Jump to content

leopardenthusiast

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    394

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by leopardenthusiast

  1. leopardenthusiast
    An entire category of parts that are just variously-sized cylinders that hold fuel sounds pretty samey to me.
  2. leopardenthusiast
    My (rather pessimistic) guess is that the challenges are meant to get player numbers up, which helps justify Take Two continuing to fund the game's development. But they don't want to encourage people to do anything complicated, because that would lead to even more negative posts here and on social media about the game's issues, so... irrelevant fluff challenges it is.
  3. leopardenthusiast
    I'm excited for the new maneuver planner making it easier to do extremely long maneuvers.
  4. leopardenthusiast
    You could do that by just having the game save the current real-world time when it saves the game and advance in-game time accordingly when the save file is loaded. No constantly-running server required.
  5. leopardenthusiast
    This is not true - a Kerbin year is 426 Kerbin days, which is 106.5 Earth days. That's less than a third of an Earth year.
  6. leopardenthusiast
    It's not nearly as common as using kerosene, but jet engines can be powered by natural gas, and that's mostly methane. They've also been run on hydrogen.
  7. leopardenthusiast
    LF and Ox resources are visible in the staging list several times in "Kerbal Space Program 2: Episode 6 - Early Access". My guess is one of the following: 1) Methane was at one point planned to be the Standard Chemical Rocket Fuel, but this has since been switched back to the kerosene-like LiquidFuel 2) LiquidFuel is methane now
  8. leopardenthusiast
    To show the smaller navball, here's a somewhat nasty looking comparison I made: Ignore the markings on the KSP1 navball - all of the screenshots I had on hand have a replacement texture for it. This is just meant to show the sizes of the two navball clusters.
  9. leopardenthusiast
    The first one is almost certainly the Swivel.
  10. leopardenthusiast
    I don't think the number of markings on the navball are the problem - rather, it's the colour and size. If the navball itself were made larger and the markings on the blue side of the navball were white, I think it'd be a lot more readable. The current navball is smaller than the KSP1 navball, despite the navball cluster being larger overall, which I don't think is great.
  11. leopardenthusiast
    It's worth noting that you can do the same thing with the T-shaped 3-nozzle thruster as you can with the perpendicular 3-nozzle thruster - they just go on the cardinal sides of the spacecraft. You get 4 nozzles in each direction either way.
  12. leopardenthusiast
    They allow for even thrust in all directions by just placing 4 thrusters at each end of the ship, like this setup with angled thrusters: https://i.imgur.com/69ykUtC.png
  13. leopardenthusiast
    I tried DockRotate+KJRNext on 1.12.2 and it seemed to hold the port in position just fine. When I had DockRotate moving the ports, it'd release it and let it sag, but once that was done KJR would come back on and it'd spring back into place. I didn't test it *that* extensively, though, so maybe it just takes a long time for anything noticeable to happen.
  14. leopardenthusiast
    Just wanted to report, since 1.12.2 is out - KJR Next works on docking ports again! However, it won't allow docking ports to rotate with the stock rotation function (the slider will move, but it won't do anything). I'm OK with this, since I can just install DockRotate, which I think is better anyway.
  15. leopardenthusiast
    Having the old docking ports as a variant would be decent, but that still means that any mod that uses the stock docking port rotation function is effectively unusable. The only proper solution I see is having some way to *completely* disable it - not just lock the rotation of the docking port, but prevent the rotation function from coming into play in the first place. Like peteletroll, I considered using a modulemanager patch, but even commenting everything related to the rotation function out of a docking port's config file didn't help me. Maybe a plugin could do it?
  16. leopardenthusiast
    Has anyone found a way to make KJR Next work with 1.12's docking ports? I tried completely commenting out all of the rotation stuff in the stock 1.25m docking port's config file, but this only stopped it from rotating - it still wasn't getting reinforced. My plan was to just use ModuleManager to patch out the stock rotation function and use DockRotate, but if if removing the stock rotation function isn't enough to get KJR working properly, that's not a viable plan.
  17. leopardenthusiast
    You're right, it's at 1:50 in the Gamescom 2019 gameplay video. Not the greatest quality, but that is definitely some sort of robotic arm:
  18. leopardenthusiast
    What I'd really like to see is robotic arms that use inverse kinematics so you can just tell the end of the arm where to go. Even if it meant they were prebuilt arms, and thus not as versatile as the single-joint robotic parts, it'd be very nice to have something simple for use when assembling stations.
  19. leopardenthusiast
    Hi, I'm people on the /r/KSP Discord. I used a test setup with just a Mk16 Parachute and the Nereid, which sank regardless of whether the tanks were full or empty. I also tried attaching the thrusters and a heatshield to the empty Nereid, which made no difference as far as I could tell. Every other command pod from Near Future Spacecraft floated for me.
  20. leopardenthusiast
    If you look at the Utility tab when it's briefly visible, you can see the 2.5m reaction wheel and convert-o-tron under Medium. It seems to me that, at least for now, 1.875m parts are not in KSP2.
  21. leopardenthusiast
    Hi, I think something's wrong with the Waterfall configs for three of the engines in Near Future Propulsion - they don't even show an FX module in the Waterfall editor for me. I tried looking in the patches, but nothing obvious stuck out. Looks basically the same to me as the working configs. The affected engines are the GW7201 'Gyro-2' Lensed Hall Thruster, the GW3 'Triplet' Nested-Channel Hall Thruster, and the LF-9 'Colossus' Magnetoplasmadynamic Engine. Every other engine appears to be fine, including RCS. I was able to reproduce this on a fresh install with Near Future Propulsion 1.3.3, ModuleManager 4.1.4, Community Resource Pack 1.4.2, B9 Part Switch 2.18.0, and Waterfall Core 0.6.3 installed from CKAN, so I do not believe this to be a conflict with another mod.
  22. leopardenthusiast
    That is some INCREDIBLE terrain.
  23. leopardenthusiast
    For my own personal use, I just deleted every config for Restock-affected engines (this ended up being everything but Bobcat, Cheetah, Dart, Goliath, Juno, Panther, Thud, Wheesley, and Whiplash), removed the NEEDS:[!Restock] from each one, and installed it alongside WaterfallRestock. Works perfectly, aside from the fact that Realplume hasn't been updated to account for all of the new plumes yet. As for taking configs from this mod and adding them to WaterfallRestock... it's not entirely clear to me that this is possible, at least without violating the license on SWE. SWE is CC-BY-NC-SA, and WaterfallRestock is MIT, so by my understanding anyone but the creator contributing configs from this mod would have to violate the ShareAlike clause of the license.
  24. leopardenthusiast
    Gorgeous.
  25. leopardenthusiast
    Pretty sure this has been fixed - I use the Mk2 command pod a lot, and haven't had any issues so long as it's not reentering at a weird angle.
×
×
  • Create New...