curiousepic
-
Posts
396 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Posts posted by curiousepic
-
-
FYI, in trying a reinstall to get me out of my messy state, the JNSQ installer doesn't seem to let me select an install location, it just starts installing to the location I selected when I installed the first time (I'm just going to do a manual instead for now).
-
1 minute ago, OncaLupe said:
Are you running KSP 1.7.0? If that's the case you do need to stick with Kop 1.7.0-x, as it's version locked to that specific KSP.
Yes, as it was my understanding that JNSQ is not yet compatible with it...?
-
9 minutes ago, 4x4cheesecake said:
I don't see any issue with JNSQ and the 1.7.1 version of kopernicus and I wouldn't expect any since the kopernicus upgrade 'just' breaks plugins (a .dll file) which depend on kopernicus but the config interface is supposed to be unaffected...and most planet packs use the config interface. One of the plugins which might be affected is "sigma dimensions" which is often used to rescale planets but JNSQ doesn't use it.
What happend to you when you tried JNSQ in 1.7.1 so you think it is broken?
I see. After updating to Kop 1.7.1, the incompatibility message appeared on the loading screen which spooked me out of loading my save, at which point I checked the Kop thread which seemed to indicate JNSQ might break, and I did as I mentioned.
I struck out my prior message to reduce confusion.
-
(Please correct me if any of this is wrong)
For anyone else using CKAN confused by Kopernicus now being incompatible: Kopernicus 1.7.1 breaks planet packs that haven't been updated as well, including JNSQ. You'll need to not update Kopernicus. In order to reduce the chance this is accidentally done, I uninstalled Kopernicus from CKAN and installed the 1.7.0-1 version manually. CKAN detects it (which lets you install Stock Visual Terrain) but effectively locks the version so it doesn't detect updates for it. -
༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ give girders plz ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ
Seriously I feel like the Modular Girder Segment, it's XL version and its adapter are in the most desperate need of a makeover and would be really impactful considering how often they're used. The smaller ones look amazing and I'd love to see similar work on these. Anyone know of other mods with decent remodels them in the meantime?
-
Been enjoying this as part of a 1.7 career campaign in JNSQ (my first after being away from the game for a few years). However, the Moons of Kerbin contracts are showing some odd behavior. After completing the Kerbin Orbit contract, it unlocked contracts for the Mun and Minmus, but they were the full "land and return" contracts rather than flybys. Any idea what might be happening here?
EDIT: What's happening here is that I need to read the fine print - there's only one contract for each body and each has sub-objectives of the flyby, land, and land and return! I assumed one contract needed to have a single vessel perform all sub-objectives but I guess not? I assume they are all packed into one contract for the challenge of completing each component within the expiration timeframe (Edit: Oh, there is no expiration. Well that would be kinda cool). That said, the blurb is a little misleading: "Reach Minmus, land on it, and return the Probe home safely."
-
I second questions about what exactly to do with the new mineable resources. Am I missing something, or do we need other mods to utilize them? I don't see anything in the compatible/recommended list that does (maybe Kerbalism?). And the stock ISRU doesn't seem to be able to convert anything into anything used by TACLS (the only thing I currently have that might).
-
I haven't played KSP for more than a year, and explicitly was avoiding playing with planet packs in the hopes that a mod would allow them (specifically their surface detail) to be hidden before discovery. Just found that this is now a feature; immense news! Thanks for the modding effort!
-
21 minutes ago, Wheffle said:
Most importantly, would anyone still be interested in something like this? My ideas are that the planets outside of the Kerbin system would be blurred until a spacecraft with either a Kerbal or active comms entered the system, at which point the planet and its moons would be revealed in more detail. As a bonus, I was thinking upgrading the tracking station could grant you slightly more detail for unvisited systems. I'm also thinking it best to break this off into a separate mod altogether. Thoughts?
Absolutely! Cool stuff. My real hope is still that a resource-overlay-like "veil" covers areas not scanned by a camera or visible from a vessel with a Kerbal. If that's possible, perhaps requirements for unveiling would be configurable.
As you describe would still be great, though!
-
Here's my piece on the graphics: http://childrenofadeadearth.boards.net/thread/131/love-graphics
-
Neither the game nor the video are mine, just posting them here. Check out the links in the OP if you want to talk to the creator; he's fairly active on his blog and steam.
-
-
12 minutes ago, KSK said:
I don't really have a feel for how realistic this game is as a spacecraft combat simulator, although I do lean towards tater's point of view. However, as a space warfare simulation it seems rather contrived in that it's predicated on your enemy meekly allowing you to get all this wonderful hardware into space in the first place. Which sounds optimistic to me, to put it mildly.
To quote a probably apocryphal phrase: amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics.
A large mothership with drones may be a wonderful fighting machine on orbit but if I can whack it with something fast, heavy or nuclear before it ever leaves the atmosphere, then I'm not going to care.
From the game's name, I'm presuming the justification/setup is simply that warfare only breaks out after there is a significant human presence and infrastructure in space, spurred by Earth being made unliveable in some way.
