Varses

It's definitely appreciated, thanks for the help anyway. I think I'll end up just making new textures anyway since it seems like it's easier (at least for my limited photoshop skills) than undoing the stretching around the poles and rotating everything, etc. To answer @darwinpatrick, I want to open them up because I'm trying to update the OPM Tilt addon which tilts Urlum by 90 degrees to be similar to Uranus. Because you can't actually tilt the axis for real (kerbal only supports bodies with a axis that's straight vertical) you have to rotate the textures by 90 degrees to sort of fake it. And then you have to do that with all the textures for a body including the biomes and normal maps and such. That's why I want to open them. But again, I think I'll just remake them at some point (it's on my ever-growing list of projects). Cheers

Thanks for the quick reply, though unfortunately I still haven't been able to open any of the biome maps. I've downloaded a couple other planet packs and can open those biome maps so it must be something about how OPM's are saved. I've tried GIMP with the DDS plugin, Paint.net, and DDS Viewer. Maybe I just need to bite the bullet and get Photoshop because it seems like it's the only thing that can open them. Granted, I'm a noob at all of this and just starting to dive into modding more than just .cfg files so maybe it's possible with those programs and I just don't know how to load it properly. Or I could just remake a tilted Urlum biome map from scratch instead of trying to modify the current one (which I hope is as easy as I think it should be). It's a learning experience either way EDIT: Hmmm, as it turns out, I can open some of the OPM biome maps. Tekto, Slate, and Wal work, none of the others do. Those were probably textured early on with a different save format.

Not sure if this is the right place, apologies if it isn't. I've been working on updating Sigma's OPM Tilt for my own save (it just requires a bit of config editing to update it for current versions of Kopernicus) but I'm having difficulty opening the biome maps of bodies for some reason. All the other texture files load fine. Whenever I try to load them, the program either throws an error or just gives me a solid black image. I've used a couple of DDS loader programs but none seem to have worked. Am I just being an idiot?

I've been trying to write a personal patch for KerbalAtomics that makes nuclear engines use EnrichedUranium and create DepletedFuel depending on the throttle (not a generator). I've tried this two ways but encountered a problem with each. First I tried setting DepletedFuel as a propellant with a negative ratio. This gave me the production rate I wanted but also made the engine think it was only getting 2/3 of the propellants and so would only give 2/3 the thrust. I could kludge it and just increase the thrust values to compensate but that bothers my OCD and I thought there must be a better way. @MODULE[ModuleEnginesFX] { PROPELLANT { name = DepletedFuel ratio = -0.000033 DrawGauge = False } } I then tried making an Alternator that would produce DepletedFuel but for some reason KSP doesn't seem to like making alternators with values below 0.01 units/s (and I would like a production rate around 0.00001 units/s). MODULE { name = ModuleAlternator RESOURCE { name = DepletedFuel rate = 0.000033 } } Are there any other ways to generate resources depending on the throttle? I'm just starting to learn this stuff so talk to me like I'm 5

Ok, so I've been struggling with making a .cfg patch for the last couple hours but I'm kinda confused about adding reliability modules to engines, especially multi-mode engines. First, I'm trying to make it so there are different reliability levels for the different modes in multi-mode engines. Basically the idea is that if you use it in the standard mode it produces much less wear on the engine than during the afterburner-type mode. The packaged Kerbalism patch for KerbalAtomics gives the trimodal engines (the ones that can burn LF only or LF+Ox for more thrust) only a single reliability number that's much lower than the single-mode engines. Also, I'm trying to hack my own patch for NearFutureAerospace which has a multi-mode nuclear jet/NTR and I have a similar problem, but this time with the number of rated ignitions. It would be nice if it had infinite ignitions in jet mode (like other jets) but limited when in NTR mode. Anyone have any thoughts? I'm pretty inexperienced at this and have mostly been doing copy and pasting and tweaking numbers.

