ThirdHorseman

1) Having to manually click through 60+ SCIENCE! reports stored in my lander when trying to find if I did that EVA report from the Mun's Midlands... 2) Not being able to create a maneuver node while on the surface so I can plan surface-to-orbit intercepts... 3) Not having time warp stop automatically at an impending maneuver node

And the Sat around Kerbin, with a a dish targetting Mun, would also need to have an omni antenna to connect to the Kerbin network, right? That post is talking about two dishes of varying ranges talking to each other. I was basing my plan on posts like these: A dish can talk to multiple things if it's targeted at something like a planet or moon If the dish is pointed at a planet or moon, anything inside this cone can achieve a connection with the dish. If the dish’s target is set to a planet or moon, it can simultaneously maintain a link to all targets that are within a cone centered on that planet and that are within that planet or moon’s sphere of influence. So I was under the assumption that any omni in the dishes beam could receive the signal and re-transmit it, just like it can with a signal from other omnis. I guess that assumption was incorrect: dishes can only talk to dishes and omnis can only talk to omnis. That link only helps with calculating coverage in orbit around a single body, it does not discuss inter-planetary comms. As long as I remember that dishes only talk to dishes, omnis only talk to omnis, then I'll be fine. That little tidbit isn't mentioned anywhere in the Wiki or in this thread...as far as I can find after multiple searches...so now that I know this I can get a commsat into Kerbin polar orbit with a dish (target at the Mun) and a large omni to connect to the Kerbin network. EDIT: Ok, while reading the Basic Rules section of the Wiki again I saw the part about how "both satellites must have an antenna that can reach as far as the other satellite." So dish-dish and omni-omni is not actually correct...it comes down to the fact that both antenna must be able to reach each other. So in the example provided: Example: a probe with a Communotron 16 antenna (range 2500 km) and a probe with a CommTech-1 dish (350,000,000 km) are located 3000 km apart. Although the CommTech-1 is one of the most powerful dishes in RemoteTech, the two probes cannot link because the first probe can never link to anything more than 2500 km away – unless, of course, it has a longer-range antenna in addition to the Communotron 16. If the CommTech-1 dish was within 2500km of the Communotron 16 then they could create a link, even though one is a dish and the other is an omni. Now I understand!

Hello all! I am having an issue making connections from the Mun, and was hoping someone can shed some light on the issue. I have a SCIENCE! vessel in orbit around the Mun. It has a Comms DTS-M1 dish and a Reflectron DP-10. I have the dish active and it has Kerbin as the target. It seems that I can only make a connection when the KSC is directly visible...the dish is not making a connection with any of the CommSats that I have in orbit around Kerbin, each with their own omni Communotron 16. I have checked the dish angle in the map view and Kerbin (as well as the CommSat network) are all within the beam path. I read several posts in the thread that made it seem that a dish, when using a planet as a target, could use Omnis to make connections back to KSC. Is this not true? My plan was to use the dish on the SCIENCE! vessel to connect to the omni antenna on the Commsats around Kerbin, and then use the small Reflectron on the SCIENCE! vessel to connect to a few sats that I have in orbit around the Mun (they are all within 500km of the vessel).

I did a search of the thread, and I didn't see an answer so I figured I'd just ask. Why does the Wiki show the ideal altitude for the RADAR Altimetry sensor as 5km, which is also its minimum altitude? Is that a typo? I would assume the higher the altitude the better, to give the detection beam a larger width. The other sensors show Altitude(best) in the descriptions, is there any reason why the RADAR sensor doesn't? Thanks!

Meh, I'm not crazy about this. It sorta makes sense that you can transfer fuel around your ship, using the rationalization that there are internal pipes and valves internal to the various parts. But if I have two hitchhikers separated by three long fuel tanks, it doesn't make sense that I can move Kerbals through the fuel tanks. I hope this is limited to crew compartments that are adjacent to each other...then that makes some sense. But you should still be required to EVA if you are moving a Kerbal across an entire ship of struts and fuel tanks!

Thanks for the info. While I'd prefer a more realistic scanning option...I love anything that gives more value to things like probes and satellites...I understand wanting to keep things simple.

I've been following this mod from the beginning, and I know that SCANsat has support for it. You should read my post more closely, because that is not what I asked. What I asked is: 1) Do you actually need to scan the planet from orbit, or does simply putting the detector on a rover show you all the hotspots across the entire planet. 2) Is this going to be the final method for resource scanning in this mod or will some form of "only use the resources you've discovered" method like SCANsat or Kethane be implemented in the long-term? I don't want to use SCANsat, but I'm not crazy about the "pop a detector on anything and suddenly see all resources across the planet" method. And since this mod was created so we could avoid using an existing mod that had ModStats, it seems silly to fall back on another mod that does include ModStats for resource scanning.

He said "save with a suborbital trajectory" not "switch control in atmosphere". You can save when on a suborbital trajectory. But yes, I get your meaning. You can't setup a cloud mining operation on Jool and then return to the spaceport or switch control to another flight. On the other hand, is that confirmed for planets other than Kerbin?

There's no reason it has to exist in all three phases, it can remain a solid and yet be found in all three environments. It can be found in large veins in the ground, it can be dissolved in small amounts in the ocean, and it can exist as a particulate in the air. Something like gold. It can be mined in large quantities in the ground, it can be extracted from seawater, and could exist as a particulate (e.g. gold dust) in the air.

Are you sure about that? I just did a quicksave while flying my plane and it worked fine. Crashed, hit quickload, and there was my plane flying again.

I remember there being a problem with continuously looping animations, but that was a long time back. This post talked about a fix, but that was way back in 2013 so I'm not sure if you're seeing the same issue... In my EPL game I don't see anything deploying until they are told to. I have shrunk the OMD down because it's freakishly large, but the last time I put two in orbit they didn't deploy until I told them to. I'll re-run the save and see if that's correct...

1) I prefer the idea of different converters for different resources. You use your extractor to extract Karbonite from the environment, and then use the different converters to create different resources. This is more realistic, and requires you to do more mission planning. Your ions ran out of Xenon and you forgot to put a Xenon converter on your ship? Too bad, shoulda thought of that. 2) I like the idea of trace element extraction returning a percentage of the Karbonite. You'd have to play with the numbers so that it's balanced, but again it's realistic and makes better use of the available resources. Great mod BTW.

So for Karbonite scanning, you just place the detector on any ship and you can instantly see all the hotspots on the map? Is this the final plan for resource scanning, or just a placeholder until a more realistic scanning option (like SCANsat) can be implemented? Note that since SCANsat has ModStatistics included I assumed that Karbonite wouldn't want to rely on that mod as a resource scanning option...

The augers never animated. Long ago I made a MM config that created sparks when the auger was extracting ore, but it uses the KethaneParticleEmitter module so that wouldn't work in this situation.

You might want to include a little more info in the first post. With the current firestorm over ModStats people are quite jumpy about mods sending info along. From the text you have there it sounds like the mod gets info from our computer and sends it along to KerbalStuff, and it doesn't sound like that is the case. If this is true, I would amend the text in the first post to say "This mod includes code that checks the existing version on startup, sends a http request to KerbalStuff which looks for the currently available version, and prompts you to download if a newer version exists. This update checking is disabled by default, but please opt-in as it prevents you from running outdated versions of the mod."

That's fine. Someone mentioned ModStats and I wondered why there wasn't a blurb in the first post as required by ModStats. And then someone else mentioned the privacy policy on KerbalStuff, and that didn't make any sense either. So this is your own code that you put in, that sends info to a server you operate, listing our IP address and the version number of this mod, and that's it?

I'm confused. Does this mod include ModStatistics, or it's own built-in update checking code, or something specific to KerbalStuff? I understand the KerbalStuff server keeping page view stats and stuff, that's normal for web servers. But do all mods downloaded from KerbalStuff also include code that communicates with the KerbalStuff server? Very confusing...

So the version on KerbalStuff and Curse have ModStats included? To get the non-ModStat version you need to get the one on GDrive? I downloaded both and the one from KerbalStuff looks like it has ModStats included, and I don't see a noMS version there. Thanks! Great looking mod! I'm looking forward to welding some neat pre-fab shapes to cut down on part number... EDIT: Nevermind I found the GlowStrips without ModStats version on KerbalStuff. Didn't realize it was listed as a separate mod.

You can even save time by not storing the SCIENCE! in the lab at all...just save it directly to the lander's command pod. So in step 5. above you just need to clean the Material Bay and Goo and leave all the SCIENCE! in the lander. This thread has some points on using the lab. This post has a pic of my SCIENCE! lander...

There is no way you could ever achieve true immortality as you define it, being unable to cease to exist by any means. I don't care how much gene manipulation you do, or how cybernetic you become, or even if you download yourself to a hard drive. A quick trip to the Sun will end your eternal misery pretty quickly. So yes, complete and utter immortality as you define it is impossible, in my opinion. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try our damned hardest to get as close to it as we can... What's so bad about having a few million or even a billion years to play with? You might see that as an inconceivable nightmare, an eternal oblivion with no hope of ever ending. I see that as a never-ending opportunity to learn, explore, love, challenge myself, push my limits. I cannot even conceive of ever being so bored with the Universe that I want to leave it forever. Why would anyone ever "wish you could die"? Now this, of course, assumes the extended life you are living is free from pain or other ravages. I can obviously understand why someone living in horrible pain, or even anticipating a painful end, would chose to end their life. I believe when we are discussing immortality and extreme life extension we are assuming a life without pain, with all our basic biologic functions provided for. Nobody wants to spend a billion years suffering from extreme rheumatoid arthritis or Alzheimer's disease. If you don't mind, I'd like to toe the line here and ask a personal question: are you religious? Because I find that, in most of my discussions with people on this topic, those who are religious are the most against extreme life extension and immortality. They are the ones who find it so unnatural. They want to spend their time in this existence, and then move on to the next one...that's the natural order of things. That's why the idea of millions or billions of years of life are so abhorrent to them, because that just prolongs the move to the next life. Me, I want as much time as I can get here in this Universe. And I'll spit in Nature's eye for every last second I can get my hands on...

