• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by billgarlic

  1. I see that reversing your physics change did not fix your other problem but the solution to the negative mass is to not include a Kerbal in your design/construction phase. They default to on, just remove them. Once you have your ship in order, you can put one in to assess life support needs and such. Hope that helps.
  2. @Theysen There does appear to have been a metadata change since I did my install on 12/20. It does appear to install the correct SmokeScreen now. I did not update when I saw the metadata notice because I copy the Master down from RO afterwards and did not want to mess with that (CKAN can get confused). I was trying to assist @JohnKurveen by looking at my install when I read about the special version of SmokeScreen. All I can tell you for sure is that on 12/20 it installed the old one on a completely fresh install. Maybe that is what happened to him. What you are saying is true, if you do a fresh install you will get the correct version of SmokeScreen for RO.
  3. @raidernick This may be a source of the confusion. I installed RO on 1.7.3 using the latest RP-1 install process on that wiki ( I usually have done it all manually in the past (using the Golden Spreadsheet) but this time I followed the instructions step-by-step and used CKAN. After reading about the special build of SmokeScreen in your post, I went back and checked the CKAN install. Here is what I found: There is a regular SmokeScreen that is installed with RO. There is a separate RO version of SmokeScreen that is not installed. If you attempt to uninstall the regular SmokeScreen and replace it with the RO version, it uninstalls RO as well. If you simply attempt to install the RO SmokeScreen, it highlights as an incompatibility unless you get rid of the other (which kills RO as mentioned). I downloaded the ZIP of the RO SmokeScreen and manually replaced it in GameData; deleting the old SmokeScreen and copying over the new RO version. It all seems to run but I have not used it extensively as I am wrapping up some missions on 1.6.1 and would rather start over on 1.7.3. I just saw this thread and was curious in case I ran into a problem down the road. Maybe there is a CKAN setup issue with which SmokeScreen version it should be using? I thought this info might help.
  4. @siimav Bingo! I vaguely remembered this "feature" so thank you for your response to remind me of it. FYI, MJ and stock report is reporting the correct mass in the Vessel window as you said. I guess that I forgot that the center click is KER (I have got very used to it). One oddity still is the 38 minute burn based on a TWR of 0.01 in both MJ and KER. That TWR value also shows in the stock dV but it does report the correct burn period of 23s. I ran the vessel in KRASH from orbit and sure enough it burns in 23s, the MJ timer just counts down super fast! Thanks again!
  5. I will check on the crewmember factor and make sure they are removed. MJ was reporting the the long time on the solid retro. For the mass I was center clicking on the object. I will follow up. Thanks.
  6. I am having a problem with negative mass that seems unrelated to Real Fuels or Tweakscale (which is in earlier parts of this thread). This is particularly frustrating because I just achieved the crewed pods and the Mercury ones are the problem! I am running RO with RP-1 on 1.6.1. I have a number of other mods (many) but I have been able to isolate the problem to some degree. I use FASA, the ROEngines/ROCapsules/ROTanks collection, Ven Stock revamp and other items defined by the install instructions. I do not use or have installed Tweakscale. Basically, if I use the Mercury pod from either ROCapsules or FASA when I add the mercury parachute the mass goes down as it reports a -40 mass. Same when I add the decoupler (-95). The retro solid engine also has a negative mass and it also says in MechJeb that it will run for 38 minutes (probably related to the bad mass) and it is fully fueled. As a possible relevant factor, the RealChute radial has a negative mass but the cone appears to work fine ?!? I updated all the mods to their 1.6.1 max and also have downloaded the masters of RO, RP-0 (1) and the collection of Tanks, Capsules, Engines from Git just to make sure this isn't a bug already repaired. The problem persisted so I started removing likely mods 1 by 1. No effect unless I remove Realism Overhaul itself. Then they start working again (although the values are not realistic anymore). So I have to assess that is the likely culprit. Advice would be appreciated. I am happy to file a bug if that is the better way to go or provide additional information that would be useful. Thanks!
  7. @linuxgurugamer I noted your comments from October and wanted to ask a couple questions: First, you had said you had it working in 1.5.1. Do you know if the fixes you made work in the latest 1.6.1? If they do, is it within the license rules for you to share your updated version? ( I looked in your Git branch but did not see how I could get any updated version). Second, you also indicated that you would be willing to curate this mod but would need help on using Kopernicus. I am sadly not likely to be much help either but I do see a distinction between keeping it working and evolving it. I am not sure exactly what changes need to be done if the Kopernicus API stays constant and it is updated to Kerbal. Do you anticipate that it is something that would be hard to learn and maintain if that were the simple goal? I would be thrilled if this just was able to be used again even if it did not evolve much. It creates a fairly unique Kerbal experience and I was looking to getting back to the top of the Kerbal versions after spending the past many months using RO in 1.3.1. Final note, I know how many mods you are keeping alive for the rest of us; I use many of them. That was an aspect of my reaching out on this subject to see if there is feasible help to provide. I really appreciate all of your work on that front.
  8. Just curious. Has anyone created Test Flight mod configs (for stock) for the BDB collection? They have real-world counterparts ('real' names) so that data is in the Test Flight configs in Realism Overhaul (those values should not need to be scaled like power and fuel). I was thinking of trying to make a few as an experiment but curious if they already exist. Also, since another RO (for 1.3.1) seems in the near future, I was hoping to use these parts in another run at that mod collection. I saw that there are engine configs in that tree but they did not include any TestFlight data that I saw. Thanks to anyone who may have an answer!
  9. Just an FYI on the Octosat package. The BahaSP component (included) is an older version from June 29 (version listed as that breaks mods that use a more recent version from September 23( I found it broke USProbes from Raidernick because the animations no longer worked (couldn't open solar panels or lower legs etc). I have not really tested Octosat with the newer Baha because I haven't unlocked it yet! If I have a chance, I will give that a try to see if the newer version breaks it.
  10. Where would you like bugs reported? (the GitHub looks stale so I wanted to ask first). Minor: KSP-AVC reports that Test Flight is built for 1.1.3.
  11. Understood. Had some cycles free up and thought I could help. Thanks for all your mod efforts.
  12. Has there been any movement on this? Do you need additional testers?
  13. An FYI. I installed your mod (which looks very interesting) and all my Probes Plus! antennas stopped working. When I removed it, they went back. The stock antennas appeared to work fine at the same time. I am not sure what the conflict may have been. I also use Kerbalism (thought that might be it) and a LOT of other mods. However, removing this one did fix it but I am not sure if it is solely at fault, Sorry I don't have more helpful info. If there is some I can provide, please let me know.
  14. I had to post because this mod just made my day. I love doing the historical missions and the previous "full" contract pack was great (particularly the many details in the descriptions). This is also a welcome evolution of that because it did get a bit tedious to do so many missions that either were very repetitive or where you had to create failure. Along those lines, I have reached the early unkerballed capsule tests. Both Korabl-Sputnik and Mercury-Redstone appeared. I built one of the rockets (using the many historical parts from the other recommended mods) and went to remove Jeb from the capsule so I could do the test. What do I see! I see Zvezdochka and Ham waiting to board as tourists! I love that! Finally, I can send some of the real first astronauts on their missions! That was an excellent touch to add and a great surprise for me. Kudos! and Thank you
  15. The latest download does not appear to show the UI when clicking on the button for me. The last version worked. I deleted the directory and replaced with the new (1.1) download via Spacedock. I do not know if there is somewhere I can look to see if an error is being generated.
  16. I noticed that the animation modules have shown up in CKAN for 1.1.2. I wanted to ping the thread in case this hadn't been noticed. Assuming they work on the latest, does this mean we can see an update of this mod in the near future? I really hope so because I am a huge fan of this mod to create probes. Versatile, lightweight and actually cool to watch!
  17. At the moment, CKAN does not seem to allow this Kronkus mod to be installed if you have Asclepius (or OPM). It reports some conflict and then throws an exception! My CKAN reports everything up-to-date. I tried removing all my Kopernicus mods and then reinstalling them. As soon as Kronkus is added to the list (either at the start or at the end) the "Apply Changes" goes gray to prevent it. Kronkus shows a red background and reports some incompatibility with not much detail (before the exception). I have not tried it manually because I am hoping to use CKAN for everything (it makes life easy). I can try manual if that is helpful, although I would not expect any issue to show up that way. Thanks!