Rassa Farlander Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Thanks for the hard work! This is a great mod and its working awesome for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfjohnny5 Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 So I haven't played in a few months, but jumped back in with the 0.22 update. So I went and installed my old favorites for mods. So here's my question - is there some reason that the KW engines seem to "detach" quite a bit? I mean it's not all the time, but I always used to have to manually strut the KW engines to the fuel tanks to make sure they wouldn't, well, fall off. I was surprised to see I still have issues with the KW engines kind of wobbling around threatening to fall off even now - months after I last played. It's not a reproducible bug - it's just one of those things. Any info/insight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kickasskyle Posted October 22, 2013 Author Share Posted October 22, 2013 So I haven't played in a few months, but jumped back in with the 0.22 update. So I went and installed my old favorites for mods. So here's my question - is there some reason that the KW engines seem to "detach" quite a bit? I mean it's not all the time, but I always used to have to manually strut the KW engines to the fuel tanks to make sure they wouldn't, well, fall off. I was surprised to see I still have issues with the KW engines kind of wobbling around threatening to fall off even now - months after I last played. It's not a reproducible bug - it's just one of those things. Any info/insight?It's more of KSP related bug than anything I can fix. Strutting engines has pretty much been what you have had to since the beginning for any engines more powerful than the mainsail or heavier rockets in general. Regardless it's not something I could fix unless I dump a lot of time into learning how plugins roll and what the syntax of it all is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Destroyer Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 For some reason, the 1.25 m engines won't decouple their shrouds.The 2.5m seems fine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kickasskyle Posted October 22, 2013 Author Share Posted October 22, 2013 For some reason, the 1.25 m engines won't decouple their shrouds.The 2.5m seems fineI just checked, mine all work fine. From the looks of it you've somehow found a way to make the 1.25m decoupler stay attached to the ship when it's decoupled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberion Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 Maybe it was on upside down? (can't really see the details) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taverius Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 @KickAssStyle: I just noticed you still have 0.21 levels for alternator power. It went up considerably in 0.22 - as of right now stock 1.25m have 25%+ more electric output than KW 2.5m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Destroyer Posted October 22, 2013 Share Posted October 22, 2013 It wasn't upside-down, it was connected to a booster, dunno why this happened. I could just use the no-auto shrouds cfg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Railgunner2160 Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 @The Destroyer, Just ran a test, the KW decoupler is most DEFIANTLY upside down in your case!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Destroyer Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Hmph, odd. How was it made upside-down? I never rotated it or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Railgunner2160 Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Seems somehow you flipped it over when you were putting it together, try flipping it over and see if it fixes it!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kickasskyle Posted October 23, 2013 Author Share Posted October 23, 2013 @KickAssStyle: I just noticed you still have 0.21 levels for alternator power. It went up considerably in 0.22 - as of right now stock 1.25m have 25%+ more electric output than KW 2.5m.I'll have a look and rebalance it for the next release, thanks for the heads up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasmic Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Seems somehow you flipped it over when you were putting it together, try flipping it over and see if it fixes it!!I don't actually think he's flipped it over - it would make more sense ifhe accidentally attached the lower attachment node of the decoupler to the engine, instead of the upper one. Then, the lower stage was attached to the upper node and got decoupled, but as the lower node doesn't decouple, the upper stage was stuck with the decoupler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smunisto Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 Gotta say, since I installed KW Rocketry 2.5.4, I experienced some weird glitches with the engines - not only KW's, but stock ones too. Sadly, I was not able to reproduce the bugs or to identify any cause.The issue is as follows:Sometimes when you fire an engine via staging - it does not produce any thrust, does not consume fuel...like it is not connected to a fuel tank.It can be shut down and turned off again, but still does not work.Engine output and Thrust show "NaNu" values(The two fields that show numeric data in the context menu of the engines, not sure if those are the accurate names of the fields).This is only fixed by quicksaving and quickloading or a game restart.Any ideas what might be the cause? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sovek Posted October 23, 2013 Share Posted October 23, 2013 probably part clipping, I've done that a few times myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasmic Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 Why are many of the image files .mbm files? In an earlier version, they were all .tga (or was it .png?) files. That was quite nice, as they were actually editable. The .mbm's aren't. Is there any specific reason for almost all of the diffuse maps being .mbm's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kickasskyle Posted October 24, 2013 Author Share Posted October 24, 2013 Why are many of the image files .mbm files? In an earlier version, they were all .tga (or was it .png?) files. That was quite nice, as they were actually editable. The .mbm's aren't. Is there any specific reason for almost all of the diffuse maps being .mbm's?Did some testing to reduce the memory footprint on the older version and .tga was producing highly unfavorable results compared to .mbm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 .mbm files are just .raw with 20bit KSP-specific header and a vertical flip. They're very easily converted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deltac Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 .mbm files are just .raw with 20bit KSP-specific header and a vertical flip. They're very easily converted.with....?Did a google search earlier out of interest, and .mbm is also a picture file type used on mobile devices running the Symbian OS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starwaster Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 (edited) with....?Did a google search earlier out of interest, and .mbm is also a picture file type used on mobile devices running the Symbian OS.search spacport for converters. theres at least one.Did some testing to reduce the memory footprint on the older version and .tga was producing highly unfavorable results compared to .mbm.how do they compare with png's in 0.22? Edited October 25, 2013 by Starwaster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kickasskyle Posted October 25, 2013 Author Share Posted October 25, 2013 how do they compare with png's in 0.22?pngs are still a little worse than mbms, but no where near as badly as .tga. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wasmic Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 pngs are still a little worse than mbms, but no where near as badly as .tga.The results with tga being worse than mbm makes no sense. I thought they were all converted to .dds files ingame? Anyway (and I know that this is a lot to ask for, as you've already re-exported KW twice), it qould be smart to convert the mbm's to png's, as that would allow people to resize them themselves. There is currently quite a lot of 1024*1024 mbm textures in kw, and their size is hard to reduce. It would be fantastic if we could resize them to sizes like 512*512 and 256*256, as it can cut down memory usage of the resized texture to a fourth or one sixteenth of a 1024*1024 texture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deltac Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 The results with tga being worse than mbm makes no sense. I thought they were all converted to .dds files ingame? Anyway (and I know that this is a lot to ask for, as you've already re-exported KW twice), it qould be smart to convert the mbm's to png's, as that would allow people to resize them themselves. There is currently quite a lot of 1024*1024 mbm textures in kw, and their size is hard to reduce. It would be fantastic if we could resize them to sizes like 512*512 and 256*256, as it can cut down memory usage of the resized texture to a fourth or one sixteenth of a 1024*1024 texture.Go back to the first page. There is a download link for smaller textures. As for how big they are, I dunno, but it's helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 25, 2013 Share Posted October 25, 2013 (edited) with....?You can use an .mbm converter from Spaceport, or manually re-name them to .raw and fiddle around with opening them in IrfanView. You'll need to manually set a bunch of data, but it's pretty easy to figure out. Just remember, set header to 20 bit.The results with tga being worse than mbm makes no sense. I thought they were all converted to .dds files ingame?Yes, they are. During the process, KSP keeps both .tga and converted .dds textures in memory at the same time. All of them. That's why it crashes on loading and scene transitions. That's quite a moronic way to load textures, BTW, but it's what we have to work with. Edited October 25, 2013 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kickasskyle Posted October 25, 2013 Author Share Posted October 25, 2013 The results with tga being worse than mbm makes no sense. I thought they were all converted to .dds files ingame? Anyway (and I know that this is a lot to ask for, as you've already re-exported KW twice), it qould be smart to convert the mbm's to png's, as that would allow people to resize them themselves. There is currently quite a lot of 1024*1024 mbm textures in kw, and their size is hard to reduce. It would be fantastic if we could resize them to sizes like 512*512 and 256*256, as it can cut down memory usage of the resized texture to a fourth or one sixteenth of a 1024*1024 texture.PNG's have no mipmaps which makes them look like an aliased mess most of the time.Plus PolecatEZ ever so kindly made a texture redux pack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts