Jump to content

Tex_NL

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    4,124

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Tex_NL

  1. Tex_NL
    No offence, but if you look closer to the part I quoted you'll see my statement is 100% correct. You of all people should know.
  2. Tex_NL
    With a perfectly identical copy there is no difference. The one asking the question is at that very moment the original. It's all relative.
  3. Tex_NL
    A very old request indeed. Don't expect Squad to add this any time soon. We've been asking for this for years. In the mean time you could use Action Group Manager. It will do pretty much exactly what you're looking for.
  4. Tex_NL
    As far as I know the re-entry interference is not modelled in detail in KSP. It's either on or off. Moving your antenna to a different section of your craft will not make a difference.
  5. Tex_NL
    Yep. That's indeed the same sun-jerking I've been seeing since the release of 1.3.
  6. Tex_NL
    Both your video's are set to private, can't view them. But I know what you're talking about. During time warp the sun does not move smoothly but jumps in small increments. All hail the glory of Squad QA.
  7. Tex_NL
    If you do enter Mun's SOI at an inclination make your corrections ASAP. At the SOI's edge inclination changes are extremely cheap. Only a few m/s can completely flip your orbit 180 degrees. If you try to rendezvous with an object already in Mun orbit try to align your Pe with the AN/DN. Then combine your circularisation burn and plane correction into one. Combining them into one is cheaper than doing them separately.
  8. Tex_NL
    And for a lot of people/designs it does not freaking matter. And that's exactly my point: There is no ONE solution! Throwing more struts at a problem might help in some situations but may make others worse. Changing which reaction wheels to use (or not to use) could help but it might also do nothing or worse. The required solution is as unique as the individual problem . People should REALLY need to stop regurgitating the same old BS every time as if it is the hole grail. There's nothing wrong with suggesting to add more struts or switching reaction wheels. But do NOT claim it to be THE solution. Because it isn't!
  9. Tex_NL
    Be glad it has been removed. Despite EVERYBODY involved knowing it to be a defunct and corrupted piece of faecal matter it remained on sale. It should have been removed almost a year ago. In fact, it should never have been up there. The entire console port has been a disaster from the very first day.
  10. Tex_NL
    HOW they cause it I don't know. But I do know they CAN. I've had it happen to my own game and about half a year ago it was mentioned and discussed several times on the forum. In order to shore up a rather flexible station I applied a generous amount of autostruts. At first everything was solid as a rock but over time it started vibrating WITHOUT any SAS or control input. Slowly but surely the oscillations build up to a level where the station shook itself apart. Only by removing all autostruts I was able to prevent it from happening again. I've seen very similar stories by others. A station, nice and steady. Never had a problem with it. Now the player docks a lander to it and suddenly it starts shaking itself apart. Turned out the autostruts from the lander legs auto connected to the heaviest part all the way on the other side of the station causing some kind of tension. "Autostruts are evil! They are the spawn of the devil and should only be applied with extreme caution!" The thought behind autostruts is just. But the need for them should be eliminated/fixed ASAP!
  11. Tex_NL
    It's probably ALL of them. How much RAM do you have? At least 99 out of 100 'failure to load' crashes are related to either incompatible/incorrectly installed mods or simply running out or RAM.
  12. Tex_NL
    Yes, and no! Struts in the right places can cure almost any oscillations. Over-strutting, and especially with autostruts, can actually CAUSE oscillations.
  13. Tex_NL
    That's probably what's causing all the trouble in the first place!
  14. Tex_NL
    He's just trying to get home again.
  15. Tex_NL
    No it isn't. And yes it is. (No on the ground effect and yes on the wishful thinking)
  16. Tex_NL
    I know you're still pretty new to the forum. And I understand you're still full or wonder and overflowing with, in your mind, new and unique ideas. Trust me, this idea is neither new nor unique. It's been done countless times. And there are probably a few of those replica threads still active. I'd suggest you search for those.
  17. Tex_NL
    It's not people that resist MP. It's the nature of the game. As @qzgy said: "Rovers can flip in real life." In KSP rovers do not flip because of flawed physics but rather because they are bleeping fast compared to real life. The real life Curiosity Mars rover has a top speed of about 30 metres (98 ft) per hour. In KSP you can reach 30 metres per second without too much difficulty. That's 3600 times faster. At real life speeds you'll notice KSP rovers are remarkably solid. And if Curiosity would move at KSP speeds it would bounce around like a rag doll too
  18. Tex_NL
    Pop! There goes another bubble:
  19. Tex_NL
    After you recover the craft what does the mission summary say? (Some screenshots would be helpful.) And do you have any strategies in place from the administration building. It's possible the reward IS given but immediately converted into or .
  20. Tex_NL
    We all know chances of accidental debris collisions are so infinitesimally small they can just be ignored. But today I got one that made my sphincter move like a rabbits nose for a second. I noticed an object whizzing by my newly constructed station. Checking the map I found an counter orbiting shipwreck was to come even closer at the next encounter, just 0.5km. And for a THIRD time half an orbit later. To be safe once and for all I moved my station to a slightly lower orbit. What makes those three close encounters particularly rare is the inclination difference. If one parameter would have been ever so slightly different they would never have come that close.
  21. Tex_NL
    You do not need to complete it in one attempt. You can try as many times as you like. But the reward is ONLY given on contract completion. When you 'revert flight' you're returned to a previous point in time. At that point your contract has not yet been completed and the rewards are not given. If for example you need to return something to Kerbin you will need to land and then recover the vessel. (The green bar in the pull down menu above the altimeter.) Only then will the contract be completed and you'll receive your reward.
  22. Tex_NL
    I wouldn't go that far. The mess was mainly caused by horribly inadequate coding and even worse QA.
  23. Tex_NL
    For docking hints and tips you might want to start here. P.S. That link points EXACTLY where I want it to link.
  24. Tex_NL
    Holy crap on a cracker. That's the SECOND time this same issue comes up within a week.
  25. Tex_NL
    I have to agree with @TheEpicSquared. But most likely you have either installed an incompatible/outdated version or you have installed it incorrectly.
×
×
  • Create New...