Jump to content

ndiver

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    362

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by ndiver

  1. ndiver
    @Morphisor i confirm the problem is coming from Pioneer-2, i removed it and made a contract path Pioneer-1 --> Pioneer-3 without having Pioneer-2, and I do not get an error this time. Edit: I get an error message once validating Pioneer-3 with this flow I do not understand ... Let see if it is really critical for the future.
  2. ndiver
    I assume the issue is coming from Pioneer-2 as I get the error when i tried with the following cases : Pioneer-0 -> Pioneer-1 --> Pioneer 2 Pioneer-0 --> Pioneer-2 (so the cfg of Pioneer-1 trashed and Pioneer-2 file modified to follow Pioneer-0) I've not tried (yet) Pioneer-0 --> Pioneer-1 --> Pioneer 3
  3. ndiver
    Hello, I restarted to play to KSP and switched to 1.12 after a long stop of KSP. We are two players to have reported the same error with the same contract Pioneer-1 in Contract Configurator: I tried several times and get each time the same error. I will modify the contract Pioneer-2 to skip Pioneer-1. The other player has reported his error here: Edit: if I try to avoid Pioneer-1 by removing it from the contract list and making Pioneer-0 the prerequisite of Pioneer-2, i get the error after Pioneer-0 and before Pioneer-2, so I wonder if the problem is really Pioneer-1 orif is is not Pioneer-2
  4. ndiver
    Just for your information, I got exactly the same error with the same contract Pioneer-1 of History of Spaceflight Contract Pack. I loaded back a backup save just before it and I get the error back. I also tried to modify the persistent file to switch it to Completed, same error. I will try an older save and modify the order of the contracts to switch directly from Pioneer-0 to Pioneer-2.
  5. ndiver
    Back on my test KSP, with Parallax 1.3.0 (I removed the 1.3.1). The folder to show no other mod: And these overall settings (just playing with the Terrain Shader Quality): With Shaders set to Ultra: With Shaders set to Low: Edit: And back with Parallax 1.3.1 with Shaders to Ultra, the yellowish color is back: Parallax 1.3.1 with Shaders to Low:
  6. ndiver
    I've taken the picture with these settings, the Terrain Shader Quality was set to Ultra on the picture above: I even did a test on a stock KSP with just the requirements of Parallax to crosscheck, and had strictly the same result.
  7. ndiver
    For my problem of yellowish color, I was using the wrong version of Parallax, the 1.3.1 instead of 1.3.0 This is with the 1.3.0:
  8. ndiver
    By curiosity, is there an adapter that would fit from SuperHeavy diameter to a Squad S3 or S4 diameter, in order to use the SuperHeavy as a first stage for a non-Starship payload?
  9. ndiver
    Hello, I installed Parallax and its stock textures, and get curiously extremely yellowish colors for Kerbin, and the texture granularity seems really large. This is a stock KSP with just Kopernicus 81 and Parallax 1.3.1 installed as a check, and I have the same colors on a modded KSP: Is it normal? Did I missed something? I'm comparing with this post as reference: Is Parallax running well with Spectra?
  10. ndiver
    @EStreetRocketsfor the engines directly inspired on real projects, can you share their IRL data?
  11. ndiver
    If some of you want to have fun with Knes, i let you read this recent article: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576521006123 It's an article reviewing how Europeans could do a mission to Mars using the current elements of Ariane 6 through an Ariane 6 Heavy able to put 100t into orbit. It's on a certain way an update of the Ariane 5 Heavy seen here : @Well by trying to replicate the Ariane 6 Superheavy, I noticed that I can't freely put multiple Vulcain on a bottom of a rocket contrary to the Themis. I can only place a Vulcain engine under a node. Is it normal and intended?
  12. ndiver
    In phonetic: [dyna] Because the "u" is pronounced [y] in my language --> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_front_rounded_vowel
  13. ndiver
    While i'm not using (yet) this mod, if some of you have pictures of how you landed and assembled your base elements, I am really interested to see to learn
  14. ndiver
    Hello, I realized today that an old rover design i used for a while totally lost its performance in KSP versions after the 1.4.5. The design is basically a modified version of that with 8 wheels instead of 10 and with a 2.5m lab (~12 tons of weight): Until 1.4.5, it was able to climb mountain slopes up to ~45° slopes (there was traction issues in the mountains on some slopes in the mountain range close to the KSC, but i went up to the mountain monolith with it), I used it on the Mün for long distance trip (including crossing the larger crater slopes and even finding a way across the canyon slopes). In the 1.8.1 and 1.11 (stock), the same design is not even able to climb a 20° slope on Kerbin. My guess is that something changed in KSP on wheels, traction or friction since the 1.4.5, my question is what? What has changed by lovely rover in something useless?
  15. ndiver
    I use nearly the same design, but with 4 -LV909 Terrier, which provides high TWR on the Mün and around 2k delta-v for my Science Lander, that I use to make hops between my orbital outposts and the surface for Science sampling: Outside of that, on February 8th, I built a Nano Base, but also wanted to build a slightly lager version that could give the possibility of expansion: I finally found in the last days how to do it nicely: Lastly, after discussing with another player on Facebooj, I built on my own version of the Jamestown base of For All Mankind, trying to follow this video: I used the LEM landing engines of Bluedog Design, the Station Control Center of SSPE, the deployable solar panels (see second screenshot), the expansion slots, the rear structure, and it has enough delta-v to land by itself from low Mün orbit.
  16. ndiver
    After not playing for a while, I made on a small base for Mün / Minmus for my Career ~1030 m/s of delta-v to land from low orbit, RTG under the cupola for the long munar night, cost of 45k I tried to make it small but in the same time realistic for an small outpost. I'm considering to allow for extension with extra modules by docking, but not sure how in term of design / efficiency
  17. ndiver
    this new video is pure gold I love the new animations, the new expressions, their small screams. I feel that I will be even more attached to each of my kerbals, will be trying even more to save each of them after a catastrophic failure. And I loved the involvement and explanations of the dev team:
  18. ndiver
    Big thanks even if a bit old
  19. ndiver
    Can I suggest to have this topic pinned in the Add-on Release section, and ideally to have a unique thread on custom colored suits?
  20. ndiver
    You are awesome
  21. ndiver
    I played a bit today and had a lovely surprise at the end of the SCORE mission (I will not spoil what is it) I didn't know it was possible to set-up that but I really enjoyed it !
  22. ndiver
    I'm really curious to see the new parts linked to Ariane 5. 2.5 or 3.75m? Vinci engine included? With which stats?
  23. ndiver
    Where is the HYPE-TRAIN?
  24. ndiver
    Note that the Moon Starship is not planned for Earth-reentry, that's why it lost its flaps / wings. Its another vessel (Dragon Crew or Orion) that is used to transport the crew from and back to Earth. The advantage for SpaceX with this situation is that the SuperHeavy does not need to be certified for human transport at this point.
  25. ndiver
    It would really be a killer-feature to have this possibility, even on a stock equivalent to your mod
×
×
  • Create New...