Jump to content

curtquarquesso

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    848

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by curtquarquesso

  1. curtquarquesso
    Wow. What an amazing evolution of style. It's like Tantares HD. It's got a lot of depth to it. If only KSP could shade it properly in-engine.
  2. curtquarquesso
    Modeling looks excellent. I really love the design and nozzle configuration. I've been majorly out of the loop, and this was the first I've seen of this model. My first thought when looking at the part was "huh, weird that he shaded the model, but didn't apply any textures or color." There definitely needs to be a contrast between the nozzles, and their housing. It has the appearance of an RCS nozzle made from clay.
  3. curtquarquesso
    No plans at the moment. Tantares has gotten a total overhaul recently, so it'll be some time. There are some craft files that have been recently posted though if you browse through the Tantares topic though.
  4. curtquarquesso
    In addition to what MaxZhao said, I began a topic on this some time ago, and advocated for add-on authors to make use of various unity features allow this functionality to exist in KSP and be useful, and not just for looks.
  5. curtquarquesso
    Go for it. I'm still re-learning Wings3D, and have yet to get Unity up and running again.
  6. curtquarquesso
    He certainly has my blessing. It basically just functions as a docking light. My Unity setup for it consisted of a light beam to illuminate your target, and one soft point light that casts some light on the parts surroundings the window for a pretty glow. Very easy to configure. Old screen:
  7. curtquarquesso
    Surprising to see the QOS docking window still in use. I've since lost the original model for it, so to update it for new Tantares, I'd need to start from scratch.
  8. curtquarquesso
    Aside from all this, will Cormorant Aeronology and AB Launchers suit your needs? Cormorant Aeronology has the Buran parts you're asking for, and AB Launchers has the Energia parts you're looking for. Matter settled?
  9. curtquarquesso
    Here's your Energia parts. They work great with Cormorant Aeronology Buran parts.
  10. curtquarquesso
    Thank you for your service. Can you, or anyone else here recommend good values for SMURFF to make it comfortably playable?
  11. curtquarquesso
    Hidy-ho neighbor!
  12. curtquarquesso
    Apologies for the late reply. Been away from KSP and the forums for a while. Glad to see these types of docking ports really catching on. After messing around with them in the editor: • The model is modeled such that it's 11.25º offset (or whatever the angle is) from parts that follow stock convention. This causes nasty vertex alignment issues. Obviously not fixable without major remodeling, so do what this information what you will. (Also, some parts have 24 sides, and some have 32. This also causes graphical ugliness in many cases.) • The docking process is terrific. Great configurations for roll snap, magnetism, etc. I like that the magnetism isn't as OP as stock. Very nice. • The base on the passive side isn't working for me. It's not 1.25m, and it's not 0.9375m, so what is it supposed to be compatible with then? • Animation of the docking ring is great. Nice work on the telescopic control arms. • Guide fins and other metallic bits could use more specularity. They're a bit dull. (insert gripe over pbr shader support) Keep it up!
  13. curtquarquesso
    Heyo. Thanks to @NathanKell, there are now parameters you can define in the part configs for docking ports that define gender, acquire torque and roll, as well as rotational snaps that make sure docking ports align when docked. Collision-based alignment fins allows for really fun and immersive gameplay, but you have to weigh it against the performance cost, and any risk of accidental kraken-ing and general collision weirdness. I think a bumper and rotational snaps defined in the config are the best and safest way to go. Ven's Stock Revamp, CxAerospace, Tantares, and BDB all currently feature soft-docking and bumpers, so you can look to any one of those mods for cfg info to draw from. The real tricky part is dealing with the nodes in the VAB. You have to make some decisions regarding whether your nodes will activate or deactivate depending on animation state, and whether you'll use the attachment node as your docking node reference, or whether you'll have a deployable docking node similar to the nodes on any of the stock shielded Clamp-O-Trons. Keep me apprised.
  14. curtquarquesso
    This tends to get asked a lot. Any way that info could go in the OP?
  15. curtquarquesso
    I keep forgetting to mention this. It's a combination of the larger parts, as well as some smaller surface attach parts. Gemini and Vostok RCS parts have always clipped too deep into stuff.
  16. curtquarquesso
    YES. I can confirm this. I've been looking through the logs for the issue. It happens 100% when attaching parts in the VAB. Not during scene changes or flight. I can replicate and provide logs. Happens like clockwork every 10 minutes or so. Here's the end of the log right before crash: Updating Skookum (Filename: /Users/builduser/buildslave/unity/build/artifacts/generated/common/runtime/UnityEngineDebugBindings.gen.cpp Line: 64) Voxelization Time (ms): 215 (Filename: /Users/builduser/buildslave/unity/build/artifacts/generated/common/runtime/UnityEngineDebugBindings.gen.cpp Line: 64) Std dev for smoothing: 3 voxel total vol: 27.3548548566617 filled vol: 13.0098882233547 (Filename: /Users/builduser/buildslave/unity/build/artifacts/generated/common/runtime/UnityEngineDebugBindings.gen.cpp Line: 64) Receiving unhandled NULL exception Obtained 10 stack frames. "Updating Skookum" is the point at which I'm attaching to SRBs to a rocket, then it hangs indefinitely at "Obtained 10 stack frames." At that point, waiting won't make it crash or come back, I have to force quit in OS X.
