SpannerMonkey(smce) Posted May 9, 2017 Author Share Posted May 9, 2017 Just now, SpannerMonkey(smce) said: @TMasterson5 Cheers for this and the LBP version, I'll make a little note of it in the first post Admittedly while I have nothing against tweakscale, I have never really been a massive user of it except where parts could really do with a multiple size option. And as you noticed that's very subjective In the case of LBP in particular I think they're big enough, again subjective. It should be noted that any scaling or pods/bridges or any other part containing and IVA will likely break the IVA, i know they are boring anyway, and not often used , but worth a mention With reference to Tweakscale also very worth a mention right now with the arrival of the Type45 not so far away. If you tweakscale ANY SM Armory missile launcher or missile you will break the node placement and it may render the system inoperative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TMasterson5 Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 On 5/9/2017 at 10:04 PM, TMasterson5 said: For anyone interested I made a tweakscale patch since the tweakscale compatibility for parts is hit or miss in LBPP. It is located here and I will keep it updated as @SpannerMonkey(smce) releases his glorious new content to us peasants! DL Link: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/g45l0djvbmypl3e/AABZ033reYyTd_6xV17txTR3a?dl=0 Simply download the mods patch you want(or them all) and place in your gameData folder could you throw this link in your op please sir? On 5/9/2017 at 10:23 PM, SpannerMonkey(smce) said: Admittedly while I have nothing against tweakscale, I have never really been a massive user of it except where parts could really do with a multiple size option. And as you noticed that's very subjective In the case of LBP in particular I think they're big enough, again subjective. It should be noted that any scaling or pods/bridges or any other part containing and IVA will likely break the IVA, i know they are boring anyway, and not often used , but worth a mention With reference to Tweakscale also very worth a mention right now with the arrival of the Type45 not so far away. If you tweakscale ANY SM Armory missile launcher or missile you will break the node placement and it may render the system inoperative. I havent had that issue with any of my mods VLS or missile launch type systems, you shouldnt be having that problem with the nodes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpannerMonkey(smce) Posted May 28, 2017 Author Share Posted May 28, 2017 Hi all, I've just tested LBP in 1.3 and it is a complete fail, without KJR there is no way to keep the ships together. SO LBP will stay at 1.22 until and if KJR is updated for KSP 1.3 Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damaske Posted June 3, 2017 Share Posted June 3, 2017 (edited) On 5/28/2017 at 1:51 PM, SpannerMonkey(smce) said: Hi all, I've just tested LBP in 1.3 and it is a complete fail, without KJR there is no way to keep the ships together. SO LBP will stay at 1.22 until and if KJR is updated for KSP 1.3 Cheers There is a fellow user of KJR that recompiled the DLL for KJR to work in 1.3, I have tested with it and it stopped the load in joint failure! here are some ships I have made. Spoiler Two types of destroyers Close up of one destroyer Attempted to reduce the above hull and make a PT or torp boat. It didn't work and i don't know why yet. Maybe something with weight or something. Cruiser design Edited June 3, 2017 by Damaske typo smashing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpannerMonkey(smce) Posted June 3, 2017 Author Share Posted June 3, 2017 5 hours ago, Damaske said: There is a fellow user of KJR that recompiled the DLL for KJR to work in 1.3, Hi,thanks for your comment , I've a very handy friend too, and have also been testing LBP in 1.3, and all appears to be just as it should be. The problem being that I'm not aware of any accessible KJR fix for most users. SO while it's yes, should you be lucky enough to have a working version of KJR, LBP is indeed good to go in 1.3 . Until a fix for KJR becomes generally available (or one of the unapproved fixes gets approval) I don't see any value in declaring LBP 1.3 ready, in fact doing so right now would bring a flood of "my ship wont stay together" posts. Keeping my eye on the KJR repository , so I'll know pretty quickly if something happens in that regard. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpannerMonkey(smce) Posted June 8, 2017 Author Share Posted June 8, 2017 Update news. For those wanting to get afloat in 1.3 wander across to the KJR thread and grab the recompiled DLL that is available in the last page or two of the thread, and do say thanks to the nice chap who compiled it, Drop that dll in your KJR load up LBP and you are good to go. There will be an official update shortly be for now this gets you all going. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF2_Pilot Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 It's pretty good but I think the modern parts will look nice in white or gray colors instead of black. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpannerMonkey(smce) Posted June 15, 2017 Author Share Posted June 15, 2017 12 minutes ago, BF2_Pilot said: instead of black. Hi No black parts here... all grey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF2_Pilot Posted June 16, 2017 Share Posted June 16, 2017 22 hours ago, SpannerMonkey(smce) said: Hi No black parts here... all grey OK,I am sorry. But you can try this color (RGB 162 162 162 ) And it will like this I think this color is more suitable for the modern ship Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpannerMonkey(smce) Posted June 16, 2017 Author Share Posted June 16, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, BF2_Pilot said: OK,I am sorry. But you can try this color (RGB 162 162 162 ) Hi, nope cant change the color again as there are over 400 parts that now would also need changing. As the parts from this mod and SM Marine are meant to work together I'd have to change all those as well. There are also very valid reasons why using a texture switch is not an option for lbp . Edited June 16, 2017 by SpannerMonkey(smce) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BF2_Pilot Posted June 17, 2017 Share Posted June 17, 2017 14 hours ago, SpannerMonkey(smce) said: Hi, nope cant change the color again as there are over 400 parts that now would also need changing. As the parts from this mod and SM Marine are meant to work together I'd have to change all those as well. There are also very valid reasons why using a texture switch is not an option for lbp . OK,I can change the color by myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColonelVInnie Posted June 18, 2017 Share Posted June 18, 2017 I've been getting a strange bug that my ships bounce up and down when they are driven ahead, is there a way to fix this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpannerMonkey(smce) Posted June 18, 2017 Author Share Posted June 18, 2017 1 hour ago, ColonelVInnie said: I've been getting a strange bug that my ships bounce up and down when they are driven ahead, is there a way to fix this? Hi some pictures of the craft are needed before i can even guess whats going on, and some details, such as mass, method of propulsion (if you're using anything other than the supplied drives) Note if you are using anything other than supplied propeller drives I will be unable to offer any resolution , the use of rocket or jet engines with these parts is not supported and actively discouraged Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColonelVInnie Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 Admittedly I did weld my parts, but not all of them have a bounce, especially my earlier ones. The side panels are just modified ballast tanks. Spoiler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpannerMonkey(smce) Posted June 19, 2017 Author Share Posted June 19, 2017 (edited) There is nothing in that whole video that i can perceive as being amiss, wrong, or undesirable . Although as you are running a broken FS hangar extender i wonder what else you are running that is also dubious. For problems with welded vessels you are on your own, the parts are made and balanced weighted individually and welding them destroys all of that by writing a whole new cfg that may or may not be correct for the vessel and as such it's been taken out of my hands . Edited June 19, 2017 by SpannerMonkey(smce) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColonelVInnie Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 At the later parts of the video the navball shows a prograde shift from +10 to -10 degress.The speed also slowed from ~12m/s to 10m/s. The main problem is the fact that with the bounce other vessels don't like to target the ship properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpannerMonkey(smce) Posted June 19, 2017 Author Share Posted June 19, 2017 16 minutes ago, ColonelVInnie said: At the later parts of the video the navball shows a prograde shift from +10 to -10 degress Its a very heavy ship, it is floating they ALL do similar things depending on setup, find me a ship that does not display ANY movement up down What do have you driving the vessel? excessive gimbal movement is the most likely cause, but i still say there is nothing evident in that video that causes me concern. Why is the RCS on and what is it doing if not feeding the oscillation? BUT if you are trying to manually aim turrets from a moving ship i can say with some confidence that it's not going to be a great success, there is no stabilization of manually aimed turrets , Simply firing the guns causes the ship to roll enough to throw the shot off target , turning causes pitching and rolling , all these things are normal behavior for an object that is floating. As the ship accelerates the bow lifts slightly. especially if you have the drives mounted in proper ship like positions,, and then drops again. firing the guns also pushes the hull down in the water, because thats the way it works. IF you want a stable platform for manually aimed turrets ships are not it. You want to fight ships start to use guard mode and set up some decent competition (mind you using OP NAS turrets sort of rules out guard mode unless you want a one shot battle) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColonelVInnie Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 So this is my earlier built ship. (like 5 months ago I think) It shows no sign of bouncing. Spoiler Notes: I do not use gimbals on the engines, I use the modified rcs thruster in the sides. By guard more I meant a ship with guard mode shooting at a moving ship. The max heat is increased to accommodate for the NAS turrets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpannerMonkey(smce) Posted June 19, 2017 Author Share Posted June 19, 2017 19 minutes ago, ColonelVInnie said: Notes: That is not a valid comparison as differently shaped hulls behave in different ways. In your two examples you have ship 1 double ended. ship 2 traditional fig box hull. The buoyancy affects both hulls in different ways. The double ended hull has very high buoyancy amidships with buoyancy and force applied being greatly reduced as you move away from the center, this leads to a ship with a a tendency to pitch around maximum buoyancy. Add to that ,you have the turrets mounted outside of the area of maximum buoyancy so this adds to the pitching As you have provided no way to counteract this force it can continue and once the hull starts pushing beyond half a meter below its designed float depth, the game physics start pushing back at maximum force, sending the other less buoyant end downwards, and so it goes on If you let it it will continue until something breaks or the Kraken taps you on the shoulder. simply changing course slightly can sometimes break the cycle, Bad design =bad performance The second hull has high buoyancy for over 5/5 of it's length and all of the turrets are mounted within the area of maximum buoyancy , leading to a very stable hull. good design = good performance As for guard mode on ships and targeting , I regularly run large scenarios with ships and aircraft combined, and aside from making more ship parts and creative ways to destroy other craft , that's pretty much all i do these days in KSP and never have I had a hull behave so badly that it could not use guard mode successfully , not even in the horror that was 1.13, when two ships couldn't be in the same scene without getting slung into orbit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColonelVInnie Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 I see the point now. I guess it would be more of a problem i have with ksp buoyancy. It definitely is better than what it was though. Thank you for clarifying that. Just curious, how far apart are the ships when you run the scenarios? That might explain part of the inaccuracy for me. And finally what did you mean by a broken FS hangar extender? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpannerMonkey(smce) Posted June 19, 2017 Author Share Posted June 19, 2017 28 minutes ago, ColonelVInnie said: Just curious, how far apart are the ships when you run the scenarios? Usually kick off is at around 20km for the ships and 30 for the aircraft. The latest BDA allows for a lot higher ranges and RBDA allows for full scale combat, it's not unusual after 30 mins or so for things to be spread across the entire bay between the islands , ksc and the far point so easily 300sqkm i'd say in total broken hangar extender, unless you are not using hangar extender and are using some other tool to build outside of the hangar. the hangar view was removed in 1.2 because the building could no longer be scaled , now when you click the extend button the craft is simply out in the open as below http://i.imgur.com/Ul0AYwv.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColonelVInnie Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 (edited) Strange... which version is that? I am unable to find an update. It would be nice of you to provide a link. On a side note, there are a few things that I never got to working properly in BDA related weapons. -GPS not working properly -Bomb reticles covering half the screen Edited June 19, 2017 by ColonelVInnie Missed a 0 in the config files. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpannerMonkey(smce) Posted June 19, 2017 Author Share Posted June 19, 2017 10 minutes ago, ColonelVInnie said: Strange... which version is that? I am unable to find an update. It would be nice of you to provide a link. On a side note, there are a few things that I never got to working properly in BDA related weapons. -GPS not working properly -Bomb reticles covering half the screen Sounds like you have some issues that have long ago been dealt with This is the BDA releases page https://github.com/PapaJoesSoup/BDArmory/releases And this is the latest version for ksp 1.3 https://github.com/PapaJoesSoup/BDArmory/releases/download/v0.2.1.2/BDArmory.0.2.1.2_06172017.zip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ColonelVInnie Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 I am still using 1.2.2 as some mods haven't updated, so I was referring to the 1.2.2 BDArmory and FS Hangar Extender. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpannerMonkey(smce) Posted June 19, 2017 Author Share Posted June 19, 2017 12 minutes ago, ColonelVInnie said: I am still using 1.2.2 as some mods haven't updated, so I was referring to the 1.2.2 BDArmory and FS Hangar Extender. There is a 1.22 version of BDA on the releases page lower down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts