TheShadow1138
-
Posts
653 -
Joined
-
Last visited
10 Followers
.thumb.jpg.54afe08a047fa143b807cb579dec2c7f.jpg)
-
If the worst happens I will provide updates on the KSP Reddit for certain. Not sure what other avenues there would be, but I'd provide updates wherever the community would go most likely. -
I'm very glad you're enjoying it. I quickly loaded up KSP to double check and I did get sound on the OMS. the OMS uses what I assume is a very old way to define the sounds, and I'm admittedly not using v1.12.5 of KSP. Do you have any mods installed that alter sounds in any way? They should be using the "sound_rocket_hard" sound that the SSMEs use as well, so if those have sound for you, then at least that sound still exists somewhere in your install. I haven't been able to find the sound in the GameData folder, but it is one of the built-in sounds for KSP. I'm not sure why you wouldn't be getting sound on the OMS engines.
-
Got a couple more things in testing right now that would be the last thing before release of the Refit. Thank you so much for the compliment, it has turned out far better than I ever anticipated. Right now the only definite plan is the Miranda-class, mostly because it requires the least amount of new modeling. I've given some thought to moving forward in the timeline, and if I did the Excelsior-class would be the better bet. I've never thought about the Oberth-class at all really. I have thought about the Sovereign-class, and the Odyssey-class as well. Part of the "problem" though in moving forward in the timeline is that the ships tend to become larger and larger, and the Constitution-class is already kinda pushing the limits for even the HangarExtender mod. Of course, that assumes I maintain the scale, which I would like to do, if I continue making canon ships. I've thought about some original design parts that would allow for new classes to be built by the end user by selecting different saucers, engineering sections, nacelles, pylons, etc. But, right now, no specific plans beyond the Miranda-class, but the possibilities are practically endless.
-
I went with Memory Alpha for most/all of the canonical names and registries, and while I did find the USS Constitution listed as NCC/NX-1700 as you said. In fact, the image I used to build the model is of the Constitution NX-1700. There are no canonical sources for the NCC-1700 being the registry for USS Constitution. My reasoning for using NCC-1021 was that USS Constitution, being the lead ship of the class, should have one of the lowest registries of the class. The lowest canonical registry for the Constitution-class is USS Eagle NCC-956, and even USS Constellation is NCC-1017. So, I figured USS Constitution should at least have a registry around USS Constellation. My logic is then, that USS Eagle, USS Constitution, and USS Constellation were under construction at the same time and that Eagle was completed first and got the NCC-956 registry and that Constellation was finished next and got the NCC-1017 registry and then Constitution, the first ordered, and still class namesake, was finished after that and got the NCC-1021 registry. I chose 1021 to reference the real-life USS Constitution, which was originally launched on October 21, 1797, or 10-21-1797. I realize, however, that this reference really only works using the typical U.S. date formatting. I thought that would be a bit much for KSP. I mean to crew two of these you'd need 860 Kerbals, and I don't know if anyone has that many Kerbals in one save.
-
Yes that would, in theory at least, mean that the takeoff and landing thrust would be simply equal to g. If it will behave exactly that way, I'm not sure.
-
Thanks for catching this. I've fixed it and it will be in the next update. As for the impulse engines, there's not a way for you to do that so that you get the behavior you want. You could try setting the "maxVerticalAccel" in the config file for the impulse engines to a value lower than 1, maybe 0.1 to see if that helps get you what you want for now.
-
I never really considered the ability to turn off the hover mode since it could be detrimental to the survival of the craft and its occupants. I suppose I could add a slider to modify the vertical acceleration between 0 and maxVerticalAccel, which would effectively turn off the hover mode if it were set to 0. This might also lead to the PAW becoming a bit more cluttered though. No promises, but I'll at least consider adding this. I am aware of the current lack of an IVA for the Constitution-class, as well as the Type F Shuttle. I do plan on making my own IVAs for these, as well as the forthcoming Constitution-Refit, I just haven't gotten around to it yet. I do plan on making them so that they go with my ships instead of reusing models made by others.
