Killerhurtz
-
Posts
468 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by Killerhurtz
-
-
This one is old enough that the attachment might have been corrupted by the forum crash.
I\'m just happy to see the triple \'chute available again; it\'s been a personal favorite since day one, since it reduces touchdown speed to realistic US capsule figures (and just LOOKS better on the Apollo-shaped Mk 1 pod!).
This man speaks the truth. That part was corrupted last I checked.
-
ohhh thanks for the tip.....
but... i wanted fuel recharging non-thrusting ones.... eh...
edit: i looked at the cfg files, Silisko panel is only decorative,but i want fuel recharging ones,just ones without thrust
im asking if i can reduce the max/min thrust to zero flat or if it will stop working and/or break something
Entirely possible and was already done, the only thing it risks breaking is whatever\'s underneath the solar panel, which is why it wasn\'t much appreciated.
Thank you muchly for your fine assortment of parts. Many are unique, available nowhere else; and those that aren\'t are the best of their breed. This is definitely among the top 5 most useful parts packs and I recommend them to anyone.
I stuck a signal flare on the capsule on the flying saucer, and the flare was enough to kick the disc off the ground. Was a bit bright though. (jk)
I think engine flames can have different colors. Would you be able to set up some different colored flares?
The only other flames can have as of now is blue.
-
Correction: you CAN make a general bank of textures I\'m pretty sure of it (especially easy with GME)
In theory, by putting the 'shared textures' in a 'textures' folder IN THE MAIN KSP FOLDER, you should be able to make ALL mods access them, much like all mods can access the sounds in the sounds folder of KSP. Will quick-test it, and return with results.
Nevermind, tried it, it failed.
Also, I love you for these PLFs. They look epic.
-
I know, but it\'s a non-issue now. See Black Sun Laboratories for what I have done apart from this.
-
Well, Thunder, your image had warranted an investigation.
Turns out that there\'s two things I hadn\'t seen:
Fun fact of the day: Blaze is just as dandy as a landing leg.
Friendly safety reminder of the day: CHECK YOUR ANGLES. While it may seem an enticing idea at first, setting Blaze in angles it\'s not especially meant to go may have... undesirable(?) results.
-
That\'s one HELL of a Kerbal decoupler. Anyhow, I suspect (can\'t check, don\'t have Blender) that it\'s a problem with the collision mesh in your model, as the .cfg looks fine as far as I can tell.
-
Ah, the satisfaction of doing something that works. The strut has surrendered it\'s secrets to me, and I now possess the ability to create struts of all shapes and kinds. Two more parts and a few textures left, and Kebylon shall be ready.
-
Project X: horse powered rockets.
If you could expend on the idea, I might add it on the projects to do list.
Also, Thunder, a little patience. Look on the list: there\'s a project just for you which will be centered on VTOL (I already have a pretty good idea on how it will work. You\'re going to have a HUGE range of motion.)
Also: Project Kebylon is coming along well. Already got the tower done (save for the texture, I\'m saving this for another time), I\'m now trying to get the strut to unveil it\'s secrets to me (to make a new model), I\'m pretty close.
-
Yep, my bad. Link is fixed now.
Also, should I or should I not make a slightly slanted optional foot for the tower, to help eastbound launches?
-
Feeling productive tonight. Blaze is out, expect Kabylon pretty soon.
-
Holy damn, nice! How many triangles, and what radius is it?
-
Remember guys, it\'s also been quite a while we\'ve been playing - whether we like it or not, we\'ve become MUCH better. A newbie might not have the ease that we do. That\'s actually why, so far, things are like they are - they are meant to be intuitive and newbie-friendly, so that the new players don\'t ragequit because a task is nigh impossible (which would be just somewhat hard for us older players). Just look at the frequency we had people asking how to get in orbit or to the moon. Yet I\'m sure for a lot of people in this thread (myself included), it\'s an easy task. We have to take that into account. And in my mind, that\'s exactly what Silisko Edition is doing: giving us, older player, an occasion to step up the difficulty (but then again, looking at it, it\'s only temporarily - people already get to the moon somewhat easily with Silisko\'s new pack...)
I think that\'s one of the largest difficulties we\'re having here, even. Thinking why things are so.
