KawaiiLucy Posted May 24, 2021 Share Posted May 24, 2021 5 hours ago, cineboxandrew said: The colliders are designed to allow offsetting downwards over a junior docking port Would it be possible to allow the same for the mk16 parachute? As of now if you clip it, the LES can't be jettisoned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krzeszny Posted May 24, 2021 Share Posted May 24, 2021 (edited) 6 hours ago, cineboxandrew said: Neither of those parts are added by Restock+, take it up with squad No, you misunderstood. I didn't mean that the Stratus-V tank was too big. In fact, I calculated the volumes of the FL-R10 cylinder and the Stratus-V sphere and they're equal, so it makes perfect sense in stock KSP. I meant that the spherical tank modeled inside the ReStock's FL-R10 is too small for FL-R10's volume. Based on the remodeled FL-R10 and mathematics, the ReStock volume (assuming the ReStock's inside sphere's diameter being about 89% of the FL-R10's height) would be 21% of the stock FL-R10. ReStock FL-R10's visible volume is 5 times smaller than the vanilla FL-R10's visible volume. (It's similar with bigger FL-R tanks but it's not obvious due to no bigger Stratus-V tanks.) Edited May 24, 2021 by Krzeszny mathematics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiCaRiO31 Posted May 24, 2021 Share Posted May 24, 2021 12 hours ago, cineboxandrew said: The colliders are designed to allow offsetting downwards over a junior docking port ah! I see. Will try that tonight, but from the image I am worried it may clip the top with a ungly docking port ring thingy . 12 hours ago, cineboxandrew said: I haven't looked into it, but I'm pretty sure this would hurt save compatibility. any existing vessels when this change is made would have the shrouds on by default even in flight with nothing attached Im asuming thats because the shroud would be part of the docking port, instead of part of the decoupler/stack separator. I was under the impression that the shroud was a part of the decoupler/stack separator, instead of the docking port itself, since when you attacht one to an engine, the shroud stays on the decoupler once you stage, not in the engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starseeker Posted May 24, 2021 Share Posted May 24, 2021 2 hours ago, SiCaRiO31 said: ah! I see. Will try that tonight, but from the image I am worried it may clip the top with a ungly docking port ring thingy . One "small" translation unit (the first snap point with snapping on and shift held) is the perfect clip distance in my experience; makes the gap much, much smaller without clipping the port into anywhere weird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiCaRiO31 Posted May 25, 2021 Share Posted May 25, 2021 On 5/24/2021 at 9:26 PM, Starseeker said: One "small" translation unit (the first snap point with snapping on and shift held) is the perfect clip distance in my experience; makes the gap much, much smaller without clipping the port into anywhere weird you are absolutly right. It just looks so much better Spoiler (kinda still want that docking port skirt with decouplers/stack separators though, you never know when one would come in handy :P) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRoyal25 Posted May 26, 2021 Share Posted May 26, 2021 (edited) Why do the Oscar tank variants from RS+ have different "capacity densities" than the stock Oscar-B? Namely the Oscar-C, which despite being larger has less fuel. Edited May 26, 2021 by RedRoyal25 Reworded because I realized it sounded rude Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nertea Posted May 26, 2021 Author Share Posted May 26, 2021 On 5/24/2021 at 2:22 AM, Krzeszny said: No, you misunderstood. I didn't mean that the Stratus-V tank was too big. In fact, I calculated the volumes of the FL-R10 cylinder and the Stratus-V sphere and they're equal, so it makes perfect sense in stock KSP. I meant that the spherical tank modeled inside the ReStock's FL-R10 is too small for FL-R10's volume. Based on the remodeled FL-R10 and mathematics, the ReStock volume (assuming the ReStock's inside sphere's diameter being about 89% of the FL-R10's height) would be 21% of the stock FL-R10. ReStock FL-R10's visible volume is 5 times smaller than the vanilla FL-R10's visible volume. (It's similar with bigger FL-R tanks but it's not obvious due to no bigger Stratus-V tanks.) If you want all capacities to be accurately scaled to pressure vessels, this is not the mod you want. 8 hours ago, RedRoyal25 said: Why do the Oscar tank variants from RS+ have different "capacity densities" than the stock Oscar-B? Namely the Oscar-C, which despite being larger has less fuel. From the readme: Quote In addition some glaring bugfixes and improvements are included: - The volume of the Oscar-B tank has been reduced to make room for the rest of the Oscar series tanks. The tank's mass ratio is unchanged The original ratio is about 3x that of most other tanks in the game. If you have an existing craft file, the old fuel load will still apply. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRoyal25 Posted May 27, 2021 Share Posted May 27, 2021 Quote The original ratio is about 3x that of most other tanks in the game. If you have an existing craft file, the old fuel load will still apply. why don't i see the patched one then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QAM00 Posted May 29, 2021 Share Posted May 29, 2021 On 5/20/2021 at 2:29 AM, KeaKaka said: Pop into the Stock Waterfall Effects engine configs, and delete the !ReStock in the line: NEEDS:[Waterfall,!ReStock] for the non-restocked engines you want to have waterfall for. I tried it out and it works! Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiCaRiO31 Posted June 3, 2021 Share Posted June 3, 2021 Anyone else thinks that the Pug its a bit overpowered compared to the Terrier? Its 40% its weight and can store 3 times more fuel than its volume suggest. Spoiler Compare to a ball of 2 Oscar-O tanks, the 6 small tanks in the Pug should be able to carry at most 3/4 what the Oscar-O ball does, so something like 6 LF and 7.5 Ox, instead of the current 18/22. Because of this, the Pug its the better choise of engine for most spacecrafts up until really massive ones (where the aditional ISP of the Terrier starts to make a difference), which are a few tiers above the tech level of theese engines. In my career I have the Pug edited a bit, with a dry mass of 0.28 T (instead of 0.2) and 6/7.5 LF/O fuel tanks. What do you guys think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evileye.x Posted June 3, 2021 Share Posted June 3, 2021 50 minutes ago, SiCaRiO31 said: What do you guys think? I think it does not have gimbal?.... If someone (like me) plays with semi-realistic reaction wheels and persistent rotation, it matters a lot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiCaRiO31 Posted June 4, 2021 Share Posted June 4, 2021 19 hours ago, evileye.x said: I think it does not have gimbal?.... If someone (like me) plays with semi-realistic reaction wheels and persistent rotation, it matters a lot. True. Been playing with Kiwis tech tree with persistent rotation and mandatory RCs so the first few launches were difficult. But once you unlock linear RCSs then you pretty much dont need gimbaling. the Pug is even better than the Ant in most situations. Without edits, I just dont see the point in using other vacum engine at low/mid tier. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dressian Exploder Posted June 6, 2021 Share Posted June 6, 2021 (edited) Ngl the radial Materials Bay do be lookin' kinda sus... just sayin' Edited June 6, 2021 by The Dressian Exploder amogus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman.Spiff Posted June 6, 2021 Share Posted June 6, 2021 15 minutes ago, The Dressian Exploder said: Ngl the radial Materials Bay do be lookin' kinda sus... just sayin' what do your multimeters look like? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theJesuit Posted June 6, 2021 Share Posted June 6, 2021 2 hours ago, Spaceman.Spiff said: what do your multimeters look like? All the multimeters i buy come included with a suspended mini kraken. Peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRoyal25 Posted June 7, 2021 Share Posted June 7, 2021 (edited) On 6/3/2021 at 2:10 PM, SiCaRiO31 said: Anyone else thinks that the Pug its a bit overpowered compared to the Terrier? Its 40% its weight and can store 3 times more fuel than its volume suggest. Hide contents Compare to a ball of 2 Oscar-O tanks, the 6 small tanks in the Pug should be able to carry at most 3/4 what the Oscar-O ball does, so something like 6 LF and 7.5 Ox, instead of the current 18/22. Because of this, the Pug its the better choise of engine for most spacecrafts up until really massive ones (where the aditional ISP of the Terrier starts to make a difference), which are a few tiers above the tech level of theese engines. In my career I have the Pug edited a bit, with a dry mass of 0.28 T (instead of 0.2) and 6/7.5 LF/O fuel tanks. What do you guys think? I have noticed that. However i tend to lock the pug's tanks to use as emergency dV for if i fall a bit short, and that extra dV is not included in my calculations. i actually am working on sending a rescue mission to a ship that i didn't do that for Edited June 7, 2021 by RedRoyal25 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedRoyal25 Posted June 8, 2021 Share Posted June 8, 2021 (edited) are the 1.25m intakes canidates for being restocked? everyone I ask says that the mismatch drives them insane. I understand you have a life and several other mods to maintain, and that you have said before that intakes were "out of scope," but this is among the things that I personally believe desperately need attention. Edited June 8, 2021 by RedRoyal25 Reworded to be less demanding Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dressian Exploder Posted June 13, 2021 Share Posted June 13, 2021 While we're on the subject of resctocking more parts, is there a reason that the Thud wasn't Restock'd? IT'S NOT AS BAD AS PEOPLE THINK! SEVERAL LAUNCH VEHICLES IN MY CAREER SAVES ARE THUD-BASED! (sorry for the small thud rant. Thud Gud) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hohmannson Posted June 14, 2021 Share Posted June 14, 2021 23 hours ago, The Dressian Exploder said: Thud wasn't Restock'd Same as Dart. But for now, you can take them from Ven's Stock Revamp, they blend with Restock stuff nicely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dressian Exploder Posted June 15, 2021 Share Posted June 15, 2021 I wonder, what other parts haven't been restock'd (Apart from the spaceplane parts.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nertea Posted June 15, 2021 Author Share Posted June 15, 2021 (edited) I do not have any intention at the moment of working on other parts for Restock, though I can't speak for other team members. Certainly 1.12 will bring a fairly annoying chunk of rework though. Edited June 15, 2021 by Nertea Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDSlice Posted June 15, 2021 Share Posted June 15, 2021 8 minutes ago, Nertea said: I do not have any intention at the moment of working on other parts for Restock, though I can't speak for other team members. Certainly 1.12 will bring a fairly annoying chunk of rework though. At least on the bright side once it gets updated to 1.12 you won’t ever have to update it again for future KSP versions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nertea Posted June 15, 2021 Author Share Posted June 15, 2021 15 minutes ago, CDSlice said: At least on the bright side once it gets updated to 1.12 you won’t ever have to update it again for future KSP versions. I am very happy about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Poodmund Posted June 15, 2021 Share Posted June 15, 2021 1 hour ago, CDSlice said: At least on the bright side once it gets updated to 1.12 you won’t ever have to update it again for future KSP versions. You've jinxed it. I don't know how... but somehow, you have jinxed it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spaceman.Spiff Posted June 15, 2021 Share Posted June 15, 2021 20 minutes ago, Poodmund said: You've jinxed it. I don't know how... but somehow, you have jinxed it. Well of course KSP2 will for sure have its share of mod-breaking updates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.