-
This is great! I can include this in the next update for those who want to use it, and credit your work on the patch.
-
That's understandable. I did notice that the person you quoted said that also, and they may have reached the same conclusion for the same reasons. I'm glad you were able to find what you needed to get it working again. You didn't come off as rude, just as I hope I didn't come off as rude either.
- 1,702 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- planet
- kopernicus
- (and 3 more)
-
I agree, it doesn't mean you need to shut it down, but shutting it down is an option nonetheless. Again, I don't know if this possible reason is even part of why the author chose to take down the mod. I will also say that repeated support requests that are due to an end user's refusal to read directions can become very, very annoying very quick, and really affect your motivation to continue working on the thing. I'm not sure why some are saying it's been down "for years". From what I can tell, the author announced he took down the repository in January of this year. I do know that they took it down a year to two ago after a spate of antagonism, or ingratitude from end users that really sapped their desire to keep working on this mod. The mod, however, was reopened not too long afterwards as that was when I downloaded it myself to test one of my own mods. It is a drastic solution, but it is still a solution, and the one the author chose for their own reasons. Again, a blanket statement that it's not being supported won't stop support requests. You are correct that it hasn't stopped people from pointing out that the link doesn't work, because people have not read that it has been intentionally closed. I understand the issue trying to restore the mod, I think someone posted that they were able to find the guide using the internet archive, but I'm not 100% sure of that.
- 1,702 replies
-
- 2
-
-
- planet
- kopernicus
- (and 3 more)
-
I'm not the mod author, but have made a couple of mods myself, and I might be able to add some perspective. Again, I'm not the author and do no claim to know their reasoning. What I say here is my interpretation of possible reasons. The author is aware of possible conflicts between the two mods that would cause headaches for end users if combined at initial release. Such headaches would lead to requests for support/help from the users that combine the mods. We all know that no matter how much a developer, or really anyone, may warn others not to do a thing because the consequences could be anything from game crashes to damaged saves, that people will choose not to follow that direction/advice. Others will simply not read the instructions complete and miss warnings and just download the mod(s) because "they know how mods work". Once the KSS2 mod is initially released and tested for stability then this mod will be released again. It is possible that by taking down this mod now that keeps the install-base of this mod at mostly its current size, meaning that there will be fewer opportunities for conflicts on the initial release of KSS2. Also, in closing down this mod now means the author can focus on KSS2's development while not having to update this mod, or deal with an influx of new GU users' support requests. I consider these to be plausible, and reasonable explanations for why the repository was closed. In the end, the authors reasons/motivations are irrelevant as the availability and even existence of the mod is entirely up to the author. That the mod exists at all is because someone wanted to make something and share it with others. We, as users, benefit from this generosity, and are not owed anything. Patience and understanding are important.
-
No problem at all. The base colors are: Bronze-Gray Base Color: <193, 187, 175> Blue-Gray Base Color: <197, 201, 204> I will say that these are the base colors and the textures have darker and lighter areas for the panels, but these are the colors that underly all of the layers. Once on the model combined with the specular (the texture that determines how shiny the surface is), the normal map (the texture that gives height/bump information), and the in-game lighting the colors may seem darker, or deeper than the base colors appear in a graphics program. I just wanted to point this out in the event that they don't seem to be quite right at first sight.
-
Hi @Tecorian. I'm so glad you enjoy the mod, and are having fun with it. I can see how using my impulse engines to build other craft would create odd/strange/ugly looking craft. I hadn't considered making parts to go with stock parts, as I had been focused on the Star Trek-specific ships/craft. Once the Constitution-Refit class ship gets released I'm going to be making a shuttlecraft to go with that ship, and an engineering section for the Miranda-class. I could make a fairly simple impulse engine part that can be used with the Mk2 spaceplane parts. I can't give any timelines on that, but I will try to keep it in mind.
-
The developer, @StarCrusher96 has temporarily taken down the download in preparation for the release of his KSS2 mod. He's given the reason in the post just above yours. He's going to make it available again, so don't worry.