Small issue: the config for RLA support no longer works because it went through a name change to RLA Reborn. Just needs a quick rename in the config and then it works fine

I mean, I'm totally making this up as I go Yes, there is less drag at lower pressure so...I dunno. From a purely gameplay perspective it seems ridiculous to me that on Duna you need far fewer solar cells to run at max throttle than on Kerbin, despite the greater distance of Duna. Also, thanks for the MM version @Drew Kerman. It's been forever since I did any config modding and module manager completely slipped my mind.

The main problem is that the thrust on the electric prop is constant and doesn't vary with speed or altitude. It's a decent approximation of real behavior for Kerbin and Laythe, but since Duna has such low gravity, you can literally fly into orbit with the current config So I went into the configs and tweaked the numbers so that it behaves a bit more realistically. PART { // Kerbal Space Program - Part Config // e50 Electric Propeller Engine // // --- general parameters --- name = KAXelectricprop module = Part author = Keptin //Big thanks to Snjo for his Firespitter plugin and help! // --- asset parameters --- mesh = electricProp.mu rescaleFactor = 0.01 // --- node definitions --- node_attach = 0.0, 0.0, 5.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0 // --- editor parameters --- TechRequired = aerodynamicSystems entryCost = 3200 cost = 750 category = Propulsion subcategory = 0 title = e50 Electric Propeller Engine manufacturer = Kerbal Aircraft Expansioneers Ltd description = An electric motor. // attachment rules: stack, srfAttach, allowStack, allowSrfAttach, allowCollision attachRules = 0,1,0,1,0 // --- standard part parameters --- mass = 0.2 dragModelType = default maximum_drag = 0.2 minimum_drag = 0.3 angularDrag = 2 crashTolerance = 6 breakingForce = 50 breakingTorque = 50 maxTemp = 2900 fuelCrossFeed = True MODULE { name = ModuleEnginesFX thrustVectorTransformName = thrustTransform exhaustDamage = False ignitionThreshold = 0.1 minThrust = 0 maxThrust = 1 heatProduction = 8 useEngineResponseTime = True engineAccelerationSpeed = 20 engineDecelerationSpeed = 20 spoolEffectName = idle PROPELLANT { name = ElectricCharge ratio = 0.4 DrawGauge = True } PROPELLANT { name = FSCoolant ratio = 0.01 } atmosphereCurve { key = 0 800 key = 1 800 } atmChangeFlow = True multFlow = False useVelCurve = True useAtmCurve = True atmCurve { key = 0 0 0 0 key = 0.05 0.15 0.1 0.1 key = 0.3 0.25 0.6 0.6 key = 1 1 0.4 0.4 key = 5 2 0 0 } velCurve { key = 0 1 0 0 key = 0.5 0.8 -0.9460317 -0.9460317 key = 0.8 0.3523809 -1.626984 -1.626984 key = 1 0 -1.761905 -1.761905 } } EFFECTS { idle { AUDIO { channel = Ship clip = KAX/Sounds/sound_kax_electricpropIdle volume = 0.0 0.0 volume = 0.01 0.7 volume = 1.0 0.7 pitch = 0.0 0.5 pitch = 1.0 0.65 loop = true } } } RESOURCE { name = FSCoolant amount = 5.0 maxAmount = 5.0 } MODULE { name = ModuleResourceIntake resourceName = FSCoolant checkForOxygen = false area = 1 intakeSpeed = 50 intakeTransformName = thrustTransform //Intake } MODULE { name = FSplanePropellerSpinner propellerName = geo_nosecone rotationSpeed = 400 //thrustRPM = 200 windmillRPM = 0.1 spinUpTime = 10 //15.0 useRotorDiscSwap = 1 rotorDiscFadeInStart = 0.95 rotorDiscFadeInEnd = .95 rotorDiscSpeed = 80 rotorDiscName = geo_propBlur blade1 = geo_blade1 blade2 = geo_blade2 blade3 = geo_nosecone } MODULE { name = FSplanePropellerSpinner //propellerName = geo_nosecone rotationSpeed = 400 //thrustRPM = 200 windmillRPM = 0.1 spinUpTime = 10 //15.0 useRotorDiscSwap = 1 rotorDiscFadeInStart = 0.95 rotorDiscFadeInEnd = .95 rotorDiscSpeed = 400 rotorDiscName = geo_hubBlur } MODULE { name = FSswitchEngineThrustTransform defaultTTName = thrustTransform alternateTTName = alternateThrustTransform useNamedAlternate = 0 } } Real propellers lose thrust as they approach Mach 1 because the shockwaves seperate the air flow from the blades. And it decreases as pressure decreases because, well, there's less stuff for it to push against. To offset the decreased thrust at altitude, I doubled the base thrust so electric planes should handle roughly the same on Kerbin but have much more realistic behavior on other planets. For reference, thrust is roughly double at the surface of Eve and about 15-20% on the surface of Duna (which is more than sufficient for takeoff given the low gravity and a large enough wing). My test plane could get up to 8km on Duna and about 17km on Eve. A warning though: you will not get up to high speeds with these propellers--I have yet to break 100m/s outside of a dive, although I suppose with enough engines it could be done. Also I came to these numbers basically by stealing configs from other mods and trial and error. I know almost nothing about doing curves properly in KSP so if someone with more knowledge/experience wants to look them over for me, I'd really appreciate it. Also I still need to fix the energy consumption--because thrust is so low on Duna, the energy consumption is also low. But in real life, the propeller would still be spinning very fast and using the same energy, just have lower thrust because of the thin atmosphere. I probably need to mess around with an atmosphere ISP curve but I don't feel like doing that right now tl;dr these thrust curves for the electric propeller should be more realistic while still making flight on other planets possible

