Claw

I have my top secret ways. Also, there are no defined strengths in the Mk3 config files. Which means it uses the default numbers that are something around half as strong as the Mk2 parts, despite being an order of magnitude heavier and several times larger than the Mk2 parts. Their strength is either the same as Mk1 parts, or maybe even weaker. I can't recall off hand. Cheers, -Claw

Version 1.0.2e.1. The new addition is PilotRSASFix. This fix addresses the problem with the pilot SAS abilities causing jitter and excessive resource consumption (electricity and monopropellant) for small ships. It includes a StockPlus feature which allows the user to tweak some of the parameters of the dynamic adjustment. It's still a bit of a work in progress, so let me know if you have any vessels which behave strangely still. Realize that there will still be resource consumption, since the vessel is attempting to hold a moving target. I'm only one person, so testing is slow for something like this. Additional feedback and testing this module is appreciated. (Dropbox link is also updated.) + PilotRSASFix (7 Jun 15) - (STATUS: Initial Release) - Description: The new(ish) pilot abilities cause smaller vessels to jitter and rapidly deplete electrical charge or monopropellant. - Currently does NOT try to prevent overcontrol by RSAS when moving between targets. Only the long term response. - Dynamically self adjusts to reduce jitter and resource consumption. - Somewhat reduces wobble for bendy craft during launch, when using pilot RSAS abilities. - (Plus) Gives access to the tweakable options that control the dynamic tweaks. -- The "Plus" tweakable options are available in the right-click menu of the first pod/probe core. -- "Min Response" sets the lowest reaction response from the RSAS ("how far" is the initial move) -- "Min Clamp" sets the lowest clamp value (how much reaction) as the RSAS nears it's target. -- "Threshold" sets the angular speed where clamp and response values start to adjust. - Still a bit of a work in progress, and needs testing with more types of craft.

Currently, there is no way in stock to work around this. For some reason, the action groups were built different for AeroSurfaces, and there's a bug in the implementation. If you never use the airbrakes as airbrakes, then you can edit the .cfg and remove the reference to ModuleAeroSurface. They will no longer work as airbrakes. Yes, if you are not opposed to add-ons, you can change the action group for airbrakes with my fixes. As a minimum, you'll need the StockPlusController.dll and the ModuleAeroSurfaceFix. (You don't have to use the StockPlus features, just have the controller present.) After installing, you can just delete the directories of the fixes you don't want. Cheers, ~Claw

It's added via the ModuleGimbalFix and is enabled by editing the ModuleGimbalFix.cfg file to say "plusEnabled = true". I did specifically disable this in StockPlus because it was causing some major problems/confusion for those who didn't know it existed. Cheers, ~Claw

There are a lot of places to upload. Imgur seems quite popular on this forum because you can also make albums and embed them. Also, imgur doesn't require you to have an account. To embed a single image, use the img tags as such. [noparse][/noparse] FleshJeb also posted a link on how to embed Imgur albums. And I've moved this to the proper place (vice gameplay questions). Cheers, ~Claw

Fair enough. I've beefed up the "StockPlus" section a bit more. You are right, there wasn't much there, but it now includes a picture and short description. You are very welcome. I know there are still problems with service bays and interstage fairings. Can you describe a bit more about the cargo bays? Cheers, ~Claw

I've also seen this, although I don't know what is causing it. It seems even worse when I've gone further from Kerbin (where it seems like it lags even worse in loading the textures). I haven't really found a "fix" yet myself, so hopefully someone else has some ideas. Cheers, ~Claw

Cybersol is correct... Unfortunately this is now how jet engines feed now. Even worse, if you have a probe or something attached to a decoupler, it's targeted first for fuel consumption. It was an intentional change, to "help" with keeping the Center of Mass balanced. Unfortunately, the selected way to implement this isn't very good for this (at all). Cheers, ~Claw

It does. StockPlus features are outlined in the OP, the readme, and on GitHub. For Example (from the OP): --- + ModuleControlSurfaceFix (Plus) (18 May 15) - (STATUS: Major Updated Release) - Description: Control surfaces do not deploy when launched or loaded in the editor - Fixes deployment of flight control surfaces on launch and in the editor (loading, cloning, etc) - Added some error checking to make the fix compatible with other mods - Fixed bug that caused reverse roll inputs with surfaces forward of CoM - (Plus) Adds tweakable authority range - (Plus) Disables flight controls in space, so they aren't moving around when maneuvering --- Gives the date of updates, highlights if it was changed in the recent update, is maked (Plus) indicating it contains Plus features, and outlines what those plus features are in the spoiler (as well as the fixed bugs). Is that what you are looking for? Cheers, -Claw

Simply put, it's the flat face from other Mk3 parts (such as a fuel tank). The game will auto-calculate the faces for parts and put the cubes into the partDatabase.cfg file. You can look in there to find a non-open face part that is similar in shape. Then specify drag cubes in the part.cfg file (to override the partDatabase entry). Sure, I can do that. In fact. I've changed the current release to include this as a zip. Cheers, ~Claw

The Mk16 chute is one of the older models, and is probably in need of an update. Although I have a feeling that it will stick around for nostalgia purposes. It also suffers from problems with shading (the string area turns dark grey at low altitude) and a number of weird artifacts, at least on my computer. I do prefer the newer models myself, especially the radial mounts. I wish the parachutes came in more colors too. Cheers, ~Claw

I think this is an excellent example of "Make science less grindy" vs "You've made science too un-grindy." Automated things like this are notoriously difficult to balance, since time is pretty much meaningless in this game. Anything that happens automatically while "on rails" will always be prone to OPness (in my opinion). I wish I knew how best to modify the existing system so that it makes sense and integrates into a holistic career/science mode game. As I posted in another thread, there is no overarching context for this game. It is more of a sandbox rocket game, with some stuff to do overlaid on top. I think this driving sandbox feel will always overAshadow the science system, and attempts to make it less grindy (without a holistic change) will probably always feel cheaty, or not good enough. Turn down the science production in the lab, then you just have to warp longer to get the same amount of return... Just my rambling thoughts. Cheers, ~Claw

Heh, I see what you are saying. Although I'm not sure it adds too much, since there are so many ways to accomplish what you're asking for already. I do like that they added the auto-revert to HOLD feature when you land though. Cheers, ~Claw

I concur, or maybe even just a single procedural heat shield. Where you can specify (or click-and-drag) an arbitrary size. Cheers, ~Claw

This, in my opinion, is the problem more than anything. It isn't that the contracts are meaningless to me, it's that there is no story (or overarching context) into which the contracts fit. They are simply a mechanism to progress through the game, via another form of resources (funds). The contracts are reflective of the fact that KSP is really a sandbox style game...that had a career system overlaid...in a series...of partial segments. It really creates a bumpy experience. And, on top of that, the open-endedness of the contract system doesn't really have any way to accept user preference. Hence, the contracts you care about seem scarce (because you use them up) while the ones you don't care for are abundantly available. Strategies could also be more...strategic. Cheers, ~Claw

Well, without hijacking this thread too far (because it is a fantastic mod that people have been clamboring for)... To the best of my recollection here is how the fairings came to be. I'm not going to stitch together podcasts, devnotes, tweats, reddit, forums, and such. So you can take my word for it, or not, but I believe this is how it came to pass. -There was a deliberate decision to include fairings in the game to include with the pending aero changes. -Somewhere in the initial testing/design for fairings, it was decided that procedural fairings were the way to go. -Procedural fairings were implemented, deliberately confetti style. -Procedural confetti syle fairings went through some level of testing, after which PA pictures were released. (I don't recall if this was at the end of QA or during Experimentals.) -Enter community lashback, some constructive, some not (but that's another topic) -After some time, community feedback was considered and another statement (linked above) was made. The decision to leave the confetti style for now was made. In coding my fairing work, I see evidence that the consideration for clamshell style fairings, but not the full imlementation. There is a Field variable (called something like panelGrouping) that is unused. It appears that this would have been a variable that would be the number of vertical panels to lump together, so you could increment in steps from full confetti style to full clamshell...just like you can with the number of panels around the base. It believe, based on timing of testing/release and the timing of public statements, that they chose to focus on other work (such as bug fixes or aero balance), rather than implement the code changes to incorporate the panelGrouping option. It does require code changes, namely the inclusion of the actual variable to flip. Again, I'd prefer to not siderack this thread too much, which I myself am now guilty of. So do try to carry on, and feel free to discuss development in the development section so that this addon can be discussed here. Cheers, -Claw

It is an old thread, but is still valid. You need to look at the first page, and find the "If your kerbal is frozen sitting in an External Command Seat and unable to get out." section. You should use state = Seated (Command). If he's standing, then you might need to go check his idx value in the Roster section (near the end of your save file). It should be -1 I believe. It's been a while since I looked. If all you have is KER and KAC, you can upload your save and I'll try to take a look. Also, welcome to the forum. Cheers, ~Claw

To be clear, you have to ALT+X (or MOD+X) on the target ship (the one you aren't controlling). If you only ALT+X on the ship you are controlling, it won't stop the other ship from spinning (if that ship has trim input). Huh, that's strange. I haven't seen that one yet. Has this been jettisoned? It looks like it is disconnected from the base, and I guess the interstage joint isn't strong enough?? Cheers, ~Claw

As Obssessed says, the ModuleGimbalFix doesn't increase the gimbal range. The Fix portion makes sure that engines gimbal when activated via the right click menu (not just when staging). They also gimbal before activation, which I think looks neat on lower stages but might look odd on exposed upper stages. So a bit of personal choice there. The StockPlus additions is where you can activate gimbal response speed. It can cause vessels to react badly (or better) with SAS, but takes some playing with. It was causing problems/confusion, which is why it is disabled by default. Cheers, -Claw

Version 1.0.2d.4 is out. This includes minor fixes. The most major one being fixing the default aero surface action group to be "toggle" vice "extend". (Also fixed the IOOR Exception posted by Scientist.) If you already have StockPlusController.cfg in your GameData directory, downloading the update should not overwrite it. ModuleGimbalFix has StockPlus selectively disabled. If you want to enable it, you must edit the ModuleGimbalFix.cfg. Cheers, ~Claw

Well, that's not a stupid question. The StockPlusController is what the Fix modules look to when they are checking to see if they should activate the Plus features. StockPlus features are minor changes or additions that I've done (in addition to pure bug fixes). I've included the Controller as a way to allow users to decide if they want just the pure bug fixes, or if they want to activate these minor features. StockPlus includes things like spreading out radial chutes attached in symmetry and unlocking the grip rating of stock rover wheels (so you can improve their grip on low gravity worlds). The StockPlus features are annotated in the Readme with (Plus). To activate StockPlus, you'll need to download the StockPlusController.cfg from the first post. Should be harmless, but I'm fixing it. When you say "spam," is it rolling through constantly (which is what I think of as spam) or just on scene changes? This log entry results from not having the StockPlusController.cfg file present (whether enabled or not). Edit: This is fixed in 1.0.2d.4 I know what you are talking about, but I haven't replicated it yet myself. So it could be a simple fix, or it might be something more involved. Cheers, ~Claw

Wait, are you separating both rovers at the same time? There's also a bug with separating multiple controlled vessels at the same time from a root, non controllable vessel. Although this usually manifests itself in not allowing you to return to the space center. So possibly you might have found a variant that acts a bit differently with docking ports. I'm not sure, but definitely strange... Cheers, ~Claw

Also, turn off the temperature thermometers via F10. It's actually the PFFX that leaks, so if you want thermometers, turn off PPFX (if it's not off already). Aside from that, tuning down graphics provides the biggest reduction in memory consumption (without mods). Revert as few times as necessary, and if you notice lag with one of the tweakables open, make your changes and close it as soon as able. Cheers, ~Claw

Your support problem is decidedly lacking in the questions arena. If you could more describe your question/issue, we might know what you're asking for and provide some sort of answer. Cheers, ~Claw

Jet engines like to suck fuel from every available location, even if you turn off crossfeed in places. About the only way to stop it is to turn the green arrow into a red "no" circle. Otherwise you have to run fuel lines around so that other (non-jet) engines can get to it. For cargo, you basically have to disable fuel (via the right-click tweakables) or transfer fuel back into the tank when it's time to release. It's one of the many ways jet engines "help" control CoM now, despite the fact that it's actually quite frustrating and steals fuel from rocket engines. Sorry :/ Cheers, ~Claw