Nertea

Do I need to bribe with pictures?

This might be more work than it's worth at this point I was hoping it'd be relatively simple, but it seems like it might be easier to just drop a part action field in to show the field I want.

I tried this on in the part's Start() without any errors, but without any success in updating the module info. Is this what you are describing? AvailablePart p = PartLoader.LoadedPartsList.Find(pt => pt.name == part.name); for (int i = 0; i < p.moduleInfos.Count; i++) { if (p.moduleInfos[i].moduleName == "ModuleCryoTank") p.moduleInfos[i].info = GetInfo(); }

So partmodule.GetInfo() is called when a part is initially loaded to setup the editor module description. However, I would like to populate some portion of my GetInfo block with data that is generated when the editor loads. Is there a way to force the description block's text to be rebuilt manually? I've had a dig through the API with not a huge amount of luck.

Anyone who uses CryoEngines or KerbalAtomics - a favour please. I'm in the process of writing an analytics mode for the boiloff simulator that should solve many of the problems experienced at high timewarp. However, I need test cases. If you have a ship that encountered random boiloff at high warps in the past, I'd really like the craft file, or screenshots so I can replicate the relevant parts. This will be very helpful and will hopefully decrease the amount of time that the post-1.2 update will take.

That's probably a bit too low for the benefits to really show up. Might end up equalizing the lifter and orbital tank dry masses next update though, so it should get better. Figure there's already a mass penalty for needing power equipment. I posted this in CryoEngines, it applies here too Anyone who uses CryoEngines or KerbalAtomics - a favour please. I'm in the process of writing an analytics mode for the boiloff simulator that should solve many of the problems experienced at high timewarp. However, I need test cases. If you have a ship that encountered random boiloff at high warps in the past, I'd really like the craft file, or screenshots so I can replicate the relevant parts. This will be very helpful and will hopefully decrease the amount of time that the post-1.2 update will take.

New renders for the album. I rather like how the emissives turned out. The turbopump exhausts are fully operational, they give you 15 kN of roll control, which is cool. Totally OP engine...

You've run into one of the edge cases the plugin does not handle well. Screenshots of the problem occurring and the ship are helpful (or a craft file if it doesn't have too many other mods).

Daww. I can handle that I am looking forward to implementing your clustering engine modules at some point on my new ions, it should look lovely.

Apologies, missed this somehow. Okay now we're getting there! So now all we have to do is settle on the specific distribution set then. Since I only curate LH2 and ArgonGas, I'll post example configs for those here, if you could create and post up the ones for LqdDeuterium, LqdTritium, Antimatter, LqdHe3, then we can check each other's to make sure nothing is too wrong.

Well that's interesting! Is there anything that I can do to help this endeavour on the model/NFC side?

I don't think so. The main direction of the stock engines is to make the footprint no larger than the largest component of the actual engine. Most of the engines in KA are already engine-bell limited, ie, they're already the "compact" model of the stock rework (and really, the trimodals are even more limited. There's not much value in trimming the attach structure down further, I might be able to get a few a teeny bit smaller, but.... i don't think it's worth the effort.

For the 1.2-era update.

I can't speak for what exact values, but if you want to convert things to CryoEngines fuel configuration levels, it's pretty simple: Take the total volume of the tank in KSP units (eg, 6400 for the Jumbo-64) Multiply the total volume by 6 to get the amount of LH2 and 0.4 to get the amount of Oxidizer Multiply the total volume by 0.0004 to get the new dry mass of the tank Your total stage mass will decrease significantly, I make no promises about how realistic this is or what.

So are you ok with standardizing on LqdTritium and LqdHydrogen for resource distributions as well, then?

By saying LqdHe3 I feel like I'm implicitly defining it ;). I'm saying there is no need to compromise though. Maybe I'm not explaining it right... Let's say we both want to harvest Helium 3 from the atmosphere. You want to go with a more realistic model than I do. So you want to harvest Helium3 (gas). I want to gameify it, so I want to harvest LqdHe3 directly. So we can have an atmospheric resource distribution for LqdHe3 (for me) and Helium3 (for you). No conflict.

That's pretty close, but you're sill conflating states.. which could be a key problem. LqdHe3 and Helium3 are two separate resource distributions, and we are only going to conflict on one of them. I don't care about the distribution of Helium3 because anything I want to do only harvests LqdHe3. Therefore we only need to look at where that one conflicts. Makes sense?

Neato, how are you folding that up? Skinned meshes?

In all seriousness, using anything of mine that is marked for an earlier version of KSP in a later version of KSP is super unsupported, and any complaining about this, particularly in the prerelease time (which is specifically designed to find bugs with the stock game, not play around with mods), will be summarily ignored. Being passive aggressive in other threads is not helpful either.

In all seriousness though, I don't look in other people's threads quite enough, and this is some beautiful work you're doing here.

The relationship has required practically no work on my part to sustain, so it's the best kind of relationship, really .

Oh heeeeeeell no.

Yes, I don't need a lecture on the relative abundance of X. What I need is you to simply describe how you want the resources that I care about distributed. Maybe if I laid it out as a set of questions it would make more sense to you? Will you ever have [ResourceName] be harvestable directly anywhere? If so, will [ResourceName] be harvestable from the crust? If so, will [ResourceName] be harvestable from the ocean? If so, will [ResourceName] be harvestable from the atmosphere If so, will [ResourceName] be harvestable from space? Now replace [ResourceName] with that list I provided, for example for LqdHe3... Will you ever have LqdHe3 be harvestable directly anywhere? If so, will LqdHe3 be harvestable from the crust? If so, will LqdHe3 be harvestable from the ocean? If so, will LqdHe3 be harvestable from the atmosphere If so, will LqdHe3 be harvestable from space? This should not be hard.

Top notch! Finally I can deprecate my terrible kludge.

I agree in principle, that's why I devised the proposal in my previous post. Where we want to mine the same resource, we should make sure that there is cooperation. However, we first need to define exactly where the overlap is. I want to create definitions for the following set of resources: XenonGas ArgonGas LqdHydrogen LqdHe3 LqdTritium LqdDeuterium Antimatter You let me know which ones of those you also want to have mineable directly. I think the list is not long... you seem to be saying that you want your parts to mine intermediates before getting to the actual resource (eg Helium3 -> LqdHelium3, or SolarDust -> LqdHelium3).