Psycho_zs

PXL-10 may be a bit too light

Who would have thought that in this universe SBURB would be spawned from a KSP mod... So, what is your grand concept for translating these bodies into a physical plane? (Since the Incipisphere is a metaphysical medium and all (multiple puns intended)). Also, you might want to place a big spoiler alert at the beginning of your post, in case anyone here takes interest in the source material

Cool. You might be interested in following this report: https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/15826

It worked, thanks!

I also tried '%' before that, which is 'edit or add' OK, will try this variant

I'm trying to tilt the skybox with this: @SigmaReplacements { @SkyBox { @CubeMap { @rotate = True } } } Nothing happens. Is something else needed to tilt stock skybox, or the randomness just decided something close to initial orientation?

That will do, i guess. But a bit more control would be great, in case the chosen rotation ends up being equally ridiculous

Hmm... The thing I always wanted to do is to just tilt the stock skybox, so it won't be aligned with the ecliptic. Is that possible?

I had a similar problem just recently, the answer is here:

Aw hell, this is frustrating. I've increased maxRotate to 30, but it still won't bend enough...

Thanks! I think I'm going to just nuke these ports, they aren't going to spend any significant time flapping in the wind outside of fairings anyway.

I've tried these variants, but it didn't work: @PART[dmFlexoTubeJr|dmFlexoTube|dmFlexoTubeSr]:FINAL { @MODULE[FARAeroPartModule] { @isEnabled = false } @MODULE[FARPartModule] { @isEnabled = false } } @PART[dmFlexoTubeJr|dmFlexoTube|dmFlexoTubeSr]:FINAL { !MODULE[FARAeroPartModule] {} !MODULE[FARPartModule] {} }

Is there a way to exclude a part from FAR calculations?

Hi! DMagic, do you have any idea, why a flexible docking port would be voxelized by FAR into a giant ballute?

Hi! I've caught some weird stuff. Today my Mun Tanker Truck persistently refused to go to space. It turned out to be a hilarious voxelization of flexible docking port jr. I've also left a message in DMagic's thread.

Completely forgot that 'Pugs' are not in stock yet. LV-303 from Porkjet's Part Overhauls. Does not really matter, other engines are also affected. I did some testing. It seems that hitting "All normal" or "Deactivate module" or "Center Thrust" with "Off" just locks engines in whatever thrust they are currently in. Here I throttled up a bit right after launch, then opened DTC window and hit "Center Thrust" with "Off" setting and killed the throttle. Engines still firing. Seems to work fine on a clean KSP, so it has to be some mod interference. That would be hard to pinpoint, no other mod specifically deals with engine thrust as far as I can tell... I will try, but not today. Update: It is a conflict with SmokeScreen/RealPlume

Hi. I have some troubles with this mod: It fails to reset engines to the normal state when "all normal" is selected, or when DT module is deactivated after use. Engines do not work except when "center thrust" is on. Also, kerbal EVA thusters seem to be affected. I landed on the Mun in a ship using DT module, and kerbals on EVA now can only barely lift off the ground. I'm flying a ship with 4 'pugs', KSP 1.3.1 (same thing happened in 1.3.0). P.S. it would be a good idea to reset thrust limiters on the engines to their initial values when current thrust is 0%. Otherwise it messes with manuver and TWR calculations. Update: It is a conflict with SmokeScreen/RealPlume

Thanks, I will test it in a day or so. ...yep, the crash is gone.

From my extensive mod list I've isolated three that cause crash: EVAFuel, Action Group Manager, Orbital Survey Plus. I haven't done any extensive testing, but at least NF mods do not cause any trouble on 1.3.1 for me.

Unfortunately, with this mod 1.3.1 silently crashes right before main menu (at least Linux version), without any relevant messages in the log upon crash.

Congrats! And best wishes for the young explorer!

Well, it could be a feature of crew tubes, that sets them apart from structural fuselages: you can stick it in like a straw.

Another idea: make crew tubes surface attach perpendicularly, same as pressurized attachment points. (and with passableWhenSurfaceAttached=true). It will reduce part count and simplify creation of docking hubs. I am unable to remember any occasion of wanting to surface attach a crew tube in parallel.

Yes! Hell yes! Hell F***ing Yes! A humble request: short crew tubes without windows or pipes. Something between current 1x tubes and radial attachment points, or 1/2 of current 1x tubes. It would serve two purposes: a good base for radially sticking docking ports or other parts (hex+ symmetry), and sometimes you need to extend a stack just a little bit less/more than current 1x tube allows.

RQ-5x1 thrusters are just made to be combined with Stratus-V tanks! It's a pity these stock tanks have no surface attachability.