Creat

Well, since this is basically managed by the community now, you could probably just check out what kind of API you'd need and simply submit a pull request. Obviously I have no clue how complex this endeavor might be and/or if you even have the time for that But yea, it probably makes little sense to start this before the expected 'big step' of the next version...

Last I heard it's up to the kOS developer(s?), as the basic infrastructure for that is there. Search this thread for 'kOS' to find many replies to that very question.

When you want to re-enter the science stuff with you (for whatever reason) you can also attach it to the top of the capsule, where the chute usually goes. Just put the chute on top of the girder and merrily attach all the sciences and batteries and stuff to the girder. This saves you the additional heat shield, since the pods shield will do just fine. As some have mentioned, you can also just collect the science with a Kerbal and return everything in the pod, but you might want to return more stuff, for example when you're using MissionController Extended where you get some money back...

Are you sure it's with any engine? Especially with stock engines? There is currently a bug in KW Rocketry (for example, might be in others) that shows an "electric charge" tweakable when you right-click. This confuses engineer (the stage with that engine becomes basically empty) and you need to fix it with a ModManager config file. I personally use the following as a catch-all-solution to this problem (it adds the missing tweakable fields to engines that don't have them). After you've applied the fix below you need to discard all engines from builds that you made before and re-add them from the part list (otherwise the old entry persists as it was saved that way with the ship). Put this in a file with any name ending in .cfg inside the GameData folder (or any subfolder). Obviously needs ModManager 1.5 or above (which you probably have if you have a lot of mods). @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines],@RESOURCE[ElectricCharge]] { @RESOURCE[ElectricCharge] { %isTweakable = false %hideFlow = true } }

Ahh brilliant, thank you I actually did think that there might be a problem with the underscores, so I tried putting it in single and double quotes as well as escaping them with backslashes (Large\_Crewed\_Lab), but I didn't try replacing them with dots. So thanks, glad it works now!

Ah ok, sorry. Then I have a bug report for you, because it just doesn't want to work here for me. And please, this is a minor problem and there is no need to hurry at all, just enjoy the holidays I've created a new mission package to test, basically copy-pasting the station-core-mission from your random missions pack, just replacing the part names. I've tried with and without underscores (just for the hell of it), neither works and neither is resolved to the human-readable in-game name (see screenshots). As you can see, the longAntenna (aka. "Communotron 16") works as it always does when specified in the exact same way. I've even tried to have 2 crew in the lab to make sure it's operational (hence the context menu, showing it's operational). When I have the debug toolbar (and therefore the log) up, the exact moment I select the mission I get a NullPointerException, no doubt tying to resolve the name: "[Exception]: NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object" While the screenshots are from my "normal" game version with mods in career mode, I've also tried a clean KSP install with only MCE installed in sandbox mode. Since you said that you've tried it and it worked fine, am I still doing something wrong? If so, what? The used mission package code: MissionPackage { name = TestMissions for (stock) Science Lab description = Just two missions to test the science lab. Good luck! ownOrder = true Mission { name = 1 Station Test with underscores description = Put a station up with 2 modules category = ORBIT reward = 250000 repeatable = true packageOrder = 1 SubMissionGoal { description = Today we will launch the Main Stations Core. Its wise to make this Core Modular. OrbitGoal { body = Kerbin maxApA = 200000 minPeA = 70000 } PartGoal { partName = Large_Crewed_Lab partCount = 1 } PartGoal { partName = longAntenna partCount = 1 } } } Mission { name = 2 Station Test without underscores description = Put a station up with 2 modules category = ORBIT reward = 250000 repeatable = true packageOrder = 2 SubMissionGoal { description = Today we will launch the Main Stations Core. Its wise to make this Core Modular. OrbitGoal { body = Kerbin maxApA = 200000 minPeA = 70000 } PartGoal { partName = LargeCrewedLab partCount = 1 } PartGoal { partName = longAntenna partCount = 1 } } } } And the screenshots:

I may have asked for this before, but could the current biome be displayed somewhere? With any career game, this is quite essential information, and constantly spamming the crew-report until the heading finally changes isn't exactly a good solution to the problem. So could the current surface biome be added as an option to the surface display (for example)? I know there are stages to biomes, like you can be "in space near Kerbin" (most experiemnts will use this) and at the same time be "in space near Kerbin over the grasslands" (used by EVA, I forget the exact wording though). I'm just talking about the latter part, the things that are actually defined by the biome-map for orbital bodies (currently Kerbin, Mun, Minmus). This is the one that's hard to guess and not necessarily obvious.

You misunderstand. I already tried that and it doesn't work. Please just try it yourself quickly, doesn't seem like there is a way to require that part for a mission. I tried with and without the _, both didn't work (as I already said in my last post).