Throwing in my two pennies: I agree for the balance - setting the efficiency the same as the stock parts isn\'t exactly the best way, it greatly limits our options (and the usefulness of different parts for different roles). I would rather say that the 'theoretical cost' should be our bar: there should be an agreed 'cost', which would be the drive for an equation agreed on which encompass many more stats. While more complicated, it also brings more possibilities: heavier engines with a small thrust but pretty small fuel consumption could be possible, which I find well-suited for lander engines, all while being balanced against a much more powerful engine that could be slightly lighter but gobbles more fuel for main stages. Of course, the costs would be different for every category of part (perhaps fitting to the original component of each category?) (I very well acknowledge the fact that this would be much more complicated, and thus much less fun to do, though)
Although take it with a grain of salt: I was just giving ideas. This pack is already pretty good.
-
From what I have seen, either 256x256 or 512x512 look like a standard for pretty much all parts size, but if you want to make a low-res or just don\'t want to put much detail, 128 should be fine (64x64 for the REALLY low res). Should it be the other way around, 1024 is still acceptable, but 2048 is just too much.
There\'s only ONE hard restriction, though: each side MUST be a power of two (or was it factor? Pretty sure it was power...). So if you\'ve got a long part, you could stretch it over 512x256, or 1024x512.
Also, the number of vertices/tris shouldn\'t affect the choice, only the size of the part itself.
Anyone correct me if I\'m wrong, please.
-
And I thought my Firelark was overkill...
-
I must congratulate you guys for this pack. It\'s a MARVELLOUS complement to the vanilla game, very wonderful. This pack combined with KW\'s engines and the lander leg makes for a game which feels almost complete, parts wise. Quite balanced, too. Using the aforementioned parts (only 2 KW\'s so it\'s negligible, one is the 2m Vixen the other the 40 thrust one, and one fuel tank from there which I used because of the increased weight, which I found useful for Mun landings because of more negligible velocity changes), I managed to make a non-wobbly rocket that flies straight with ASAS using only engine gymbal (if requested, will make a tutorial).
Seriously, this is noted as a MUST in my list now. Good job.
PS: Expect a few models to complete this pack soon.
-
Sounds like I have been beaten to the punch. Thanks a lot.
I might still do mine, but at least there\'s this now...
-
You just need to change the position of your node_attach node. Simple as that.
-
Guys, I just had an idea to help with balancing parts in the current build.
We use the equation which relates to price, and we use 'price levels' as baselines for general guidance - something similar to this:
Efficiency level 1: 200+
Level 2: 400+
3: 600+
And so on and so on. What do you guys think?
-
Well if you want, I could turn the strut part of the Firelark into a SAS unit...
-
That depends entirely on the author of the parts. Ask them directly. Some of them (if not most) should be okay, but there might be some people uncomfortable with that.
PS: if my material is part of what you wish to edit, go right ahead. I\'d love to see a better-done texture for them.
-
...I love you. I was struggling to find a non-fugly form for the bracket, I never thought of making it look a bit like a winglet.
Although sorry to burst your bubble, but the engines cannot follow the winglet\'s articulations. Attach points are static.
-
Just keeping you up to date, guys: Blaze\'s release is delayed further. It\'s a nightmare texturing the current model, and I find it quite unsatisfactory (and non-Kerbal), plus I have learnt a few new things regarding modeling so I\'m redoing it from scratch. The good news is that it\'s going to have twice as much connection points now, most likely. Which means more insanity. Especially since I\'ll be making a batch of models for different ideas I had, which means more addons out at once.
-
Had a look at the model using Maya.
First of all, may I know what software you use to model it? Your program looks like it has the nasty habit of appending _PIVOT to the end of all models.
Second of all, I think Harv was on the right track. Your model is off-center. That, however, is only the beginning of the problem. I tried setting the models back to the scene origin... turns out, both your parts are off-origin by default, even when all the translation parameters are at 0. Even worse, they\'re not even aligned; as it turns out, your collider mesh is, by default... halfway left and almost fully behind your physical model. I\'m not quite sure how to fix this... But at least now you know the problem. Try to make your collision mesh meet your physical model.
-
crashTolerance is the parameter that drives the impact resistance of a part.
Black Sun Laboratories Products *NOW FEATURING: PROJECT KEBYLON*
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted
Quick heads up: Blaze has been updated, Project Warhawk has been cancelled.
Thunder, rejoice. Oh and note that putting the Blaze on the other side of the tank make the angles flip around, too.