For the life of me I can't repeat this bug anymore. Even with the craft that presented issues before I restarted KSP to try to fix it but forgot that it copies over the log. I am a noob at this >_< Here's the craft file, maybe you'll have more luck repeating the bug than I have. It uses parts from RLA Stockalike (the square probe core) and Kerbal Planetary Base Systems (the square base plate). I can provide a full mod list if needed.

It was already attached on the top of the ship. Dishes take up a huge amount of inventory space so I usually just slap them on the side and then move them.

I've been testing and it seems to work fine on Kerbin. But when in the sphere of influence of the Mun (whether orbit or landed) I get the error. I'm currently testing on other planets. I was holding down the H key in the image, that's what makes the error pop up. EDIT: It also happens no matter which part I try to attach it to. It's the KR-7 Dish from RemoteTech. When I'm done testing with this dish, I'll try the others. https://imgur.com/mHUM2M7

I've been trying to see if this has been answered before but my google-fu is failing me so far. I'm trying to attach a RemoteTech antenna to a probe and use it as a relay. The antenna has a single attach node and the attach rules in the config file allow surface attaching. But when I'm in game, I get the error 'Cannot attach: attach function is not supported on this part'. How would I go about fixing this? Do I need to add a module to the antenna config? This is in KSP version 1.0.5

I love this mod and I've used it since it first came out. I know we all appreciate your continued effort in keeping it up to date A (hopefully) small feature request. Would it be possible to add a text box where players can write a summary of a Kerbal's career or mission details or something? I like the RP aspect this brings to the game but sometimes I forget the details of a particular Kerbal's adventures. it'd be neat to be able to keep track of them in-game

I understand that it's frustrating when an update has bugs but I think people should try to be a bit less negative towards the devs. Some bugs are easier to solve than others which is why the 'trivial' bug fixes come a lot faster than the major issues. It's not that Squad isn't putting time into it or is ignoring the issue, there's just a lot more code that goes into making the VAB function compared to renaming a Kerbal. It can be difficult to sort through it all and isolate what the problem is. So please be patient and polite.

I love the modeling and textures and everything on the RCS engines but I struggle to actually find a use for them. At best they seem to be on par with the liquid fuel engines of the same class. The 1 meter monoprop engine is basically the same performance as the LV-909 and the 2 meter engines provide comparable performance to the Poodle. Am I missing something? Is it for people who use RealFuels or something since monoprop doesn't suffer boil off the same way cryogenic fuels do? (Also I poked the devs of RemoteTech to make sure that config was added to the download since it wasn't part of the source )

As one of the lame people that actually reads the README, I got a kick out of this one /////////////////////////////////// /// Reminder to self: Need to do some proper documentation at some point ///////////////////////////////////

@GregroxMun I feel like such a geek but I love Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds! It's totally a guilty pleasure of mine That alone makes me want to play this mod.

When I try to install the Interstellar Fuel Switch mod I don't get the option to 'Apply changes'--the button stays grayed out. Several mods use it as a dependency and those installs can't be completed either. Is this something on my end or something with CKAN? Derp, it was in conflict with another mod but I didn't see that because of the filter I was using. Please disregard

I made a MM config for RLA Stockalike if anyone's interested

Would it be possible to create a flag you can check to 'bookmark' a mod without installing it? I keep on running across interesting mods which I might want to try later but there's no way to remember in the program. My stopgap solution is simply to make a list in a text document but it would be nice if there were a bookmark feature of some kind -A humble user

Hope you're still working on this as it's exactly the kind of mod I was looking for (as far as the planned features). I know nothing about modding KSP but I was thinking that it might be possible to create a 'radioactive fallout' system that would increase the background radiation of a region based on how heavily you use/crash nuclear engines there. You could divide the planet into regions (a la the Kethane mod) with each region having a quantity of a 'radioactivity' resource. Using nuclear engines would act like drills in reverse, adding the radioactivity resource to the region instead of removing it. The more resource in the area, the higher the background radiation. Crashing nuclear objects into the ground (engines, RTGs, resource tanks) would also increase the radiation by a set amount. To reverse this, there could be a part which would take a large amount of energy to clean up the radiation. Just a thought, though maybe out of the intended scope of this mod. In any case, I hope you keep working on this whatever you end up adding

This is a very specific bug. It seems that when you attach an OKTO probe to the top node of a Mk1 pod, it amplifies the heating so much that the pod will explode at relatively minor speeds (800 m/s). I've tested this with ever other 0.625m parts including all other probe cores and fuel tanks and only the OKTO probe causes this issue. I tested this with a simple rocket but it seems to show up in all rockets. My test rocket was a Mk1 pod with an OKTO core and then a mk16 parachute on top. Underneath was a RT-10 set at 50% thrust and launched straight up.

Here's a problem: I never play sandbox. But the horrendously overpowered 3.75m engines unlock at the same general levels as the 2.5m engines. Playing career mode does not alleviate their OPness.

This argument makes no sense to me. Making the entire game easier because one part is unbalanced is silly. In games, challenge (or more specifically 'overcoming challenges') is the core of the fun. You have to strike a balance between too easy (boring) and too hard (frustrating). I don't think I've heard anyone complain that the game is too hard aside from newbies who haven't mastered the basics yet. But those are the same newbies who will post extremely excited threads about their first docking or their first mission to Duna. The challenge made those things very rewarding to them. I mean, maybe this is just me but I know that I spent hours first trying to get to orbit. I was terrible at it (although getting to orbit was a lot harder in 0.13). But the fact that I'd put so much effort into it and that I could see each of my rocket designs improving was what hooked me. If the game had been easier, I know I wouldn't have had as much fun.

You are right, I was just saying that many old technologies are still experimental. To my knowledge, aerospikes have only ever been used on test rockets (never carrying a significant payload) and the NERVA was never even put on a spacecraft (though it did have extensive ground test firing--and significant issues i.e. fuel rod erosion). On the other hand, dozens of ion thrusters have flown in space on full missons. That's what I meant about 'experimental' technology--it has never been deployed in an actual payload-lifting capacity and is still under active development. thorfin: I stand corrected. I've never even attempted to go to Eeloo or Kerbol escape so I don't have experience with that. I suppose it should've been obvious to me considering the fact that gravity is an inverse square relationship with the radius but I was thinking in linear terms. EDIT: although it occurs to me that high inclination orbits would add an additional degree of challenge though not an enormous delta-v cost.