I've asked about this in my way-too-long post on the last page, but I guess it got lost in the wall-o-text: How can I specify the (newly added) Lab Module (aka. Mobile Processing Lab) as a part goal? Neither the actual model name (Large_Crewed_Lab) nor the folder name (LargeCrewedLab) works. The part entry in the mission info window also doesn't change to the common in-game name ("Mobile Processing Lab MPL-LG-2") but remains as whatever is specified in the mission file. Is an update required to fix this or am I just doing something wrong here? Edit: and one additional question, how and where do I specify an appropriate price/cost for additional resources (like ablative shielding of deadly reentry)? And where can I read about how the price of modules is calculated? Where can I influence this in general?

Even though I'm still relatively new to RemoteTech, I'd still like to chime in on the whole "Failsafe-Debate". I don't think it's worth the time and effort to implement a full failback system, possibly allowing complex mechanisms for what dishes should target in case the lose contact. Even just the "target anything in the same SoI" seems already unnecessarily complicated: imagine that in the SoI of Kerbin in a old save with dozens of crafts (or more). Make it a simple config file switch with only two options: Assume failsafes exist, or losing connection is permanent. This gives those who want the possibility of failures as a behavioral option, and - like others have suggested - the player acts as the fail safe for those who want one. It's much simpler and allows for as complex a backup as you (the player) can imagine, you just have to execute it yourself. You want to target a specific vehicle? Target it. You want to fly a rescue mission to re-establish contact? Launch the ship and target it once it's in the desired recue-/contact-range. You want anything in the current SoI? Just pick a target in the current SoI. There are so many wonderful features being talked about or planned (or even already in development) for this mod. The effort it would take to properly do an actually worthwhile fail safe mechanism are just not worht the effort in my opinion, as it's much simpler to juts let the player act as the fail safe himself. As I said, make the ability to reconnect once contact is lost permanently a config file option and most people should be reasonably happy

I'm sure you've got plenty of reports for the 0.7.5 problems where you can either use the node gizmo or the numeric input, but not both. Just wanted to confirm I have the exact same problem that jfjohnny5 reported first. I'll also just drop down to 0.7 until it can be resolved. Once again a very hearty thank you from me. Just playing with nodes and tuning orbits/paths is so much simpler (and frankly more fun) with this. Less fighting with the damn interface, more doing stuff

Well, hello everyone! For a long time MCE seemed like the thing that's missing for me from KSP, so with science being fixed with .23 (no more transmit-spam) I've finally decided to start a new career save in a somewhat hard(er) mode and use MCE in it. For the first couple of missions I've used the included RandomMissions pack. It was recommended for career mode (searched the thread) and I also tried to but couldn't find any other mission pack that was fitting for my needs. I like that the missions don't (usually) depend on each other (except for where it actually makes sense, like refueling stations requiring a station first) and I also appreciate the generic nature, where I can find a fitting mission for most things I'm doing or planning on doing. That being said, I do have a few issues with the package (most are rather minor), which I can of course just fix for my personal use but I thought I'd share my thoughts on what I have to change and why. I am playing with a few mods (like I assume most people are), but the only one that affects the missions I can do (or rather the progression) is RemoteTech2: I can't just go and fly to the poles or to the crater with a probe just because I have the Stayputnik unlocked (as I'd loose radio contact with KSC and therefore control). I'd have to put up some ComSats first. By the time I'm done with that such early home-world exploration missions make little sense anymore (and strapping a Stayputnik to a manned mission is just silly ). Since there is only one (generic) suborbital mission in the beginning, I've lowered the required altitude to 10-20k instead of 50k+. This allows me to get some science with little flights to different biomes. I've considered changing mission 2 accordingly (which is basically identical to mission 3, see below) but didn't have any good ideas as to what to change it to... I obviously need to put up communication satellites sooner or later, I'll probably use either the random probe missions (removing the inclination requirement from the high orbit mission (18)) or mission 27 (high orbit satellite) with a more relaxed apoapsis range. I'm also thinking of changing one of those to be more specific to polar(-ish) orbits with adjusted payouts. Not sure about those yet though. Since we now have the new science lab module, I thought I'd use it instead of the Communotron on the station, but it doesn't seem to be recognized by the name "Large_Crewed_Lab" (which is the one from the corresponding part.cfg). I haven't tested if it works, but at least the name isn't resolved correctly as the other names are... Lastly, a few inconsistencies I've noticed (which may or may not be intentional) Mission 2 & 3: (touched on above already) In practice these are identical. Yes, the ranges for valid orbits differ a bit, but since both require a Kerbal to be on board, the only difference is that you have to click "EVA" once for the second one. At least in a career save you'll likely do that anyway. Mission 5: The "crater land formation" isn't exactly precisely specified. It only specifies a Latitude range, but no longitude. Where is the intended spot? Is it the crater along the coastline (about 105° west of KSC) or the bigger, fully land-based one at about 30 longitude? For both the given Latitude of 7.5-10.5 doesn't make too much sense (both are roughly around the given latitude though), or is it meant to cover both? Mission 8: Minmus FlyBy has no "land at Kerbin" goal, but the Mun version does (and so do most missions up to that point). Is this intentional, like for a probe leaving Kerbins SoI? Mission 19: Nothing odd about the mission itself, but it seems a bit out of place, with the other missions for Kerbins moos being 6-9. It seems it might belong between 6 and 7, progression wise? While I've thought about and started editing the missions for my needs I've quickly wished for a new feature or two in the specification language: Often the PartGoal is just an indirect solution to the problem. For example to specify a "communication satellite" mission, I don't want to ask for 3x Communotron 16, but I want to ask for three parts that are an antenna. So I'd like to ask for 3 parts that contain the module "ModuleDataTransmitter" or (for when RemoteTech2 is installed) the module "ModuleRTAntenna". This leads to the second thing: being able to ask for one of many goals to be fulfilled for the mission to be completed. It's already possible to combine conditions so they need to be met at the same time (SubMissionGoal is basically an AND of all subgoals), it would be excellent if we could also ask for one of multiple subgoals (implementing an OR). This would also allow to "fake" the module-goal from above, as you can just list all antennae in one such goal. If it let's you (optionally) set a replacement name (and doesn't display all sub-parts when this is defined) it would just show as "Module: 3x Antenna". Side note: also a +1 from me for using the toolbar. While I'm not a huge fan of the aesthetic, I love that I don't have buttons for various mods in random places, but a central toolbar for all additional buttons. Ok that's enough wall-o-text for now (sorry, got a bit carried away). Thanks for reading it all (if you actually did )...

While I'm trying this out, I thought I might try to answer this as best I can. Let me preface it by saying that this surely varies a lot with play style and used mods. I'd split the equipment needed for gathering science easily into two levels: Early on I'd consider decouplers (radial and coaxial), batteries and at least the tiny solar panels, an antenna, and landing legs as essential. This allows return missions to/from the moons (which provide plenty of science with their biomes). Technically the solar panels are not essential, but allow you to not carry about 20 batteries (just to be sure, of course ). The second level would be for interplanetary missions, requiring the lab module, docking and solid solar panel technology. While rover-tech would possibly be helpful, it's far from essential. Ironically probe cores would probably be needed to stop vessels without pod from getting turned into 'junk' by the game engine. The very concept of interplanetary travel (due to the heavier craft) also requires at least one or two more powerful engines for the initial launch, one intermediate engine (average thrust and isp) for orbital injection and one somewhat efficient engine for the interplanetary burns (incl. return). Even with mods like KAS, Kethane and the like this list wouldn't look that different. To use Kethane at all you need one of each of the base elements (scanner, tank, converter and possibly docking) but it doesn't help that much with gathering science. This is quite different when RemoteTech is used though, as you basically need antenna and probe cores early on to create a simple communication network (unless you want to have manned communication satellites). Otherwise even going to the Mun becomes quite tedious or fiddly even if all you want to transmit are the 100% crew reports... Gathering 500 science is a simple return-trip to the Mun or Minmus I'd say, thanks to biomes this can be performed quite a few times before we run out of stuff to return. With vessel design/construction, testing and performing the mission at least the first time will still be a couple of hours (maybe 2-3), depending on the level of equipment available. While interplanetary missions tend to give more of course, they also take much longer to plan (incl. vessel design) and execute. Such a mission might bring double the science but at least for me it takes more than twice the (real) time. As for what equipment is essential, that's more or less answered above already but at the lowest level I'd say obviously separators, batteries and (the tiny) solar panels, some landing legs and possibly antennae (esp. with remote tech, then also probe cores). I hope this helps and my answer is the type of response you are looking for. Keep up the good work, I'm still eager to try this with just the TreeLoader, so please do keep us up to date with how that's going

I've only just now stumbled upon this and it looks like it is exactly what I'm looking for in a tech tree. As I'm about to start a new career with the new version being out (as I'm sure everyone else is as well), I'd love to use it (or at least look at it in more detail). Am I understanding all the edits/cancellations in the first post correctly in that it currently needs TreeEdit to load correctly and TreeLoader won't do? Is this because it's just not in the online repository and therefore can't be selected when a new save is created? If that is correct, can I assume that this will change in the sonn(ish) future since you've posted that you've made some progress towards that? Considering I've waited for a month or two for this version fixing the science spam I don't mind waiting a little longer to have a very nice tree to go with the mods I plan on using (KW, RemoteTech, KAS and possibly Kethane). Just a quick question, where do antennae come in the tree? It does make quite a difference with the new science progression and when using Remote Tech... I did try to read a bit through the thread but despite being only about 10 pages some posts are huge in and of themselves, so I thought it might be quicker to just ask, hope that's acceptable

