Jump to content

little square dot

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by little square dot

  1. That's what I used to texture all of my welds...it doesn't work when using the new textures. I mean, it works insofar as it assigns a texture, but said texture is z-fighting with some unknown texture for whatever reason. *edit: I think it has something to do with the new shaders...I wonder if there's a way to assign different textures to individual models within a part using GAMEOBJECTS in ModulePartVariants.
  2. I do my welding manually using EditPad and a calculator, so this isn't exactly a mod-related question, but I figured this would be the best place to inquire about welding issues in general. Does anyone know of a workaround, or whether a workaround is even possible, for the new ModulePartVariants-related texturing issues? All of my painstakingly created welds using the new-ish Rockomax fuel tank textures are flashing like crazy unless I use ModulePartVariants to restrict myself to one texture per variant, whereas I used to be able to assign the textures to individual models without issue. This is quite aggravating, as I've spent countless hours manually welding detailed, approximately to-scale versions of all the major launch systems, comprised of hundreds of highly-manipulated stock models and textured through an exhaustive degree of trial and error, but now I seem to be left with the choice of having either monochromatic or perpetually z-fighting launch vehicles, as there aren't any viable alternatives to the Rockomax tank textures. Cheers.
  3. I don't think you fully understood what Jammer-TD was saying...there is no "fix". Whatever performance gains you enjoy by welding those parts together are exclusively (or at least primarily) physics-related, and pale in comparison to the performance hit you'll suffer by loading a part comprised of 100+ meshes and textures. You're not creating new models/textures by welding parts together.
  4. I just stumbled across this discussion courtesy of an unhelpful search result, and I apologize for reviving a dead thread, but I have to give credit where credit's due... this is hands-down the dorkiest reference I've ever encountered in my thirty years of existence. I mean, the KSP forums are chock-full of dorky references, but this one's something special. It's so extreme that I find myself both irritated and impressed by it, haha... Well-played, aptly-named Archgeek. Truly next-level.
  5. I'm in the same boat. Constant CTD, no errors in log.
  6. Moi aussi. I joined somewhere in the middle of 2012, cut my teeth on 0.16/7. Erkle's Warp Clamps were all the rage back then.
  7. [quote name='bonyetty']It would have to be a highly engineered real life air craft to land on water at over 150kmph and not quickly decelerate in real life. I believe SQUAD wishes to have the game as close to real life while still being fun. A lower expectation of travel/landing speeds on and in KSP's water would be my recommendation. [/QUOTE] Thanks for the suggestion. Unfortunately I started out fairly slow by KSP standards, ie. always <50m/s, typically around 40 m/s, but my floats were catching the water pretty badly at lower speeds. I was advised to come in faster, but quite honestly it doesn't seem to make a difference. I've tried all manner of approach speeds, from ludicrous to stalling as I contact the water, and it's always the same result. SPLAT! "We're somehow OK!" The plane lands intact, although I'm not quite sure how it remains in one piece considering that the entire landing covers about 10-20m of water, if that. Sadly it's about the furthest thing from realistic landing physics, and while the old buoyancy model was just plain weird and took forever to figure out, the landing physics were a million times better, so long as your aircraft was equipped to land on the water. The old water seemed to have plenty of surface tension, perhaps too much actually, but I was able ride out the first half of my landings on the backs of my pontoons, gliding across the surface and gradually settling down in a reasonably realistic manner that was quite satisfying. The new water seems to lack surface tension, making it incredibly awkward to land on in any sort of a half-way smooth manner, and on the flip-side it's far too forgiving with aircraft. I mean, I shouldn't be able to touch the water at or above 100m/s for starters, and if my aircraft decelerates from 70m/s to 0 over a distance of 10m, I should probably to be doing a front-flip...and if I do a front-flip, my aircraft should probably be damaged. [quote] Seaplanes touchdown at about half the speed of what you described. Also to move an object floating requires moving the mass of the object and the water it displaces, which would be about the mass of the object again each time it travels its own length.