Bosun

Hi all! Just got into this mod last night, and it's a lot of fun! Question - Are kerbals and their craft scaled 1:1 to what we would expect them to be compared to humans, against the scale of the planets here? I only ask because, from 26k on ascent, KSC looks like I'm maybe only half that altitude. It looks massive, as if Florida was half as wide as it is.... I could be also off on my reference to scaling, and KSC may actually represent a footprint that large, but it also seemed like I reached 150k way to quickly (in about 30 seconds with a 1.30 twr). I've often felt this way in the original game too, but it's easy to just write that off as that whole system being scaled down. Apologies if it really is 1:1 with the Kerbals, KSC just looked massive from orbit, and I thought I'd ask.

Thanks! Is the index, 0, exampled here the 'Object' number in Unity? Or is it the number within the list? (List item 1, list item 2, etc) More importantly though, the creation of objects was a learning step for me. I just figured this out Monday while I was re-reading part tree traversal, and was able to use the traverse to find and object the parts I wanted. With this step I'll be able to separate like tanks as well. Thanks! Cheers!

Hi everybody! I've been playing with kRPC, and loving the fun of learning how to Python (which is how I justify playing more Kerbal) and have a question that's stumped me the last few days. I have a craft with a central LFO engine, surrounded by decoupler attached LFO booster stacks. I'm looking for a way to determine when the fuel tanks that are radially attached are empty. Currently, I can call resources in a specific stage, which includes the main engine, and I can call object instances of all engines. Neither of those, however, help me, because the total resource level will never equal zero before I need to jettison tanks, and I cannot seem to pinpoint a singular engine instance to test for whether the engine has_fuel. I can test if all the engines have fuel, returning true if any single one still does, which also doesn't get me a usable result. Finally, I've tried to mathematically calculate the usage of propellant based on the stats of the engines, but the central and radial engines are different rates, and I also have vernor engines that differ in consumption, so my attempt to compute a hard time limit on the burn without, of course, first just running the rocket on the stand (which kinda defeats the purpose I'm looking for) failed. Any help is appreciated! Thanks all for any insight, this has been a really good challenge, but I'm breaking down and asking for help. Cheers!

Also, looking for a way to call a specific part in kRPC. I have three tanks of LF/O attached in radial, and I want to know when they're empty. I've tried several iterations of attempting to traverse the tree to either determine when a fuel tank is depleted of a specific resource, or to see if a specific engine has fuel available. No technique I have found renders a solution that does not also factor in the central tank and engine, thereby necessitating hefty equations for fuel consumption, time elapsed, etc, in order to stage the fuel tanks. These are not linked with hoses, but instead are liquid boosters. Is there any way I can refer to a specific fuel tank's resource amount of a specific resource? Cheers!

Are there any more complete libraries for kRPC? I'm having trouble linking a lot of references because many of those in the github page are outdated or slightly different. Specifically I want to link a resource from a specific tank to a variable, and cannot seem to get it to work. resource = vessel.parts.*part-name/title/tag/number*.resources('resource') is what I kinda thought it would be. I realize this is horridly wrong....kinda new to Python, but using this mod as a fun way to learn. How should I call a specific part? Cheers,

Is there a way to interface with external hull cameras, such as from HullCam VDS? I am trying to figure out how to reference them as parts, and then call their modules for activation. I figure that should be something I can do, yes?

Is there functionality to add the Shell to RPM? It would be the bee's knees to be able to see my print commands in IVA.

Just a note - The HX open structural pieces for docking bays have no ability for lighting. The lights that are in the model do not cast light, and attaching lights to the actual inside of the module also somehow keeps the lights from actually 'lighting up' the inside, even though the light itself is 'on.' Note that you can drive another, unconnected vehicle into the bays, and the same light, with the same settings, will light up the walls. I think perhaps it's something with the part itself, not wanting to recognize light sources attached to itself? Cheers!

Same for me - Installed Scatter, Installed EVE, Installed RSSVE - No clouds. I've tried both solutions posted in the forum here, neither one work. Running 64 on Win 10, with 1.2.2 and RC3. Latest installs on all the dependencies.

African or European X-Wings? Were they unladen? If two X-Wings were flying together would it increase the lift and allow them to fly?

EDIT = Got it! Thanks Djungelorm, i was needing an emulator to run it. Edit - After I download the krpc files from Github - do I place them in the library folder of Python?

Hi All - Just trying this mod out, and having trouble getting it installed. I have my pip.exe in D:\Python\Scripts\pip.exe, and after pointing in the cmd shell to that file, with a space, and 'install krpc,' I get invalid Syntax error on the ':' just after the D drive designation. Ran as "D:\Python\Scripts\pip.exe install krpc" on one line. Syntax error on the ':'. Any ideas? I've looked at several tutorials, even going back as far as to try installing pip, and the pip installation instructions I copied also gave me syntax errors. Is there something I am possibly not importing, or have not yet installed to python, that I would need to recognize the commands? Cheers, Bosun

Just thought I would try this mod - Is the terrain texture supposed to be lime green? I think I did something wrong.

Hi all. Problem I have getting a lander to the Mun - I have Real Fuels, Real-Scale Boosters and Ven's ReVamp installed. I cannot seem to build a Lander for the Mun that has 1) Enough D/V to lower to the surface, and return to circular orbit (which, if I estimate is about 1800 each way)(Yes, I am using a two-stage lander), and 2) the engines that came with Real Scale Boosters seem to be way large and I cannot effectively build a rocket around an engine that has enough thrust to be effective, while having a size that actually fits the rocket I'm building. (They end up looking cartoonish because I have to use TweakScale to make the engine MASSIVE in order to lift off the amount of fuel needed for DV to orbit.) Can anyone give me any pointers? I feel there is something that is horribly not configured correctly, as I effectively can't get around the solar system using this mod at all, without hacking the files of Real Scale Boosters and Real Fuels, which seems...well...counter to what they're supposed to offer.

Ahhhhh, ok, thanks.

Question - Just decided to give this mod a try. I'm not code-savvy too much yet, but I'm learning. Problem: I build the ship in the first tutorial on the GIthub page. I go to the launchpad, I have the script from the tutorial. When I execute the HelloLaunch program, it Sets throttle to full, counts down, sets throttle to 1/3, and stages, while also unlocking steering (because if I manually boost the throttle, the ship does not steer.) I did some testing. Turns out, if I type: Lock Throttle to 1.0. //this locks the throttle to full. Good so far. Lock Steering to Up. //this may lock the steering, not sure, but it does knock the throttle back down to 1/3, also causing me to be UNABLE to re-lock the throttle. IE - Once the command is typed once for the ship, I can no longer affect the throttle in the program, and the program effectively ceases. Anyone else encounter this?

Rgr, Apologies for not understanding your first line above - Do I need to download the RealFuels/zSolidFuelMult.cfg file from somewhere? And what do I rename it too? Cheers! Thanks for the response!

Hi Necro - I'm using your mod with the Kerbal 6.4x scale mod. So far, I think I'm missing some configurations somewhere... I also use TweakScale and Real Fuels. When launching any of the RSB Rockets, after configuring the tanks for the fuels used, they are always too heavy to take off - HOWEVER - I noticed, at least on the Saturn V model, that if I double the scale on the Engines at the bottom, it takes off just fine, however, the second/third stage engines are too weak to power it into orbit. I have similar problems with the Solid Boosters being unable to lift themselves. I've not changed any configs, so I'm curious if I missed a step? Or if I need another mod, like Stock RF Engine Configs? Still trying to figure out why I'm not getting what I imagine would be proper performance out of the Mod's engines. Is it a mass issue with the tanks or fuel weighing too much? Or an Engine config issue, you think? Again, I installed 6.4x Scaled Kerbal system, then installed Real Fuels, then tweak scale, and finally, installed your Mod. Any ideas? Thanks, Bosun

I still cannot download x64 from the store for Windows. I've been trying for hours, and it'll start, but then immediately say Network Error and stop downloading.

What's the proper way to update the game build on a modded install with a career save? I messed up somehow and had my saves scrambled, I think. I downloaded the new build, and I had simply copied all the new KSP folders, except for the GameData folder, which I just replaced the "squad" subfolder in it, and left all the mod folders there. Then I re-inserted the saved game files into the updated folder (I had moved them to desktop for the merge to make sure they didn't disappear.) What'd I miss? Thanks for any help. -Bosun

[quote name='Steven Mading']That's what kOS, and kRPC simulate. What Mechjeb simulates is what it would have been like if that software didn't have to be specially made custom for the space program and could be just bought off the shelf. Programming the AGC for Apollo was just as much of a major effort as making the rockets was.[/QUOTE] Again - we cannot simulate the actual construction of physical computer components, and the subsequent individual base programming of them in the game. What you have left over, is a universal tool for the effect of having done just that - each ship with it's own build. Each ship with it's own computers and programming. That's what the VAB is for. If you wanted to simulate that correctly, you'd download Kerbal Construction Time, and actually wait the months or years it would take to physically build the craft. Instead, we magically build a craft and launch in minutes, [I]suspending our disbelief [/I]for the sake of playing the game. Because every craft you build would likely have these controls, Mechjeb, in my opinion, bridges the gap of having to hard-code in your own user interface and binary code to the game in order to properly simulate how a craft is actually flown. Currently, there is no micro-challenge in game that allows you the challenge of doing AGC programming. Whether you fly by stick on every manuever also doesn't address AGC programming. The point of Mechjeb is that those controls would have been programmed in, regardless what they look like, where they were on the dashboard, or how much power the computer had to use to do the calculations. So to claim that Mechjeb simulates a simpler solution of shelf-buying misses the argument everyone else is making: Mechjeb introduces controls and mechanics that would have been purpose-built for each craft, in a format that allows it to be in the game in the first place. It's no more store-bought than any other part you use in the VAB.

I'll just mention, in case anyone didn't in the last....29 pages....All spacecraft launched after Apollo began had ascent profiles and programs loaded into them for the pilots to 'Execute' at the right times. This is exactly what Mechjeb is actually simulating. Not a single launch, that I'm aware of, even before Apollo, correct me if I'm wrong, had a pilot launching from the pad with his hand on the stick.... So for me, Mechjeb isn't cheating. It's actually providing a tool that should have already been there. The ability for ground control and mission planning to do the math ahead of you, load the algorithms into the ship's computer, and allow that all you need to do is execute the programs in the right order, to fly the ship. Remember - NASA's challenge was never "have the rocket make orbit because the pilot was steady on the stick." It was - "Have it make orbit because it was loaded properly and designed well." It was never, "Get to the moon because the pilot can steer a straight line." It was "get to the moon because the ship was built to be capable of that, and the astronauts were able to stay on schedule with the program." When I load manuever editor, or ascent profile....that's me punching the math into the onboard computer that I'd surely have, and having that program be run by the computer while I oversee it's completion. Sometimes there are hiccups. The program doesn't execute precisely enough, and I have to work out a correction, or the atmosphere affects the program's algorithm, and you have to manually reset the node (IE - manually punch in a new correction). Mechjeb still doesn't land on the moon for me, I must descend myself. Mechjeb doesn't stage. Mechjeb doesn't EVA for science. And it doesn't plan the whole trip for me. *I* plan the trip, by building it in the maneuver nodes. So no, Mechjeb is not 'cheating,' quite contrary, it is a very elemental tool that simulates more conditions we cannot actually replicate in a game. Heck, if anything, we should be able to go into the Tracking Center and literally "Build" a mission or trip. Using algorithms like "Trajectories" mod, we should be able to plan an entire set of Manuever nodes that will give us a rounded estimate of DV necessary, as well as giving us a launch window. Never has NASA sent a probe to Mars who's course wasn't laid out in full, down to the M/S entry into the atmosphere, years in advance. In Kerbal - we must guess, once we make orbit, THEN we plan our intercept. Once we burn the first time, THEN we configure a fine tune adjustment. All these steps are completed in the real world, here on earth, well before the ship ever leaves. Each ship is purpose built to exactly the weight and thrust needed to reach the target orbit or planet. No one ever intercepted an asteroid at NASA by shooting a probe into orbit and going, "Ok, now where's that asteroid at?"

After tooling around with it, I'm only able to get the old version of EVE working in 1.05. The newer version gets me the pink ground bug.

Unfortunately, I tried the new patch of EVE - First attempt I got no textures at all, no ground, no sky. When launching, above a certain altitude everything was pink. Second attempt, I put in the old EVE folder I had from 1.04, then merged the new one on top and same for Boulder folder. Got the sky this time, but now the ground is completely pink, as well as the shadows on the moon in the sky. Going to see if I can just get the old 1.o4 folders again and use those until something else comes along. EDIT - Just tried it with the old folders. Same results. Still have the Pink ground and purple moon. Guess it isn't playable for me. Any one got ideas as to whats going on?

The fact that it's a whole bunch of gaming enthusiasts playing together, getting along, chatting about the game together, civilly, getting along, without yelling or attacking each other, getting along...Well, you get the idea. Many games I've enjoyed I've stopped playing because they've become poor substitute outlets for people's passive aggression in life outside the game, where all their angst over things they cannot control gets vetted in an anonymous atmosphere under fabricated positions of power and knowledge. It makes the games more exhausting to play than just dealing with regular life, and games are about exploring and diverting away from the regular. So thanks, community here, for being wonderfully accepting and creative, open and encouraging, helpful and engaging. Good job.