Kram45 Posted July 3, 2016 Share Posted July 3, 2016 (edited) 5 hours ago, FlyMeToTheMinmus said: It's an old bug which had a fix involving changes in the persistant save file, but this fix was found and written up pre-1.1, so due to how nodes work now some of the instructions are wrong, and there hasn't been an updated method I've found yet. In my experience, it hasn't just been cxg's parts that suffer from this, I've seen it happen with Tantares parts as well. It might be worth asking @Claw about this, as they produced the last guide for fixing this. Yes, I saw EJ had the same problem last night but as I'm a 'noob' so to speak with code I'm not sure how he fixed it. EDIT: It seems that it is a chance bug as I have been getting it and then it's fine, so fingers crossed something can be done. Edited July 3, 2016 by Kram45 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cxg2827 Posted July 3, 2016 Author Share Posted July 3, 2016 @FlyMeToTheMinmus, could you direct me to a post or thread that mentions this issue? Is it a bug related to part colliders or something else? @Kram45, you might be able to replace the apas docking ports with the v1.1 ones and see if those will fix the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyMeToTheMinmus Posted July 3, 2016 Share Posted July 3, 2016 (edited) It appears to be more along the lines of how docking ports actually work in KSP, so I'm not sure if there really is anything you can do on your end to prevent it. Edited July 3, 2016 by FlyMeToTheMinmus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndrewHere Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 This mod its too under rated. Literally its one of the best mods I've seen around here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vandenberg Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 Hi, I was wondering does someone have a realism overhaul config for this mod. I'm loving this mod in stock but would like the challenge of making it in realism overhaul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cxg2827 Posted July 8, 2016 Author Share Posted July 8, 2016 15 hours ago, vandenberg said: I was wondering does someone have a realism overhaul config for this mod Have you tried asking in the RO thread? might get better exposure to your request there. Also some quick progress updates. Long spacer truss and EETCS radiator are pretty far along in texturing. Debating if I want to do a similar blanket wrap job on the square truss segments, with holes cut out for where the EVA hand rails will be placed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Shaftoe Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 Absolutely gorgeous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StarStreak2109 Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 I can second that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasseji Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 (edited) yay, trusses for CxAerospace Edit: Imo a perfect marriage would be CxAerospace + Habtech Trusses + Fustek CBM's :D, that's the way i have my station designed at the moment Edited July 12, 2016 by Jasseji Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasseji Posted July 15, 2016 Share Posted July 15, 2016 (edited) @StarStreak2109 Your Ares program made me re-start my station build: Parts Used: - Trusses from NFT - Station Parts from CxAerospace - KOSMOS for Solar Sails and Saturn V Rocket - SDHI Service Module for the Crewed Capsule - Fustek IACBM's - Visuals by SVE - Ven's Stock Revamp Build in Progress Edited July 15, 2016 by Jasseji Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoseEduardo Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 @cxg2827, would it be possible to have the endcaps as a separate part, so it could be used with the stock lab, hitchinker, tanks or other mods to keep the style? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cxg2827 Posted July 18, 2016 Author Share Posted July 18, 2016 On 7/12/2016 at 7:12 AM, Jasseji said: Edit: Imo a perfect marriage would be CxAerospace + Habtech Trusses + Fustek CBM's :D, that's the way i have my station designed at the moment I think the perfect marriage will be CX modules, CX trusses and solar (pending), and CX CBMs . @JoseEduardo, the endcaps might look conflicting when attached to other mods, but should be an easy part to include. Which texture for the endcap were you thinking? The KHM-style? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoseEduardo Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 You mean the one without a hatch painted? that one would be the best, so it wouldn't make a difference if there is a docking port in it, but if there isn't it won't look as if they needed one and they won't feel as conflicting as the stock short 2.5m-->1.25m adapters, that's for sure especially with the stock lab if they have the handrails Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasseji Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 1 hour ago, cxg2827 said: I think the perfect marriage will be CX modules, CX trusses and solar (pending), and CX CBMs . @JoseEduardo, the endcaps might look conflicting when attached to other mods, but should be an easy part to include. Which texture for the endcap were you thinking? The KHM-style? I switched from Habtech Trusses now to NearFuture waiting for your trusses, but i still find the Fustek IACBM the best (because of the hatch installing and Active/Passive switching - helps in station planning a lot :P) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cxg2827 Posted July 22, 2016 Author Share Posted July 22, 2016 I'll be starting to model the rectangular truss docking ports this weekend but want to hear some opinions. With the grief that restricted angle docking has caused many people, I think