D'Car

That's really nice, and a step in the right direction, but I still have to drop the items to get the science out of them.

I'm also having the problem with dropping things from inventory onto the ground and having them clip through the ground. It also happens in space when i try to put an explosive on a derelict mobile lab from which I'd just rescued a kerbal. The explosive looks like it clips through into the lab model ... so only engineers can detonate things? If that's a feature, then it needs to be changed for at least the explosives. Better yet, what if I've got a scientist bouncing around the mun and I want to drop/recollect a thermometer to get some additional science on the go? It's hit and miss for me as to whether the parts fall through the ground and explode. If this is more of a collision problem with the core game engine ... then can we at least get an option to use science things from inventory?

Yeah ... build a line of docking ports and random structural elements between the two crafts in question.

First thing - this type of functionality really ought to be vanilla. +1 internets for you, sir. Secondly - I'm playing around with the toys, and I found that when I removed/reattached a light from a ship in orbit ... the u key doesn't turn that light on/off anymore. Do we need a separate mod to rebind this kind of thing into appropriate action groups or did I screw something up? Edit - nevermind. The order of operations wasn't playing nicely at first. I got it. Good mod you have, here.

I can attest that service bays cause this problem for me as well. A test build I'd put on the launchpad had 4 container brackets (from kerbal inventory system) attached to the inside with containers on the brackets. Attaching no less than a dozen struts between the service bay and external components doesn't do anything to fix the problem. More often than not, it explodes on the launchpad the moment the physics loads. If it decides to not explode on the pad, then it launches and flies around just fine. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/7133201/Station%201.craft Requires Karbonite and Kerbal Inventory System Edit - Opening the service bay doors when it's vibrating, but hadn't yet exploded the craft, seems to have an effect? Maybe it's a collision box error?

KospY ... y u no are magic kerbal wizard with instant-compatibility spells?

Yeah, that's pretty much what I was trying to describe. Gamma 5 will never feed into Alpha 2, etc. Name it however you like, the idea is all the same to me.

Full disclosure - I retested with the current version. It doesn't happen anymore on a test rig on the launchpad. I don't know if I somehow picked up a buggy version for 0.9 or what, but it was a thing for me ... good to see it's not a thing as-is.

Actually, I could see a rare case usage of negative numbers. It could be possible to have two separate chains of tanks attached to the same structure while not having them interfere with one another. It'd be less confusing, and more functional, to instead add more bits and bobs which describe a fuel system label or number so you could go beyond two fuel system chains ... if you're detail-oriented enough to even want a second chain in the first place.

Somebody carmelize ... karmaize ... uh ... hmm... __Æ(．．) All the +1's for this. ï¼¼(＾▽＾)ï¼Â彡ââ€Â»Ã¢â€Âââ€Â»

Any hope for this hitting 1.0-compatibility? The Goodspeed fuel balancer doesn't look like it'll be supported anymore and the TAC balancer actively eats fuel when you group tanks of multiple sizes. Kind of a pity about Goodspeed, but yours looks like it has really nice features as well.

Bump for +1 to how useful this mod is. Last I checked, the TAC fuel balancer actively destroys fuel as part of the balancing act when putting tanks of different sizes in the same group. Plus TAC is a pain to use compared to this. Update - the 1.0.2 compatible version of TAC does not have this bug. The TAC author would love to hear about any blips in his code, if you find any.

That kind of thinking could be an alternate solution, provided contracts can be configured to say you have to get into a specific set of orbits in a certain order. No more cheaty feelings by parking a single satellite docked to a tiny space station around every celestial and you're guaranteed to be using more fuel in the process.

So, how're plans going for reorganizing the list of fuel tanks into groups according to the ships to which they belong? i.e., I'd love it if i could tell ship A to send fuel to ship B when they're both docked at the same station, and then tell ship B to balance the fuel in its tanks without worrying about that balancing act sending fuel to all other docked things.

Let's take another view on this. For the sake of argument, let's say I have the power to entirely ditch the requirement for launching a new craft and, instead, introduce the requirement of having the craft in the desired location for x amount of time (say, days or weeks). This would circumvent all the problems of flagging particular ships as having been used for a previous mission while also allowing reusing these ships as long as fuel is provided for them. I would also want to change the contract length to a point where it wouldn't be feasible to have, as an extreme example, one satellite complete five orbital positioning contracts which were accepted simultaneously. With a drastically shortened mission window, you would be forced to either have multiple ships in space or only accept one contract at a time. The mission payouts are already acknowledged as needing a balance pass, so now would be the perfect time to visit this solution as really being a feature. Plus, you know, the way kerbal science works you could just argue that the corporations issuing the contracts want to have enough time to get some science from some place.