Noio

Hi! I love these science contracts - they really do add a lot of interest and fun. I've noticed that if one has the Station Science mod installed, the 'biome study' missions start asking for station science experiments too. And this is a bit of a bummer, because I don't want to slog a 30-ton cyclotron and two big bags of kibbal to Ike. Or do I? Hmmm... Is this an unexpected mod interaction, or intentional? Thanks!

Oh. My. Gawd. I have avoided space planes for years because of control issues. This mod has completely changed my relationship with wingy things. I want to buy you a beer.

Hi: I've put together a config which adds ModuleSPU and ModuleRTAntennaPassive to the new RLA-Stockalike probe cores. I can't vouch for correctness, but it seems to work for me. In case it's useful for somebody else, here it is. Please feel free to use & abuse in any way you see fit. RemoteTech_RLA_Stockalike_Probes.cfg @PART[RLA_small_probe_4sides]:AFTER[RLA_Stockalike]:NEEDS[RemoteTech] { %MODULE[ModuleSPU] {} %MODULE[ModuleRTAntennaPassive] { %TechRequired = unmannedTech %OmniRange = 3000 %TRANSMITTER { %PacketInterval = 0.3 %PacketSize = 2 %PacketResourceCost = 15.0 } } } @PART[RLA_small_probe_4sides_gold]:AFTER[RLA_Stockalike]:NEEDS[RemoteTech] { %MODULE[ModuleSPU] {} %MODULE[ModuleRTAntennaPassive] { %TechRequired = unmannedTech %OmniRange = 3000 %TRANSMITTER { %PacketInterval = 0.3 %PacketSize = 2 %PacketResourceCost = 15.0 } } } @PART[RLA_small_probe_6sides_gold]:AFTER[RLA_Stockalike]:NEEDS[RemoteTech] { %MODULE[ModuleSPU] {} %MODULE[ModuleRTAntennaPassive] { %TechRequired = unmannedTech %OmniRange = 3000 %TRANSMITTER { %PacketInterval = 0.3 %PacketSize = 2 %PacketResourceCost = 15.0 } } } @PART[RLA_small_probe_8sides_gold]:AFTER[RLA_Stockalike]:NEEDS[RemoteTech] { %MODULE[ModuleSPU] {} %MODULE[ModuleRTAntennaPassive] { %TechRequired = unmannedTech %OmniRange = 3000 %TRANSMITTER { %PacketInterval = 0.3 %PacketSize = 2 %PacketResourceCost = 15.0 } } } @PART[RLA_small_probe_24sides]:AFTER[RLA_Stockalike]:NEEDS[RemoteTech] { %MODULE[ModuleSPU] {} %MODULE[ModuleRTAntennaPassive] { %TechRequired = unmannedTech %OmniRange = 3000 %TRANSMITTER { %PacketInterval = 0.3 %PacketSize = 2 %PacketResourceCost = 15.0 } } } @PART[RLA_small_probe_24sides_gold]:AFTER[RLA_Stockalike]:NEEDS[RemoteTech] { %MODULE[ModuleSPU] {} %MODULE[ModuleRTAntennaPassive] { %TechRequired = unmannedTech %OmniRange = 3000 %TRANSMITTER { %PacketInterval = 0.3 %PacketSize = 2 %PacketResourceCost = 15.0 } } } @PART[RLA_small_probe_QBE_gold]:AFTER[RLA_Stockalike]:NEEDS[RemoteTech] { %MODULE[ModuleSPU] {} %MODULE[ModuleRTAntennaPassive] { %TechRequired = unmannedTech %OmniRange = 3000 %TRANSMITTER { %PacketInterval = 0.3 %PacketSize = 2 %PacketResourceCost = 15.0 } } }

As always, thanks for all the hard work providing a high-utility part set that doesn't overpower stock. Now that the small stock reaction wheel is also size 0, is there still value being added by the size 0 MRS one? I can't find an effective difference between the two anymore.

Thanks Cybutek, for all the work you do making KER an amazing mod. I have a small feature request: could we have a setting which causes numeric fields to be zero-padded for a fixed width? At timewarp, the number of digits in numeric displays changes fast enough that the fields become entirely unreadable. I'd rather have a fixed number of digits so there's no jitter at high speed. Thanks a ton!

Thank you kindly. Life without NanoGauges is too imprecise to bear. I think the download link in the OP is wrong. This one seems to work fine: http://nereid42.de/NanoGauges/NanoGauges0.5.10-178.zip

Do you envision that being part of SpaceY as well? I am perhaps a little odd - I like to stay inside the stock sizes without too much deviation. To that end I had been using MRS, but SpaceY adds some really great size1-3 parts and I started using that too. But I'm worried that SpaceY is also now defining larger stuff and its scope appears to be growing. Perhaps MRS could become the home of all the size0-size3 stuff, and SpaceY the home of the larger stuff?

Love NavHud. Love it. But would it be possible to get support for the stock toolbar?

I'm a big fan of MRS, but I had been keeping KW Rocketry around alongside it for: - The size-1 Maverick-1D, an engine which fills what I feel to be a huge hole in the lineup; - The excellent SRB collection, which addresses a part of the catalog which to me is lacking; - The excellent 5-meter parts. But to me, the Space-Y lifter pack provides more utility, integrates more closely to the rest of the stock lineup, and does it in less RAM. So it's time to scratch out line-item three. Very, very nice. (However, there will always be a soft squishy lovey place in my brain for the sound of the KW Griffin Century igniting. And so I'll miss it a little. )

Awesome. However, is there a size-three nosecone? I see size-3 bases but no cones that fit. Also, is there a non-expanded size-1? I'd like to be able to put a fairing around my teeny satellites without needing a big expanded fairing.

Okay, I've managed to reproduce it at will, thanks to Rebel's notes. Yay! 0.25 Win32, two mods installed: FAR 0.14.3.2, and HyperEdit, used to put the vessel in orbit in the first place. You can find the save game quicksave here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-8cKOlqLStFMlNnbnVMN2Zad3c/view?usp=sharing And the output_log here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-8cKOlqLStFTzlNMnpyM0Y2dWM/view?usp=sharing To reproduce: - Load the quicksave. After the quickload, you should be focused on a Kerbal X in orbit. Click the time-warp arrow icons in the upper left to the fastest warp you can get. - Let it warp until T+30 days. - Then, using the mouse on the time-warp gadget again, set speed to 1x. Using this recipe, I was able to trigger the failure three times in a row. If I uninstall FAR and repeat the same test, the error does not occur.

A small bug: The Terrier is available in the tech tree *way* before other three-meter parts. I suspect that it really should be moved back to match the other big engines.

I have been seeing this too, and it's crazy infrequent, and crazy hard to reproduce at will. I've been spending the last few nights trying to figure out a reliable way to reproduce it. I _think_ that it has something to do with a state change (SOI for sure, but also seen in low orbit - atmospheric boundary?) right as KJR is showing the little 'stabilizing physics load' message, because that message gets stuck onscreen until I do something to break the overflow (like hopping to the space center). But I can't make it happen with *just* KJR installed. To my mind, that doesn't necessarily mean it's not there, perhaps the presence of FAR just changes the timing just right (or perhaps it's vice versa?). If I have KJR *and* FAR installed it seems to happen more, for small values of more. But again I think that may just be the timing changing more than something specific to FAR, but it's hard to tell. So far, my most reliable method (read: it seems to happen slighly less never than the usual almost-never) of reproducing it seems to be to tell KAC to stop RIGHT before SOI changes (like, single-digit seconds), then set for max warp and hope KAC hits realtime a split-second before the SOI change. Rebelgamer, when are you seeing this? The fact that you're seeing it in a 'static' 95k Kerbin orbit throws out most of my theories, but helps me know where to focus testing. Is it just multi-day warps followed by a stop? Does it happen to you reliably, or intermittently? How do you come out of warp? Manually? Kerbal Alarm Clock? Perhaps between the two of us we can figure out exactly how to trigger it.

Aha! That is an excellent point. I think I'm a few sigma from the mean - I don't rely on reaction wheels for much of anything but basic "orientation stationkeeping." It didn't even OCCUR to me to think about the wheels when I was evaluating the parts. I'm probably poorly equipped to evaluate the tradeoff caused by the loss of said wheels to the general population. I will happily concede that.

I, too, have had great success with the new radial probe core. It is very nice. I am a little worried, though, that it's a bit too good. Ever since it showed up in my lineup it's been chosen preferentially to the big inline cores - it's both lighter AND makes the rocket less wobbletastic. If the addition of new parts makes it so that old parts are no longer valid choices in any circumstance, that's a sign in my mind.

I'll be the third, I too have an NVIDIA card and see the exact same stuttering in both sound and video.

There are also the folks like me who feel that tweakscale is a little cheaty and don't use it. If you aren't a tweakscale user there are some big holes in the part set, for instance a size-2 nosecone is crazy hard to come up with until very late in the tech tree. But being forced to use tweakscale would bum me out.

Personally, I find the gap between the biggest size-1 engine and the smallest size-2 to be more distressing than the lack of ions. Try and make a lifter using your 5 size-1 to size-2 thrust plate and the stock engines and you'll see what I mean. The double-bell size-1 engine is the reason I still keep the KW engines around...even though the texture cache of just the KW engines is 50% bigger than all of ModRocketSys EDIT: I just realized that's not true. I keep around the KW LFO engines AND the SRBs, because in my opinion, the stock SRB lineup is pretty lacking. Well, and they sound pretty cool too. But that may be because I pair MRS with RLA and, between, the two, I feel like nukes, monoprop, and ions are now plenty. EDIT: Crown's assertion about rocket people and plane people certainly holds true for me. Spaceplanes and I have never gotten along. Mk2 parts are a waste of my texture cache and that's why I asked earlier about making sure things were easy to remove. To me, that's part of the allure of MRS - the focus helps it target its audience, IMO. Kinda like the way the plane people I know wouldn't be caught dead without B9, but I've never glanced twice at it...

I love these parts, but I worry about RAM as the part count goes up. Would it be feasible to partition the pack up so it's easier to remove bits which are not needed, or are redundant with other installed mods?

I apologize, I don't think I explained it correctly. Let me try again: I have no complaints about the range indicator - I think the yellow icon when you're in degraded service is just fine. What I'm wishing for is some kind of 'line-of-sight' indicator - if I'm in the 5% line-of-sight fudge-factor window (meaning I'm about to lose LOS) I'd really love to see something in the icon change so I know I'd better hurry up. Since this condition can occur in both the 'green' and 'yellow' ranges, I'm not sure that a color would fit the bill, but yeah, any little visual change in the icon would be welcomed (even a little ! in the corner).

I have a "quality-of-life" feature request: I think it would be useful to have the toolbar icon change in some way when the controlled vessel is inside that 5% 'fudge factor' window as line-of-sight is about to be lost or gained. A little visual cue to tell me that I'd better get things sorted because I'm about to lose my control link would be a huge boon. Thanks, and keep up the good work!

Would it be possible to change the bases so they accept surface mounts like the default MKS bases? I am sad that I can't attach them to kerbitrail tubes and the like. EDIT: It also looks like the 'Repair Shop' module might have a typo or be out of date - it's marked as generating 'ReplacementParts' instead of 'SpareParts', and does not produce the correct thing.

Oh, THIS is freakin' awesome. Hooray for the reduced part-count and the cargo-friendly sides. Nice work! *spams download button* Also, as much as I dig Rover's art, I really appreciate a stockalike option. Groovy.

I found an *excellent* bug this weekend - ships containing the procedural tanks will, after a few SOI changes, start logging errors about zero-mass parts, and will begin to 'accordion' slowly - imagine a bunch of small weights connected in a row by weak springs (so, weight - spring - weight -spring - weight ...), and then pushing on the one 'in back' to make the whole thing kind of inchworm along the long axis. It's very excellent looking but hard on the SAS. I will poke through the code tonight and see if I can't make sense of it unless somebody else is already looking at this one.

I have noticed 'failure storms' when the ship I'm piloting gets close enough to an older ship to bring it off the rails. For instance, the other night I had a probe which had been sitting on the Mun for a Long Time with some delicious, delicious science on board. I flew Jeb up to grab the science from the probe and the moment I got close enough to the probe for it to fully load, parts immediately failed on it. I put a sticky note on my monitor which reads 'stay away from comm satellites!'