MadArkael

Does your exponential formula work better than a linear one?

I know many a working engineer, they mostly subscribe to the 'function doesn't necessarily mean form.'

Fair Point. Agreed. I mostly Just want to make lifters with a "cookie cutter" transfer vehicle and instead of wrapping them in a fairing, it would be fun to use the new system is all.

Its your formula, I was just pointing out visual volume. Another example is the main sail engine. It can be perfectly clipped into 5 SEQ-24's. They hold 12,500 L combined. So if you dont over complicate things and just calculate volume of the engine as a straight cylinder, the main sail should hold a volume approximately of 12500 L. Using your formula. The Main sail currently is 432,000 L.

I agree. Yeah it makes it hard without actual dimensions. For reference with the nerv example though. 5 SEQ-24's stacked is 12500 L. You can clip 2 Nerv engines in with quite a bit of volume left over (almost 3)

I installed 1.10.90's version. and Tada! Not sure the volumes work out correctly, unless I bugged it yet again. The Atreus Cargo tube has a volume of 8500 L. The Nerv atomic rocket engine has a volume of 108000 L. (I know you're approximating volume from mass so its not going to be exact)

@PART[*]:HAS[!MODULE[ModuleCargoPart],#mass] { MODULE { name = ModuleCargoPart packedVolume = #$../mass$ @packedVolume *= #$../mass$ @packedVolume *= 12000 stackableQuantity = 1 @stackableQuantity /= #$packedVolume$ @stackableQuantity += 1 @stackableQuantity ^= :\.\d+:: } } Yeah I found this in your cfg. I don't see any extra cargo tags to parts that didnt have them prior. Maybe I'm missing something? I put your folder in my game data folder. I dont have module manager as I didnt see it for 1.11 yet, is that what I'm missing?

Somehow blanket adding: MODULE { name = ModuleCargoPart packedVolume = **** } for every part with some sort of logic. So if a container is big enough, you could even put some very large parts in it that aren't set up as cargo parts in the base game.

I know this might be beyond the scope of the Mod, but have you considered adding cargo tags to parts that dont have them to further the use of these command pods? I realize there would be some logic in calculating volume for said parts (or rough volume) "Bill the mainsail isn't igniting!" "Look under that there seat Jeb!"

Have you tested this? @EXPERIMENT_DEFINITION:HAS[~id[deployed*]] { @baseValue = #$scienceCap$ } Just from looking at it, it would seem to exclude all the normal science experiments.

I guess I figured he just updated what versions of the game the mod was associated with.

I have played a lot of KSP, I do not, however, know a lot. I'm assuming that's a 1.3.1 installation, If you have a save and crafts you dont want to go away, copy your entire Kerbal Space Program directory to another folder and generate a clean 1.3.1 install. Fire the game up once with no mods. Then install the barebones to get RO/RSS/RP-0 working. If real plume still isnt working at that point, I have nothing for you. However, if it is working, then you know it was a mod.

Not sure by your comments if you sorted it, but KSP also does not like negative mass objects. Sometimes TweakScale works funny with specific parts.

Glad it's working. Good on ya for figuring it out yourself.

So you're using an old version of KSP if you installed via CKAN? Copy paste the configuration text in the downloaded file in a reply and it might be an old version of the file. If it is I can tell you how to fix.

This works on current version 1.7.1 you have to have module manager, because it patches the base configuration at run time.

I have also noticed this behavior. The procedural liquid cone also doesn't create an aerodynamic rocket like it should. Drag values on parts behind the liquid cone are much greater than using a stock nose cone.

So to get symmetry to work correctly in the case of inversion, I solved it by inverting one Rotatron and then using the Infernal Robotics toolbar and playing with the group settings. Once you have one side inverted, the limits for both in the toolbar will show up the same then you set hotkeys in the same toolbar, not the action groups. If you try to set limits by right clicking the parts, you're destined to fail. Use the IR toolbar. Only right click to invert. So, the problem is how inversion works in the editor (not the toolbar) it inverts which direction makes it rotate, not the actual direction of rotation, if that makes sense. If it doesnt let me know and i'll try to explain better.

Edit: I answered all my own questions.

Thanks for this. Awesome. Relating to KJR-Next, it doesn't freeze the stock robotic parts like KJR - Continued does, but i'm pretty sure it doesn't reinforce them either. Any plans to make KJR-Next work with stock robotics? And again thank you.

Appreciated. Poor Bob was accounting for over 50% of my vessels total drag. He might of poofed at about 20k :S Thank you sir

Playing on 1.4.3 currently. Was able to get everything in the service bay to not create drag in atmosphere except the kerbal in the command seat. (command seat was also 0 drag) Has anyone successfully done this using a stock service bay? I also installed MRS and tried out its MK1 rocket payload bay, also to no avail, which makes me think its not a clipping issue and more of a "Dont put kerbals in the cargo bay" issue.

Ahh, that makes sense, there's no subnodes in EXPERIMENT_DEFINITION. So having brackets points to something that doesn't exist. Thanks

Appreciate the reply and yeah, being able to have volumetric clouds render at that distance would be very nice. Edit: at that distance, meaning from orbit, not 3km

For all those missing scatterer, that are following this thread, because of the black planet bug when loading a craft in space. He released a hotfix on github about 2 hours ago that fixes it. - https://github.com/LGhassen/Scatterer/releases/tag/v0.0328dev @Galileo Do you know of a way to make the 'bubble' layer created by the clouds all being the same height while in orbit blend or go away using settings? Its not a bug, just kind of throws me off.