Deserdi Verimas

Which mod are you using to capture your science data? Looks really useful!

Can't remember which mod it was, but one of them (possibly a version of scatterer) let you view a wireframe model of the world, which let you see the different levels of detail the planet had. Might be interesting to see if the two match up?

Going off of what was mentioned here: Taking a rep hit every time you create a craft isn't a bad idea. The REP hit would increase dramatically with increased spending, so if you blow the bank on a single launch, you feel the consequences. Launching the craft and getting it into space, on the other hand, would net you a REP bonus, which would be dependent on how much payload you've taken to orbit (how much of the rocket reaches a stable orbit), and the mass of the craft in the first place, or other factors. So if you build a massive launcher and it fails on the launchpad, you take a hit, but if it manages to get into space, it's worth it. Additionally, if you launch a small rocket that can get a large amount of mass into orbit, you win! Could refresh every time you land, so if you do a spacex and reuse a launcher you get the gains but not the cost. Also, not sure if this has been mentioned, but you'd need a way of knowing how to do experiments that would help you; say you wanted to build a whiplast, but you haven't done enough experimenting. Highlighting it in the tech tree would tell you that your scientists require more information about supersonic flight in high pressure atmospheres (so you can fly through kerbin's atmosphere at low altitude or eve's high up), and landing gear might require you to have landed in an environment with gravity between x and y.

Situation report: Designs for the ball part of the navball are progressing nicely. I now have access to a 3d printer all the time, so as soon as I get this finalised I should be ready to print and do a test fit. With Christmas coming up I'm hoping that I can get the motors required, so that will no longer be an issue as well. Finally, I have been looking into human interface devices in order to connect the final device to my pc - it seems excessive to have an ardunio doing something as simple as reading serial information and moving some motors.

Yeah that fixed it, was running with deadlyreentry's ablative shielding even though I'd removed that mod.

Since updating to 1.1.3, (jumped directly from 1.0.5) I've been getting loads of NullReferenceException spam, which has been slowing my framerate down to about 20fps. The problem still persists when all the .dll files have been removed, so I doubt it's caused by that. Using save file editing to remove craft has been semi-helpful, in that when the number of craft is less than 28 the problem goes away. It doesn't seem to matter which craft I have installed - I checked by duplicating a simple command port craft that had been used for a rescue mission, and the exception spam still occurred when the number of craft passed 28 or so. KSP.log file

After being inspired by a number of physical ksp interface projects (most notably NeoMorph's REAL Nav Ball Project), and knowing that I'd have a lot of time on my hands this summer, I decided to delve into the wonderful world of physical interfaces. So far I've managed to bodge together an altimeter, as a proof of concept and to test my codebase. I'm using a needle dial display that I had lying around, together with an arduino and the KRPC plugin. Nice and simple so far, but I'm pleased with the progress that I'm making.

If I understand correctly, they procedurally generated smaller craters for the Mun, which were then added to the displacement map. So the craters do not change between saves, but the smaller craters were not added manual.

Back in 0.21, the Mun was given a make over with procedural craters, which has made it a much more interesting place to visit. Does anyone know if there are any plans to impliment a similar cratering on other bodies in the Kerbal System? I'd love to see them applied to Duna - would make driving on long missions more interesting than it is now

What is your sphere made of?

Welp. I also saw your tweet, and have been working on this in my own time (without telling anyone because I have a terrible work ethic and never finish anything). If anyone wants to have a look at the finished article, which should be done in at most 2 weeks, I'll be happy to put it up here. Any constructive criticism would also be greatly appreciated! I've also been considering making a part similar to this in a different style, more in line with the B9 parts (not sure how great the spindly parts are going to look in game)...

I'm having a little trouble with a custom config, where the engine fails to change Isp when using different fuel mixes... Can anyone suggest why? MODULE { name = ModuleEngineConfigs type = ModuleEngines origMass = 0.098 configuration = NTO & UDMH CONFIG { name = NTO & UDMH maxThrust = 16 massMult = 1.00 IspSL = 1.00 IspV = 1.00 PROPELLANT { name = NTO ratio = 2.1 DrawGauge = True flowMode = STACK_PRIORITY_SEARCH } PROPELLANT { name = UDMH ratio = 1.0 flowMode = STACK_PRIORITY_SEARCH } } CONFIG { name = Lqd Oxygen & Kerosene maxThrust = 21 massMult = 1.020 IspSL = 1.031 IspV = 0.967 PROPELLANT { name = LqdOxygen ratio = 2.1 DrawGauge = True flowMode = STACK_PRIORITY_SEARCH } PROPELLANT { name = Kerosene ratio = 1.0 flowMode = STACK_PRIORITY_SEARCH } } }

Ah, fair enough. Probably not appropriate for that purpose then... Thanks for pointing out what was pretty obvious!

In playing in the past, I've had an abort system on crewed vessels, but if the craft begins to crash, I always revert - no Kerbal is allowed to die! I wait a week in game time between launches. Or a "Kerbal" week, which consists of 8 kerbal days. When I finish sorting out the config files for my new realistic engines, I'm probably going to change this to a month, to better match with reality. Action groups, like most people, are consistent between parts. 1&2 are usually engines, 3 are air intakes, 9 is usually solar panels (put far away from the engines so that I don't accidentally activate the engines whilst powered up and smash a craft into another one). Don't pay attention during approaches to space stations, which inevitably leads to either multiple passes, or smashing the solar panels off. Kinda ironic, when I'm returning the tug to the space station after deorbiting the orbital insertion stage for the replacement solar panel array. Despite only having the one launch pad, I still put some LKO space stations (science ones, not refueling ones) on inclined orbits, to better mimic the ISS (and also make it easier to access from map view) I aim to have LKO at 72km above the surface each time. This is probably going to be a problem when launching two craft one after the other to intercept, but I'll deal with that when it happens. And I've never left the Kerbin system, aside from a spent booster stage that picked up a gravity assist from the Mun back when I was just learning how to play. Finally, all of my maneuvers are planned out in a book I've got on my desk, which is great, but the maneuvers usually end up not working out and I have to just fiddle with the nodes to get them to work anyway. Ah well, eventually I'll work out how to transfer from a parking orbit to a space station from theory and angles!

How are you planning to get the varying number of sections that make up the length of the clamshell? It seems like you're doing it incrementally, which would be a great framework for a "make your own modular RTG" mod, where you can vary the number of smaller RTG sections that you need to get a greater level of power. So you'd be able to change the number of smaller RTG subsections to build up a larger RTG, up to a certain max length. Might be interesting. (Sorry, this doesn't really have much to do with this fairing mod... Just a rambling thought I was having)