[/quote] Yes, but real seaplanes land on water that behaves more or less like water. Landing on water in real life involves coming in slow, cutting your throttle about 20 feet above the water, pulling your nose up, landing as close as you safely can to stall speed. The aft end of the pontoons make contact first, and the surface tension allows you to skim along with your nose slightly raised until you've bled off the lion's share of your speed. The plane doesn't come to rest on the entire pontoon until you're taxiing, essentially. In KSP on the other hand, your pontoons immediately catch once you touch the water, and it's simply not possible to ride out any portion of the landing on the backs of your floats. Well, it hasn't been for me anyway, and I've seen quite a few videos of people having similarly sloppy landings. Also, seaplanes can't reasonably be considered a floating object until they cease generating lift and settle onto the water...which doesn't really happen until the landing is all-but complete. It's all about that surface tension my good man. Have you ever been water-skiing? [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] [quote name='benjee10']Yeah, I thin the problem is that you're coming in too fast. Landings are silky smooth at 50m/s or below for me.[/QUOTE] How much distance do you cover when touching down at 50m/s? I can land reasonably smoothly if a come in REALLY slowly, but I'm still decelerating very quickly... there's just less of it to do. Also, as mentioned earlier, I've managed extremely smooth high-speed landings with my landing gear down, which is just bizarre to me. My pontoons catch, yet somehow massive tires just glide straight across, haha.. [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] [quote name='Dawnstar']My MK1 pods always keep falling when they touchdown in water. The pod, the instruments, and the parachute(s) just keep on going until they hit the bottom of the sea. A read of the forums indicates that a few other people have the same issue and that most people appear not to. What I haven't yet read is what might be causing this bug and how to fix it. Any thoughts?[/QUOTE] Mods? Is the debug menu acting up? Does your mk1Pod.cfg have CenterOfBuoyancy, CenterOfDisplacement, buoyancy, and buoyancyUseSine values? I think the underwater parachute thing is normal when they're attached to non-buoyant parts, because parachutes don't auto-cut until their parent stops moving I actually had the sinking command pod problem several KSP versions ago, but in my case it was something I did poking around in part.cfgs... improper module indexing or something I think. Reinstalling tends to clear that sort of stuff up.
  8. Good gravy... I just discovered how to make perfect water landings, and it makes no sense whatsoever. Lower your landing gear. haha... what!? That's not quite right.
  9. [quote name='Valerian'] PlanetShine enhances the sunlight by adding some kind of extreme "planetshine" based effect when you fly close to the sun, in order to make a kind of dramatic effect like in the movie "Sunshine". [/QUOTE] Which I absolutely love...I can practically feel my face searing off when making a low pass. It's an incredible atmospheric touch that truly makes the environment around the sun feel like the absurdly hostile place it's supposed to be. Trouble is, that awesome effect that makes my face feel all melty also causes me to desperately seek shade for my intrepid little green explorers. Unfortunately I've never been particularly adroit at finding shade in the absence of shadows. Regardless, after uninstalling PlanetShine and reloading my near-Kerbol spacecraft, I discovered that although I had my shadows back, I no longer felt that I needed them. Passing close to Kerbol suddenly felt so disgustingly safe and inviting, so I immediately cut my losses and reinstalled PS, shadows be damned.
  10. [quote name='Chaos_Klaus'] For landing on the water: Make sure your angle is reeeeally shallow. If you drop below stall speed and lose altitude too fast, you will dip into the water too hard and decelerate quickly. But I managed a few landings that were very smooth indeed. Even at speeds above 50m/s. The first time, I actually was sure I would crash. ;)[/QUOTE] Thanks, but still no dice. I've tried every angle and speed on several different types of floats, but the water firmly grabbed all of them, albeit to slightly varying degrees. I came closest to a normal-ish water landing using wings as pontoons, oriented vertically, tips-down. The knife-edge approach worked ok, but I still came to a full stop within 30 metres or so of landing (at 75m/s). It also looked a bit ridiculous. Unfortunately it seems they forgot about surface tension when constructing the new model. The strange thing is that there are stock seaplanes now, but even they don't handle particularly well on the water. The "Gull" or Seagull or whatever can't seem to manage taking off again once landed, and the massive "Mallard" flying boat must be have some crazy magic skills or something, as it doesn't even rest in the water...it perches on top, suspiciously buoyant given the lack of displacement. Meh, like a lot of Squad's new bits and pieces on initial roll-out, the new buoyancy model feels awkward and untested in my opinion, more like a stop-gap than a completed feature. I'm confident it'll be fine-tuned eventually, but in the meantime I'm not really diggin' it. I had no problems ditching in the water with the old model, and far more success with floatplanes...not that I'm suggesting we should go back, but it just grinds my gear a little bit when I find myself having to work around new systems. Given that KSP is predominantly a game about flying things, one would think that a new buoyancy model would be a bit more geared toward aircraft that play on the water.
  11. [quote name='Choctofliatrio']I suppose you could just have a bunch of modules close together, but then transporting Kerbals between modules would be next to impossible.[/QUOTE] A slightly rescaled version of the newly hollowed-out Mk.1 structural fuselage could come in handy. [img]http://i.imgur.com/uZkSrtdl.png[/img] [code] PART { name = kerbalTransitTube module = Part author = little square dot rescaleFactor = 1 PhysicsSignificance = -1 node_stack_top = 0, 2.3438, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1 node_stack_bottom = 0, -2.3438, 0, 0, -1, 0, 1 buoyancy = 0.1 //<-IT SINKS TechRequired = generalConstruction entryCost = 2500 cost = 250 category = Structural subcategory = 0 title = Kerbal Transit Tube manufacturer = The Department of Placing Things on Other Things description = A hollow transit tube. attachRules = 1,0,1,1,0,0,0 mass = 0.25 dragModelType = default maximum_drag = 0.1 minimum_drag = 0.15 angularDrag = 1 crashTolerance = 15 breakingForce = 100 breakingTorque = 100 maxTemp = 2000 fuelCrossFeed = False bulkheadProfiles = size1 MODEL { model = Squad/Parts/Structural/mk1Parts/StructuralHollow scale = 1.25, 2.5, 1.25 } } [/code] **edit: I'm sure you could also make ballast tanks by adding an ore generator to a ore tank .cfg. I haven't actually tried though, so don't take my word for it.
  12. [quote name='Gaiiden']seems like a stock game bug. Craft definitely self-shadow so there should be a shadow behind that shield. Maybe when you get too close to the sun the luminosity grows too great. Or perhaps the shield isn't modeled properly to cast shadows if it's an add on part. Either way self-shadowing craft wouldn't be in scope for this mod (shadows cast by planets might tho)[/QUOTE] Odd...the craft (all-stock) cast shadows on itself when I removed PlanetShine. I made sure it was the culprit before posting. Upgrading to the latest iteration of PS now; hopefully everything will magically work itself out. =)
  13. [quote name='Pds314']It's definitely possible to land in the water with many planes. Most of my planes ditch fine and I've unwittingly created some "accidental seaplanes."[/QUOTE] Landing/ditching intact isn't the problem. Ridiculously splatty landings are the problem. The issue is that I've yet to perform a "landing" in 1.0.5 that hasn't resulted in violent deceleration from 50 m/s to 0 within a second of hitting the water. Under the old model I could make smooth, graceful landings and decelerate gradually, gliding across the surface for a couple hundred meters or so before coming to a stop Now I can't get pontoons to glide across the water at all while landing. My aircraft survive, however it's not a particularly gratifying experience. I wonder if it would help to assign itty bitty little drag cubes to the pontoons
  14. Is it just me or did the water become really sticky? I just made my first 1.0.5 water landing using welded pontoons that used to glide nicely across the surface , but no matter how shallow my approach angle or slow my airspeed, as soon as they make contact with the water my pontoons grab on for dear life, taking me from 45 m/s to 0 almost instantly, within about 10m of my touchdown point. My plane somehow survives these violent "landings", but it's not so much water landing as water-crashing. Is there something I can add to/change in the .cfgs to make my pontoons less grabby and more glidey? Call me old-fashioned, but I tend to prefer non-violent deceleration. :huh:
  15. Centre of pressure. I believe the parameter is used to offset the the application of drag from a part's CoM, but I could be wrong about that. If memory serves (which it usually doesn't) I think drag is applied to a part's CoM by default, which caused some difficulties with the orientation of command pods on re-entry, which the CoP offset rectified.
  16. Makes sense. Thanks. So I suppose the offset in the Mk1-2 command is just to ensure that the capsule remains upright? Why disable the sine curve? (sorry if I'm missing something obvious...it happens from time to time.)
  17. I'm wondering how the various buoyancy-related parameters found in the .cfg files effect a part's floatiness, as it's not readily apparent to me. For example, I would just assume the centre of displacement to be the same as the centre of buoyancy, which it clearly isn't...or maybe it is by default, but either way I'm curious as to how offsetting them will impact a part's behaviour on the water. Also, does a part's centre of mass have any bearing on it's buoyancy under the new model, and what the heck does [B]buoyancyUseSine[/B] do? Cheers. =)
  18. I love this mod. I'd even call it essential, if only I could hide from the sun. (In case it's unclear, the command pod should be well hidden from the sun, but nary a shadow to be seen.) =(
  19. yeesh... sounds as though the aero system is somewhat awkwardly cobbled together. thanks again for your help.
  20. Ah, thanks. That just saved me from a lot of fruitless trial and error. *edit: as an aside, how are overlapping drag cubes handled?
  21. What's up folks. In an effort to save my welded 3x fairing system from total obsolescence I turned on my brain for a moment and came up with a very basic idea that I honestly don't expect to work, but I figured it's worth a shot. As will no doubt be apparent in a second, I have no idea how part occlusion works vis-à-vis aerodynamics, but it occurred to me that it might be possible to occlude parts contained within the fairings by giving the fairing segments a "cylindrical" drag cube equal to the diameter of the stack and height of the fairing segment, and setting the CoM at the centre of the stack. To clarify, take the following image in which the fairing segment shown is the same height as a Jumbo-64 tank, and the stack is 2.5m in diameter. I would give each fairing segment the drag cube and CoM of a Jumbo-64, thereby (hopefully) occluding everything within the fairings, while the nose cone up top would (hopefully) occlude the 3x "Jumbo-64'" beneath. If someone could explain to me why this is destined to fail, I'd very much appreciate it.
  22. I'm so OCD with aesthetics that I spend maybe 1% of my time in game is actually flying something. Even if I start up KSP intending to fly a mission with a craft that I've already created, four hours later I'll be staring at a beautiful and yet oddly stationary vehicle, and then suddenly it'll dawn on me that I didn't quite manage to make it past the VAB....again. Maybe next time.
  23. There's a simple workaround for stable 64-bit KSP for Win7. DO IT!
  24. I'm wondering why the Turbojet and RAPIER (airbreathing) ISP were halved, while the basic jet engine looks like it was left alone. I don't often dabble in the aero side of things so I'm not very familiar with the engines, but on the surface that sure seems pretty drastic. Were they really that unbalanced before, or did recent tinkering with the aerodynamic model necessitate these changes?
  25. I welded a bunch of custom capsules sans buoyancy...totally by mistake, as I prefer capsules that float. I also inadvertently made parachutes that work underwater, haha..
  • Create New...