cxg2827

Doesn't matter which is on the station. All that matters is that you use an opposite gendered port to dock the next modules. So your can have all active ports on your core station module and then you'll just have to make sure future modules have at least one passive to attach.

shots fired

y tho?

your ranting might come to an end in the next release or so The guide fins and capture latches make the CBMS fairly unique and not very interchangeable. The fustek IACBMs are your best bet at the moment, though I think @Bonus Eventus might be working on some sweet docking ports in his mod pack that might fit the bill as well. So just to keep people updated on this mod, I've been bogged down with overtime at work, travel, and home repairs the past several weeks and RL will be busy still for a few more weeks. Development is very slow but but not being dropped. releases will most likely be published in smaller batches so I'm not hoarding finished parts for a long time. I'll re-organize my roadmap sometime soon.

The APAS actually allow active to active docking. the only configuration that wouldn't work would be passive-passive.

Addendum: Do people think that it's important to be able to dock two active APAS ports together, more so that the inability to dock two passive ports? If so I can change the APAS to non-gendered in the next release.

My answer:

That's a question for the BDB team. I just provided the model/texture and initial CFG. I believe they changed it to be non-gendered, but may still use the same docking node type as mine. Could be possible that there are docking conflicts due to a non-gendered with a gendered, even though the node type are the same. Possible fix would be for a second docking node to be added to the Unity scene/CFG to be cross-compatible with BDB CADS/CX APAS.

They may be labeled as "androgynous" but that is strictly off appearance. These need active/passive to dock at the moment. The BDB CADS have the older/weaker magnetism before I increased the values on my CX port values in the 1.5 release. I didn't give cobaltwolf an updated cfg for the CADS yet

3/4 cups of RAM is the sweet spot for me. Make sure to pre-wash and let it soak for 15 minutes before installing

Get gud son

Update live on SpaceDock Apparently, the order of ModuleScienceContainer and ModuleScienceExperiment matters in the CFG, so JAXA modules transmit science now. Thanks @mikesm @Dark_Dragon26 The SARJ would only work with the robotics mod. Nothing I can do currently with the stock KSP tools to make it work as intended. @Rissa @Space_Coyote see below

RO? R NO

@redmonddkgamer the eX-R-S is the one you want. Another easy way to figure it out is to look at the embossing patterns on the panels, as it matches the RL ones. I'll add RL names as tags to CFGs for the next release so they are searchable.

Fight me bro

Fixed that for you

@doudou that is the entry cost to unlock. Purchase cost is 25,250.

@revolioclockbergjr I think one other person experienced this issue. Check out their post with a dropbox link to a cfg fix:

if you PM @MrMeeb directly, he will give you a pre-release version to play with

Both mine and Habtech have Solar Array Wings, though Habtechs have dual Axis Tracking. rottielover might be looking for larger solar panels to make the Zarya I believe. Those are in the Tantares pack. @rottielover you might need to unlock a later tech node. I have no idea how the heating effects work in the game. If someone could provide me with a link or 2 that explains how the various variables work then I can probably do a balance pass to make the parts work a little better. One reason why most of the parts have a low heat tolerance is to prevent unrealistic aerobraking/aerocapturing with these parts. Though the thermal mass modifier, conductivity, and emmissive contants can be modified to prevent random exploding. @Sharpy, so the SAWs explode? I have those matching the same properties as the stock Gigantor XL Solar Arrays, except with ~3x the charge rate. So I'm not sure why those are causing issues.

No interrogation needed, he's making Delta IV. You should see the dev shots in the BDB thread, absolutely gorgeous

Yea, the Z1 threw me a curveball when I first made it. I had to add small stand-offs to mount the RTAS since I didnt catch that from the reference pics when I first modeled it.

This is correct. Here is an old screengrab of a development shot. Shows how they should be oriented.

Refer to the album linked in the first post. The RTAS have two white circles on each corner. That is the mating surface.

My thought is that any "core" modules with 4+ nodes would be mostly active ports, and just (1) passive port for the connection to the the existing station (unless it is truly the first station module, then all can be active). So basically, the active ports are operation from the station. Modules with (2) nodes will have 1 active/1 passive. But of course, this is if you are giving yourself a personal restriction to follow. Otherwise just pick and chose based on the situation's needs. APAS/CBMs are just different sized ports for variety/role-playing with no real functional differences. IRL APAS has a smaller passageway while the CBMs have a much larger opening to allow the payload racks to pass through. the manual CBM for the Z1 is a special case that really will only be used on the Z1. It's collider is modeled so you can pass through it on EVA and is only modeled as a ring to recreate the one on the ISS. Doubtful it would be used on anything else besides ISS recreations in game.