wolfman29

Is the most recent version (i.e. with biomes) posted for download on the first page?

Minor bug report - I downloaded the latest version, and it still doesn't seem able to modify the crash tolerance of the landing struts or the charge rate of the solar panels. I checked the .cfg, and it says to add the relevant module to the relevant parts, but it didn't actually have those parts included. How do I go about doing this? Or is this a true bug? EDIT: Apparently, I didn't install properly or something - it works!

This looks like a great mod! I'm just reaching endgame in my Alternis Kerbol save, but I like the layout and I was hoping I could keep myself entertained on it for a while, and this mod looks like just the perfect one for me. I'll give it a shot and let you know of any bugs from all of the mods I have installed! EDIT: Alright, taking a look at the mod so far, I think it needs to be nerfed a little bit - I spent 400 science points and increased the ISP of the Nerv to 960, increased the thrust to 93.6kN, and decreased the dry mass to 2.1t, which is a bit overpowered. For balance issues, I think that EITHER costs should be initially doubled (i.e. the first purchase is twice what it was and then scales accordingly), or the ISP/dry mass buffs should be reduced to half of what they are. Also - I think it would be appropriate to make upgrades to fuel tanks apply to all tanks in that takes group, i.e. you can buff all of the FL-Ts simultaneously, all of the Kerbodyne S3s simultaneously, etc. Thoughts?

@Nils - I noticed a while ago you mentioned something about "how you WILL find out how to make CO2." I'm working on a modular base right now (running TAC in companion with KPBS), and it doesn't seem like it's possible to close the loop, even with mining capabilities. As a previous person mentioned, there is not enough CO2 generation at the moment. So, two questions. 1) Is this something you're still thinking about? 2) How should I go about closing the loop in the mean time? Should I just make a "cheaty" part?

Bug report - when I try to start time-warp with the engine on (ion in this case), the game warps for just a second then drops back down to non-warp. Not sure what causes this, but when I change ships after successfully warping through a burn on one ship, it stops functioning. In particular, the altitude doesn't lock anymore until I restart the game, and occasionally, when I do restart the game, even if it the altitude locks, the warp problem described above occurs. Thoughts?

Just poking to check up on the update - I realized that since I can't update my Kopernicus (gives incompatibility issues with Alternis), the game throws an error every frame for every part on the active ship (regarding buoyancy), which makes my high-end gaming laptop lag on 40 part ships Hoping we see the update soon

I was having the same issue - I checked my install and it is 1028. Any thoughts? EDIT: It miraculously started working. Not sure why, but it's resolved.

Posting here hoping for an update. I updated Kopernicus Planetary System Modifier, and it ruined Alternis Kerbol Rekerjiggered - when I reloaded my game, the system was back to the stock system, with all of my deployed ships out in weird, different places. Let me know!

Hi everyone - I currently have EPL and the Maritime Package installed. The problem I am having is that, my floating Laythe base seems to crash into the water whenever I load it from another scene. That is, if I load the quicksave file, the ship is fine (I quicksaved directly after landing it), but after I switch scenes, say to an orbiting ship, and then switch back to the base, the ship appears slightly above the waterline, crashes into the water, and then the exterior parts break due to splashing down hard. I have tried save-file editing to change the status of the ship to "splashed" and I have also tried changing the "alt" value on the ship, but to no avail. I figured I would attach my persistence file, hopefully someone will be able to diagnose my problem! Here is a link to my persistence file: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/50345936/persistent.sfs Thanks!

Interesting. I also have Maritime Pack installed, and, unfortunately, the Buoyancy Blisters are not very low drag (even though they are designed to be). Thoughts on why that could be? As for floating high in the water - there's not too many parts that are highly buoyant but low in drag, it seems. I've tried numerous different parts, and, for buoyancy, it seems that intakes are some of the best ones. What parts are you using?

Hi there - anyone have any idea how FAR interacts with drag in water? I'm trying to build a seaplane using radial intakes (as I have before I installed FAR), but ever since I installed FAR, while my intakes still allow me to float, I can't seem to get past about 22m/s. Anyone have any ideas as to why this is? Could this be related to Better Buoyancy? I know that ferram designed both mods and designed them to be compatible, so I don't imagine Better Buoyancy could be the case. If this is an artifact of FAR, I think I will try to remove this "feature."

Hey - love the mod! I'm trying to do a fully-modded sandbox for my game at the moment (beat the Interstellar variant), so I figured if I end up wanting to make some sea vessels, then I need a good mod for it (I've had enough making sea-planes using obscene amounts of radial air intakes!). However, I'm getting a crash on start-up when downloading the Maritime Pack via CKAN. Here is my crash.dmp: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/50345936/crash.dmp and here is my error.log: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/50345936/error.log Any clues as to the cause? I'll try it with no mods installed and see where the incompatibility is and I'll let you know.

What was the purpose for decreasing the charged particle density produced by the Dusty Plasma? Also - I think there's some trouble conducting heat away or something with regards to thermal electric generators. Even starting at 60% efficiency (where I am in the tech-tree), they tend to drop down to 5-10% very quickly when at full power (even with plenty of huge radiators). Any thoughts? EDIT: To the poster above mentioning quantum entanglement - you can't transmit information via entangled particles. Breaks the laws of physics. At least the Alcubierre drive is theoretically possible.

Well, it's on the tech tree as long as my persistence file says I have it. But once I remove it from my persist file, it goes away. And it's completely off of my part list. I can do re-install of KSPI-E, I suppose, and see what happens. And I've taken a look at "sort by module" and I still can't seem to find it there. I'll let you know. EDIT: So I just realized what happened. It totally moved to another node that I don't have yet. Which is weird, because it still says that it can give me that part from another node (which is weird itself, but whatever). That's frustrating, but I'll deal with it. Sorry guys!

So while there was some discussion of it, no one has come up with an easy fix for my reported bug, so I think it's still a real bug. Anyone else experiencing this? EDIT: I checked the part file and it seemed fine. I removed it from my persistence file and when I did so, I checked the tech-tree and it was no longer an available part from that advancement. I think that's the issue - how do I change what parts are available in the KSPI-E techtree?

So here's a bug - my DUMBO reactor disappeared from my game o.o Not exactly sure where it went, but I have the tech level, and it says it's on the tech tree, just not on my part list. Any clues?

I'm also getting tons of lag in science mode. Using HyperEdit to move a TRN + reactor/generator/radiator combo to Kerbin orbit to do some tests, and I'm getting about one frame every few seconds. My mod list isn't too extensive, either. The game only seems to lag when I use several KSPI-E parts. This common to other people's games? So in further testing, if I don't include the radiator/generator, I get (close to) no lag. In a final test, I tried it with the generator but without the radiators, and again, close to no lag. It has to be the radiators, which makes me wonder - why is it so hard to do that calculation? It's a single line of code that it has to execute to calculate the amount of energy to radiate. What makes it lag so hard? EDIT: I can also confirm that, in sandbox (instead of in science) mode, it is lag-free.

Oh, I understand. Thanks for the clarifications!

This would make sense, except I am only getting around 120 ISP on the low-thrust. Isn't it supposed to be highly efficient? And while I'm here - how do I get the supercollider working? Not sure how it generates data.

I think I noticed a bug, similar to someone's above me. Using the Thermal Rocket Nozzle, I can't seem to get any more than about 10kN of thrust from the MCF Reactor. My setup is, from top down, a DUMBO reactor, a (tweaked) inline radiator (so it's larger), a thermal electric generator, the MCF Reactor, and the thermal rocket nozzle. The MCF apparently has enough power for the maintenance purposes, but it's still not producing the thermal power necessary to use the thermal rocket nozzle (at least more than 10kN or so). Thoughts?

Is this still up? I tried both links provided for the stock game and neither link seem to work. EDIT: Never mind, I guess it was my connection! Got it!

After a week of setup, today I finally set out on my permanent space station/mothership expedition. The station has enough fuel and engines to give it a measly 0.65 m/s^2 when fully fueled, but has enough fuel to take it anywhere in the system and back to Kerbal orbit without refueling. Further, the space station comes equipped with 16 nukes for propulsion, a spare nuke (just in case!), two docking tugs (redundancy and balance!) along with their own dedicated slot, a rendezvous tug (used for moving large payload crafts >50t near the space station from a separate orbit), and a lander/refueling station, which has the capability to land and return to orbit on any body in the Kerbol system (with the exception of Eve!) while hauling 15t of ore. Because this is an all-or-nothing style mission, I decided to take a trip to the Mun and make my first temporary home there. After 12 or so burns to get into a 17km orbit about Mun, I sent down my refueling lander. I need to return about 60k units of fuel - which is a lot! If my math is correct, that's about 20 trips to and from the station. I should be able to cut back on the amount of trips, though, by filling up the tanks while I am on the surface. Because it doesn't take much to orbit Mun, I might be able to cut it down to around 5 or so trips. I guess we'll find out! Anyway, here are a few pictures. Here is my station (with the lander detached). Here is my lander! It's happily chugging along!

Unfortunately, I'm not exactly sure how I go about docking without translation. It's almost impossible to get exactly 0 m/s rel. vel., and the moment you activate the vernors, your rel. vel. changes, usually by about 0.1 m/s or so. Sharpy - the issue is not necessarily controlling/turning, but translation. As for solutions - I found that I guess I just need to be better at docking! I managed to dock a 400t fuel payload to my space station this morning (took about an hour) using a rendezvous rocket (a single mainsail attached to some separate fuel) and one of my tugs with 8 RCS blocks. The issue was that I usually use mechjeb's RCS Balancer with Smart Translation, which I guess because the center of mass was so far from the RCS blocks, had a really hard time doing any translation. So I turned it off and did it entirely by hand and it got there. Of course, the rendezvous rocket put in most of the work, getting about 10 meters away from the docking port and killing relative velocity. From there, I just had to meet up with it with my tug and it wasn't too bad!

Hmm. So thanks for all the replies - wasn't expecting this many! I think the solutions that may work the best for me are either attaching MANY Vernors to the payload and then removing them (my space station, when I initially brought it up, required 120 Vernors to keep it stable during flight, so I'm no stranger to removing mass amounts of Vernors) or more tugs. I'm just not that good at docking that I would feel comfortable docking with main engines only. Mystique - I currently have 4 tugs that I have been using, but they're not enough for the large loads I intend to move. As for using RCS thrusters as before, as per Jouni - that may work. I just need a way to rendezvous with the depot first before I can start pulling it! I'll keep you all updated with what I figure out.

Hm. That's a shame. While I don't play exactly stock (I have KIS/KAS, Mechjeb, KER, etc.), I don't like playing with parts packs, nor do I like editing the parts to be better than they should be! How do you go about docking with a main engine? Never seen that done before, and I would have no idea how to do it. I guess you could use a main engine in the front and the back (maybe using big radials?) and use those for front/back? Really, the biggest issue is translation. I usually don't have a huge issue with rotation. EDIT: What if I made some custom action groups and just placed 6 main engines around a tug, having each action group shut down the others? Think that would help with translation?