Jump to content

Starwaster

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    9,282

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Starwaster

  1. Starwaster
    I tried putting up something with RCS and it looks ok to me... I put up something with stock RCS and I tried a few mod RCS parts (OPT parts, drone core with RCS and their linear RCS) All of the ones I tried were ModuleRCSFX though and not ModuleRCS, but that shouldn't matter.
  2. Starwaster
    WHAT SORCERY IS THIS???
  3. Starwaster
    Can you describe for me how you set it up in the VAB? For instance is it like the original stock fairings where you have to build the panels or do you attach them as separate pieces? Also, how do the stock chutes behave when placed inside? Lastly, can you send me your ModuleManager.ConfigCache file? If I can SEE how the part is configured, maybe I can figure out some kind of workaround...
  4. Starwaster
    @stupid_chris eh disregard what I said about the screen messaging
  5. Starwaster
    Then I stand corrected on the 'mod' portion but stand by the statement in general I don't have the DLC btw so can't test anything to do with it
  6. Starwaster
    Sounds like an issue with their shielding system. Real Chutes doesn't decide whether or not its parts are shielded. That's between KSP and whatever given mod is doing the shielding. All RC does is look at a property that says shielded or not shielded (part.ShieldedFromAirstream) and behaves accordingly. @stupid_chris On another note, it looks like something changed with screen messaging because I'm not seeing those. I'll see if I can look into that a little later.
  7. Starwaster
    The excessive slippage I can get behind but a big truck... travelling faster than 360 kph (223.69 mph).... causing rapid wear....?
  8. Starwaster
    Well as @stupid_chris says, something changed in the update... I'm trying to wrap my head around exactly where and what but I need more coffee....
  9. Starwaster
    It LOOKS like a localization issue to me. You could try running in English language mode. That should bring the icon back. Alternatively, as a workaround, use the filter options to filter by module. Next to the search bar click the arrow and then select Filter By Module. (or for you it will say Фильтр по модулю) The top two modules should say Procedural Chute and RealChute. Either one will contain the chutes using RC's modules.
  10. Starwaster
    Someone else added it and you should post CKAN issues in the CKAN thread. Shadowmage can't do anything about it. This is not difficult concept.
  11. Starwaster
    Don't worry about it, I was just trying to be humorous about the rounder one reminding me of the eyehole commercial from Rick and Morty. (if you haven't seen it, look it up on youtube)
  12. Starwaster
    BTW, in both cases, portions of the craft are on fire. The implementation of the flame effects is in Deadly Reentry but the particles are stock particles... so it looks like the particle itself changed... maybe there's some settings I can play with there to get it looking better but I don't know. The shockwave on the other hand is not a particle effect, that's a geometry shader and it works by creating multiple 'shells' which are progressively enlarged duplicates of the part's mesh, and in 1.4.1 maybe stretched too, not sure exactly what they're doing there but but it lacks the texturing of the older effect.
  13. Starwaster
    wow I just put the same spaceplane through reentry in 1.4.1... I'll post both pics here for comparison. KSP 1.3.1 KSP 1.4.1
  14. Starwaster
    So what do you people think? Should I also try to do something about the FX? I think most people I've talked to don't like the new reentry FX but I've seen some people on the forums who think they're better now and I'm like lolwhut? How about it? Do you think the current FX look better than THIS? That's an OPT based shuttle btw hence the broad blunt front. And part of it is on fire because I didn't make a set of DRE configs for some part on it...
  15. Starwaster
    Oh I don't think so. That top tank would have me WAY too worried that I would get a visit from The Eyehole Man....
  16. Starwaster
    Depends on what your definition of safe is; DRE for 1.3.1 will spam exceptions to the log in 1.4.1 because the deprecated particle system has finally been removed, and that stream to the log will hurt performance. ModuleAeroReentry will likely not function. Heat shield probably would since it doesn't hook into the checker. Configs would still be good for balancing of temps. But it's best to wait. Won't be too long. Interestingly enough, the menu DID work when I initially tested it in 1.4.1 but then stopped after recompiling because I had forgot the version number update... again. Anyway, whether or not you can or cannot ignore a particular version mismatch warning really depends on the mod and how familiar you are with it. I do occasionally ignore the warnings but only IF I know for a fact that the mod will function as is and if I'm actually familiar enough with the code to say so.
  17. Starwaster
    Yeah I saw that happen once... decided to disregard it as a fluke but make a mental note about it in case it happens again. Not sure yet what (if anything) can be done about it.... have you tried abusing other multicoupler parts with symmetry mode to see if you can break them?
  18. Starwaster
    You wanna know the truth about the incompatibility warning? There's a common compatibility checker that lots of mods use and it consults every mod running as to whether it is compatible or not. And the code in the mod then compares the KSP version number and (optionally) the Unity version and if they don't match then it reports false. When I update DRE I could (and have) forgotten to update the listed version numbers so it reports incompability even though I know better. The Unity checker in DRE always reports true because I don't give a used fig about that . And I usually disregard the minor update number on the KSP side as well. By the same token I could just recompile the thing doing nothing but updating the version numbers in the checker and it will happily report compatibility even though some hidden incompatibility is lurking in the shadows waiting for its hour to come round at last...
  19. Starwaster
    That's what he was trying to get across: the link posted is from the OP and it used to be a valid until some relatively recent forum update broke it.
  20. Starwaster
    While it's true that spaces are an issue for names (where those names are going to be used to retrieve URI resources), they are not a problem for comma separated values. As far as underscores in the texture names, Squad has several textures with underscores so that doesn't seem to be an issue either... And missing textures didn't USED to be a show stopper; it would just throw warnings in the log. Might not be the case anymore...?
  21. Starwaster
    I thought they were mostly for steering... though Stage Recovery does see them as being able to slow my stages so I stick them on for that little bit of extra deceleration that they provide. Can't say it's ever made the difference between recovering a stage and not, but I figure every little bit helps.
  22. Starwaster
    Ok, here it is, compatibility update. Compiled against the KSP 1.4.1 library but runs on 1.4.0 as well. (assuming that for some bizarre reason anyone hasn't updated from one to the other...) And now onto Deadly Reentry and Real Fuels.... Real Chute version 1.4.6 Recompiled for KSP 1.4.1
  23. Starwaster
  24. Starwaster
    Up to you, but you could just swap the two faces if DX11 is in use.
  25. Starwaster
    I don't think this has ever come up before.. I would have to say that part of the problem is that RealChute is only calculating chute mass based on areal density of the canopy but IRL it's more complicated than that. There's factors that RC just isn't taking into account. For example, those Orion chutes you cited? The chutes themselves don't really mass 136 kg. The figures you saw are factoring in line mass, disreefing mechanisms, cutting mechanism. Maybe even the mortars? Or not, dunno. Those SRB chutes? Three tons? There's no way the canopies themselves weighed that much; they probably required reinforced lines to handle the load and there may be other chute related equipment mass in there... As to fixing it, you could edit the materials (preferably via Module Manager patch) and change the areaDensity of each material. However, I guarantee that no matter what you set it to that it will never match every possible real world example because (again) RC is only calculating based on the actual canopy area whereas and none of the other factors mentioned. So I don't think just editing the area density is going to do it for you. You could use that to get it into the right ballpark for one target craft but everything under or over that would be end up off If you think it's important (and it probably is) then you could create an issue on the Github repository. Maybe even contribute improved code to calculate the chute mass. But I have a feeling that it would probably have to wait until stupid_chris can get around to finishing Real Chute 2.
×
×
  • Create New...