-
On 10/11/2016 at 3:34 PM, CobaltWolf said:
.
NOTE – BDB is balanced to have parts inline with stock values. This means that the rockets significantly overperform in the stock system. The alternative would be to have parts that are very underpowered compared to contemporary parts. To achieve proper balance, we recommend using a 3.2x rescale, which requires rockets to be built with more realistic
I know this post is from a long time ago but I didnt realize that the balance had been changed to 2.5x. Honestly I like the 3.2x system much better than stock (and probably more than 2.5x though I have not tried it) and I have not had too many problems getting to orbit with the early career BDB rockets. The Launch Failure mod really likes to drop fins off my rockets but i dont count that against BDB (maybe you guy should tighten up your quality control
). Anyway I will mess around with BDB in a sandbox in 3.2x to see how later rockets will work. I like the challenge.
On 10/11/2016 at 3:34 PM, CobaltWolf said:.
NOTE – BDB is balanced to have parts inline with stock values. This means that the rockets significantly overperform in the stock system. The alternative would be to have parts that are very underpowered compared to contemporary parts. To achieve proper balance, we recommend using a 3.2x rescale, which requires rockets to be built with more realistic
I know this post is from a long time ago but I didnt realize that the balance had been changed to 2.5x. Honestly I like the 3.2x system much better than stock (and probably more than 2.5x though I have not tried it) and I have not had too many problems getting to orbit with the early career BDB rockets. The Launch Failure mod really likes to drop fins off my rockets but i dont count that against BDB (maybe you guy should tighten up your quality control
). Anyway I will mess around with BDB in a sandbox in 3.2x to see how later rockets will work. I like the challenge.
On 10/11/2016 at 3:34 PM, CobaltWolf said:.
NOTE – BDB is balanced to have parts inline with stock values. This means that the rockets significantly overperform in the stock system. The alternative would be to have parts that are very underpowered compared to contemporary parts. To achieve proper balance, we recommend using a 3.2x rescale, which requires rockets to be built with more realistic
I know this post is from a long time ago but I didnt realize that the balance had been changed to 2.5x. Honestly I like the 3.2x system much better than stock (and probably more than 2.5x though I have not tried it) and I have not had too many problems getting to orbit with the early career BDB rockets. The Launch Failure mod really likes to drop fins off my rockets but i dont count that against BDB (maybe you guy should tighten up your quality control
). Anyway I will mess around with BDB in a sandbox in 3.2x to see how later rockets will work. I like the challenge.
On 10/11/2016 at 3:34 PM, CobaltWolf said:.
NOTE – BDB is balanced to have parts inline with stock values. This means that the rockets significantly overperform in the stock system. The alternative would be to have parts that are very underpowered compared to contemporary parts. To achieve proper balance, we recommend using a 3.2x rescale, which requires rockets to be built with more realistic
I know this post is from a long time ago but I didnt realize that the balance had been changed to 2.5x. Honestly I like the 3.2x system much better than stock (and probably more than 2.5x though I have not tried it) and I have not had too many problems getting to orbit with the early career BDB rockets. The Launch Failure mod really likes to drop fins off my rockets but i dont count that against BDB (maybe you guy should tighten up your quality control
). Anyway I will mess around with BDB in a sandbox in 3.2x to see how later rockets will work. I like the challenge.
-
Quick question... Does this incorporate BDB parts at all?
Edit: Sorry I see now that it is listed under the integrated but not tested list of mods. Anyone test this?
-
I am thinking about installing RemoteTech in my next 3.2X career. Are the BDB RT configs balanced for 3.2X like the rest of the parts are? By the way I am using Realistic Rescale as my 3.2X system.
-
7 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:
Alright, can one of you do me a favor, and go into Gamedata\Bluedog_DB\Compatibility and delete the RealChute folder, and tell me if that fixes things? The config hasn't been updated in over 2 years so I don't know why it would be screwing up now. @Skyrunner84 if you do this make sure you uninstall RealChute as well!
I will try this when I can.... but like i said everything was fixed after installing RealChute. So far i do kinda like RealChute.
-
I am using KRASH, KCT and Launch Failure (a long with several other mods) in a new career save. The last issue I have with this career for now is that when I run a KRASH simulation I still get part failures on launch. Is there anyway to prevent part fails while using in the KRASH sim? I will post this in the Launch Failure thread as well.
-
Hey everyone.... I cant remember if I have already said this so I will say it now. This is one of my favorite mods. I have finally got it set up in a career save using a 3.2x system in KSP 1.4.5. I find that the ships I have made so far are very nicely balanced for this size.
Now on to my one issue. For some reason some parachute parts (i.e. the Mercury Landing and Control Module) are starting with the parachute deployed in the VAB. The real problem is that it does not appear that it is being treated like a parachute because I don't have any of the normal parachute options when I click on the part. When I launch a part like this the parachute remains out and does not act like a parachute. Also it does not show a parachute in the staging, just a de coupler.
Here is a photo from the VAB:
Album https://i.imgur.com/zaO5P7T.png will appear when post is submitted
It seems like I have had this problem before. I cant remember if it was with BDB or another parts mod and I don't remember how it was fixed. Any ideas on this one?
UPDATE: I just installed RealChute and all seems to be fine in the VAB for now. I am getting ready to launch my first Mercury Redstone rocket in this save. I will let you know what happens. I would still like to know what was wrong though.
UPDATE 2: Installing RealChute fixed everything for me. I dont know why BDB messed up to begin with since I never used it with RealChute in the past. Oh well I am happy now.
-
3 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:
I wouldn't recommend it. There shouldn't be any significant interaction, but I have no idea what would happen if both decide to fail the same part at the same time.
Ok, I think I have gone away from the Dang it! Idea anyway. I just updated to 1.4.5 and I like it. I am using Oh Scrap along with this (and many more mods). I have had some failures (mostly while simulating with KRASH). I have not had any problems with conflicts so far but I have not played very far in my new save. Are there any known issues with this setup or would it be the same unknows?
-
I know this has probably already been asked but I can't find it.... Does this mod play nice with Dangit!? Are there very bad side effects from using these side by side? Maybe some recommended settings for using these mods together?
-
Hello Shadow. I have not tried this mod yet but it is on my list to install at some point. It looks very nice. I am assuming that it is balanced for stock Kerbin? Are there any config files to balance it for other scales.... I am currently considering a 3.2X scale because the stock game is getting kinda easy.
Thank you for the work you put into this mod.
-
On 6/5/2018 at 11:16 PM, Zorg said:
@Skyrunner84 You wrote in your earlier post that you unzipped SOME of the craft files into your save. Which ones exactly?
These 2 require the mk3 Block II parts. They are in the second download link in the original post of this thread.
- CA - Block II Shuttle
- CA - Mk3 Block II Phase I
This craft (The Russian Buran) requires the completely separate TantaresLV (Tantares lift vehicles) mod which provides the Energia booster which is part of the craft files.
- CA - Petrel Orbiter
I suspect you have copied over the block II craft but not installed the Block II addon to this mod.
The remaining craft in the crafts zip should work without Tantares or Block II.
This was the correct answer. I am currently waiting to try it but I am sure that this will fix the problem. I don't know how I missed that it was a separate download.
Thanks again,
Happy flying.
-
5 hours ago, Barzon Kerman said:
@Skyrunner84 If you are new to KSP, you should probably not start with a shuttle, as they are quite complicated to fly.
Well right now I think they are rather complicated to install. I have flown some "complicated" 3rd party crafts already and I don't find much about flying these models complicated. Especially since you hit the "revert to launch" button and fix what you did wrong in about a minute. No i would not certify that flying the real thing is not complicated but it is not a computer game.
Anyway I appreciate your advice but it does not help with getting this to work for me. BTW I am playing on the latest KSP. I installed this mod on a fresh install with no other mods installed and it is still missing parts for some reason. Is there another dependency that I am missing?
-
Hello all. I am new to Kerbal and have been looking for a good Shuttle for my sandbox. I like whay I habe seen from this but I can't seem to make it work. I downloaded the latest version of the mod, put the folder into my gamedata file. The parts (at least some of them) show up in the VAB and I can use them. My problem is with the craft files. I downloaded the craft files and unzipped some of them into the ships file but it tells me that some of the parts are missing.
I will get my log files and post them when I get a chance. For now I was hoping that maybe someone can tell me what I may have done wrong.
BTW, this looks like an excellent project. I can't wait to use it. Please keep up the good work.
). Anyway I will mess around with BDB in a sandbox in 3.2x to see how later rockets will work. I like the challenge.
[1.11] RemoteTech v1.9.9 [2020-12-19]
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted
I know that RemoteTech 2 is still under development but I dont know where else to ask this. Has there been any word if the features of ComNet Constilations will be implemented? I really want to like that mod I just feel like I have to have the features in RT more. I think my biggest problem with the stock system is antenna type (direct vs relay) and that 2 direct antennas cant connect with each other. Add to that dishes that act like omni and I just get frustrated to the point I want RT back. But I do really like the idea of frequencies.