Somtaaw

Ah interesting, that file actually seems to have it all. I'll have to make a backup before I start messing around with it.

I checked that, there isn't subfolders beyond the basic [/VAB] [/SPH] and [/subassembly]

So I was upto almost 4 pages of subassemblies, when I found out today I can setup sub-categories.... but to make use of them, it seems I have to re-save all of my sub-assemblies one by one, to move them into the newly created sub-lists. Is there a faster way than dragging and dropping, one by one, and having to re-type the descriptions every single time?

That's a nifty little OUV. The reversible thrust especially, as I really hate having to undock to rotate just to start applying counter-thrust. And ultra-low part count sort of ties in with the part casting suggestion that we've all wanted for ages. Big enough to see and click things, yet small enough to maneuver easily around crowded stations. Radios so it ties in with RemoteTech users. I'm assuming that I will be able to fly it unmanned, so if it were somewhat expanded for crewing it can double from a space bulldozer to moving crews around. For another idea, since it's your modded craft, how about adding wing 'deflection' to the engine pods so it can also benefit from angling the pods? Then I'd be all over that little OUV like flies over some fresh manure

The only thing I'd really really like, is for parts that properly 'flow' together, become cast as one continuous part, outside of the assembly buildings. Possibly as something related to saving as a subassembly. Useful everywhere from creating super-large rockets, space stations, space planes with ultra large wings, and for our militant modders those ultra-dense armors suddenly turning from dozens of parts into 1 part. Or hell... once you get a design you really really like, wouldn't it be awesome to be able to 'save' it, and while you wouldn't be able to adjust it in the future, it now becomes 1 part for the entire craft?

Actuallly that's a single MK.3 fuselage (long) of purely LF for the core hull of the Titan II [changed the naming scheme slightly now for better iteration tracking]. I didn't really see a need to mix LF+O when the nukes operate on pure LF. On each radial decoupler is a tiny FL-T100 tank, with an offset Z-1K battery and an Advanced Inline Stabilizer clipped inside the T100 tank. The LV-N's themselves are also partially clipped inside the tank to reduce their vertical clearances, and I carefully placed the decouplers as close to CoM as possible so docking orientation doesn't matter. I'll take your advice for moving the radiators to the main hull, I thought they had to be attached near the thermal points for best effect. Might upsize them to mediums while I'm at it. And moving the engine nacelles off to the 45 degree points to leave the flat sides for docking ports. And I'll probably rotate the engines by 10 degrees; with how big my fuel tank is I can afford a bit more waste. Edit: Titan III now has 10 degree angled nukes, 2 each of both 0.625 and 1.5m docking clamps, and I reduced the part count from 87 to 67. I'm not entirely sure there's much left to do, except post a snapshot of the new Titan III and the core station it's going to be taking on a trip out to Duna for me.

So I've done up a radially mounted tug like you're suggesting, and it feels really wierd. Maybe it's because I decided I'm a lazy wanker, so I gave it the capability to push AND pull, regardless of which end actually connects to the payload. So I now present, the Titan-class v2 tug If I tap 1, it'll activate the downward facing nukes, the lights looking down also activate (with a red tinge) to remind you which way the exhaust is going, and the opposite set of solar panels so if I'm pulling an asteroid there's less chance of the panels getting eclipsed. 4 is the opposite and uses the bottom solar panels, and top facing nukes & red lights. Staging activates the various radios, and the small cooling vanes (did a test, even on a maximum thrust burn, they max out @ 74.99% thermal bearing). And Abort turns off all 8 nukes, and extends a secondary set of cooling vanes while extending all solar panels; debating if I should add in detaching of whatever payload I might be connected to as part of the abort. Thoughts and comments on the newly updated radially engined Titan class?

By the time I start getting into the 400+ part range, is when I start using this Rhino pusher tug into start a long burn to another planet with the core of another station. Well I meant in my FL-T800 Fuel tank with a docking clamp on either end, and 4 Vernor's located on one end a 'good' extend range fuel tank design, or about as hideous as my pusher tug lol... I have only really done small tug work, LKO to Munar/Minmus orbits, and thats about it. I chose a keosync orbit this time around because I always find myself with biiiig stations, and if you're trying to perform multiple rendezvous maneuvers, to gather the pieces for a stock ship to send off on a mission. Because I'm still not quite comfortable with truly big payloads, I've tried to keep things in the 50-100t range max, and then do multiple lofts. When you add a static station of 400+ parts to 6+ 100 part ship subcomponents, LKO starts getting pretty crowded and laggy. So I dropped my fuel hub station into keosync, to reduce part count in LKO. And when I'm having tankers coming in from Minmus to replenish fuel I can use a much lower part count transport from keosync to LKO, to deliver to the skeletal baby station, and then send off the extra-Kerbin missions. I'll put up an action shot of my keosync station after I get my tug up there with the latest fuel booms.

Hmm, maybe I'll switch around the engines then. How about the SAS placement, should I be aiming to have that closer or farther from my docking point to manipulate my payloads? And my fuel tanks, should I be doing anything to those? They're doubling as extended drop tanks for fueling long-range burns outside of Kerbin SOI, and also extending where the Vernor's are from the CoM for turning.

For power, there's a quad pack of PB-NUK's tucked away inside the Large SAS, along with the small omni-radio. My super station is up in Kerbo-Synchronous Orbit, so this monster has to take something like my station fuel arm (fully laden with fuel) from LKO all the way up to KEO and within a 100m of the station; and/or it'll be pushing the components when I start going interplanetary. Which is why I gave this Titan tug the biggest set of engines I possibly could, since it's going to be fighting gravity alot. LKO to KEO to possible Munar is the current primary role, future expansion of my stations will include possible regular flights to Duna, Eve, and possibly Moho and Dres, orbits permitting a mere Comm 88-88 letting my RemoteTech continue talking back to Mission Control. I was thinking of dropping a second Large SAS ring on it, to give it even more torgue to help compensate for being a push-only model. I'm not quite comfortable yet designing pullers. My station is built entirely around arms more or less the length of a big orange tank plus the double ended 2.5m docking clamps.

So as I've been building my latest space station, I've been streamlining it and removing the "self-flight" capability from pretty much everything and started moving more and more heavily into using tugs. Now for small, 0.625m and 1.5m things, the spider tug I got here on the forums has been a great reliable ever since 0.23.5. But with 2.5m and larger, I just don't really have good movers, so I'm trying my hand out at designing a reliable workhorse. Since it's supposed to be a tug, which basically means a space bulldozer, I slapped a great big engine with a good sized tank on it. 2.5m main docking port since that what I need it for with capability for drop tanks, but the placement of certain things like the SAS modules for stabilization and thrust burning has me a bit stumped. I dropped a bunch of radio's onto it because I really like RemoteTech, so I have a clipped/offset Communotron 16, a pair of DTS-M1's and a Communotron 88-88 for short/mid/long range comms so I can tug things all over Kerbol space. Advice/Suggestions welcome on my tug, so I can tweak it. Core Tug Tug with drop tanks Generic space station component, that my tug would be moving frequently.

KAS used to be pretty simply, if you used the tow lines. A single Kerbal would EVA, and drag the tow line from Part A to part B, and attachs it. Once the tow line is attached, it's function to the game is the same as a docking, so you could then transfer anything & everything. So after you EVA your Kerbal with towline and attacj and do your fuel transfer, you'd simply disconnect the towline and hop back into part A (your orbital tanker), right-click the towline to auto-reel in (like a fishing line) and you'd fly back into orbit while it does so. Whether KAS still functions like that, I don't entirely know I stopped using it around 0.90 to 1.0 era. But that's a virtually non-existant "learning curve" I always found KAS to be pretty stupid-friendly.

Disregard, apparently this time deleting the whole Engineer file out of GameData and fresh replacement worked. Maybe at some point I'd copied my Engineer data into my storage folder, so it wasn't as fresh as I thought. When I'd unzipped a new Engineer folder and dropped it in, gave me stock settings again.

To delete it, I delete the whole Engineer folder in GameData, and drop in a newly unzipped one, seems to like saving my settings.

Is there a way to 'reset' KER to default settings? I messed with a bunch of the windows and deleted half of the settings, and my presets, and so on. Would just be easier to reset it back to fresh install, than it would be to try and rebuild the HUDs and info windows again. But it apparently remembers my settings when I launch the game without KER, and then save and close to drop the contents back into GameData...

I like it, one of the greatest difficulties I seem to have is in my lifter's, designing payloads is fun and all, but designing a good re-usable lifter is bloody hard. Although it looks like your link is a bit broken atm? On the subject of landing hot, and almost running out of runway, have you considered throwing on some of the airbrakes for a final speed loss, or some internally mounted, forward facing Vernor's?

Thanks for the official response on this happening, tbh I had no idea Kerbalstuff had closed, I only have to get new mods once in a while so I rarely look and go 'window-shopping' for new mods to try out. I wouldn't say no to KSP becoming a little closer to Curse though, so it gets added to the Curse Client list of "able to auto-update mods", which it currently does not.

For the contracts that specify say, "build a new satellite", do we have to design from scratch, or do old satellite payloads sitting in the VAB work, after attaching a lifter sub-assembly and launching it as a new mission? Sometimes it lets me use old designs that are launched as brand new missions, and sometimes I have to build a totally fresh and original design to get it to complete. Haven't really toyed with the 1.0.2 yet, so this is experience from the straight 1.0.0 release, just wondering which I need to be aiming at doing. Somtaaw,

I don't think they blow up. On the other hand I'm having trouble getting more than 2km up because I initially designed the Mk3 Hi-Speed Station Slinger as a collaboration with a friend who was going to design a rocket for it to attach to, for maximum orbital delivery speeds, and keeping my fuel for orbital maneuvering. He backed out, so now I have to adjust my plane to try and make it an SSTO, and just make use of my massive LKO fueling station. On the other hand, I've hyper-editted the Mk3 HISS into orbit and messed around with it coming from top down and the strakes don't burn up. I need to do some subtle tuning to it and I just can't do subtle well. I'll try and polish it as much as I can, before I post the .craft for Wander or someone else to do final tweaking.

So I got a little annoyed at getting no less than 4 contracts pop up of "you must deploy a new space station at X". Decided I sure as hell wasn't going to wait for a pig to fly it, and I want my planes to be sporty... so I built this behemoth. Packing an S3 KS-25x4 engine in the back, and one helluva lot of LFO. 4 verners on each facing and no less than 2 ASAS modules to give it plenty of space-side agility. This jet delivers stations faster than a pizza guy getting told he's getting to bang his pr0nstar of choice at the location. Still need to finish tuning it, or getting someone else to do it, because I frankly suck at planes.

the usual answer to an "efficient" route to orbit is usually by chucking a crapton of attempts until you get a route that works on the majority of craft. So in the pre-1.0 days it was ascend vertically to 10-14km, pitch directly to 45 degrees until whatever, and then directly to 90 degrees and start circularize burns. It wasn't the absolute tightest efficiency, but it was optimized for nearly all rockets. It's still possible to use the same route and even with the same rockets, I took a rocket Scott Manley used in his "Landing on Minmus" video from December 2012. I also took it on a 0.25-0.90 ascent pattern, not only did it still work... I made it to Minmus as well. Sadly it was not enough to actually land, but I did manage a very low <5km flyby and then got stuck on a very eccentric Kerbin orbit for the next 6 months until I could loft a properly built "rescue" shuttle. But it still worked getting out of the atmosphere, and no real changes were needed, and that was on a pre-0.25 version of the game. TLDR the older ways and rockets still work if you're careful. It just lost a touch of efficiency, not enough to bother most people, just the folks who shave the margins close. Edit: just reliase you probably didn't know about the older routes players used, but yeah. The optimized thing, is just keep trying different variations on routes. If you blowup or fail during launch, restart and try it again a few times, try different things.

Any Kerbal should do, to just operate the Science Lab. But as mentioned, the Scientists will make it earn "more"

damn. random specialties is a bit of a downer.

Is there any specific thing I'm missing for renaming Kerbal applicants to custom names, without losing their specialty? In the old days, pre-specialty, you'd just open the persistant file, re-name Kerbals however you want, and then load the save. Now everytime I try and rename Engineers/Scientists, they all suddenly become Pilots. I'm a bit of a Homeworld nut, so I want to name a Scientist "Clee-San", and some Engineers "Mothership" or "Pride of Hiigara" or maybe even the "Kuun Lan".... but everytime I rename a Kerbal of the right specialty, they suddenly become pilots the next time I load the career. Rather frustrating, and I'm sure there must be a step I'm missing now.

Every single craft says "incompatible" parts and won't load in the SPH/VAB. However, every single one of those craft are also currently sitting in space, and weren't deleted upon career load after updating to 1.0 But I just loaded my 0.90 backup KSP, and every single one of the craft is only using, at best, a MechJeb control panel for modded parts. Some of them rely heavily on clipped parts whether for cosmetics, or other, but exluding MechJeb there's nothing there that would cause "incompatible parts". This could be an extension of my tech tree being incomplete (i'll snag a picture of that and upload it), and I'll check a sandbox 1.0 to see if my 0.90 career crafts load in the sandbox. Edit: and yes, I do have the 1.0 edition of MechJeb in my 1.0 KSP, so there shouldn't be a compatibility issue there. - - - Updated - - - Ok, yes it appears this issue is also directly coupled with my tech tree failure... a 1.0 sandbox has no issues loading my 0.90 craft, but my 0.90 career loaded in 1.0 KSP has whole sections of my tech tree being "gone" and no amount of tweaking with the debug tool fixes it. So I have the option of messing around with sandbox and kissing my old career goodbye, waiting for a fix and still messing around with sandbox before going back to career, or starting a brand new career.