cytosine

This is great, thanks for posting. Wow, I nearly fell out of my chair when I saw you included an overview of 'gyroscopic precession'. You must be a helicopter guy too. Either way, great job!!!!

I see that problem too. But clicking any button, the button disappears. Reloading into another scene and the toolbar and buttons restore, but only until I click on a button again. I can switch back and forth between KSP skin and Unity smoke skin, but have to reload the scene each time for the buttons to return. I can see linuxgurugamer is on fire right now, updating every mod under the kol. No rush on this, it's not game breaking, just a minor annoyance we can work around by reloading the scene (jump from VAB to something else, for example). But thanks again linuxgurugamer for all your hard work!!!

Can't wait to test the perf with the new 1.8.0. Thanks for keeping DMP updated and current!

WOW! I must say 'well done'. Been using KAS/KIS for years and after an extended KSP break I'm blown away by the latest RTS-1 functionality. Not sure if this is 'new', but it is to me. The ability to drop/pickup the hose: NICE! Having to walk it back (simulating reeling the hose back in) and then the option to 'return connector' was unexpected and an awesome level of detail!!! Ahh, it's the little things..... Again: WELL DONE!!! -Cyto

Hi Folks, This is an excellent mod, thanks for making it. Just wanted to let you know I had to delete the "GameData/Cormorant Aeronology/Patches/CASnacks.cfg" file as it was causing a problem with TAC Life Support. I don't use Snacks, but I do use TAC and that file would over-write certain TAC configs like for instance when used with Universal Storage the Food Bag "wedge" would convert into a Snacks bag without any snacks in it (because I don't have that mod installed). This prevented my wedge from having food. Deleting the file is obviously not a permanent solution but it was a quick fix for me. I believe a better fix would be to change FOR into NEEDS in your MM patch? I'm no Module Manager expert, so I'll let you guys figure this one out. Just reporting it. Thanks again!

Honestly it's not such a bad idea: - Stock KSP - Easy through Normal modes - RO KSP - Hardcore mode But RO is a lot of work. Maybe a more 'sustainable' model for Squad would be to spin-off RO as a stand-alone game using their same KSP engine: - Kerbal Space Program - Kennedy Space Program! (or whatever they call it, Human Space Program, whatever...) - Kerbal Education (already a great idea, thank you!) A third income stream for Squad would BE GREAT for us bottle rocketeers because it would ensure they can keep coding and we can keep rocketeering! I for one would support Squad 100% if they chose to spin RO out as it's own stand-alone game, or even if it were just a paid 'official' addon that would work too...

The RO Wiki helped me *greatly* when transitioning from stock (heavily modded) KSP over to RO. There's a lot to 'unlearn', but once you get the basics of real rocketry it becomes addictive. Now I can't even fathom going back to stock. Good luck in your quest!

Hi RemoteTech crew, Been using your mod for over a year now and I can't play KSP without it. THANK YOU!!! If a space-station mod has a built-in antenna and uses the Firespitter FSanimateGeneric module to animate it's antenna instead of the more commonly used ModuleAnimateGeneric stock function, should it work with your ModuleRTAntenna? According to one of your tutorials I see ModuleRTAntenna appears to be expecting ModuleAnimateGeneric. So my guess is it wouldn't. I hope I'm wrong... Thanks!

Yep, I experienced that. Go to your Tracking Station and switch to a different launch site, then switch back. This is done via KSCSwitcher if you have it installed. Always clears the problem for me. Thanks.

Question about the Lander Can: I'm trying to create 'my own Apollo-like' lander or something relatively close and way more ugly... But proportionally the Mk2 Lander Can seems to be overweight and under-capacity compared to the LEM Ascent Module. The Mk2 only has 1000L tank volume compared to 2680L on the LM while the LM is only slightly larger when placed side-by-side. Adding a procedural tank evens the size and gives it the necessary tank volume for fuel, but when full the Mk2 weighs 6 tons when able to produce the equivalent 2500dV as the FASA LM with 4x RCS thrusters and enough supplies for 2x days. And with all of this the LM only weighs 4.6 tons. When I add food and water to the Mk2 it topples around 7 tons, yikes! The only real difference I noticed is that the Mk2 Lander Can has 8m/s crash tolerance, is there anything else that would explain the 3 extra tons of weight? I promise I haven't loaded any moon rocks yet!

Take a look at the M1 for the Apollo Nova program (that sadly never was): "Aerojet's M-1 was the largest and most powerful liquid hydrogen-fueled liquid fuel rocket engine to be designed and component tested. The M-1 offered a baseline thrust of 6.67 million N (1.5 million lbf) and 8 million N (1.8 million lbf) as its immediate growth target. If built, the M-1 would be larger and more efficient than the famed F-1 that powered the first stage of the Saturn V rocket to the moon." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-1_(rocket_engine)

Sadly, I'm going to throw in the towel on patching the USI PackRat for RO. I've scoured your RO patches (recursive grepping) and have yet to find any successful conversion of a 'wheel' to a larger or smaller size. Every instance either uses the wheel part at the same original KSP scale, or the author resized the part manually in a 3D modeling app (like 3DS Max or Blender) and exported their own version. Unless I'm missing something, pleeeeeaze let me know!!!! But don't worry, I'm not giving up on RO. In fact, just getting started!!! Thanks!

Ok @Phineas Freak, got this one all figured out. I'm currently patching the Wild Blue Industries Buffalo for RO and thanks to your post it helped get me thinking in the right direction on how to solve this. First, you need to create a top-level INTERNAL definition (ie. not a sub-def under another PART def): @INTERNAL[WBI_BuffaloCabSpaceASET]:BEFORE[RealismOverhaul] { %scaleAll = 1.6, 1.6, 1.6 @MODULE[InternalSeat] { %kerbalScale = 1.6, 1.6, 1.6 %kerbalOffset = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 %kerbalEyeOffset = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 } @MODULE[InternalSeat],1 { %kerbalScale = 1.6, 1.6, 1.6 %kerbalOffset = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 %kerbalEyeOffset = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 } } Next, you need an indexed MODULE definition for each "seat". The Buffalo only has 2 seats defined in it's cab; 'pilotSeat' and 'copilotSeat'. At first, the copilot seat was not inheriting the kerbalScale variables (only the first). So reading through MM docs I found reference to how this thing does indexing and guessed that adding a comma-one (,1) after the second InternalSeat MODULE def would magically get me the second seat and it worked! I'm new to modding KSP so I really have no idea if there is a more 'efficient' and programmatic way of getting to the second seat instance, but hey, brute-force indexing worked so I'll take it! So here's what the resulting MM cache looks like: UrlConfig { name = WBI_BuffaloCabSpaceASET type = INTERNAL parentUrl = WildBlueIndustries/Buffalo/Spaces/BuffaloCabASET url = WildBlueIndustries/Buffalo/Spaces/BuffaloCabASET/WBI_BuffaloCabSpaceASET INTERNAL { name = WBI_BuffaloCabSpaceASET scaleAll = 1.6, 1.6, 1.6 MODEL { model = WildBlueIndustries/Buffalo/Spaces/BuffaloCabSpace } MODULE { name = InternalSeat seatTransformName = pilotSeat allowCrewHelmet = false kerbalScale = 1.6, 1.6, 1.6 kerbalOffset = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 kerbalEyeOffset = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 } MODULE { name = InternalSeat seatTransformName = copilotSeat allowCrewHelmet = false kerbalScale = 1.6, 1.6, 1.6 kerbalOffset = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 kerbalEyeOffset = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0 } ... BTW, I'm almost done converting the Buffalo so I'll create a pull request very soon!

I think I'm finally onto something here. This post helped me understand the basic components: So it would seem that "The distance and stiffness of suspension is controlled in the wheelCollider object" according to Nazari1382. But I still don't know how I would control the distance or stiffness of the shocks via a patch. This post makes me think it's something I would have to control by editing the mesh. I hope I'm wrong about that because I am ill equipped to perform that kind of surgery!

Argh... Not seeing anything like that... Could the vector value be masked or sourced from a parent definition? Like this: "bulkheadProfiles = size0" where size0 is some magic definition from an obscure file in the squad directory... I'm reaching here. Or there's this block: WHEEL { wheelName = wheel wheelColliderName = wheelCollider suspensionTransformName = suspensionTraverse suspensionNeutralPointName = suspensionNeutralPoint damagedObjectName = bustedwheel rotateX = 0 rotateY = 1 rotateZ = 0 } Those 'suspension' guys look awfully suspicious! Or maybe the 'rotate' defs? Thanks!

Hmm, I see a module called 'ModuleWheel' with a sub-section called 'torqueCurve'. Am I getting warmer or colder? torqueCurve { key = 0 400 0 90 key = 1 450 25 0 key = 5 435 -10 -21 key = 32 64 -6 -6 key = 34 0 -92 0 } There's also 'steeringCurve' too and it looks similar. Thanks!

Hmm, ok, then I'm all out of theories at this point. Any ideas why the wheel hangs lower than it should? I'm trying to paste a screen-shot into this post but this is the first time I've tried since the forum upgrade so I know I'm missing something... Are we being forced to use Imgur to host jpg/png files these days? I sure do long for the good-ole days of 'free' internet, before companies were aware of how much money they were losing by hosting media content...

Ok, thanks guys. I set both scale and rescale back to 1 but it didn't seem to have any effect. Regardless, I will leave them at 1 and focus on the MODEL nodes as you suggested. I just had a thought... Isn't there something called an 'animation' and is it embedded in the mesh file? I've used Blender just enough to be dangerous... Perhaps the animation sequence is not scaling? In this pic you can see the buggy while it's suspended (on blocks) so the wheel is in a 'hanging' position (ie it's not touching the ground so there is no force being exerted upward on it). And if I take the buggy off blocks with the wheel on the ground the shocks are squished flat which doesn't look good either... Would the 'scaleAll' token scale the anim sequence too? Thanks!

I'm having a similar issue with scaling. Currently I'm creating an RO patch for the USI Exploration Pack and it's excellent PackRat buggy. But instead of increasing it's size by 60%, I'm actually trying to make it smaller so it looks nicer when a tiny Kerbal is standing next to it. I have all the parts properly re-sized and the attach nodes properly moved so the buggy looks good and can be easily assembled with KAS, but the wheels are doing something weird. When the buggy is suspended on another object during assembly (like the KAS Pylon), the wheel drops abnormally low. Then later when driving the wheel seems to lose spring power in the shock absorbers and the axels bottom out. I can drive it well enough, but it looks like the springs busted! I'm thinking this is related to two different (yet related) problems: 1. The hang-low problem probably has to do with some hidden object like collider mesh or something I am not knowledgeable about. My guess is whatever that hidden object is probably isn't being scaled like the visible mesh. 2. Well, actually I don't really have a theory about the weird spring (or lack there-of). Maybe the smaller scaled item needs an increase in gravity resistance?!?! @PART[PackRat_MiniWheel]:BEFORE[RealismOverhaul] { %RSSROConfig = True @MODEL { %scale = 0.55, 0.55, 0.55 } // @node_attach = 0.3, 0.322, 0.00, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1 // Original conf @node_attach = 0.26, 0.222, 0.00, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1 // @node_stack_top = 0.3, 0.322, 0.00, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0 // Original conf @node_stack_top = 0.26, 0.222, 0.00, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0 @scale = 0.55 @rescaleFactor = 0.55 @mass = 0.020 } I can shoot some screen-shots later tonight if my ramblings above aren't making sense. Thanks in advance!

Okay, good to know, thanks! Here, I hope this helps: https://github.com/KSP-RO/RP-0/wiki/FAQ#why-cant-my-kerbal-plant-a-flag-when-our-astronaut-complex-is-level-2-and-clearly-says-kerbals-can-place-flags If I'm getting annoying please say the word and I'll gladly stop!

Apollo 12 just landed on the moon, and boy O boy was that some precision driving. Good job team! But I just noticed Pete seems to have forgotten to bring a flag? Our Astronaut Complex is level 2 and says "Pete can place Flags", but yet I don't see an option when I right click him. Do I need a level 3 complex or did I miss something else? Thanks!

What is the current RO standard for base/station parts? I see PorkJets Habitation Pack in the suggestions list (I honestly haven't use it before, but it looks really nice!), but that mod is not available via CKAN due to it being 1.0.4 compatible. So while I can certainly brute-force install it I try not to do that. But I can also see RO conversion files still available in the RO directory so I'm guessing it would still work. What about MKS/UKS or the new-ish Pathfinder mod? MKS/UKS while not 'real' could potentially be real, maybe, perhaps someday... Does that qualify as 'good enough' for the Realism Overhaul mod?

Yeah, I asked that same question a few pages back. Wait! I believe this qualifies as 'frequently asked', sweet! Okay folks, here is me trying to be a good citizen. I added this to the RO bugs list: https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/wiki/Q&A#bugs Glad to see I'm not alone.

Ahh, I see it now. I guess 'patience' is not one of my virtues! Yeah, I was worried when that non-expiring human fly-by of Mars popped up thinking I missed my probe fly-by. The budget hounds were about to cancel Mariner 4 and have it shipped to one of the East coast museums. HA! Take THAT you bureaucrats, we're going to Mars!!! Thanks!

Understood. I don't have any of the ContractConfigurator contract packs, just the base ContractConfigurator "engine". So here's my situation: After Mariner 2 successfully drove past Venus I was finally ready to take on Mars. The Mars 'fly-by' mission started showing up (thank you for that), but it would only give me roughly 2 years before expiring and it still takes my little Kerbals several months to build a simple probe like Mariner 4. Add the Mars transfer window and time to objective and we would have been *way* past the expiry time, probably declaring bankruptcy before our little probe even arrived! So I'm guessing from your last comment that somewhere deep in the bowels of RP-0 configs I can tweak my contracts into submission? Ooops, Apollo 12 just finished their final Lunar deceleration burn and is about to start powering up the LEM, gotta go!!! Thanks!