Jump to content

Neilski

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    61

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Neilski

  1. Neilski
    To get more dv, get your Kerbals to hop out and hang on to a ladder
  2. Neilski
    Nope, it's infinite, albeit slower to extract than on an asteroid.
  3. Neilski
    Is there a thread about the mining bug? I've searched and can't find one. After hitting the bug, I found it listed on the bugtracker and after some mucking about I have found a workaround that appears to work for asteroids (perhaps it will also work for comets). I'm looking for a good thread in which to post it, but if there isn't one I'll make one I guess.
  4. Neilski
    (v1.9.1) I currently have two asteroid-finding contracts. One is for Eve and the other is for Kerbin. While checking today if my Eve Sentinel was happy with its orbit, I looked more closely at the contract orbit requirements and was puzzled to see that the orbit is ABOVE Eve - I looked at it in map mode and it's outside Eve's orbit at all points. I then checked the Kerbin contract and it's even more perverse - it's all the way out near Duna (semi-major axis in the SFS file for that one is 19.05 Gm). Just for the hell of it, I sent a Sentinel out to match the Kerbin contract requirements and sure enough the Sentinel now says it's mapping Duna. When I warped heavily I was seeing some asteroids detected for that contract but then I realised I still had another valid Kerbin-mapping Sentinel active, and when I switched it off and warped for hundreds more days, not a single Kerbin asteroid was matched to the contract. So I guess this is a (fresh?) bug. Anyone able to confirm? I've posted in the modded section because I use KAC. It's up to date as far as I can see (3.12.0.0) but this doesn't really feel like it can be a mod-induced problem anyway, given that the contract itself is fundamentally broken. Edit: it might be relevant that during the long high-speed warps, I saw an error flash up in the top right corner of my screen a few times - orange text, saying "[ContractSystem]: Attempted to generate contract with no celestial bodies available." I have no clue how to interpret this but it doesn't look healthy.
  5. Neilski
    Yup, it was possible to edit with the editor thingy, and indeed that's what I did. I also agree that it wasn't impossible to play but it sure was annoying, especially not being able to drag the node. My point wasn't that it wrecked the game (it's fixed now anyway in 1.9.1) but that I found it surprising for someone to say that a bug like that wasn't relevant to them cos I use multiple maneuver nodes almost all the time... On another note, is anyone else noticing that asteroids have totally stopped spawning? I don't think I've seen a single one spawn since 1.9.0 came out, though I'm not certain. I now have two Sentinels up in legit Kerbin-viewing orbits and tens of days have passed with none detected... Weird. Maybe there's another reason (than a fresh bug) why this might be happening?
  6. Neilski
    You never find yourself wanting to create a second (or third) maneuver node?
  7. Neilski
    Yay for fixing the broken maneuver nodes (only the very first one worked properly). That one was massively annoying I almost stopped playing to wait for 1.9.1. Shame that the 150t tiny asteroid problem remains unfixed (gotta be a trivial fix, no?). This just means I can't be bothered to try any of my class-C (and smaller) asteroid contracts (of which I have 5 right now).
  8. Neilski
    Hey, good joke dude! Obvs, it's such a completely crazy idea that I don't even need to go and check if you're serious.. Meanwhile, when someone is assigned to a bug, surely that requires actual dev. input?
  9. Neilski
    So maybe there's a shadow bug tracker with the "real" priorities... Or a big printout stuck to a dartboard
  10. Neilski
    I was a little disappointed to see that the bug with second (and subsequent) maneuver nodes was assigned low priority. Then I checked the bug tracker and of the 157 open bugs updated in the last 100 days, 153 of them are low priority. Of the 10 bugs marked Resolved in the same period, 9 were low and one was very low priority. Hmm... I don't know how they are actually prioritising the work but that field appears to be pretty irrelevant.
  11. Neilski
    And it turns out that editing the SFS file didn't work. Boohoo. (It loaded in 1.8.1 after the version tweak at the top, but all of my craft had vanished without a peep.) So, it's back to 1.9.0 for me, with the mysterious 150t class-A asteroids (!!) and the slightly-broken maneuver nodes... :-S Looking forward to 1.9.1 Have tweaked that now, thanks! (I presume that manual editing of the settings.cfg file is the only way to do this?)
  12. Neilski
