Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


3,439 Excellent


Profile Information

  • About me
    Defender of the Sandbox

Recent Profile Visitors

17,761 profile views
  1. Is Persistent Rotation a required mod now for RO? And yes, The Descent AP commands an attitude that if deviated from will cause it to want to correct that and it will come out of warp to do so if necessary. To put it another way, regardless of if autowarp is on or off, the DAP will maintain a set attitude all the way through descent. That's realistic and to be expected. It's not going to allow the vehicle to pitch, yaw, and roll uncontrollably. How do you control your attitude through autowarp normally? Or is that just not a thing with PR? According to ULA: "The optimum thrust to weight ratio at the start of the descent burn is in the 0.35 to 0.5 range (using Earth weight). At touchdown, the thrust to weight ratio should be about 0.15 (thrust slightly less than weight in lunar gravity)." Sadly, this has always been an issue for MJ, especially ignition issues. And especially with limited ignition. I don't use RO anymore but I ended up disabling the limited ignition feature. In fact, that gets patched out of my game by default even without RO. And I think none of the engines I have (added through mods) are unthrottleable. But it should be trivial to add a check that if any engines are unthrotttleable then don't try at all. (if you have a mix of engines though, that probably would be a bad idea). For the second part, yeah, MJ does not handle spooling at all. It needs to add spool time to the suicide countdown. (Did LMDE have a spool time? I think it maintained some level of thrust all the way down, which is also not something MJ does well.)
  2. Sorry, not yet. This is definitely something I want to do but I haven’t had a chance to sit down and work the equation into the config AND then tie the heatshield to that.
  3. I have to get Visual Studios back up and running then ensure I can compile it and verify it works okay. It probably will as the source HAS been updated by the Realism Overhaul crew for Real Fuels. Although there were some changes made to a section of the base MFT code that I can't abide... Until then though, you can still download an older version... https://web.archive.org/web/20210126120441/http://taniwha.org/~bill/ModularFuelTanks_v5.13.1.zip
  4. Doesn't seem like @taniwha is coming back to this. He still visits the forum but is not active in the community and hasn't even posted anything in 2 years. You could try using it anyway and ignore incompatibility warnings. AFAIK it'll still work. The incompatibility warning is triggered by a version mismatch. Literally all it does is check what version of KSP the mod has listed as being for and triggers the message. It's not a message from Squad, it's a 3rd party mod that many mods opted into. So, it should be functional but no guarantees. There are other mods that let you edit the content of tanks. Real Fuels is a variant of MFT but with extra features. I think B9Switch lets you alter resources but not sure to what extent. SSTU lets you do it for SSTU parts but again, not sure to what extent. (when used with MFT or RF, those provide the only resource editing function) I'll look into updating and compiling MFT myself. Can't say when that'll happen.
  5. @RunaDacino Most of them are this: NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object FerramAerospaceResearch.FARGUI.FARFlightGUI.PhysicsCalcs.CalculateEngineAndIntakeBasedParameters (System.Double vesselSpeed) (at <8fc38445915649c48b25aabd1db34a9d>:0) FerramAerospaceResearch.FARGUI.FARFlightGUI.PhysicsCalcs.UpdatePhysicsParameters () (at <8fc38445915649c48b25aabd1db34a9d>:0) FerramAerospaceResearch.FARGUI.FARFlightGUI.FlightGUI.FixedUpdate () (at <8fc38445915649c48b25aabd1db34a9d>:0) UnityEngine.DebugLogHandler:LogException(Exception, Object) ModuleManager.UnityLogHandle.InterceptLogHandler:LogException(Exception, Object) UnityEngine.Debug:CallOverridenDebugHandler(Exception, Object) over 20,000 of them
  6. @JadeOfMaar You've definitely got a problem with the docking node transform. I downloaded the beta, put a test craft up there and MJ is trying to dock at a 90 degree angle to where it should be. Edit: Good news is that the control transform seems okay. If I control from it then it's trying to align through the docking port instead of the front of the part. Although, which way should be the top? Right now it's trying to use the back of the part as the top (the direction of the hatch handle) If that's what you intended then it's fine. Edit: 2 That bounding box is messed up... not sure what part is doing that but it shouldn't be so long: Edit #3: Nevermind. It's the fricken Wolfhound that I had mounted on the back for propulsion.... WHY is its bounding box so goddamn huge???
  7. The correct orientation is for the forward (z axis, or blue in unity editor). The up axis is optionally used for orientation around the forward axis. (that is, a port can be configured that the two up axes have to be aligned for docking to succeed) The transform should be named dockingNode OR nodeTransformName should be set in the ModuleDockingNode to whatever you did name the transform. There's also an optional controlTransform (designated in the config by controlTransformName) which if absent defaults to the part's base transform. As to the collision issue, no idea... Edit: Actually, for the controlTransform, you should consider that not so optional for the inline ports. When controlling from the docking port, the controlTransform needs to be the same as if it were a cockpit orientation.
  8. Started happening in the current beta? Do you think it's a problem with the model or the config?
  9. If engines with electrical requirements don't have enough electricity then it kicks in. It's not NF specific though.
  10. Any OPT users who also use Deadly Reentry should re-download this file and copy it into the DeadlyReentry folder. (had a misspelled manufacturer check affecting ~7 parts) https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Starwaster/DeadlyReentry/working/DeadlyReentry/DeadlyReentry-OPT.cfg
  11. It would help if you posted the patch you made, but I would delete the pre-existing waterfall config since you say yours is working great. Something like this: @PART[whatever-part-it-is] { !MODULE[ModuleWaterfallFX]{} !EFFECTS,*{} // I DON'T know that you need to delete EFFECTS, if you're not adding your own then probably don't do this? // Your Waterfall config here after this }
  • Create New...