Jump to content

benjee10

Members
  • Posts

    1,080
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

5,355 Excellent

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • About me
    Salmon of Knowledge
  • Location
    United Kingdom

Recent Profile Visitors

63,896 profile views
  1. It looks like you are using a 3rd party config for the IVA, so it would be best to ask in the thread for that mod rather than here.
  2. Great work on this, it's awesome to finally see Buran complete and in game!
  3. The important thing isn't the resolution itself but the texel density (i.e. number of pixels per meter) - shuttle uses 4K textures because the texture sheets include multiple parts e.g. cockpit, fuselage, wings, whereas the Buran textures are for individual parts (just the cockpit and aft fuselage) so can be smaller while retaining the same number of pixels per meter. I believe the tiles look sharper on your parts because you have used a flat tiling texture for them, whereas on the cockpit/aft fuselage I baked a 3D tile texture onto curved surfaces so the anti-aliasing softens them a bit. I couldn't use a flat tiling texture as this would have distorted heavily on the curved surfaces etc. Might be worth trying to add 1-2px of blur to your tiles and see if that helps them match better.
  4. Make sure you have the latest version of Benjee10_sharedAssets installed, it is included with the release .zip of this mod.
  5. I consider this mod to be complete at this point, but the props/clutter in the IVAs are defined in config files so if you wanted to you could completely rearrange them as you wanted. The interior meshes are pretty much just empty shells with everything else being done with props aside from seat positions.
  6. I am no longer actively updating this mod so I wouldn't recommend using these parts with SOCK. At the moment, the best full shuttle stack setup is to use SOCK with the dev versions of ORANGES (for the ET) and Photon Corp (for the SRBS) with Rocket Motor Menagerie for the SSMEs. Side note - if you grab the dev version of Artemis Construction Kit from the GitHub repo (rather than downloading one of the releases) it now includes the updated scale SSMEs from Rocket Motor Menagerie, which are the correct scale for the shuttle. Likewise the dev version of SOCK now has nodes in the correct place to fit these SSMEs. I will do a full release with these at some point, and maybe then we could look at putting together a mod pack that has everything for the shuttle in one place (like how Artemis Construction Kit pulls in parts from RMM, BDB, and Photon Corp into a single download).
  7. The RS-25s from RMM (which are included in this mod) used to be slightly overscaled, and conversely the stock/restock RS-25s are underscaled. EStreet updated the scale relatively recently but that change hasn't yet been propagated to the engines included in ACK (if I remember correctly). If you install the latest version of RMM separately it will supersede the engines included in this mod.
  8. Really cool, congratulations on the release!
  9. Just a quick update on the current situation - As of last week the dead hard drive has been successfully removed and a new SSD put in its place, so the computer is usable again! Seems like the issue is probably with the read/write head on the drive, so there is potential for data recovery (but I'm not holding my breath on that). When I have chance I'll get a Unity install up and running and get back to it, for the time being though I am focusing on my freelance work and hopefully will be able to afford data recovery sooner rather than later (as being able to get my old setup back would really speed things up). Thanks again to everyone who donated. You have helped massively and got me back on track, and I was really quite overwhelmed by the support I received - so thank you.
  10. Best bet would be 1) try a clean reinstall, deleting the HabTech folder and grabbing a fresh download. This wipes out any old files that could be interfering. And 2) create a fresh craft file, sometimes existing craft files do not update properly.
  11. There should be an 'Extend iROSA' action on the part, like a normal solar array.
  12. No, there is a B9 part switch to toggle them on/off which can be used in flight. In the next update it will switch to the inventory system described above.
  13. Massive thanks to everyone for your support (whether financial or otherwise) - it has really meant a lot, and just receiving all the positive messages has really brightened things up. I have really been overwhelmed and it looks like it should be possible to get a new drive fitted sooner rather than later, which hopefully will give me a working computer at least! Unfortunately there is no way of physically attaching the iROSA panels to the SAW truss, since attached parts will not track with the sun. The new update will allow you to 'attach' them in flight by placing the iROSA part into a special inventory slot on the SAW part. It is basically B9PartSwitch but with the different states triggered by placement of certain parts in the inventory. So this means you can fly up a cargo ship with the physical iROSA part attached to it, pull it off with EVA construction, and drop it in the SAW inventory. As for IVAs, all parts should have IVAs as of the last update. If they don't then you may have an installation problem.