This. I get so incredibly aggravated when people call things that they have a problem with "unnatural" or "against the natural order" or "against nature". We shouldn't work on achieving either prolonged life or immortality, because that's "unnatural"...while they have no problem using any medical treatment available to improve their health or take advantage of all manner of technological advancements to make their life easier. You know what's unnatural? Driving in a car or riding a bike or flying in an airplane. Humanity has survived for this long not because we are the strongest or the fastest but because we are the smartest and we can manipulate our environment to better improve our odds of surviving. I am a proponent of ectogenesis, which is the use of external artificial environments to gestate organisms. I have to laugh when people respond with horror, crying out how unnatural that is, and then run to the hospital for their in vitro fertilization procedure or dialasys treatment or even pop an Advil or two. Who are they to dictate where the line is drawn...where using advanced medical procedures goes from "helpful and necessary" to "unnatural"? So when you get badly injured in an accident, or get really sick, you'll refuse any medical treatment right? Because hey, everything dies and that is the natural order of things. So if it's my time to go, why bother extending it? No, you'll claw for each additional day you can get. You'll do whatever it takes to fix yourself up and keep on living. Work on immortality and life extension is the same exact thing, just trying to fix what we can so we can spend more time living. As long as we are not causing undue suffering then we should advance our species as far and as fast as we can...and to hell with nature.

Good point, yes the "die coming up 7" isn't a good analogy and it's more like "stopping on a corner". Thank you for the correction. It's probably closer to "rolling 100 dice together and having them all land on the same corner" but again, we just don't know how likely or unlikely it is. Anything coming close to a "thriving interstellar federation" would stand out like a lighthouse on a dark shore. Even if it destroyed itself 200 years ago there would be evidence across the sky. We should see energy signatures, something! Even if they didn't use radio they must at least operate in the electromagnetic spectrum so we should see something. Sure, we have found plenty of planets that could support some form of life, but that doesn't mean it has it. Again, we don't know how likely or unlikely it is for life to form even given the perfect set of circumstances so until we have some data it's useless to speculate.

Quantum entanglement is a proven concept, you just can't use it to transfer information from point-to-point faster than light can travel the same distance in a vacuum. If so you violate relativity and could create causality violations. This is a common point that people make when suggesting that life exists somewhere besides Earth. The problem with this point is that you do not know how statistically unlikely or likely it is for life to form in the first place. There may be 5x10^22 habitable planets in the Universe, but if the chance of complex molecules coming together to form life (self-replication of DNA, etc) is some incredibly high number (a googol googol, for instance) then it doesn't matter how many planets there are. You can roll a die billions and billions of times, but no matter how many times you do it you'll never get a 7.... Until we know more about how life formed in the first place then it's silly to speculate...we are better off just assuming that this planet is all there is, and then we might get better at taking care of it...and us.

Yea but again he mentions SRB which are almost always staged and discarded. I would really hope that Squad would not spend all this time and energy installing a Contract and Budget system, with a stress on saving funds by recovering equipment, and not address the issue that parts vanish when in atmo. That would be a pretty big screwup IMHO...

I am sure Squad has a mechanism planned out for this, because in a recent Devnote Felipe talked about recovery of parts that you were testing for a contract: Not only that, you also get to test parts which you haven’t researched yet, which means we had to add a system to support these ‘experimental’ parts. The main difference when testing an experimental part is that you’ll get a limited amount of them. If you destroy them before completing the test, you will fail. In cases like SRBs, which are one-shot only, performing the test outside the target conditions won’t mean instant failure, but be prepared to recover that one-off prototype intact. Speaking of recovery, there’s been a lot of progress done there as well. The “Science Summary†dialog is being overhauled into a complete “Mission Summaryâ€Â, which will show not only the recovered experiment data from a mission, but also the parts you recovered (and how much funds you got back from them), as well as crews. For experimental ‘prototype’ parts, recovery also re-stocks them so you get to launch them again, in case the contract is still incomplete. So not sure if this "recovery" he speaks of means landing a ship intact, or recovery of parts you have staged off your ship...although he does specifically mention SRBs which tend to be dropped so I would hope they have a mechanic in place to recover parts that you detach. I'm sure we'll hear more about this as the next update gets closer to release. I mean, they wouldn't implement a budget and part recovery system without thinking about recovering jettisoned stages, right?