Phelan

Members
  • Content Count

    85
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

21 Excellent

About Phelan

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Ah, I thought that would just toggle the PR function Thanks, I finally can see my orbital stats again
  2. Is there a way to move the little PR window or toggle it via a toolbar button or so? As it is, it's sitting smack dab in the middle of the Kerbal Engineer info panel (that I really don't want to move)
  3. Heh, it's working nicely, though I did need to switch "Unmanned Before Manned", which seems to have a messed up tech tree in 1.6.1 (got the Mk1 pod at the start and no probe core), for "Unkerballed Start". Well, exploring a different tech tree can be fun
  4. Ah okay, that'd explain it. Time for some manual installing then I guess
  5. I ran into an issue with the golf club - I simply can't equip it. The log says "evaTransform not found". Other equippable items such as the wrench work just fine. It's KSP 1.4.2 (older version since I want to use a mod that's only available up to that version so far), all mods installed via CKAN, so no idea whether it might be a version mismatch problem. It's obviosly not a game breaking or even major issue, but it also obviously would be nice to have it working
  6. As the title says, has there been any movement about changing the current EULA which is actually violating European law? And yes, this isn't just a wild guess, Gamestar has asked a lawyer about it; if you can read German, here's the article - https://www.gamestar.de/artikel/kerbal-space-program-spyware-vorwuerfe-neue-softwarelizenz-bringt-spieler-auf-die-palme,3329796.html
  7. Looks like the new rover controls don't work with Foundries wheels/tracks anymore Driving around manually is fine, and the rover autopilot will happily speed up and brake - but it won't steer. At all.
  8. Cubic strut isn't a part? You keep bringing up solutions that just demonstrate that you are indeed just sticking to the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of the law. One major reason behind the "no service bay" is to keep the part count down. Yet all your solutions add at least one part (fairing, cubic strut or other ways to have open nodes). And yes, putting the core just between two 2.5m parts will work. But exactly, it'll be weak and ugly. Not what'd call a reasonable reaction to me asking for cheap, lightweight probes with a 2.5m diameter.
  9. Yeah, except that a tug with just RCS for "propulsion" utterly fails. A tug is a small vessel with a completely overpowered engine, so the exact opposite of what you've offered there. And sorry, but saying "I didn't use a service bay, just a fairing" is... "letter of the law" kind of pettiness.
  10. I don't know how the first and last one even remotely address what I asked for, and the second one may not have a service bay, but that fairing is basically the exact same thing. Oh, and if the fairing part should get decoupled (I can't fully make out whether that's a decoupler), then where's the engine? It's supposed to be a tug afterall.
  11. Fine, build me a 2.5 drone "tug" ship with a 2.5m docking port at the bow, a non-2.5m probe core and no service bay. No part clipping either.
  12. Yeah, except of course the HECS2 isn't a 2.5m core, so you need a huge service bay for a tiny probe core. Part count and vessel length have just gone up for no good reason at all.
  13. Ahhh, thank you, the "start the engines/spool up first, then start the reactor" is the kind of thing I meant with "how are they supposed to be flown"