Leibniz

It is possible for the BasePopulation contract to target a Base that is already crewed or has no space (after applying Aelfhe1m's one line fix). It can be fixed with more struts parentheses: targetVessel1 = AllVessels().Where(v => ((v.VesselType() == Base && v.IsLanded()) || (v.VesselType() == Station)) && v.CrewCount()<1 && v.EmptyCrewSpace()>0).SelectUnique() I also had a weird bug where the contract completed when I switched to the target vessel even though it was uncrewed. It is repeatable so I can send a log if you tell me what log settings to use. I have fixed it locally by removing the following line: disableOnStateChange = true

A few combinations of RCS size and fuel are underpowered compared to RCSBlock in RO_RCS_Config.cfg. It includes the starting RCS in RP-0 which is 10x underpowered. Helium: RCSBlock=0.072 ; RCSBlockHalf=0.0036 (should be 0.036) Nitrogen: RCSBlock=0.114 ; RCSBlockHalf=0.0057 (should be 0.057) ; RCSBlockQuarter=0.0095 (should be 0.0285) UDMH+NTO: RCSBlock=0.442 ; RCSBlock15x=0.442 (should be 0.663) Aerozine50+NTO: RCSBlock=0.455 ; RCSBlock15x=0.663 (should be 0.6825) All other values in the file are directly scaled from RCSBlock.

[quote name='Molotof']Hi there. I'm trying a new carreer after a long time without playing KSP, lots of great new things, so i'm trying RP-0 and i've some issue that seems to be an old and already fixed, weird, i'm sure i'm doing something wrong : My problem is that all SXT engine seems to not work, i can't even ignite them. ...[/QUOTE] I had the same problem when I upgraded a few mods to 1.0.5 compatible versions, specifically Hangar Extender, RCS Build Aid, Module Manager, Advanced Jet Engine, Community Resource Pack and Real Fuels. I had a previous working version so I reverted to that. Here is a [url=https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/46360320/RP-0_104.zip]zipped .ckan file[/url] with versions that work for me. The zip also has two ckan config files where I have removed all later versions from the local modlist and disabled refreshes and updates. CKAN would not install the old versions for me if it knew there were newer versions. Hope that helps.

I have upgraded from 1.0.4 to 1.0.5 and the stock wheels have lost grip. I had stock fixes only, not StockPlus. What grip multipliers (forwards & sideways) should I use to get the same behaviour with 1.0.5 StockPlus?

I have recently started with RP-0 and I cannot get RCS to work. Please can someone try out this simple space plane (craft file) and tell me if the RCS works for you. That will help me narrow down if there is something wrong with my design, or instead if there is something wrong with my piloting or my install. Please also double-check the numbers in the part descriptions below. I can see that nitrogen use in the last image doesn't match the part descriptions. I haven't found anything in the forums with the same symptoms; the plane does use some of its nitrogen supply but it continues tumbling out of control and there are no visible RCS emissions.

@FlipNascar That grandfather clock is already amazing. Having no such skills myself I have made 4 attempts to build a sundial that is both attractive and easy to read, and have learnt some things about real sundials from Wikipedia along the way. Craft files I had another idea to mark the hours with a constellation of satellites that fly over KSC within 100km draw distance. Unfortunately all my designs will drift through the year as the sun moves against the fixed stars. Any suggestions?

I have this problem when the base clips into the ground. It depends on the parts and orientation, e.g. structural panels lying on the ground are almost guaranteed to explode, as are Mk3 passenger modules lying horizontally. Passenger modules standing vertically on their attachment node seem to be better. The house on page 9 exploded every time because of the structural panels under the chairs. The tower on page 16 is fine despite weighing 700t. A temporary workaround is to edit the persistence file "KSP\saves\<savename>\persistent.sfs" or "quicksave.sfs" in the text editor of your choice. Search for "name = <base name>" and then slightly increase either "alt =" or "hgt =", e.g. change "hgt = -1" to "hgt = 1". You want your base to appear 1m above the ground and settle down as if landing again.

I built them in the VAB and then used [thread=37756]HyperEdit[/thread] to move them into location. It took many attempts to find some level ground. There were some problems. The table and chairs are prone to exploding because they have a floor of structural panels which has clipped into the ground. I manually edited the save file to move the building back above ground so I could take the picture and drive away. The tower was awkward because HyperEdit does not change orientation, so when the building jumped around the world it arrived upside down. I eventually added some disposable reaction wheels to turn it the right way up. I would like to use [thread=105247]Kerbal Konstructs[/thread] to place static buildings that are prettier and don't explode, but I know nothing about this kind of modelling and my artistic skills are limited. Maybe one day.

[thread=131400]Here[/thread] is my attempt to drive around Kerbin and visit all the biomes. There are only 2 biomes remaining but more than half the distance still to do; perhaps a full circumnavigation in distance if I decide to visit the great desert...

The [thread=113778]Elcano challenge[/thread] appeals to me as a mixture of perseverance and sight-seeing, with planning at the start and freedom to do something else along the way. Minmus seemed a good choice; easy to get to and not too big. And so I started designing Minmus rovers, and taking them into the mountains west of KSC for testing. But as the rovers got better I realised that I prefer Kerbin. I like the green hills. I like imagining where the towns might be; roads and tracks and farms and factories; busy Kerbals getting on with their lives. So this is my extended test-drive around Kerbin, seeing the sights and visiting a few Kerbals on the way.

I am using the Stock Bug Fix Modules and it all seems to be working properly. I still have problems with wheels sliding downhill under physics warp. Could you increase wheel traction as physics warp increases? There is a test case in Bug #3996 and I'd be happy to help out with more testing.

1939m stock. I removed a tiny bit of fuel in the craft file to get exactly 1s burn, although I could get the same effect by burning it off. The design is pretty similar to Nefrums with an extra parachute for landing. It is helpful that the Mammoth also has 20m/s impact tolerance. Craft File PS The fuel formula is LF = (90 * Thrust) / (g * ISP). I think g=9.82 in KSP. You can use vacuum thrust and ISP, or sea level thrust and ISP, but not a mixture. Replace 90 with 110 for oxidiser.

Even intercept burns and suicide burns should be finished after the node time. During the burn you will be slowing down; in fact your average speed will be halved across the burn time (average of initial speed and zero end speed). In theory you should split the burn half before and half after so you finish the burn at the node position. In practise you should start a bit earlier for extra control and safety. I use this myself so I can stop and land at the node position from a ground-hugging ~5km orbit over the Mun. For orbital manoeuvres you could try http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/88982-Java-Long-Burn-Calculator I haven't tried it myself but it claims to convert long burns into efficient prograde/retrograde burns with accurate start and end times.

I have noticed that physics warp weakens the forces from friction and springs relative to gravity. It is most noticeable when everything is static and all the forces ought to balance. Example 1: Take a stock Aeris 4A and park it on the sloping side of the runway. Engage the parking brake, wait for everything to settle and then physics warp - the plane will start to slide downhill. I got 0.5 m/s at x2, 1 m/s at x3. Example 2: Build and launch the following from the VAB: Stayputnik at the top, X200-32, docked pair of Clamp-O-Trons, another X200-32. Wait for it to settle and then physics warp - the upper Clamp-O-Tron will sink into the lower one. I have had these effects in other situations and in earlier versions of KSP. One time my Kerbal got out of his rover to get a photo of a Mun Arch - he used physics warp to walk there faster but was overtaken by the parked rover. I suspect that "flapping wings" on a plane are related to the second example. The two examples are static, so physics step size shouldn't be an issue (at x1 the net force is zero; at x2 the net force should be zero for 2 time units). So is this a bug, or is it a deliberate change to prevent explosions during physics warp? I would like to have parking brakes that work.

I used the alarm clock to stop me time warping through maneuver nodes and SoI changes. The rest were just cosmetic for this trip.