m4v Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 What was the reason behind changing node attributes? Currently they are making stock mk2 parts to not fit with mk2 expansion mod Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stupid_chris Posted May 16, 2014 Author Share Posted May 16, 2014 What was the reason behind changing node attributes? Currently they are making stock mk2 parts to not fit with mk2 expansion modhttp://i.imgur.com/TXmH4Q9.pngSo that they end up in the center of the part. This way non-Mk2 parts don't look weird attached to them and are well centered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m4v Posted May 16, 2014 Share Posted May 16, 2014 So that they end up in the center of the part. This way non-Mk2 parts don't look weird attached to them and are well centered.ah ok, I think I'll be removing that in my install though. Is not really a balance issue, more like an aesthetic one, and simpler than editing the nodes of mods that expect stock's nodes position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BPI_Bel Posted May 18, 2014 Share Posted May 18, 2014 With an understanding that Stupid_Chris's schedule strongly affects any possible changes, is there plans to update the mod to the current 2.x releases of modulemanager? Seems like something like this would be best applied right after stock.In fact, if others agree with the load point, I may take a shot at updating the files for that purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stupid_chris Posted May 18, 2014 Author Share Posted May 18, 2014 With an understanding that Stupid_Chris's schedule strongly affects any possible changes, is there plans to update the mod to the current 2.x releases of modulemanager? Seems like something like this would be best applied right after stock.In fact, if others agree with the load point, I may take a shot at updating the files for that purpose.Yes there is, after I'm done with my exams. which should be next week. Patience is key.And to be honest, the only advantage MM2.0 brings is to pass the engine nodes before HotRockets <.< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vardicd Posted May 27, 2014 Share Posted May 27, 2014 Just a note, has anyone else noticed this mod not playing nice with Mech-jeb? I've noticed that with this installed, ships will sway back and forth. I assumed it was because it lowered the reaction wheel strength of the pods and suck, but even with that part of the mod stripped out and the reaction wheels at full strength, I still see it, but if I remove this mod completely, the craft goes back to rock solid. Has anyone else seen this? Does anyone else know why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m4v Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 what do you mean by "sway back and forth"? finding the .cfg responsible of the behaviour would help, If you have time you can do a binary search? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vardicd Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 what do you mean by "sway back and forth"? finding the .cfg responsible of the behaviour would help, If you have time you can do a binary search?I don't even know what that means let alone how to do it. By "sway back and forth" I mean if I set MJ to fly a craft at a heading of 90, pitch 20, the craft will fly that way but its true heading will fluctuate from heading 87 to 93. If I remove this mod completely, MJ will hold 90 dead on. I thought it was the cfg that messed with the reaction wheels, or cockpits, but even with those removed it still happened. I noticed the other day there is a config that had something to do with mass? next time I try KSP I'll boot that config out and see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeGee Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 Are the jet engines rebalanced as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justin Kerbice Posted May 30, 2014 Share Posted May 30, 2014 @stupid_chris and contributors: what about lowering maxTemp parameters of parts ?Cause as it is now, it's really weird, do you know so much material which are able to sustain a temperature as high as 3200 °C (or worth K) like the stock Z-1k Rechargeable Battery Bank ?Most metal and rock melt long before that !Even more weird: why engines can self-destruct from over-heating ?Are they made of weaker material ? It's non-sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stupid_chris Posted May 30, 2014 Author Share Posted May 30, 2014 I don't even know what that means let alone how to do it. By "sway back and forth" I mean if I set MJ to fly a craft at a heading of 90, pitch 20, the craft will fly that way but its true heading will fluctuate from heading 87 to 93. If I remove this mod completely, MJ will hold 90 dead on. I thought it was the cfg that messed with the reaction wheels, or cockpits, but even with those removed it still happened. I noticed the other day there is a config that had something to do with mass? next time I try KSP I'll boot that config out and see what happens.I really can't tell much with the information you're giving me.Are the jet engines rebalanced as well?Do they need to be? As far as I know they are actually okay like this.@stupid_chris and contributors: what about lowering maxTemp parameters of parts ?Cause as it is now, it's really weird, do you know so much material which are able to sustain a temperature as high as 3200 °C (or worth K) like the stock Z-1k Rechargeable Battery Bank ?Most metal and rock melt long before that !Even more weird: why engines can self-destruct from over-heating ?Are they made of weaker material ? It's non-sense.Because engines produce heat. And yes, real engines can break down from overheating, it happened to an engine in one of the Falcon 9's launch.As for maxTemp, since it's barely used at all in stock, I'm not really going to go and modify it. The only reason you should care about it is with DeadlyReentry, and they already modify all the values. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vardicd Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 I really can't tell much with the information you're giving me.I'm operating under the assumption I am an idiot and missed something obvious, I wasn't posting my comment as a bug report per se, just as a hey I noticed this behavior, has anyone else seen this? I'm currently running a total of 30 mods for KSP. I'm sure my issue is somewhere I have a mod that isn't playing nice with this mod. I just haven't narrowed it down yet. I've only seen one other person report this behavior, and he did so over on the MJ forum. I'm trying to talk to him, and see if we have any mods in common and narrow down what the issue is. If I can isolate where the problem is, then I'll post a bug report, if its a bug. Thanks though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stupid_chris Posted May 31, 2014 Author Share Posted May 31, 2014 I'm operating under the assumption I am an idiot and missed something obvious, I wasn't posting my comment as a bug report per se, just as a hey I noticed this behavior, has anyone else seen this? I'm currently running a total of 30 mods for KSP. I'm sure my issue is somewhere I have a mod that isn't playing nice with this mod. I just haven't narrowed it down yet. I've only seen one other person report this behavior, and he did so over on the MJ forum. I'm trying to talk to him, and see if we have any mods in common and narrow down what the issue is. If I can isolate where the problem is, then I'll post a bug report, if its a bug. Thanks though.I thought you were doing the latter, which is reporting a bug. If not then carry on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
etheoma Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 (edited) I did write another comment then realized the reason why I was only getting 28.9% out of the fusion reactor was because I was using a direct conversion generator, a assume it gets better efficiency but can only deal with so much energy I assume.My bad. Edited May 31, 2014 by etheoma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vardicd Posted May 31, 2014 Share Posted May 31, 2014 I thought you were doing the latter, which is reporting a bug. If not then carry on No not yet, just fishing for more information. I don't want to waste your time with a false bug report, when it might just be something on my end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stupid_chris Posted June 1, 2014 Author Share Posted June 1, 2014 I did write another comment then realized the reason why I was only getting 28.9% out of the fusion reactor was because I was using a direct conversion generator, a assume it gets better efficiency but can only deal with so much energy I assume.My bad.Fusion... reactor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taverius Posted June 1, 2014 Share Posted June 1, 2014 I think he was meaning to post in the KSPi thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epicfacecanada Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 do you think you could add a radial separator to the SRP? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stupid_chris Posted June 9, 2014 Author Share Posted June 9, 2014 do you think you could add a radial separator to the SRP?As in an omni decoupler, but radial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epicfacecanada Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 As in an omni decoupler, but radial?Yeah. There is a mod for these but it is outdated and the download isn't there anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stupid_chris Posted June 9, 2014 Author Share Posted June 9, 2014 Yeah. There is a mod for these but it is outdated and the download isn't there anymore.Yeah sure, that wouldn't be too hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
epicfacecanada Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 (edited) Yeah sure, that wouldn't be too hard.Thanks . Edited June 9, 2014 by epicfacecanada Error in quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duxwing Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Solar panels produce little electricity near Jool and none beyond two-thirds of Eeloo's periapsis, respectively impeding and preventing Joolian and Eelooian ion propulsion of large payloads because the long burn times and many ion engines they necessitate require impractically-massive battery banks. The only practical alternative is the LV-N, which requires so much fuel as to prevent creating an interplanetary 'taxi'. Was this effect intentional?-Duxwing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stupid_chris Posted June 17, 2014 Author Share Posted June 17, 2014 Yes. Solar panels are nearly useless at Jupiter, this is why all probes sent that far have been using RTGs, except Juno, but the area of it's solar panels is quite mind boggling. That gives a much more distinct place for RTGs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duxwing Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Yes. Solar panels are nearly useless at Jupiter, this is why all probes sent that far have been using RTGs, except Juno, but the area of it's solar panels is quite mind boggling. That gives a much more distinct place for RTGs.Ay-ay-ay... Players therefore encounter a dilemma: Near Future Technologies or huge mission bills?-Duxwing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now