xx_mortekai_xx

Before i start, i want to make clear that this post is strictly to gauge interest and connect to interested players. All interested parties should PM me directly in response. No discussion at all will occur on this forum past my trying to get in contact with other interested players. so mods, pretty please give me a tiny shred of leeway. I give my word that I will stick to the above, and will exclude anyone who cannot heed the above. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have been watching a KSP series on youtube called "KSP Kollaborative Warfare". It is a series of collaborative play where multiple people try to take and keep various bases around Kerbin (all provided by KerbinSide). It uses various mods, and the people trade save files in order to collaborate (although alternate methods can be used). The entire video series can be found here:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUw8-teujnI&list=PL7TVzn8CoIqkRv5irA37ONb2i_lnAqpX1I would like to do something like this, and I am looking for a few people to participate (ideally, we would have at least 4 people, but more can be included if more express interest). We would have to discuss the rules that we would adhere to, and what all mods, aside from the necessary ones, that should be used.It is, in essence, a turn-based strategy game using KSP as its framework.If you are interested, reply and let me know. We start hammering out details, rules, and the like. As stated in the very beginning, there will be no discussion of details or anything else past interest for this.

Does anyone have a link to the patch for the nukes? I try the one in the thread itself a few pages back, and I get a 404. Also, does anyone else have this issue with the AGM158 after being launched where it throws multiple errors about there being more than 255 polygons?

So, i have been watching this Youtube series called "KSP Kollaborative Warfare" (found here). It is a series of collaborative play where multiple people try to take and keep various bases around Kerbin (all provided by KerbinSide). It uses various mods, and the people trade save files in order to collaborate (although alternate methods can be used). I would like to do something like this, and I am looking for a few people to participate (ideally, we would have at least 4 people, but more can be included if more express interest). We would have to discuss the rules that we would adhere to, and what all mods, aside from the necessary ones, that should be used. It is, in essence, an RTS style game hosted within KSP. If you are interested, reply and let me know. We start hammering out details, rules, and the like. Some rules I would propose: You must own a base with a tracking station in order to launch or control spacecraft. The KSC would be permanent neutral ground, used for official business (such as signing peace treaties or negotiating ceasefires or surrenders). Each "turn" will consist of 10 "points", which can be split between any of the following actions (this list should be amended later): aircraft run - 3 points watercraft run - 4 points Land craft run - 4 points Deployment of base defenses - 1 point launching spy satellite - 2 points launching communications satellite - 2 points launching an offensive sattelite (a spacecraft capable of striking the planet from orbit with a weapon directly) - 5 points

Let me first start by saying thank you for bringing this wonderful mod to KSP. The addition of proper gravity is something that has been sorely lacking in KSP. The one and only thing keeping me from jumping into this mod in my main game is the lack of stationkeeping, as I like RemoteTech too much to give it up. Also, with the next release of the game, a function very much like RemoteTech will be included with the stock game (im not sure if it can be disabled or not, just that it is in 1.2), which I would imagine would serve to complicate things for this mod. That said, I was curious as to the timetable on the addition of stationkeeping to this mod (i have seen several references to its planned inclusion in this thread). Barring that, does anyone know of a mod that would work with this to include functional stationkeeping?

Try this: @Part[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]]:NEEDS[X]:AFTER[Y] { @MODULE[ModuleEngines*] { @PROPELLANT[*],0 { @ratio /= 2 } @PROPELLANT[*],1 { @ratio /= 2 } } }

Would the following be read as I expect? ratio = #$/MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX],0/PROPELLANT[IntakeAir]/ratio$ im trying to get the ratio value of the PROPELLANT node named IntakeAir from the first instance of ModuleEnginesFX. If this is not correct, how would I do the above? EDIT - NM, it works fine. i misplaced punctuation elsewhere.

Thank you much. Thats exactly what I was looking for.

@Bezzier Im not sure how it would function, but I do think something like this would be possible. I say this purely based on the fact that my ProceduralParts RealFuels tank has a Utilization slider that can raise or lower the amount of usable space within a tank. I often up the space for balloon tanks and lower it for thicker tanks. And now having looked at the config for this part, there is an entry under the ModuleFuelTanks node called utilizationTweakable which is set to true. At the very least, you can include this parameter and adjust the tanks manually ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- On another subject, I have a question that I can perhaps get answered here. I am trying to write a somewhat general catch-all patch for my engines, allowing them to use different fuel configurations. However, I have noticed that all of the configurations have the same plume. Is there a way to configure what plume will be used with the different fuel configurations?

Seriously? Does no one read the rules?

Cool, thanks for the info! Im trying to set up a commsat network, and would rather not deal with my nodes dropping unexpectedly.

is there a way to limit the takeoff mass allowed at an added launchpad? the rigpad is going to be large, but it would be nice to be able to not allow Saturn V class craft to launch from it. (I currently have the rocket transport structure at 150 meters, which should house all but the largest of rockets.) But the bigger reason I ask is that I started on a different design, and this one would be suitable only for small rockets.

@AlphaAsh Cool. But im making the rig launch platform because I want to.

I have a very quick and very simple question for which I simply need confirmation, as I am almost sure of the answer already: When the decay rate for a vessel says that it is in a stable orbit, it is no longer decaying at all, correct? I am assuming that I will not need stationkeeping resources for these vessels. Is this correct? The only reason I ask is because there is still a time to reentry, even if it is >1000 years, and I wanted to be sure.

Yeah, that would be better. Thatll be next, though, as I was doing my research on the floating derrick idea.

You make a very good point. I should dust off my modeling skills again and see what I can cook up. I was always pretty excrements with creating textures, but I could kill it with the meshes. Would there be any way of making an underground silo? I dont forsee any method for making holes in the landscape, but it would be better to know than to speculate. If not, ill probably start with an ocean platform launch site. Ive always liked the idea of converting an oil derrick into a launchpad.

I have no words to express my gratitude for the work you all are putting into this @Sigma88, Even with the issues you are talking about, that is FAR more manageable. As I said before, the math to convert the points was the immensely hard part, at least for me. @AlphaAsh, Thank you so much for looking into this as well. I cant thank you enough for the mod to begin with, and for humoring some random on the internet.

Not celebrating a completion, just amazed at the speed by which the problem has been tackled and a possible solution produced. Regardless, I still appreciate it immensely. I have gone back and forth between configurations (swapping 64K for Kerbin Side and vice versa) probably 15 different times in the last week, simply because I cannot choose between the two.

Holy excrements! I came hoping to get some help with the math, and I check back to find that the entire issue has almost been sorted. The only word I can use to describe this is "amazing". Hopefully, you all hear this too often (i suspect not), but I appreciate what you all do, and that you spend your own time helping make the experience of others more enjoyable.

I have seen that it my interest has been brought up here once before that I can see. I love this mod. I also love the rescaled systems, namely 64k. When I load up with both, the objects are not in the right place, due to the sphere being 6.4x larger. I get that the positions are off in multiple ways, but my biggest problem is getting the various objects back to the correct spacing relative to each other. Once I get that, I can add or subtract from all of the coordinates and keep the same spacing (at least from what I understand). But my bigger problem is converting the coordinates to get the correct relative spacing to begin with. I have no idea how to even begin to convert the coordinates. Does anyone know the math for converting the coordinates from the stock size coordinate sphere to one that is 6.4x larger? Again, I fully understand that the group positions will probably be off, but that is the smaller issue to me, and I am fully willing to do all the adjustment and all. I just need some help with the math.

Not really sure where to ask this, so i will try here, too: I am wanting to try and convert Kerbin Side to work with 64k. The biggest issue that I am having is that all the objects are obviously spread out due to the sphere being larger by 6.4x. However, I have no real clue where to start with the math. I get that I will have to fine tune locations for the groups as a whole, but the spread is the bigger issue for me. My question is this: Does anyone know the math for converting the coordinates from this mod from a sphere with one radius to a larger sphere?

Not really sure where to ask this, so I will start here: Anyone know of any configs that converts Kerbin Side to work with this? I have been looking and looking, and have found nothing. I wouldnt mind doing it myself if it doesnt exist, but I dont even know where to start with the math for converting the coordinates for a sphere 6.4x as big. If what I am looking for doesnt actually exist, but someone does have a better handle on the math and would like to give me a hand with it, I would be more than happy to do the grunt work to get it working. (Itll probably take a while, but it will be SO worth it.

If you are only looking to apply it to a certain author's mods, maybe try filtering via the author's name. @PART[*]:HAS[#author[NAME], @MODULE[TargetModule]] I might be wrong here, but Im pretty sure this works.

Dammit. Thanks.

I have a question about the way that module manager works: I am pretty obsessive about cleaning out my extraneous parts, but I am more and more frequently coming across parts with texture dependencies or some other unforseen dependence that screws with some other aspect of my game. I am well aware that removing the entry with module manager will remove the part from the list. However, it also seems that, given all the passes that the manager makes, and how the log output looks, it would also appear that, if something is removed with module manager, it is essentially as if it does not exist in the folder or in the part.cfg. Does this also prevent the textures from loading? Im aware that the texture files will still be there, but for textures that are only referenced by the cfg in the folder, will the texture still consume RAM, or would I be better off simply deleting the folder as I have been doing?

@BahamutoD I simply want to say thank you for your work.