Jump to content

allista

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,208

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by allista

  1. allista
    @Tacombel @DeW I can confirm the issue with the sliding container boils down to incompatibility with KJR. I've fixed it for KJR-next. No other KJR flavors are supported, unless they also use the stock game events and interfaces to rebuild their joints.
  2. allista
    Just tested landing on the Mun in KSP-1.7.3 with the pure-stock (no expansions) lander: https://mega.nz/#!24oHhSxT!bcDZ52zlFbWZXYp5HiZUl5IiCJ5r0MmwZyVUk2yBOe8 No exceptions, no memory leakage detected by the system tools. Will now test the rendezvous...
  3. allista
    @everyone Looking for maintainers (so basic understanding of KSP API and C#) to help me keep the mods up to date with the galloping KSP releases If you think you know someone who can and want to help, pass the word, please
  4. allista
    @everyone Looking for maintainers (so basic understanding of KSP API and C#) to help me keep the mods up to date with the galloping KSP releases If you think you know someone who can and want to help, pass the word, please
  5. allista
    @everyone Looking for maintainers (so basic understanding of KSP API and C#) to help me keep the mods up to date with the galloping KSP releases If you think you know someone who can and want to help, pass the word, please
  6. allista
    You can't have IFS and CC on the same part though; so removing !ConfigurableContainers from IFS global patch is not recommended.
  7. allista
    Correct. If MFT is present, no CC patches are applied; only dedicated parts that are configured to use CC in the first place would work then. So what happens when you install both CC patches and MFT? Doesn't MFT also patches, say, stock parts?
  8. allista
    If MFT, CC and/or IFS install their patches simultaneously for the same parts, these parts would break. I don't know if MFT checks for CC or IFS, but in case it doesn't, we check for it.
  9. allista
    Yea, well, that's something I've more or less left out, because there're plenty of mods that have such containers, or mods that make any container usable, such as IFS, MFT, B9 and my own Configurable Containers that I naturally suggest to use for that purpose. Always trying to add as few parts as possible to lessen the clutter...
  10. allista
    Dockable container has a simple docking node that acts exactly like stock docking ports: they need counterparts in flight. Space crane has a plane attach node that does nothing in flight, so you're right to add a docking port there.
  11. allista
    Then it's probably KJRn. Regress in compatibility after robotics were introduced to stock.
  12. allista
    That's bad This docked resizing thing will drive me nuts eventually. By any chance, autostruts or Kerbal Joint Reinforcement are on? If KJR, then which flavor?
  13. allista
    When you put a kit into an empty container it is also resized a little, before you begin assembly. Or do you say it was just docked that way from the start?
  14. allista
    So it basically slid off while resizing to accommodate the kit? Means that something has changed part's crew without firing onVesselCrewModified GameEvent. Crew manifest may be the culprit then. And with vessel -- what had actually worked, I suppose, is that you've switched to KSC and back.
  15. allista
    What part and what mod is this central hub from? I'll have to test it myself. Thanks for the report. I'll check it out. Though I've assembled and constructed many single parts while testing, so the thing I'd check first is that you really have workers inside; if true, try to transfer one of them out and in again (simple EVA should suffice),
  16. allista
    Nah, it's as simple as you see it: Machinery is required for the converters in assembly lines to work. Nothing more. The extra space is just meant for the output of the converter that produces Machinery for other parts that require it, if any. Previously, to make another assembly line or a workshop you would need to make the part itself separately from the kit, then to fill it with Machinery produced by the converter. Now the Machinery is produced as part of the kit during assembly.
  17. allista
    Well yeah, when a VTOL tilts, it shifts some of the thrust in horizontal direction; but it's vertical component should always be >= 1. So you should always have at least 1+something. Where something is actually equals to sinus of the maximum allowed tilt angle. There's also a complication with atmospheric engines that user AirIntake, as their thrust often depends on the speed and angle to the airstream.
  18. allista
    Thrust to Weight ratio. You can check it in editor in TCA window (it's called TWM there) or in the stage stack to the right. As for the engines -- do they take time to spin up and build thrust?
  19. allista
    Slow engines like jets, or instant response like rockets? Enough TWR, like 2+? And of course if you're not following terrain the craft should keep altitude ASL.
  20. allista
    So it actually spawned intersected with the assembly space?
  21. allista
    Ah, I see: you mean incremental construction, like with space stations. I thought about it when I was making the framework. The blocker is the way a container is resized; to make it useful for on-the-ground docked construction I need to move the attach node on container's surface and simultaneously move the container away while it scales. Even worse, the growth point and the attach node position could not be the same, yet the local position of the attach node with respect to the growth point should be constant... Now that I think about it, it seems there is a way to do it; but not easy at all...
  22. allista
    Thanks for the report. I don't see anything in the logs aside from some exceptions thrown on game saves by contact system. The container is spawned and is immediately considered as "moving" and crashing into the nearest part. There are no mods to conflict with either. So the only explanation left is some hidden incompatibility with KSP 1.7.2 Looking into it. Could you elaborate the point? No krakens were encountered before 1.7.2, which I haven't tested extensively yet. And to tell the truth, the mechanics of spawning vessels on the ground is MUCH simpler than that of spawning in orbit. After all, GC started as ground-only construction And what's wrong with the configuration of the containers?
  23. allista
    Ah, I see. Neat! Oh, the upscaled hangars's look awful
  24. allista
    Wow! The scale of it! I couldn't find the workshops though. Are three from GC or some other mod?
  25. allista
    I thought indeed, but there are some strong (IMHO) arguments against it: The idea of recycling is that if engineers can assemble something in a workshop, they can do the reverse. Hangars have no workshops, no engineers; it's unclear why and how a hangar should be able to chew a ship inside into something useful. Consequently, the recycling shown above is the construction reversed: it uses the same framework to calculate energy cost and output resources as is used to create kits. This framework is of course GC-specific, so to use it in Hangar I either need to lift it up to AT_Utils or link Hangar against GC (noooo way), or do some unpleasant magic with conditionally loaded sub-dlls. Also, all calculations are based on actual living parts; I would have to reimplement them for ProtoVessels AND ShipConstructs to use for disembodied ships stored in a hangar. Considerable advantage of the shown method is that it allows partial disassembly; you can chop up any sub-tree of parts, starting from single terminal ones, and leave the rest of the ship be. I'm still not sure if I could solve the re-rooting in flight painlessly to be able to work with practically un-rooted part tree and recycle any physically terminal part, but even how it is now it's already much better then a whole-vessel recycling in one go.
×
×
  • Create New...