gigaboom2 Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 Sooner or later, we shall end up with a 20m monstrosity that will will inspire the question:"WHY NOT BIGGER?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virtualgenius Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 I am really happy with this pack it doesn't need to be bigger or smaller if you don't like some things put a bit of effort in and remove them and customise it for yourself, if you want things bigger then use the tweakscale mod its not brain surgery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starwaster Posted January 25, 2015 Share Posted January 25, 2015 I am really happy with this pack it doesn't need to be bigger or smaller if you don't like some things put a bit of effort in and remove them and customise it for yourself, if you want things bigger then use the tweakscale mod its not brain surgery.Yeah that's a good idea. Those tiny little 5m parts are so puny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stali79 Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 is kw dead? no update to 0.90? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BudgetHedgehog Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 is kw dead? no update to 0.90?No, doesn't need one. Works fine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkTheRabidCat Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 No, doesn't need one. Works fine.Yeaaaah, No it DOES NOT work fine, just tried it the attachment points are all over the [fluffy bunnies], they need to be reconfigured to show up in the new sort options, and the fairings themselves don't want to eject. Oh, and the fairings also freak out when you try to offset them.NOT working fine.(also, the clicking box for the fairings in the VAB are really really small, but that might be intentional)Please update, please please please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Tao Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 @MarkTheRabidCat:If you read back over the posts since KSP 0.90 was released, you'll see that most people are not having trouble with KW Rocketry. If you want help, you'll need to post the versions of every mod you have installed (preferably just KWR) as well as some other information requested in the How to Get Support sticky like your output log and a description of what actually happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blowfish Posted January 30, 2015 Share Posted January 30, 2015 The categories and agency stuff should be updated, but that's more of a tweak than something game-breaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoseEduardo Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 well, i am indeed having an issue with the petal adapter not allowing me to decouple a lander after i dock with it, if i decouple both, fine, if i decouple the ship, dock it with the lander, and try to decouple it from the petal adapter it simply doesn't decouple, it acts as if i decoupled, as i can't control the petal adapter or anything, but doesn't let me take the lander away from the adapter...and it's not a lander design issue, as i said, if i decouple both before docking, everything works fine and the very same lander goes out of it without a issue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KhaosCorp Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 When 0.90 first launched alot of people were having issues that a reinstall fixed right up.....try this first!Have been using KW with KSP 0.90 and have had ZERO issues....nodes all in the proper spots, fairings working as they should....even used the petal adapter couple times without issue. Im also using ALOT of mods on a couple of my installs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raven. Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 When 0.90 first launched alot of people were having issues that a reinstall fixed right up.....try this first!Have been using KW with KSP 0.90 and have had ZERO issues....nodes all in the proper spots, fairings working as they should....even used the petal adapter couple times without issue. Im also using ALOT of mods on a couple of my installs.I've been using KWRocketry in 0.90 since 0.25 without issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 I've been using KWRocketry in 0.90 since 0.25 without issue.Same here. It's as solid as ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LawnDartLeo Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 No noted issues here, either. Wont say that KW is without flaw or blame but to this point it has worked without any noticeable deficit for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blowfish Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 well, i am indeed having an issue with the petal adapter not allowing me to decouple a lander after i dock with it, if i decouple both, fine, if i decouple the ship, dock it with the lander, and try to decouple it from the petal adapter it simply doesn't decouple, it acts as if i decoupled, as i can't control the petal adapter or anything, but doesn't let me take the lander away from the adapter...and it's not a lander design issue, as i said, if i decouple both before docking, everything works fine and the very same lander goes out of it without a issueI'm pretty sure the petal adapter is just fiddly and has always been. IIRC there are specific usage instructions in the part description - are you following them exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkTheRabidCat Posted January 31, 2015 Share Posted January 31, 2015 (edited) <me complaining and whining about stuff without trying to trouble shoot frist>Ok, I"m running the Interstellar 0.90 fix, FAR (Farram Areospace), SCANsat, Remote Tech, Deadly Reentry, KAS (Kerbal Attachment System), Kerbal Alarmclock, TAC Life Support, Kerbal Joint Reinforcement, and Active Texture Management on Basic mode.I added KWRocktry recently, and am just running the default install with just the folder for gamedata and nothing from extras, as per the instructions (unless I read them wrong).Whenever I use the fairings, in the VAB... well here's a thousand wordsAnd it's the same with all of the other sizes to, just, bigger.The fairings also don't detach when I hit decouple, whether I hit it on the base or on the cone.Everything else seems fine though, the fuel tanks and thrusters etc.KWR I downloaded just yesterday and everything should be relatively up to date, I only downloaded them as of the last week.And this is why I'm freaking out. Help?(PS What makes the interstage adapters different from normal adapters?) Edited January 31, 2015 by MarkTheRabidCat Post Statement Curiousity! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m4v Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 KW, stop trolling me with your farings...(that's a mk1 lander can) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j-tk Posted February 1, 2015 Share Posted February 1, 2015 Question: Does the game have any lighting mods like the picture on the front page there, sort of like at night how the shuttles were bathed in the Xenon lights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SmashBrown Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 KW, stop trolling me with your farings...http://i.imgur.com/CZygJsZ.png(that's a mk1 lander can)Yeah thats a problem lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngelLestat Posted February 4, 2015 Share Posted February 4, 2015 Hi, I install only 3 parts of this mod.One is the double engine named Maverick-1D with 350 thrust.But I have one problem, even with active memory reduction, when I use this engine (I mean 12 engines like this in 3 first stage bossters "spacex style") my frame rate drops to 4 or 6.If I use normal ksp engines (2 for each Maverick-1D that I remplace) I have less frame rate problems.So I guess the problem is with the FX particle exhaust.How can I tune it to improve performance?PREFAB_PARTICLE { name = smoke1 prefabName = fx_smokeTrail_light transformName = OldFXTransform emission = 0.0 0.0 emission = 0.05 0.0 emission = 0.075 0.25 emission = 1.0 1.25 speed = 0.0 0.25 speed = 1.0 1.0 localOffset = 0, 0, 0 } PREFAB_PARTICLE { name = smoke2 prefabName = fx_smokeTrail_light transformName = OldFX2Transform emission = 0.0 0.0 emission = 0.05 0.0 emission = 0.075 0.25 emission = 1.0 1.25 speed = 0.0 0.25 speed = 1.0 1.0 localOffset = 0, 0, 0 } MODEL_MULTI_PARTICLE { modelName = Squad/FX/ks1_Exhaust transformName = FX2Transform emission = 0.0 0.0 emission = 0.05 0.0 emission = 0.055 0.15 emission = 0.6 0.8 speed = 0.0 0.5 speed = 1.0 1.2 }Any idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostOblivion Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Anyone know why KW_RCS_1mBlock.mu has a reference to KW2mFairingBase8bit.mbm? Latter doesn't seem to be related to the RCS thrusters... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrous Oxide Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 KW, stop trolling me with your farings...http://i.imgur.com/CZygJsZ.png(that's a mk1 lander can)After I discovered ProceduralFairings, I kinda laugh at these now. So bad... plz remove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Itsdavyjones Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 After I discovered ProceduralFairings, I kinda laugh at these now. So bad... plz remove.So what you're saying, is since PF exists, KW fairings should be deleted. Sorry, but I dislike PF for that very reason, having to build around the fairings is more fun than having the fairings instantly adapt to what you build, but that is my preference, and you have yours. But there is no way you should try to force your preference onto others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m4v Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 After I discovered ProceduralFairings, I kinda laugh at these now. So bad... plz remove.Is not that KW fairings are bad, just that their size is arbitrary and doesn't fit common payloads and configurations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undercoveryankee Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 Is not that KW fairings are bad, just that their size is arbitrary and doesn't fit common payloads and configurations.I'm pretty sure the 1.25 and 2.5 KW fairings share a model. If I were modeling a 1.25 expanded fairing specifically, the lander can would be an obvious thing to check. But if I had already completed and tested the model at 2.5m scale, I could understand going with the shape I liked at 2.5 even if it was awkward with a couple of designs at 1.25. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostOblivion Posted February 5, 2015 Share Posted February 5, 2015 The KW Rocketry fairings look waaay better than the PF ones, however the PF ones are waaay more practical, so I use them as well.Here's my tribute to KW Rocketry. Thanks guys!Javascript is disabled. View full album Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts