Moiety

My apologies, must've read your post wrong.

From the opening post: So it would make sense if things break if that's not installed

FWIW, the male docking-port works with the stock one.

@DairyLee excellent Let us know when it's up. I'd like to contribute some minor things like CLS configs and such.

This looks interesting, will you publish it on GitHub for easy contributions? Some notes: Antenna are listed as "panels" in the interaction menu For some reason no dV information about stages after the 1st one is available to KER or simple dV (in the VAB, in flight they appear after stage-sep) No ladder/something to hold onto for Kerbals on EVA (Artichoke CM) The final stage has around 1000 dV, I think that's well balanced

Here to say I have the same issue. FWIW, a quick EVA also solves the problem. Something to do with vessel change possibly? Read there was an issue with that somewhere on the last page. Running the same versions on Windows 10.

Can you elaborate on that a bit? The various ramps around KSC work pretty well when it comes to suspension test. Oeh I like that!

Something adjacent to the runway could work very well! Something between the runway and the administration building for example. I’m not familiar with the space center in Galileo (outside of Scott’s videos). Do they place anything in that particular spot?

I’m all for a good discussion about whether this is really needed or if it would in fact be helpful or even used. However, if you want such a discussion I propose coming up with better arguments than “You can easily waste time by driving to this one location 10 KM from the KSC”. If you had to drive your rockets 10 KM from the VAB to test them you’d probably ask for a more direct solution too. Perhaps you could turn the throwing stones into throwing creative solutions at the problems. So, anyway To get back to a slightly more positive atmosphere, some benefits: Shorten development time for rovers Lengthen development time for rovers because you like spending time on the new test range so much Rest assured your 40 K$ costing rover will actually work in the far reaches of the solar system Add realism to the KSC There’s a place to launch planes and one for rockets, why not one for rovers?

Having to travel 5-10 minutes before you can test isn’t very helpful. Especially not when you are in a continuous development cycle. It would be much better to have something right there at the KSC. To repeat my question: how would this impact performance? In my experience people wouldn’t mind a good test environment for rovers.

@ZooNamedGames you mean the grasslands? Also, a 10 minute drive with what? The tiny wheels, the LRV type wheels? Also, how would this impact performance? It’s not like this would have a high poly-count.

For what it’s worth, there’s some TAC LS support in my Tantares Patches. (I’ll get to proper support at some point).

@Beale has written some excellent Modding Tutorials.

Everyone that has developed a rover in KSP knows that testing them is essential; unless you really like to discover you didn’t bring enough EC to transmit your science after you launch. What’s missing for this is a rover test range. What’s a rover test range? Well, in its most simple way it’s just a piece of land that has various hills etc to emulate the surface on other planets. This is especially helpful to test suspension. Like this Apollo-era rover testrange: Or this (rather small) ESA test range: Another example: Cool, what else? Hmm, well, suspension aside, things like “did I bring enough EC to transmit this stuff?” could be answered by testing at night. But that isn’t very handy, so a small garage/shed like building on the test range could help with this (park in the shade / out of the sun so solar panels don’t work). In order for this test range to be helpful you should be able to launch a vehicle from it (no point in having to drive to it). Any other ideas for this would be appreciated.

Thank you for the update! Reloading now. Update: it now works :).

Sorry, should’ve included some more info. The error is with the Rendezvous parameter, specifically the AntiRendezvous. It says it’s “missing required value ‘vessel’”. Log details: [ERROR] ContractConfigurator.RendezvousFactory: CONTRACT_TYPE 'STS-41B', PARAMETER 'AntiRendezvous' of type 'Rendezvous': Missing required value 'vessel'.

@pap1723 there seems to be an issue with the mission, Contract Configurator debug menu (alt+F10) shows the mission in red.

Hmprf, I see it in the code too, only requirement is STS-9, which I did. I’ll see if I can re-generate it somehow.

I’m progressing nicely through the entire pack now. However, STS-41G lists STS-41B as a pre-requisit, but I don’t see that mission listed anywhere .

I had the same issue, same with Apollo 17. I’ve had multiple issue with a couple of mission. I haven’t been able to document them all. If you just want to continue with the career, like me, you can use alt+F12 to get into the debug menu and manually complete the contract there.

While true, it’s common practice to add a custom named zip file (as to prevent confusion).

Nice work Mr. Beale .

nvm

@CobaltWolf and @Beale that makes perfect sense, thank you both .

What does this mean exactly?