    OK, the "can't quicksave when you're about to crash" logic is eluding me. I was just able to quicksave on a craft that was en route to a Mun landing; it was about 45 seconds away from impacting at well over 300 m/s and yet that was a non-problem for the "about to crash" logic, However, yesterday it refused to let me save on a craft that was heading upwards in a short hop along the surface. Does anyone have a clue how this is meant to work? I really don't think it's working as intended.
  13. Neilski
    Thanks folks. I'll give it a try and see. If it doesn't work, I do have plenty of (manual) backups but there's too much water under the bridge since then, so I'll probably just wait for 1.9.1 instead...
  14. Neilski
    Nice one, thanks! (Slow reply because I'm still getting confused with how this forum notifies me about replies.) If I revert to 1.8.1, will my 1.9 save still work? Joking aside, how long does it normally take for them to issue a patch to fix the worst howlers? (So far, I'm mainly thinking about the "2nd mnv node not working properly" howler...)
  15. Neilski
    The logic for this appears to be a bit broken. I've had it a few times already in somewhat questionable circumstances. The most recent of these was just now: the craft was descending at about 5 m/s, hanging from chutes, and still minutes away from splashing down on Kerbin... I wouldn't call that "about to crash into the ground". :-D
  16. Neilski
    Is there a way to revert to 1.8 if you use Steam?
  17. Neilski
    And the Mainsail change just resulted in an existing contract getting hit with the instafail bug, because the part has been made obsolete... (Tried to paste an image, learned that I can't. But it says " You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL." - I can't find a button to upload, just one to insert an image from URL. Upload also impossible?)
  18. Neilski
    Sadly no, you're not the only one - I've just confirmed it's happening for me too
  19. Neilski
    Possibly not connected, but... I was playing with wheels on a simple rover on Kerbin the other day, and tweaked the spring settings (not sure damper was affecting this much): I noticed that with the default, it was fine; with it increased a lot, it was really jumping around; with it decreased a lot, it was also jumping around. My assumption at the time (partly arrived at by zooming in and watching the spring travel) was that if the suspension travel wasn't bottoming or topping out, there was no problem, but if it was sitting at either the top or bottom stops, trouble... (This kinda made sense to me, so I didn't question it much further :D) Edit: forgot to add, this just might be consistent with the OP's comment that it was fine without the converter - adding extra mass might have made the suspension bottom out.
  20. Neilski
    LOL yes!
  21. Neilski
    Oh wow, I had no idea! Nice one, thanks [Edit: yes, they look pretty darn cool. I have no idea how people discover this stuff though, because the Wiki says almost nothing on the subject... ]
  22. Neilski
    Thanks. I don't know what this means though (very noobish today!). Ah, OK, hadn't thought of that (was trying to save mass). I guess that approach also implies a pretty large fairing...
  23. Neilski
    Stupidly trivial question, and I know I'm probably not thinking laterally enough (I also know that stunning things are possible in KSP) but I'm stumped about how to fit certain components onto a single vessel "cleanly". Googling and searching here hasn't helped so far. My current and fairly representative problem is how to launch a small sat with both a SENTINEL and a relay antenna of the "axial dish" kind (RA-2 for example). My starting point would have been to have both of them on the nose, but I can't put them both there cos they don't stack.
  24. Neilski
    Indeed. I have always wondered why Isp isn't simply quoted as a velocity, which would make far more sense to me (and, I would suggest, everyone). At least, if I ever found out the reason, I've since forgotten it! Umm, I must be confused here. Once you've launched and done any staging, the dv calculation in the GUI would surely mean there's no need to actually do the burn. Then again, the same calc in the VAB would mean much the same. So I am pretty certain I'm misunderstanding your point. Personally I do tend to use a quick calc when the built-in dv calc isn't doing what I need (especially when asteroids are involved, cos the burns can take a veeeerrryyy long time). If you simply type something like "350*9.81*ln(96/36)" into google, it does it instantly with no faff.
  25. Neilski
    Yup, I reckon that would do it, and stop people from pulling their hair out ;-) (Incidentally, how on earth does one persuade this forum to email a notification when a followed post gets a reply? I've tried all the options I can find so far, but no dice. Maybe it's just utterly broken :-/)
×
×
  • Create New...