Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by petlahk

  1. Trajectories does not seem to be working in 1.11.0. I've also noticed that there haven't been any new updates since July 2020? Is it still being maintained?
  2. The KAL-1000 has been broken in this DLC since release over a year ago. This seriously needs to be fixed. https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/197313-bug-kal-1000-controller-having-memory-issues/ https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/189125-bug-moduleroboticcontroller-kal-1000-literally-forgets-entire-sequence-tracks/#replyForm https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/189125-bug-moduleroboticcontroller-kal-1000-literally-forgets-entire-sequence-tracks/ https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/22728 https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/24428
  3. Hello! I have had to uninstall stage recovery because it was causing crashes in the VAB and elsewhere due to not being able to calculate the parachute area. More specifically: When I would mirror parts with parachutes for use by stage recovery, it would crash after mirroring too many. Additionally, it was generally slowing down all of my builds. Could you please fix this issue? Maybe by not letting stage recovery check recoverability until a parachute is placed, and even then, only check the recovery percentages when the refresh button is clicked? Additionally, could you update stage recovery to 1.9? Thank you, I appreciate you maintaining so many mods.
  4. The terrier no longer has integrated fuel tanks...
  5. Coming from my forum post over there. So. I do understand that maybe 412 ISP is a bit too high. I'm still sort of grumbly about it - as I said there because I have to re-do all my rockets Delta-V balances (AGAIN). Though. I wonder if it may have been better to just increase the mass, cost, and massively decrease the thrust. That way it's still a really good vacuum optimized engine, but not so great at lifting massive spaceplanes up into orbit... I'm inclined to say that I would have preferred they touch literally any part of that engine *except* the Delta-V. Granted, Partly because I used it a bunch and don't wanna do that work again, but also because it was nice having an engine that sat so squarely between the rest of the engines and the NERV. Addendum: I'm probably just gonna have to make it work though. 'Tis the Kerbal way. Sorta forced to update because the update actually runs smoothly. Heh. I guess that does outweigh my grumbles.
  6. I understand what you're saying. Bascially I'm just really annoyed that I finally I got my spaceplanes to having an Delta-V* in Kerbin SOI that I'm happy with, and now I need to rebalance/add more fuel all over again. *sigh*. Back to using stupid NERV's I guess. The issue with the Nervs though is that they're absolutely atrocious for that last little boost from the atmosphere. At least the Wolfhounds still have 380 though Addendum: Also, I'm optimistic that one day IRL we'll have SSTO's and SSTO spaceplanes but that it may not be within our life times. A universe without SSTO's anywhere in it is an infinitely more boring one.
  7. I'm not sure if this has been said already but I'm actually kinda upset that they nerfed the Wolfhound. That 412 vaccuum ISP was very important to my spaceplane design and allowed me to do things that just weren't possible before. The Wolfhounds weren't good enough to get a LF/OX spaceplane or rocket all the way out to another planetary system, but they were perfect for Kerbin SOI rockets and SSTOs. They were the perfect intermediary between the other engines and the NERV. Please un-nerf the wolfhound. Edit: Similarly with the skiff.
  8. I'm not sure if this has been said already but I'm actually kinda upset that they nerfed the Wolfhound. That 412 vaccuum ISP was very important to my spaceplane design and allowed me to do things that just weren't possible before. The Wolfhounds weren't good enough to get a LF/OX spaceplane or rocket all the way out to another planetary system, but they were perfect for Kerbin SOI rockets and SSTOs. Please un-nerf the wolfhound.
  9. - Apologies for commenting here - I just wanna say, this makes me strangely proud as a Kerbal player.
  10. So yeah, based on the last three comments it sounds to me that 1.4.5 is just utterly broken...
  11. No, I do not. I know that that is a root issue so I tried remote tech many different ways. I tried it without SETI probe parts and without the probe control installed. It just doesn't work. It's completely broken at this point.
  12. Hello. I've been playing KSP for a while now and using remote tech for about as long. I vastly prefer remote tech to the default comm network but it seems to just be completely borked in newer versions. When the remote tech thing says I don't have connection, for example, the ship is still completely controllable in every way despite being out of range. I even tried turning off all antennas then trying. I just turned off the Antenna controllable without connection cheat too, and the ship is still completely controllable. When I'm behind a moon, It's also still completely controllable. And no, this probe doesn't have SETI probe parts on it. And yes, I am using KSP Issues similar to this have been in remote tech for a *long* time. Please fix them.
  13. Hello. Universal Storage 2 is listed as on CKAN on spacedock, however it never shows up in the CKAN listing. I have deleted and reinstalled CKAN several times, used the atuo-updater, even going so far as to completely reinstall KSP. It appears that it's just not in the list, but the old Universal Storage is. Could you help me with this?