  17. curtquarquesso
    Try it and find out. It's a parts mod, so yes. Probably.
  18. curtquarquesso
    One pro to using a fixed sidewall thickness is that you don't have to re-texture the bolt pattern with every size. As long as all tanks have the same thickness, and same number of sides, the only thing you have to change is the length of each UV'd segment. It would make part creation way easier. I like dealing with specific, non-repeating, rational numbers in Wings. Using percentages is a real pain in the ass because you've got to remember which percentages you used, and in the modeling process, if you want to verify all your diameters while you're working, you have to remember that a 10% size reduction of 0.9375m is 0.84375m, and then if you recess that by 5% for the bulkhead, then the diameter will be 0.8015625m, and it just gets crazier from there. Messy messy business when actually modeling this stuff. Well, if you want to have your cake and eat it too, go with the recessed option for tanks. That way the thickness looks reasonable, but there's a nice interface to connect the tanks together with of a consistent width. (The recessed option used on hooj's tank.)
  19. curtquarquesso
    I think for better input, you need to determine what looks best for fuel tanks, and what looks best for habitable/structural/utility parts. The former needs thinner sidewalls for more realistic fuel/mass ratios, and the latter can justify thicker sidewalls because of MMOD protection, insulation, wiring, etc. In practice, this is what a fuel tank looks like when the sidewall thickness is kept relatively the same regardless of the part diameter. It's great, and looks very feasible. Your cutaway explains it well, but recall that you're the only who makes that assumption, and has an idea of what the inside of the tank looks like. The current modeling just isn't clear enough to communicate that level of detail to the player. The modeled and AO'd recess on hooj's little 0.625m tank communicates that idea much, much better.
  20. curtquarquesso
    Congrats on an update and release! Best Shuttle parts around.
  21. curtquarquesso
    Fuji Docking Port: Needs some detail. The parachute port needs something to mark it as a parachute. Stock convention is blue or orange stripes. It would make more sense to make the cover that jettisons be the entire inside area of the docking port within the collar, instead of just the tiny little circle in the center. Seems unlikely you could stuff and deploy an entire parachute through a hole that small. The standard docking port needs a hatch or detail in the center. It doesn't look like a traversable port. Why not try the texture from the fuel tanks there, and make a small window in the center? You could make the window a weak light probe to assist in docking. IVAs: Make a list of all the IVAs you need to create, and prioritize their creation based on how many parts can share the same IVA models, layouts, and textures. Soyuz and Progress descent/control blocks can all share the same assets and layout, just sans chairs and some props for Progress. You may not even really need to worry about the neck size. Soyuz and Progress orbital blocks can share the same assets. Less sure if neck-size will be a factor. At most, you'll only need to actual models. Window, chair, and props won't be effected by neck size. TKS and MAPC capsules can share an IVA I think, but I know MAPC is an unfinished WIP. Cygnus and ATV can share most assets and prop placements. I would make them share textures. Both pressure vessels are manufactured by Thales and look pretty similar except for interior volume. DOS/FGB station parts can share a lot of textures amongst itself, but because it's such an important set of parts, those IVAs should be really robust and well developed. Fuji OM/s can all share assets and textures depending on if you make the cupola OM, or the 1.875m parts.
  22. curtquarquesso
    None of the parts listed are from Tantares.
  23. curtquarquesso
    On TweakScale, I'll get to it ASAP. There are some changes I've made. Tomorrow I'll upload a fresh batch of configs. Thanks for being patient. I'm going to ask @pellinor to remove the current patch for Tantares as to not confuse people, but I think either @pellinor should distribute the patch with TweakScale, or @Beale should distribute it with Tantares. It's Beale's call though. I'm still available to maintain, but I imagine it's inconvenient for people to keep having to re-download the patch every time Tantares gets update, which compared to most mods, is pretty frequently.
  24. curtquarquesso
    Congrats on another release! Testing now. Could someone confirm a bug with ATV's Monopropellant engine? For some reason, I can only attach parts to either the top node, or the bottom node, but not parts to both nodes at once. Very strange. There's also some weirdest with the docking port being semi-transparent when looking at it at just the right angle, and the shroud as well. I know there are some weird transparency problems in 1.1 in general. Also, the new Knight reaction wheel is in the wrong category.
  25. curtquarquesso
    Right. It's feasible that it had enough fuel for totally powered EDL. After all, it can land basically empty, and that's ok. Because there's no KSP analogue to using atmosphere for fuel (other than air-breathing engines) an ISRU drill may be easier for players to understand, as you can actually see a drill pulling your ore/fuel from the ground. If you're seemingly magically producing fuel out of nothing, players may get confused. Plus, you'd have to create all new resource and conversion modules. Not impossible, but a bit of a hassle. I'm fine with either really.
×
×
  • Create New...