-
6 hours ago, blowfish said:
No, it doesn't touch save files. You don't want to rescale the solar system on an existing save.
Welp, I did so safely by hyperediting the orbits of craft in danger (that said, it was only one, in LKO).
-
I would think this would be a more common question but I can't seem to find an answer. Does rescaling the system rescale existing vessel orbits so you don't bury them inside a planet?
Specifically wondering about KScale2 and KScale64.
-
8 hours ago, taniwha said:
Second (and more seriously): RocketParts does not represent the parts with which you build your rocket in the editor, but rather the parts used to make those.
Right, so if the Inventory has a part that the vessel needs, the RocketParts that would have contributed to that part (just match the mass?) is deducted from the total, and the build time.
QuoteAnd third (the real problem as I see it): this would wind up counter productive: building KIS containers full of useful items is a perfectly valid way of getting such useful items where you need them. If EL pulled items from KIS containers to build things, attempting to build such convenience packages would result in a net loss: you lose the items from the other container, and you use resources to build what is effectively an empty container.
I wan't quite able to parse this (does "build" always = build with an EL?), but it may help to explain my use case. I don't intend to use EL to construct vessels that have containers with parts in their Inventory. Basically I'd like a way to restrict certain parts from being built from RocketParts, such as Probe cores, Engines, and other complicated things. Those parts would have to be shipped from home. Hence using KIS to bring them along and the potential for EL to pull straight from them.
I know it's a... niche request; I'm mostly just checking to see if it happened to be simple to implement. My alternative would be to only construct vessels without those parts, and manually attach those parts with KAS. Which is its own fun challenge, but requires a Kerbal along for the ride.
-
Is there any possibility of EPL pulling parts in a KIS Inventory to put towards the assembly of a ship?
-
Can Kerbals in Command Seats operate tools and attach things (yet)? Hoping to use an IR arm to do construction without messing with the... infernal EVA movement system.
-
Hope the shrouding is coming along. Couple more questions/feature hopes...
- Would it be possible to customize the width of the scan?
- Is there any way to see the names of biomes, like a color key?
- I know this is coming close to crossing the streams with SCANSat, but is there any possibility of altitude/topographic and/or slope data?
-
On 5/17/2016 at 3:40 PM, ImkSushi said:
No, I removed that 'axial tilt', because of this logic:
With that extra inclination, ALL bodies were extra inclined, and so all but one was rather wrong;
Without that extra inclination, NO bodies were extra inclined, and so all but one was almost right;If you think about it, it is logical.
I'm confused by your response to Einkleinermensch. So is it intended that Enceladus is changed from inclination 0.009 to 29.239?
-
4 minutes ago, kerbalstar said:
Question: Is the updated version on CKAN yet? Sorry I'm not at my KSP Computer so I can't check.
It is.
-
9 hours ago, politas said:
ok, so you'd need to do
mklink /d <FolderOutsideYourSSD> <YourKSPInstall>\CKAN\downloads
Though I'd be interested to know whether anyone is successfully using a shortcut instead. (Or has tried to do so unsuccessfully)
I just did this and it's useful to note that if your paths have any spaces in them, you need to surround the path in double quotes.
-
Would there be an issue with SpaceY parts if I'm using the current version of SMURFF (pre-1.1) with KSP 1.1.2 and no CryoEngines? I'm having trouble getting useful dV for SpaceY launch vehicles, whereas roughly equivalient vehicles using tweakscaled stock parts get much better dV. Speaking of which, is Tweakscaled actually supported? I don't see it mentioned anywhere in the thread.
-
17 minutes ago, Kerbas_ad_astra said:
Maybe I should clarify that language some. KSP engines have Isps comparable to real-world non-cryogenic engines (e.g. RP-1/LOX -- well, LOX is cryogenic, but RP-1 isn't -- or hydrazine/NTO), which top out in the neighborhood of 350 s. If you want engines with higher Isps, 400 s or better, you're getting into cryogenic (LH2/LOX) territory. Neither set of of engines is real-er than the other; CryoEngines just stands out from the crowd and offers a new bunch of design choices.
Do bear in mind that LH2 is fluffy stuff, even when liquified, so the tank mass fraction and required tank volume may be worse, and it will boil off over time (unless you use zero-boil-off tanks and some electric charge generation, but then the tank mass really starts to mount). Your mileage may vary, consult your local Kerbal Engineer readout for details.
I see, yes the current language is confusing. So, can you say that with RSS and SMURFF, ISPs are as real-ish as I'll get without RO and/or RF?
[1.12.1] JNSQ [0.10.0] [23 Sept 2021]
in KSP1 Mod Releases
Posted · Edited by curiousepic
Potential issue with ResearchBodies - I'm still on .5, but it looks like ResearchBodies contracts won't appear due to the criteria for bodies in range of the telescope being unmet. I'm trying to increase the scope's range with MM but it's not taking for some reason, so I haven't confirmed that fixes it. I'll try editing it directly.