Wow you really scared me there for a second... I read that without context as you didn't quote anything, what you actually mean is "Deadly Reentry isn't incompatible anymore." I thought there might've been some license problem and it went away. Nearly gave me a heart attack there

If you do a manned mission you'll get much more science. You can do an EVA-Report over every biome (basically every big crater) in low orbit, each of those alone is 24 points. A crew report is also worth at least 15 (but not for every biome while in orbit). Landing will get you even more, collecting a surface sample is 150 (I think) and all instruments also get you quite a bit more than just from orbit. Crew and EVA Reports also get you quite big rewards. Let me put it this way: I did a landing on Minmus and flew by the Mun on the way back to Kerbin, which got me pretty much exactly 1000 science.

Uhm, you're aware that things like Kerbal Engineer (and MechJeb I think) simply tell you how much delta-v you have, and will update as you add tanks? It will also correctly handle stages and show you correct delta-v for each stage (including when a certain stage only drops tanks, for example). I think I'm just not getting a specific scenario for where this is needed as opposed to the Kerbal Engineer implementation? Edit: from what I've seen when I tried it, couldn't you do the same thing (probably better organized) in an Excel/OO-Calc sheet?

First of all, fixed your image not showing: Now for your problem: So, just extending the cable breaks the wheels? Is the crane from an older version (i.e. has it been standing there before you upgraded to KSP .22)? If you build a minimalistic version of this (smaller, less parts), does this also happen?

Put one pipe endpoint each on a two (or more) ships/base modules/things. When it's setup, take a Kerbal on EVA and walk/fly to one of the end points, right-click it and select "link mode" (or similar). Walk/fly to the one you want to connect it to, right click it as well and select "link here". You can also put the new containers on your ships (use the container holders to attach them). When you right-click them in the VAB/SPH you can put stuff in them (including the pipe end points), which you can then take out with a kerbal and place on ships (right-click the kerbal once he's carrying the thing and select "attach"). Then proceed as described above. Note that you can also carry the container itself around to have easier access to the party when setting up a base.

The original author (ialdabaoth) is currently taking a break from KSP for personal reasons (I think), but NathanKell is taking over maintenance and development. He's also taking over the Modular Fuel Systems though, so give him a bit of time to find his way into it. I'm sure he'll post a thread for it when there is something to talk about (or something to tell, whatever comes first). Also, as far as I know it works basically fine at the moment, doesn't it?

No, I'm of course aware of that. What I meant was a direct selection for an increment. So (as an example) pressing alt+num1 for 0.01, alt+num2 for 0.1 and so on. But please just ignore this suggestion, I doubt it'll be that useful, especially once the reverse mapping is there it should be easily fast enough.

Just quickly wanted to add that I'd also love a way to have the total delta-v for all currently existing nodes. It's not necessarily for planning complex trips, but more for building an intuition what approach uses less fuel in total. So I can plan out one "route" and easily see the total delta-v, then try a different approach and also easily see the results. After doing that with a few voyages I hope I'd "get it" and would just be able to take the best route from the start without trying all options. For this, being able to (temporarily) save/restore nodes would be fantastic, but I think I might be able to (mis-)use Kerbal Alarm Clock for that (and it's not worth implementing that just for this fiddling of mine). Adding to my last post: directly accessing/setting the 'step size' via keyboard might be nice, but I wouldn't know where to put it (on the keyboard). But may I suggest the +/- keys on the numpad for increasing/decreasing the step size? Seems like a perfect fit, or are they used already for something? As for hiding certain information (which I'd also appreciate), the way kerbal engineer just has an option for every single line is seems pretty nice (and doesn't clutter the actual interface with elements to allow hiding stuff).

I have a (hopefully) very small request: could you display the current Biome somewhere? Maybe add it to the Surface display. Default state can even be off, or it may only be on by default in career mode or something. This would be very helpful!

There is a TreeEditor (or whatever the actual name is), also by r4m0n, but it isn't public yet (because it isn't done or good enough yet). It will come in time. You could go edit the tree config files yourself by hand, but that seems like it would be insanely error prone and tedious, I'd just wait...

This is likely a memory limitation. I'm guessing you're either using a 32 bit system or a LOT of mods. This is basically a limitation of windows (or the cumputer architecture it uses, to be more precise) and not something that can be fixed by the KSP devs, let alone by mod devs.