  14. Hey everyone - I have some good news and some bad news. First the good news: it turns out the Final Update of HabTech... will not quite be the final update. With KSP2 still being a little way off from being in the state I'd want to undertake any serious part modding projects, I am going to continue to update my KSP1 mods for the time being. With the modern ISS mostly covered, the next update will focus more on Space Station Freedom and older US station concepts. You may have seen Lil_Bread402 has very kindly been working on a larger, EVA-deployable truss system based on the pre-'91 Freedom designs, along with large retractable servicing hangars. People have already been making really cool stuff with the development version. The parts look stunning and the types of station you can build with them are completely different to anything that HabTech has offered before. As well as this, I've been working on an ACRV/SCRAM-inspired 2.5m pod (see below) along with a radial mount triple-chute. It also works nicely as a general-purpose 2.5m pod and is quite flexible. This is up on GitHub for testing, and there will be a couple of other things coming, including a new custom plugin by ValiZockt that allows the iROSA panels to be attached to the SAWs in flight via the inventory system. We call this the Inventory Upgrade system and it may have some other cool uses too. I also have an update coming for Historical Kerbal Suits, and updates with new parts for Shuttle Orbiter Construction Kit and Artemis Construction Kit. No time scales on this yet for reasons you'll see below... It's important that every space station has a backup system... Now on to the bad news - there has been a Massive, Irretrievable Data Loss. Around a week ago I booted up my (until now) faithful iMac to discover that the hard drive has failed completely. Annoying, I thought, but at least I have a Time Machine backup of all my data... Well, it turns out that unbeknown to me, Time Machine has silently failed to make a complete backup... since 2020. This is possibly due to the main drive already beginning to fail or a separate issue with the backup drive. I have a number of partial backups, and I usually work on external hard drives for a lot of my projects since the storage requirements for the work I do are so high, so luckily only a limited amount is completely gone. Unfortunately, one of the casualties is my entire KSP projects folder. It isn't present in any of the partial backups since 2020. This means that all of the source files for Artemis Construction Kit, Planetside Exploration Technologies, and the new HabTech update, are irretrievably lost. Thankfully I wasn't in the middle of anything big that isn't already released (I finalised the art on the SCRAM pod exterior and pushed it to git a couple of months back). In a couple of cases I have WIP files on another drive or files I've shared with other users, but for the most part it seems that the source files are gone. This scuppers (or at least vastly complicates) any plans I had of revisiting or altering existing parts, as well as my hopes of repurposing much of the newer work for KSP2. Also gone are 3 years worth of textures, reference material, tools, presets and plugins I have accumulated, as well as my Unity setup. I'm currently without a Unity install at all so can't even get parts in game, though I can do some basic modelling on my laptop. Some of this I will be able to rebuild, and thankfully the finished products are already out there for people to enjoy. Incredibly frustratingly, just a couple of weeks ago I was planning to put all my KSP source files up on Google Drive as a publicly accessible resource, but had such a busy week with work that I never got chance to set it going. Naively I assumed I'd have the chance to later. As you can imagine I'm feeling pretty devastated. Conservatively, it amounts to at least a thousand hours of work lost, if not more, and a major setback for the projects I had hoped to take on. I have exhausted all possibilities of recovery using software and am currently without my main workstation. I've been quoted a pretty eye-watering amount to attempt professional recovery from the failed drive. Times are tough financially for me right now, so I can't really justify the expense, especially as at the very least I will need a new hard drive (and possibly a new computer entirely) before I'm able to get back to work (both in terms of KSP modding and my freelance projects). I will be having the drive removed and stored safely in case data recovery becomes a viable option in future. I would not normally do this (and I hope it's not against the forum rules), but there is a donation link here in case anyone would be willing to chip in towards a new drive. I know times are tough for everyone right now and there are some really important causes out there to donate to, so please, please only consider supporting if you are able to - I will continue KSP modding regardless (albeit with a bit of a break to recover). But if you are willing, able and have enjoyed my mods over the years, then I'd appreciate it enormously - just a dollar or two would really help to soften the blow. So, TL,DR: exciting things are coming (and you can try some of them right now!) but I have lost almost all of my source files from the last 3 years, so will take a little while to rebuild from this. Also a reminder to everybody that you a) need more than one backup system - just like a spacecraft, anything mission critical needs redundancy, and b) check that it's working correctly! Don't do what I did and just assume it is ticking away in the background...
  15. So, a couple of things. Firstly you have the cover petals closed - even with the correct combination of ports, you would not be able to dock as the petals are physically blocking the docking interface. The intention is to pair an active port with a passive port, as in real life - Common Berthing Mechanisms are not androgynous systems. To give players some leeway so you don't have to plan out space station layouts quite so meticulously, the ports are technically compatible with each other in-game (i.e. you can dock an active to active, passive to passive). This is why the guide fins can be retracted (also to allow backwards compatibility with existing craft files, since the old CBM model gets converted to a passive port - if I made the ports correctly gendered it would totally break existing craft). However, the geometry of the active type II prevents it from docking with itself. This is just a consequence of the way the petals have to deploy when attached on the radial node of a 2.5m part (i.e. their use on the ISS). You are the first person to have been caught by this so I haven't really considered it an issue until now. I can put a warning in the part description for the type II port that it cannot self-dock. It would certainly be more elegant if the ports were able to dock with each other, but there are a limited number of ways to do this given the constraints of the game and the intended use case - believe me when I say I looked into a lot of different options and the current one seemed to be the least problematic.
×
×
  • Create New...