Jump to content

WarriorSabe

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    359

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by WarriorSabe

  1. WarriorSabe
    It's been a good while; any progress?
  2. WarriorSabe
    That's an issue with the way ksp handles celestial bodies; it happens because for some reason the point right at the north pole has its elevation set by the game to match that of the south pole. You'll notice most stock worlds have it to some degree (that's the origin of the mohole, that one was just turned into an easter egg due to how extreme it was), the only ones that I know don't at all are Laythe and Kerbin, since they have flat ice caps at both poles (and if you want to be pedantic Jool and the Sun since they don't have surfaces to get spikes or holes in).
  3. WarriorSabe
    Why are jet engines omitted from the balancing? I was doing some comparisons, and they seem like they could use a 50% or so mass increase.
  4. WarriorSabe
    Ah, so you mean you set the clock to have a day be different than how long it actually is ingame? I don't think there's any way to make the planner use anything but the rotation period of Kerbin (or whtever takes its place with a planet mod) as a day. You'll have to just convert the units (i.e., divide the number of days by 4), since the absolute amount of time it lasts shouldn't be affected, just the units used to show that time.
  5. WarriorSabe
    It would almost certainly not work. This specifically targets the bit of each part that corresponds to the lift it produces, but FAR completely removes the part-based aerodynamics in favor of its own shape-based aero. So, basically, if you have FAR then this mod wouldn't know where to look to find the lift.
  6. WarriorSabe
    What is the issue when you play with a different cycle? I've found that the planner uses the rotation period of the homeworld to define a day (and the orbital period to define a year), so if the issue is that that isn't matching up right, then that might just be it.
  7. WarriorSabe
    I recently got around to updating to the newer version, and I now have a question: How do I EVA? I remember reading something about needing to depressurize first now, but I can't find an option to do so
  8. WarriorSabe
    It should. I'm pretty sure it doesn't currently use anything whose syntax changed between 1.7.3 and 1.8.1, so as long as you have the 1.7.3 Kopernicus I don't see why it won't. Edit: I'd still do it on a separate save first just to be safe
  9. WarriorSabe
    I believe so
  10. WarriorSabe
    I wonder, has anyone actually gone and summed up how much science it takes to fill out?
  11. WarriorSabe
    Not as far as I know; if you want to make this it'd be great because I think a lot of planet packs could benefit.
  12. WarriorSabe
    What's it called? I might check it out, since I really would like more options for xenon.
  13. WarriorSabe
    Is restock plus going to get bigger, and maybe also spaceplane, xenon tanks?
  14. WarriorSabe
    In the download, alongside the Gamedata, alternate Gamedata, and Ships, there's a folder called B9 PWings Fork. Does that go separately or into the B9_aerospace_ProceduralWings folder, or do I just ignore it?
  15. WarriorSabe
    I'm curious, are there any plans to implement the ground effect?
  16. WarriorSabe
    Definitely. And if it comes down to it, even having them all identical wouldn't be that bad.
  17. WarriorSabe
    That would be ideal, though how would you estimate it for parts that aren't stock? Ideally this would be able to use some existing property to assign some estimated default values to any part, not just the ones built in. \ Maybe a combination of radial size and some other aspect related to that kind of part? For example, since all fuel tanks have the same mass ratio, the larger ones must have proportionately thicker skins, and the relation between radial size and skin thickness could be determined by what it holds, since there are some standard mass ratios that most tanks have for given fuel types. Or maybe even calculate the mass ratio and use that with the radial size. Crewed parts can be related to radial size and mass, since most have rather similar proportions. Structural parts can maybe use the impact tolerance; we can assume they're all made of similar materials and the stronger ones just have a thicker truss structure (speaking of impact tolerance, maybe that and skin max temp could be decreased as the part corrodes?). I'll have to think about how to do the rest and how we're differentiating those kinds of parts. It could also still have override settings for whatever things we can think of that would need that.
  18. WarriorSabe
    Oh, I wasn't actually suggesting using FAR itself, but rather seeing how it does that determination. Either way, though, it's not really that necessary
  19. WarriorSabe
    True, but most parts fall into the category of "get a hole anywhere and it's ruined", so if we treat all parts that way there'd only be a few minor edge cases, and it would be much more performant. Don't get me wrong, it would be cool to get the cases of structural panels halfway clipped into your fuselage, but situations like that are rare, and accounting for them would not only add more calculations, it also means there's more part stats to keep track of, and that makes it harder to support unknown parts. You can't just say "structural parts need to check for clipping", because many are either hollow or trusses, either of which are just as susceptible to small area damage. The remaining parts can probably just be explained away as having weak spots you can't see, or being actually hollow or something (e.g., structural panels are just a truss with some sheeting over that frame)
  20. WarriorSabe
    Yeah, that's probably true. That's probably a lot of extra development work, and would also probably make it less performant. Things like supercritical CO2 (like on Venus) have a tendency to seep in and corrode things in a way that regular gasses can't anyways. Man, I'd probably make this if I knew anything about KSP's API and wasn't already working on a planet pack.
  21. WarriorSabe
    Yeah, I agree. Corrosion doesn't care how much of the part is exposed; if even a tiny bit is it'll corrode through that tiny bit, and your crew probably doesn't care that the hole in the fuel tank is only half a centimeter across. I do wonder if FAR's out-of-airstream detection method (the thing that lets you build custom fairings and cargo bays that work like the real thing in FAR) can be ported over though, and work in a way that'd make sense for this.
  22. WarriorSabe
    I'm curious, why is TACLS recommended rather than the more comprehensive Kerbalism?
  23. WarriorSabe
    Where have you been asking? Most of us on the kopernicus discord are happy to help.
  24. WarriorSabe
    Yeah, I can tell that. I was just curious if anyone was picking it up, or even if just more had been done in figuring I out. If I knew anything at all about .dll modding I would, but I don't.
  25. WarriorSabe
    Anyone make any progress towards making this a reality?
×
×
  • Create New...