allista
-
Posts
2,208 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Everything posted by allista
-
Your assumption is correct. What bothers me is that it is, of course, shouldn't crash in that way: Landing autopilot scans its path for obstacles and tries to make course adjustments. Wait... but you said "past the crater's lip"? Not the lip itself? This makes no sense at all. Where was the target point then, before or after the point it crashed into? *better yet, could you repeat it and capture the video? Worth a million words to me! Don't know, never used it. Are these waypoints targetable? I mean, can you set them as targets to a ship, like double-clicking another ship? If so, then you can. If not, then not without coding from my end... Along with several other tutorial videos. Yes.
-
Mixed with water, I hope? *oh, just ignore me... I'll go sleep now...
-
Ok. I think I agree with this. Will make the change. Hm... one will be able to acquire it as soon as this one will finish all the fixes and prepare the common update of both TCA and ConfigurableContainers (and of the Hangar for that matter). On Sunday, I hope!
-
Lighium? By engines?! *ok, I'll install NFP and go through it to see what it uses...
-
To do the inter-tank barrier thing the AddMassPerVolume value should be >0 for every tank type. Thus, any additional tank will add some dry mass to the part. Currently only tanks with thick walls or fastenings add mass; other tanks are considered to be too light to notice the change against the mass of the hull. Still, adding some 1-3kg per 1m3 is no big deal. I never tried it, but in theory, the parts in-flight should remain with their resources as they were saved, essentially becoming just tanks, without any switching. But, the original resources may be added as well: e.g. if you make a monopop tank out of LFO, then you may suddenly have both LFO and monopropellant in the same part in-flight. Need to test this...
-
@Nori, could you check this out? I don't know about the unit/L ratios. Need to try it out with some stock tanks and compare with some USI tank of the near-same size, but can't do it myself right now. https://github.com/allista/ConfigurableContainers/blob/master/GameData/ConfigurableContainers/TankTypes.cfg
-
But it appears as a part RESOURCE in many parts? Are you sure?
-
What you ask is already there, except for the user setting. The calculations the Radar performs are quite complicated and are meant to be as safe as possible for any ship. So in some cases the caution with which the ship handles obstacles may seem a little redundant, but remember that TCA is not a deep-learned neural network that sees what you see. There's only so much a threshold-logic system can do without sacrificing robustness. Well, if I remember correctly, stock waypoints appeared in the game after I had to make mine; or at least I wasn't aware of them? Anyways, I could try to interface my waypoints with the stock waypoint system; from the first glance it seems that this would allow WPM to at least see TCA's waypoints. But I don't know when I will have time for this. Not a priority at the moment...
-
The support for KWRocketry (along with many other mods) will be published in the next few days in the next release.
- 738 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- resources
- fuel tanks
- (and 1 more)
-
I have nothing against adding support for USI. I just need help with TankTypes and TankConfigs. Ah, that makes sense. And indeed I haven't encountered any other mod that uses these except ELP.
-
The height part may be actuated by macros; and in the next release there will be two macros controlling action groups. Aside from that, the simplest way to do it manually through the action groups is like this: VTOL mode: TCA is enabled, engines thrusting downward and are set to Thrust&Maneuver. Plane mode: TCA is disabled, engines thrusting horizontally and are not controlled by TCA. All you need to do is to set all these on a single action group that would then toggle between the described states. And I'm a microbiologist. Can you imagine?
-
I wish it was that simple. From the moment the reverse appeared in the game I wanted to use it in TCA. Unfortunately, the way it is implemented is... well... not so useful for modders. The reverse is just an animation that flips the thrust transform of an engine. And it is actuated by the ModuleAnimateGeneric, not by ModuleEngines; in fact, the engine itself has no idea if it is reversed or not. And AnimateGeneric is, as the name implies, a generic module which, apart from the action names (which are just strings), provides no indication as to what exactly does it animate. So TCA cannot robustly know if an engine is in reverse or not, nor can it control the process in general. But, as with other thrust transform changes, reverse is accounted for, when it is activated by the user.
-
Yep, ExLP it is. Tired a little... Don't know why they removed them from CRP. Someone is eliminating competitors? Ah, you just want to add USI resources to some (new or existing) tank types. I agree that this should be done. But the thing is, I never played with USI, never liked what they do game-lore-wise. And their resource system is awfully complex. So I need help here from some experienced USI user.
-
What do you mean by "add default tank parts for the rest of MKS"? ReplacementParts are present in USI parts both as part RESOURCE and in Converters. MetalOre, Metal, ScrapMetal are from TAC Life Support. Other things corrected. By the way, USI uses a hell lot of specific resources internally, within the life cycle of a base. Do you even need tanks for these?
- 738 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- resources
- fuel tanks
- (and 1 more)
-
Yep, thanks. Fixed it. What I can't decide, though, is if the Level should take into account the thrust of manual engines. Currently it does. Which means that if you set some manual engine to thrust, the ship will turn so that the total thrust is still pointed to the ground. But maybe it shouldn't? I don't understand the use-cases for Level, except the ones that arise from internal use by other autopilots.
-
So, at the end of the day, using "conventional" script-generated patches, we have this (including LF, Ox, LFO, MP, Ore and Xe tanks): "supports": [ { "name": "TweakScale" }, { "name": "ProceduralParts" }, { "name": "KWRocketry" }, { "name": "Mk2Expansion" }, { "name": "SpaceY-Lifters" }, { "name": "SpaceY-Expanded" }, { "name": "FuelTanksPlus" }, { "name": "ModRocketSys" } ], Any other requests/suggestions?
- 738 replies
-
- 1
-
-
- resources
- fuel tanks
- (and 1 more)
-
Nah, FOR is just a tag, so that other mods could use NEEDS/HAS. Positionals are: BEFORE, AFTER and FINAL. And my question was: is it possible to be after self, not after another. I guess, I need to repost this question to MM thread.
-
TankType.AddMassPerVolume --- done Added mass to: Gases (thick walls), Food, Components (fastening), Radioactives (heavy thick walls) TANKTYPE[Battery].PossibleResources = ElectricCharge --- done So now we have stock batteries and tanks with additional mass. Does anyone know if I can somehow set an MM patch belonging to a mod to run after this mod? I mean something like this PART[*]:FOR[ConfigurableContainers]:AFTER[ConfigurableContainers], but working...
-
If I'm not mistaken, KSPIE also has something like that. At least they have specialized cryostorage module. Anyway, I don't know what's right here: to depend upon a foreign module from one of the mods with cryo-fuels or to implement something simple right here. I think I'll look at the CryoEngines code first and see what it does...
-
Current version of CC simply does not support TweakScale. A have added the support and am currently testing it. It will be included in the next release, as well as ProceduralParts support. Yep. We're trying to deal with it right here (see the posts with the proposed MM patches). What's boiloff? You mean the "leakage" of cryo-fuels?
-
Wll, all the high-level staff: the navigation, maneuvering and autopilots are written from scratch. I did, however, took several things from MJ: it's code for inertia tensor calculation, inertia correction for attitude control, one of its PID controller implementations and several other minor things. Most of which has been more or less rewritten over the time.
-
Done. Added two macros: Toggle Action Groups and Set Action Groups. Both allow you to control many action groups at once. The first only toggles the ones you have selected. The second sets all of them: enables the ones you have selected and disables the others.
-
Cool!
-
It pulses?!?!?! Is someone rewriting my code while I sleep? Oh boy... another bug Thanks!
-
How come the G1 is set to Off, but works?!
