damerell

So here we have the Mk IV, a new and improved (ie, stupidly huge) design. The Karibou cab provides superb visibility, particularly in "are you driving off a cliff" situations. Each track strut has a reaction wheel in as well as a large one behind the fore and aft cockpits; it should be very hard to roll the vehicle on a slope. Nothing above the main deck is critical, although losing the Universal Storage parts would severely impair life support endurance and electricity generation. The NFT mission support girders have empty monoprop tanks for this mission, but the rover could carry a huge supply for landing on very low gravity worlds. Six KF screws provide the main water motive power, as well as protecting the bottom of the rover from bottoming-out. I also gave in and tweakscaled the tracks to 1.2x size, which improves ground clearance. From the rear we can see the auxiliary cockpit - one-kerbal, but also offering good visibility - and the inflatable shelter. It only holds two kerbals, but that means even if the Karibou cockpit is unusable the mission can continue. Solar generation is, regrettably, reduced by the area needed to inflate the shelter. Twin Karbonite drills will let the mission harvest Karbonite once the scanning satellites find some hotspots (or just by being really patient), which could be used either to drive the stern propellor or the Karbelectric generator. Karbonite is stored in crates above the main deck just in front of the propellor, but also in the adapter behind the auxiliary cockpit. It's not really visible, but an RTG mounted in the middle of the vessel gives a reserve electricity supply not dependent on solar, ISRU, or the US fuel cell. This shows the excellent visibility from the driver's position in the Karibou cab. As is usual, a high-mounted camera provides an extra viewpoint. I set off near sunset, and had travelled 4 degrees West when I took this, approaching a likely-looking mountain pass.

Bravo.

Watch out for the 1km cliff that killed Valentina...

Sorry if this has been suggested upthread and I missed it. I would find it very useful to have a right-click item, bindable to an action group, that would detonate one bomb (if the engine had cycled after the last detonation so was ready to fire), rather than fiddling with the throttle. Is that feasible, please?

Addendum: I should have some KSP time over the weekend, and could cram one of the VSI dial, the radar altimeter, or the three-handed altimeter into each console. Any preference for how they are arranged? I'll also write the Module Manager magic and send a proper pull request. If I'm feeling keen I'll add TACLS support, but no promises.

[quote name='goldenpsp']You should have just stopped with yes...[/QUOTE] The flaws seemed pertinent and, while pondering the implications of the licence was overanalysis, overanalysis is one of my principal joys in life.

[quote name='RoverDude']Very cool! Mind if I bundle this with the core mod?[/QUOTE] Pick which answer you like: Yes, I'd be honoured, although it is pretty shonky - if you look up from the lower seat you can just see through the corners of the upper MFDs, and with more work one could both prevent that and get more functional instrumentation on the panels. I didn't make it a pull request both because of that and because I couldn't be bothered to write the Module Manager patch to make it fit for release. As a derivative of a work under CC-NC-SA it is necessarily under a licence that allows that. Overanalysis time: unless you end up in a situation where the primary purpose of KSP modding is to please Patreon backers, in which case you presumably can't use CC-NC-SA derivatives of your own CC-NC-SA work. What a fascinating wrinkle!

[url]http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~damerell/games/ksp/cab_internal.cfg[/url] is a quick [1] and dirty drop-in replacement for GameData/UmbraSpaceIndustries/Karibou/Spaces/cab_internal.cfg to add two RPM MFDs to each position at the cost of the VSI and altimeters, and to replace the instrument panel and square buttons with functional RPM equivalents. This DOES NOT have the usual ModuleManager magic to make it only be used if RPM is actually available. [1] actually about 4 hours because I did start knowing nothing about Unity editing at all, but let's not dwell on that. It would have been quick were it done by someone competent to do it. :-/

I'm going back to the drawing board; we're only two hours out from KSC and I'm already half-planning the Mk IV. Already from driving the Mk III it seems clear that a wider wheelbase and more roll authority is desirable, along with the previously noted issues... and most importantly, it is vital that the pilot can look down as well as forwards, whether by camera or cockpit. I'll continue in this thread; the IV will basically be a slightly wider and uglier III.

[quote name='Xuixien']Is there a way to install ONLY the scaling, and not the tilting..?[/QUOTE] Ah, there are about a dozen scaling mods and AFAIK this is the only axial-tilt mod. @stevehead: do the gas giant masses change in 1x scale?

[quote name='Overland']Never been to the mun myself but kerbin has quite alot of uneven terrain from the 200km ive seen driving trains.. You're the train driver! And you're driving the trains again! I saw your early posts ages ago but didn't realise you were back in, aha, circulation. I wish I'd seen the Kerbonov cockpit you use; that's definitely going on the Mk IV. A three-kerbal inline pod with good visibility will be a godsend.

I did send up a third Scansat probe with a low-resolution altimetry sensor. This took long enough for the Sun to rise over the rover, so here is a screenshot of a useful-looking mountain pass ahead: I hope to get back onto flatter terrain soon.

At the moment it's just the lack of a Karbonite gauge that vexes me. I imagine other users will have other desires from the mods they use.

This post contains no screenshots. I think I might diverge from my Elcano I and II procedure and post non-IVA screenies even while driving IVA, because at night the IVA view is not very interesting. The good part is that the design is fundamentally sound; the mole tracks have tremendous power and coupled with the way the screws bite on uneven terrain, the Mk III may be limited to about 18 m/s but it will do that up just about anything in Kerbin gravity. The Mk IV could easily be 40 tonnes without difficulty. Also, the new version of the kOS control which measures the vessel's capacity at startup (in case bits got knocked off) works well. I added a Karbelectric generator (and kOS code to run it when Karbonite is full and EC isn't) but the Karbonite harvesting rate from air filtering is terrible. For the next design the habitat should go on the top deck so a water filter can be mounted on the rear, with some kind of land drill and sensing equipment. I could run a Karbonite harvest-and-refuel-rover flight, but I've got enough sea-crossing engines anyway. I started out West and plugged away steadily into the mountains. The other unwelcome discovery (well, I kind of knew it already) is that Kerbin is really quite a lot bigger than Mun. That said, I think the sea parts of the voyage will be quite practically accomplished by plugging the heading and speed into MechJeb, turning on the propellors, and sitting down with a good book. I've got Scansat satellites up, but it'll take some time to build a map - the lower altitude sat should have had a low-res altimetry sensor as well as a multispectral sensor. (I suppose I could launch a third one...)

I wonder if it is possible to provide a generic resource gauge, so I can just say "give me a gauge for Karbonite" and up it pops?

Well, it's time to set off from KSC. And to KSC.

After success on Mun and Minmus in spite of difficulties with the rover, Svetlana and her engineering team have been hard at work on a Mk III design intended to be useful on a wide range of worlds. As a preliminary test, the B-squad of Podpont, Jeanette, and Litzi are going to take the first Mk III on a short trip to KSC. Well, a long trip. Somewhat unwisely, we are once again pursuing the Holy Grail of a rover that won't roll rather than one with nothing to knock off. From the front, we can see most of the main features. The vehicle is amphibious; while the tracks for land travel should be practically indestructible, there are three independent systems for sea travel (in the hope that at least one keeps working). KF Screws under the fore and rear cockpits should also protect against accidents involving wedge-shaped pieces of land coming up between the tracks. On the rear is mounted a Karbonite scoop and turbojet - while the Karbonite density in Kerbin's atmosphere is very low, the long land traverses may enable us to fill the tank. Finally, on the forward tower there are two electric propellors; they guzzle charge and can only move us slowly across water, but the rover's huge batteries, solar array, and US fuel cell mean charge is readily available. Unfortunately the US parts, when mounted on the main level of the craft, proved very prone to being destroyed by sea travel. I think this is down to their low crash resistance coupled with the way that they dip in and out of the water. I decided to make a virtue of necessity and mount them in the forward tower, which until then served only to keep the propellors clear of the tracks and as a mount for a forward look-down camera. The US hexcore holds the standard assortment of hydrogen and oxygen tanks, a fuel cell, an electrolyser, a water purifier, and a KIS storage box for winches intended to make it possible to right the craft. I'd prefer to use a rover-style cab like the ones in Mobile Frame System or ASET's ERS, but they all turn out either to have no RPM support or hatches on the sides which would be obstructed by the tracks. The Mk I Inline overlooking Mk I works well enough, though. From the rear we can see the third cockpit, along with a 4-kerbal inflatable habitat for relaxation. The middle section houses two reaction wheels to help MJ keep us on an even keel, along with life support supplies and a kOS processor. There is plenty of room here or in the forward tower to add more LS supplies for a longer mission, a secondary Karbonite tank, etc.

I could tell a new version of KSP was coming because I'd decided to do something in 1.0.4. In fact, in a series of Kraken-related frustrations, I'm back in 1.0.2. The target this time is Kerbin, by my usual method of ploughing right up the equator. I have later versions, but this is the first running prototype of the Mk III. It's just a steer to the left and a veer to the right, it's time to Elcano again!

Gosh, I was just thinking this would be a useful thing to have, and it exists already! Thanks.

Nice one; reading that sounds like the worst of Minmus and Mun in some horrifying combination.

I think I disagree. Minmus's locally smooth surface makes it very easy to drive on - in particular, with good use of the flats you can do a great proportion of it with no maneuvering issues at all.

These days it may be easier to avoid it by not using ATM and only compressing specific mods with non-DDS textures. I'm not saying you and Jwmflying14 have to take the advice, but it might be worth considering.

I'm not sure what's going on (I don't use procedural parts) but I notice the lower fairing has also shifted between save and load. I suggest that craft files for your second set of pictures would help.

I wonder if the check which produces this can be triggered by ATM smooshing the icons (which has happened, including to some icons which I think the most recent ATM should not smoosh). I am not asking with any intention whatsoever of another round of win64/CKAN/FAR core wars, but because I've taken an interest sometimes in these ATM-produced issues.

Please explain first why you are still using ATM rather than taking the advice above.