  14. Hey, jjansen. Thank you for replying. This is the issue with just re-rooting it: I can't just re-route it because those hubs in combination with the trusses are the wrong length. Also, they're made out of tubes and the docking port seniors. There's also the added issue of the ends of the habitation modules (that center module) having several different snap points. One of them being flat, the other being conical. Still, yes, this is solved with the slider. But I just realized that this wouldn't entirely work because the conical bit extends out in front of the docking port, so it would be clipping. And thus, on launch, would be colliding. I can't move the docking tube+port forward on the left section because the left section + trusses is already in orbit and the right section and all the hab modules is the new module. I could scoot the docking port forward off of the flat attatchment point, but this then adds an ugly gap in a different place. Which I guess could be solved with a little bit of clipping, but, again, isn't that pretty. I can scoot the tube+docking port forward to the exact spot on the left hub as this would then be the correct placement, but then I run into this issue: Which is impossible to solve by re-routing. Obviously I can't attach the tube + docking port to the center and then launch it because then it would be clipping with the right hub instead. And I spent the better part of 4 hours trying to figure out a way to re-route it with a fancy pattern of clicks. Now I realize that it would be possible to instead attach the thing to the right hub then scoot the tube forward and that would work. But, again, I'd prefer it if I could get them exactly aligned for the sake of performance and ensuring that they connect. And, yes, I did re-route the whole structure to the right hub. As for not cloning the far side. The two top and bottom modules are different parts. The top is a USI-LifeSupport Medbay, and the Bottom is another Kerbitat which is configured for a different purpose. Besides, the cloning wouldn't actually help solve the issue. Again, for many of the reasons stated above. As for tugs. I do use RCS tugs, but I use large ones with a big docking port on one end, a small docking port on the other, lots of RCS, a large reaction wheel, and some other stuff. They provide much better control between the RCS thrusters on each part and the reaction wheel.
  15. I've been playing KSP for years now. I got it very quickly after it came out and I've only very recently started building complex space stations. In my attempt to build a rather complicated space station for USI life support I've noticed that it is nearly impossible to double or triple, or quadruple dock docking ports. Yes, I am using stock docking ports The first problem with this of course is that if one docking port is docked to another than the entire vessel counts as docked and this prevents any other docking ports from finishing their dock. But, that isn't the issue this particular suggestion is about. Please, could we have a "glue" option? Or at least a better root option. In my attempt to build a complicated space station I've noticed that it is really hard to get three docking ports on multiple arms to be the same length apart. Particularly if these are attached across multiple pieces and are different sizes of ports (In my case SRs versus regular ports). This makes it practically impossible sometimes to get docking ports lined up in such a way that multiple ones even stand a *chance* of docking together. The simplest thing to do here would be to give a simple tool to "glue" one part to another. The tool would allow us to stick one part that might not be the right length in position then "glue" it to the part you need it attached to in the VAB/SPH such that a player could launch the intact piece and *know* for certain that the docking ports are in the right place. Currently, the best possible is to either twiddle around with the sliders which doesn't always work, or to do this: This is clearly not going to work. Sometimes the increments on the slider snap are too large. Sometimes too small. And sometimes no matter how much you tweak it by hand it's just not gonna get to the right place. This leaves the next best thing for me to do to put that front docking port on the docking port on the central hub and somehow connect it to that top module. But this is impossible with the current tools. At least, impossible for what I am trying to do. Yes, I could get the parts in the top of the image connected together rather easily, but then the ports on the bottom truss section would be the wrong length and out of position themselves, which doesn't work for my station design. So, as I said, the next best thing is to do this: Which doesn't work. It doesn't work because it is literally impossible to connect those three pieces to the middle module on the right. No matter what combination of root trickery I try to do. Same goes for the other hub on the far right. This issue has plagued me not just on this station, but also on a simpler design as well. I had a design for a nuclear rocket engine assembly that I would launch with a space plane in sections. But in order to get the whole thing up in the space-plane I needed to break the 8 small fuel tanks off and launch them separately. And in order to ensure structural rigidity I attached two docking ports to each of the small fuel tanks. Which, again, was very tricky to do because there was no way of knowing 100% for sure that the docking ports would be aligned. Forum threads when googling this issue all inevitably say "If you need structural rigidity then use KAS/KIS struts". This would work for me as I'm playing with mods already. But there are plenty of players that play stock only, and the lack of functionality to attach that set of parts to the right can really throw a wrench in complex docking port design. So, the proposal pet, get to the point. Add a better glue/root function. Let me move the set of parts in the image to the right. Preferably a button hold and two mouse clicks. Like so: All the tool would do is switch the attachment of the highlighted part from the docking port on the left to do the module on the right. This way I could align the parts the way I currently have, and then ensure that they're connected so as to transport them as well. Please, and thank you. Best Regards from a longtime player.
  • Create New...