• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Baythan

  1. I recently added Kethan to my game to go along with Extraplanetary Launchpads, so it's taken me a bit to figure things out. Now I have a question: Are the two scanners really supposed to be at the same tech level or am I the victim of too many mods screwing with my tech tree? The KE-S210 Compact Survey Unit is in the Scanning Tech node (300 sci cost) and the KE-S110 Medium Survey Unit is in the Electronics Tech node (also 300 sci cost). I would have thought that one of the scanners would be available around the same tech level that the extractor can be researched, even if it's not a good scanner.
  2. Just a quick note: Your 1.5 version of the mod on GitHub is not a zip file, it's each mod file individually. Your install directions are no longer accurate to this way of packaging the mod and will likely confuse people when they cannot find the "InFlightFlagChanger" folder.
  3. With USI addons like MKS/OKS, most of the normal EL parts get hidden because the USI mods replace things like the orbital workshop, dock, launchpads etc. The documentation on those mods should state what parts are hidden as well as defining the new resource chain required to create ships in-situ. Using an older version of all those mods will make it more difficult to get the exact info though, because both MKS and EL have changed slightly since 1.0.5.
  4. Thank you very much @MaxRebo! (Love the band, btw. Glad you guys made it off the sail barge) I just might have time to test your unofficial build later this evening.
  5. Have you read much of this forum? I just scrolled through the last few pages worth of posts and found this: Sounds like a similar problem to the one Zwa mentioned and what you said was happening to you as well, and the posts after the above quoted one discuss the issue and possible workarounds or reasons why that happens. Edit: And also, there's a fix coming when Diazo can find enough time to add it in, as shown by the post above mine.
  6. RemoteTech does not allow antenna to be turned on if a probe has no connection, the XF Config allows antenna to be activated/deactivated manually without a connection so you don't get screwed over by forgetting to activate them before losing a connection, however ALL action groups are still disabled without a connection (no matter what is being activated or deactivated). With Action Groups Extended I like to set up two action groups for Antenna, one to activate and another to deactivate(for aero-braking and whatnot). I usually bury the antenna inside the ship with part clipping, so it's more difficult to manually activate them in flight. If part clipping actually occluded the antenna and stopped them from getting ripped off by aero forces, this wouldn't be a problem and the antenna could stay activated. I'd rather be able to toggle the antenna on/off with AGE at any time, without worrying about connection status and without having to turn the bypass option on every time I'm coming out of an aerobrake or landing on a foreign body. Because AGE already has a bypass remote tech option, I thought the easiest solution to this issue would be just to have that as a toggleable option that remains active/inactive through scene changes (currently requires re-activation every time I want to reactivate antenna with the action groups set to do so).The only problem with this option is that it would make ALL action groups ignore remote tech connection requirements rather than just antenna. I'm not sure a more elegant solution falls under the purview of your mod though, I'll probably have to ask the XF config guys if they can make their config allow antenna activation/deactivation through action groups. TL;DR problem: action groups can't be activated unless the temporary bypass remote tech option is enabled (with or without XF config) possible solution: make the bypass remote tech option a toggle that remains on until disabled.
  7. I agree that this could use a bit more organization in where the different experiments are listed. I would say that EVA Reports should be one row across, Mystery Goo as another, etc so you can see where you have/have not done certain experiments on each given body without mousing through a semi-random list of experiments to see which ones are all the same science part. I can't seem to find any listing for Atmospheric Pressure scans in space High or Low(which can be done now) and KSC is now apparently 9 different biomes for surface tests.
  8. Reduce the altitude and/or pressure at which the chutes deploy so that you don't have as long to float downwards. Don't be afraid to use drogue chutes and then cut them off to freefall to a lower altitude.
  9. Ah, I'll look into that. Might have to run some tests to see what velocities will actually destroy things now. Thanks for reminding me about a feature I probably should have known about, had I been paying attention.
  10. StageRecovery DOES detect when KSP auto-deletes objects due to atmospheric entry and recovers those objects if they are capable of landing and don't burn up in atmosphere. I think the burning up calculations for StageRecovery are still at 1.0 or 1.0.1 sensitivity, because I drop things that trajectories says burn up but if I follow the objects myself, they never burn up. I even modify the atmospheric pressure for parachutes so they don't deploy until dropped stages reach safe velocities (provided they don't hit a mountain). StageRecovery can only do so much though, and I can deal with some things being lost due to aggressive reentry speeds.
  11. I will test a fairing-missile probe right now and see how accurately I can land it without ejecting the fairing... be right back with results. Vehicle: Attempt #1 Long, flat trajectory with the missile pointed prograde through the atmosphere. Result Passed over KSC at 31.8 km. Image is darker than I wanted, the impact point is just off the coast of the next continent. It seems that long atmospheric flights tend to have the most inaccurate predictions, but this is true for all vessel types. The longer and flatter your trajectory, the more mistakes in the prediction and the less accurate it is. Attempt #2 More aggressive, steeper trajectory. Result Passed over KSC at 5.6 km, impacted about 11.5 km from the VAB (where my flag is). I forgot to get a screenshot before I attempted to refocus the worldmap and lost the impact point. TL;DR - Yes, it works with fairing and heat shields. The more aerodynamic the vessel, the more inaccurate the prediction (it seems). It may just be worth it to make a test landing and see how far off your vessel is from the prediction, then correct for it. Generally speaking, aim short.
  12. AFAIK parts on rails do not experience drag in atmosphere, but KSP does auto-delete objects that reach a certain altitude in atmosphere. I recall that altitude being somewhere around 20-40 Km in previous versions of KSP, not sure if that is still the case or what the specific altitude is.
  13. Does this statement have something to do with Trajectories? This mod does not add, remove, or change any parts, all it does is calculate trajectories through atmosphere and onto the surface of rotating bodies. If you are having an issue, more information would be helpful.
  14. Hello Daizo, I've only just started using this mod, and I love it! I just have a small question that I have so far not found an answer to (entirely possible I missed it as I was skimming the last several pages). I'm using RemoteTech, but with the XF Config that allows Antenna to be activated/deactivated without a connection to KSC or any other command center. Now, I know you implemented a Bypass Remotetech option, but that option turns itself off when changing vehicles/going EVA/etc. I was just wondering if there was an easy way to either have that option able to be permanently turned on(kinda cheaty in an RT-enabled career, but oh well) or possibly detect the XF config for Antenna and allow action groups that Activate/Toggle them. This is probably not something many people would need, and mostly an issue when launching probes and doing a slightly flatter ascent, leaving the range of the DP-10 before getting to a safe altitude for the Communotron 16(or forgetting to turn on the 16's before leaving range). If there's no simple solution, I'll just have to adjust the way I do things. No more dropping probes back to Kerbin with those 16's as the only antenna.
  15. The biggest issue I have seen with using fairing and aerobraking is that they have so little drag that you might not slow down appreciably. A few of my tests of their heat resistance ended with surface impact on Kerbin at extreme speeds due to a significant lack of drag. I'm waiting for the Trajectories mod to be finished so I can do more tests with aerobraking in less time(can get predictions without having to quicksave and reload over and over).
  16. This (Trajectories) mod is supposed to do that and a tiny bit more, but recent changes to stock Aerodynamics have caused a lojnger delay in it's updating because there's no easy way (yet) to calculate WHAT will happen to your vessel as it hits atmo.
  17. I believe m4v summed it up quite nicely when he responded to a similar question in another thread: Also, on the previous page, Youen and atomicfury had a little back-and-forth on their attempts to update, it's on ongoing thing due to the changes in atmospheric drag and apparently some difficulty is grabbing those calculations from the game. And yes, I am waiting for this to update too, so I'm not disparaging your interest in the mod, I just don't think it at all beneficial to ask this question, especially when it has already been asked and answered within the last 3 pages or in the last month(whichever is shorter).
  18. Ah, my mistake. I've never seen those markers. Guess I haven't yet needed to be that precise on landings yet.
  19. Uhm.. that has absolutely nothing to do with this mod.
  20. Known issue. It's because of FAR. Possibly also helped by not setting an AoA for trajectories to use in the calculations. The newest version(s) of FAR and NEAR have changed the way drag calculations are done and Trajectories does not take every calculation into account for the entire trip through the atmosphere, so it gets more inaccurate the longer (and faster) you travel through the atmosphere. Work is being done to try to mitigate this without reducing performance.
  21. As per the first page of this thread: It is a known issue that FAR/NEAR landing predictions are inaccurate due to the methods used by Trajectories to calculate with the new drag model. Methods to improve accuracy without drastically reducing performance are being developed. Even with the inaccuracies, you are MUCH more likely to get in the area you want to be in while using this mod than if you did not use it. Adding in the difficulty of using DeadlyReentry, you'll have to experiment with how far past your landing point you want that X... and because of FAR it will be different for every vehicle. Without DR I just like to drop near-vertical on top of my targets and I use trajectories to plan when to start the drop from orbit because this mod will still predict how much the planets will rotate under you. Keep at it Kobymaru!
  22. All you have to do is leave the reusable stage behind as you detach. Provided this stage is on a de-orbit path it will get deleted by KSP when it hits ~20k altitude. StageRecovery will intercept the 'delete' command and instead 'recover' the stage if it has fuel and enough TWR to land. The only issue currently is that it will recover at some distance from KSC even if it is possible to fly it back. There was a mod I saw recently that would allow you to save an instance of the game in order to control one stage of a rocket (say, to get your payload to orbit) and then go back and land the first stage, then it would combine the two actions so you'd have a landed stage and a stage in orbit... but I don't recall what thread I saw that mod linked from. I'll try to find it again. Edit: Found it. FMRS, someone mentioned it on the YouTube channel from Raptor9's impressive video of a SpaceX-type launch and recovery.
  23. Thanks! David You may need to adjust some options to show more patches (under Settings) and/or select 'Complete' at the top of the menu.