these ports will need some form of guide fins to make the hard docking easy. But with guide fins, this brings up some issues. Option 1: non-gendered, androgynous ports that can toggle the guide fins so that you can still dock the trusses at 180 degree increments. No deployable soft docking feature. Possible issues: with the guide fins, the docking port will need to be deep enough to allow the guide fin colliders to sit in the recess properly. Docking ports might not be as slim as i originally planned. If a slim port with short guide fins can still be doable, I might need to reduce the magnetic attraction force and distance since shorter guide fins means less wiggle room with being out of alignment. Option 2: Gendered ports with similar appearance and operation as the Rocketdyne Truss Attachment System (RTAS). With these I could set up the Active port with a soft-dock feature. (Figures 24 thru 27 in the PDF below, about half way through. Thanks @Teslamax for the link) http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20110010964.pdf Option 3: Modified RTAS, androgynous ports that can toggle the guide pins. Possibly could make this have a form of soft docking. This port will, for lack of better words, ride on the outside of the truss like a belt and have a very slim profile when docked. The one drawback of this version is it will only be compatible with the rectangular truss components, and would need another variant to be used more universally on other parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrMeeb Posted July 22, 2016 Share Posted July 22, 2016 23 minutes ago, cxg2827 said: -snip- I actually vote for number 2, but having recently watched The Simpsons Movie, I couldn't resist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cxg2827 Posted July 23, 2016 Author Share Posted July 23, 2016 Truss WIP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoseEduardo Posted July 24, 2016 Share Posted July 24, 2016 (edited) I'd vote for #2, I really don't mind it being too hard to dock, I use an robotic tug to make the assembly for me and all I need if it doesn't dock is a bit of fine-tuning btw, speaking of docking ports and tugs, would it be possible to include a grappling fixture and a grappling mechanism? probably both as docking ports to simplify it, I've been using Kanadarm's ones in a special tug so I could dock the tugs to modules with one docking port so I could get them attached to the station, it is very helpful for Quest, Cupola and JEM if no I'd understand EDIT: sorry for asking for even "moar" stuff, but would it be possible to include a 1.25m passive APAS? Edited July 24, 2016 by JoseEduardo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cxg2827 Posted July 24, 2016 Author Share Posted July 24, 2016 4 hours ago, JoseEduardo said: would it be possible to include a grappling fixture and a grappling mechanism? Sure 4 hours ago, JoseEduardo said: EDIT: sorry for asking for even "moar" stuff, but would it be possible to include a 1.25m passive APAS? The same base size as the active one? Yea I totally forgot to make one of those so thanks for reminding me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoseEduardo Posted July 24, 2016 Share Posted July 24, 2016 yep, that one thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
subzero22 Posted July 30, 2016 Share Posted July 30, 2016 I've used your mod for quite a while but once I figured a way to fly your Joint Experiments Module up to my station I can't believe how op it is... with just 2 lv 2 science kerbals I'm getting like 200 science a day. I can't imagine how much I'd get if I put in a 3rd or even take them on a mission to lvl them up even higher... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cxg2827 Posted July 31, 2016 Author Share Posted July 31, 2016 On 7/29/2016 at 7:39 PM, subzero22 said: I can't believe how op it is I think i just realized why its OP. Looking at the Squad MPL CFG I realized there is one multiplier I forgot to include in my labs: Quote dataProcessingMultiplier = 0.5 // Multiplier to data processing rate and therefore science rate I assume since I didn't include it, that it defaults to "1" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. The entry cost and the purchase costs for the labs are fairly more expensive than the stock lab, and I boosted slightly some of the ModuleScienceConverter values to reflect in the cost. Hopefully after I add that line to both labs it should make it feel more balanced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cxg2827 Posted August 3, 2016 Author Share Posted August 3, 2016 Some dev shots of the truss docking ports based off the Modified Rocketdyne Truss Attachment System (MRTAS). The docking ports have been modeled this way since I wanted them to work with the P5 truss sections. These will definitely be more of a challenge to dock with. What will probably need to happen is have the docking magnetism be very weak, and kick in at a very short distance. I'm thinking at the point that the Passive port's coarse alignment guide's pin's are just starting to go in the coarse alignment cups. But I have testing ahead of me to figure out what will work best. Passive Spoiler Active Spoiler Proposed Magnetism engagement distance Spoiler Docked Spoiler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Shaftoe Posted August 3, 2016 Share Posted August 3, 2016 It would certainly be tough, but not impossible. A little challenge is always a good thing when you're building a space station. Plus they look stunning, so there's that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyMeToTheMinmus Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 Really like the look of what you've done there, hopefully it does work well in practice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts