jrodriguez

[quote name='Svm420']Do you want to fly no matter what? I would figure if you are using AJE, FAR and real Mar instead of Duna you would want it realistic as possible otherwise might as well just use cheats. So why try and make the engine better should be? Well thats my 2c GL can't really offer any advice as I don't know what changes you would need.[/QUOTE] Yes, I don't want to make it better but to scale it maintaining a realistic ec consumption / power ratio.

[quote name='Svm420']You are going to have a bad time Mars atmosphere is so thin flight is nearly impossible. You will need a ton of lift vs weight or a ton of speed.[/QUOTE] I know it is going to be hard..but right now FAR is saying that I'm green for Mars flying between 1km-4km and 0.9 match ( I have quite big wings!) The thing is I need to know if it is possible to tweak a electric prop to have more power. (Tweakscale is not working with these engines, at least in RO)

Hi all, I need some advice. I'm designing an airplane for Mars. I would like to circumnavigate Mars with a couple of Kerbals so I think the only option that I have is to use electric propellers (and nuclear reactors to recharge batteries) I have been testing the AJE e50 but I need something much more powerful! I did some tweaks to the ElectricProperllers.cfg to set 3000hp just to check if it makes any difference. Thanks

Sorry, I'm not saying that I need more power. I think the electric comsuption rate of such a big wheel moving a big truck seems to be quite low.

Hi all, I would like to ask about how to do a realistic rover in RO (something like the "The Martian" film). Yesterday I began to create something big using the RoverMax M1 tyres (200% scale), but I think the electric consumption is not very realistic. It is just using 0,3 ec per second to move a 7 tons rover? Maybe I can go to the cfg files and make some tweaks? Thanks

Yes, that is the main purpose of this tool. Not only for FAR but for every mod that is disabled for x64

Hi mate, To open a 7z file you should download the extractor from http://www.7-zip.org/ . I'm using Windows 10 with defender running and if I test the file with 7zip tool is says that it is not corrupted. Enjoy KSP x64! It seems that KSP 1.1 and Unity 5 is taking longer that expected! I have my RO/RSS on fire!

Thanks I will try that!

Thanks @gruneisen . Everything make sense, but it will require a lot of time and patience

Hi, I'm having problems to point my vessels using RCS/SAS using MechJeb. On 0.90 everything was perfect, but now it is like RCSs have a delay when changing direction. Moreover, with the new ignitions limits It is almost impossible to plan an automatic ascent profile using Mechjeb, every single time I have to "take the control" to do a manual ascent. I love Realism Overhaul, but in my opinion using Mechjeb is also realistic taking into account that there is not manual flying of a rocket during the ascent in the real world. Also, I feel RCS should be scalable via TweakScale because if you have an ultra heavy payload (let say 1000 Tns) RCS are almost useless because it will take forever to change direction. Yesterday, after a frustrating afternoon I began to tweak the cfg file to multiple the torque of the Advanced SAS module by 100 (also the electric consumption) but even changing direction much faster doesn't work with Mechjeb failing to point on the right direction. I was thinking that maybe it is my fault generating the incorrect momentum with my CoM, the SAS module location and RCS location...

I have released a hotfix with MM added to Whitelist. Enjoy the summer and x64 version of KSP

Sorry for the delay. @Sarbian Apologise for the unfixing of MM, I will add it to the whitelist ASAP . I hope you will not take any further actions to avoid MM to work on x64, because I don´t want to spend time trying to hack new code. BTW I already began to miss the Nyan Cat. About the x64, hacks, etc discussion. I hope this hack will die soon, hopefully with the KSP 1.1 release with Unity 5?. But in the meantime....here we are.

Hi again, I have published a Hotfix adding ContractConfigurator to the white list because it has a custom support for x64 to avoid known bugs.

Hi all, Apologise for the delay, I have been working hard I just released a new version. If you can test the new version and give me feedback, thanks guys.

Nice . Thank you for let me know.

uhmm the corrupted save file make sense. Let me know how is going. Maybe if you begin to have issues again I will add a warning if someone is trying to unfix for x64 that mod.

Well, if you say that you are playing with a lot of mods some of them with dependencies. I'm not sure if that was a bug because of x64 or because of your setup. I would like to know if you are experiencing the bug playing on x86 as well.

Can you give some steps to reproduce the problem? Can you also try it on x86?

Can you use this DLL? http://1drv.ms/1Jts083 . Let me know if it is working.

Hi Schpulke, Can you try the Master branch from ContractConfigurator from Git hub instead of the release?

I agree, I will continue doing testing on different Setups. Who is saying that anyone is lying? I trust you, Ferram4 and Squad. I have only provided an isolated scenario in which my KSP is stable. First of all, the only reason why I decide to publish the tool was because I thought that it could be useful for someone else (and it was). I agree that it is a dirty hack and there are much better and neat ways to do this. And yes, if I were a modder and I found that someone is hacking my code, I will not be happy with that. Having said that, I'm here to contribute and I would like to reach an agreement about a solution which could make happy modders & users that want to try easily KSP Win x64, and I will be happy to implement this solution. ( I have some ideas that are much more complex to implement but that will have more neat and fair results)

Hi guys, I have been doing some testing to see if I can break my KSP winx64 but I couln't break it! So I'm happy and I love you guys What was my test about? One Kervin circumnavigation with FAR + visual mods with high quality textures (astronomer,etc..) flying a pretty exotic beauty - my replica of the xb-70 valkyrie! (Folding wings down using IR) During the session the RAM used by KSP.exe process was something between 4600 Mb (at the beginning ) - 2500 Mb (finishing) I'm running KSP 1.04 on a Windows 10 x64 Preview. Screenshot of KSP + Resource Monitor. FYI: I crashed 4 km before the runway I ran out of fuel and it was dark...

It could be because FAR is doing really well with x64! I agree that before 1.0 it was like that, 0.90 was unplayable using x64. But now it completely different. I'm not saying win64 KSP != guaranteed failure at some point, but to find "the point" is getting hard. Of course I'm on your side! In fact we have more in common that the 95% that rest of the world! (ksp fans, software, aerodynamics, space, science...) Back to topic, I don't want to unfix something if I know that then it is going to fail. On the next release of the unfixer my plan is to add a whitelist to block the unfixer from hack those mods that will fail. About to block the unfixer, it is very easy (max 5 min) to add the code to block the unfixer. I'm a honest guy, and it is up to you to do it. If I found that unfixer is not useful anymore and I have to go through VS to recompile every single mod, then I will create forks for everything, and a CKAN for x64. Maybe this approach is more fair and I will help to reduce your signal/noise ratio redirecting those 'bad users' to my forks.

I'm not saying support it, but allow it. About "some players" I can give you some figures about the traffic on my KSP x64 Total Unfixer release folder, but we are talking here that at least 500 users. Also I'm not dictating. Should < Must <<< Dictate - - - Updated - - - I still using my 0.90 Realism Overhaul with 4gb RSS textures, entire KSP folder converted to DDS and OpenGL (I prefer OpenGL because I don't like the black/pink textures problems with Dx11)

I agree that the users should be "educated" about how to report a bug and minimun of information it must contain to be accepted. But this is not about "wishes". We need to acknowledge that since 1.0 the statement "The problem is KSP doesn't work, more or less, on win64" it is getting more difficult to probe, and each day the number of users playing on x64 is increasing. That is the reason why in my opinion, modders should know whether or not a mod is going to FAIL on x64. I said fail because as I mentioned before, I think with the smallest bug because of x64 the modder should block execution on x64, but if you cannot probe that is failing then you should have your mod enabled for x64.