Claw

Great idea! I will have to see about incorporating this in with the rest of the fixes. This problem was supposedly fixed, so the EVAEjectionFix doesn't exist for 1.0.2. If the 0.90 version isn't working, the please give me more details (or a pic) of when this is happening to you. This will help me create a fix that might solve the issue. Yeah. They added a placeholder in the code, but as of right now I'm not sure if it's possible to make a complete clamshell. I can make the allowable length of the fairing longer, which would reduce the panel count...but I'm not sure yet if I can do a clam shell without completely replacing the code. Cheers, -Claw

Huh. Maybe there is another one floating around. Unless you are referring to all of the panels coming apart. There isn't currently a way to keep the legth wise panels together. I've uploaded the fairing plugin on my bugfix thread. It might end up in it's own thread if there is much interest, and I keep adding utilities. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/97285-0-25-Stock-Bug-Fix-Modules Cheers, -Claw

I've started the new StockPlus add on. It will eventually incorporate my fixes as well as some minor polish fixes for stock. Click here to go to the first release of StockPlus. Instructions: Unzip into your GameData folder (as usual). If you are using the stock bug fix modules, delete the "ModuleProceduralFairingFix" from your StockBugFixes directory. As this matures, it will include all the fixes so you only have to do one download.

Hmm yes. I might be able to fix this with my SymmetryActionFix addon. Nice find and thanks for the video. Cheers, ~Claw

To the best of my knowledge, this has not changed (and is still solid advise).

Sounds like you are trying to play DMP? Also, welcome to the forms! Cheers, ~Claw

Hey Gus, This is actually a strange reaction to anchored decouplers. You'll note that there's not a "No Fuel Crossfeed" note in the info window. Anchored decouplers have a bit of an odd fuel flow rule (non standard) in that they will crossfeed except when the part mounted to them is a fuel tank. So normal fuel operations that we are used to won't cause a problem. But if you connect any other fuel crossfeed capable part to the decoupler (like a nose cone), fuel will flow. This is something I will be including in my next Stock Bug Fix release. Cheers, ~Claw

That sounds like quite the physics problem. I don't know if I can do anything about that, but I will add it to my list of things to look at. (It's getting kinda long, so might be a bit. ) Sorry davidpsummers. I am not ignoring you. I was focused on getting my recent release out last night and am still combing through the thread to catch things I missed. Thanks for the reminder. I did download your second link, and it downloads just fine. You say that it's reporting a 1.6 TWR, and I'm going to guess that you're using KER or MJ to see that. One thing to note, the LV-909 now has a greatly reduced atmospheric thrust compared to v0.90. Turns out, your craft is actually not generating enough thrust on the launch pad to actually take off. You are quite welcome! Cheers, ~Claw

Yeah, that's exactly what my add-on did. You could tweak from 1 to 8 shells around. 1 is a bit goofy because you can't apply any decoupler force (or it shoots off sideways), but allows you to back out slowly if you want (Apollo style). I figured 8 max, since that's the stock symmetry count. I'll see if I can get this up tonight. Cheers, ~Claw

This was in my mod (stock bug fixes). I've removed the option since it wasn't exactly a bug fix. If people are interested in it, I could release it again for 1.0.2. Cheers, -Claw

I don't think it was intentional. It looks like the code was modified for landing gear but unfortunately borks rover wheels. Unless that isn't what you mean by "weaker." Cheers, -Claw

Well, the new system extends the physics range (for any craft near the craft in focus). I don't know the exact range, but it's something like 22 or 23 km. This range applies to debris also. However, I suspect what is happening here is that KSP also helps you clean up around KSC by auto recovering any debris. When it auto recovers, you get funds back but no popup. (At least, you used to get funds back. I haven't verified if you still do in 1.0.) Cheers, -Claw

This is pretty much spot on for subsonic drag. Although I am curious why you consider putting things inside a cargo bay as exploity and abusive from a drag perspective? Considering that parts placed inside have basically become internal to the fuselage and are out of the wind stream. Cheers, -Claw

Seems like finding the proper balance between everything exploding and nothing exploding has been a challenge. I would say, at least it seems like they've found the bounds of the system, with 1.0.0 maybe a bit on the explody side and 1.0.2 being on the non-explody side. Perhaps we will end up with something closer to the middle. Cheers, -Claw

These are all good and valid tips. However, I'd like to also mention that there is a bug with the current wheels which causes rover wheel braking to be very poor. If you are not opposed to addons, I have a fix for this in my Stock Bug Fixes. http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/97285 The specific fix you are looking for in the download is called "ModuleWheelFix" Cheers, -Claw

I would be interested to hear how it comes out. Testing and posting that sort of thing is what I love aboutr this place! I don't know yet how that would behave. I have my suspicions, but I don't really know since I haven't tested something like that myself. See if you can devise some sort of test and post your results! I don't know, but my guess is that it has something to do with the shape of the occlusion cone behind the shield. Maybe it's not calculating the depth quite right. I'd have to dig around to see what's going on there since it "should" work. I didn't play much with FAR in 0.90, but I do know that it does more work behind the scenes with wing occlusion and wing shape. For example, if you hide a wing part behind a fuselage or a flat plate in FAR, that wing will not generate lift. The 1.0 model only occludes wings that are in cargo bays (and not behind something like a flat plate). This has it's good and bad side. You can design/build some unrealistic planes that way, which bothers some people but gets others excited. This is one of the cruxes of the gameplay vs. realism debate which is probably best left in other threads. However, it is one of the differences between 1.0 and FAR. Cheers, -Claw

No problem. Ah, that's my fault. I thought I updated that info but must have only done so in the readme. I will fix it up. You are correct. Several others have reported it as well. Thanks for taking the time to read the OP and letting me know. Awesome! I hope the fixes are helpful for you. Cheers, -Claw - - - Updated - - - No problem. Ah, that's my fault. I thought I updated that info but must have only done so in the readme. I will fix it up. You are correct. Several others have reported it as well. Thanks for taking the time to read the OP and letting me know. Awesome! I hope the fixes are helpful for you. Cheers, -Claw

The sticky pad is a tier 2 problem (because of how the model is built). The Level 3 pad has not been reported as sticky before. Maybe double check that you have a high enough TWR. You can also check to see if it's the pad by dragging your rocket to the side in the VAB (outside of the white ring, toward the doors) and launching. It should start out off the pad. If it launches there, then I'd be interested in getting a copy of your .craft. Cheers, ~Claw

Your purple line there is the best representation of what's going on. Although I think the front end is still a cone of sorts, and not quite a bubble. Heat only. Drag is subject to the drag cubes and is occluded by node connections. If the black lines in your picture B represents node connections, then yes, your build B will be less draggy than build A.

It's a bug with the way the wheel torque tweakable was reworked. If you are not opposed to add-ons, I have built a fix for this in my stock bug fixes: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/97285 The specific piece you need from the download is the "ModuleWheelFix" folder (which you can place into your GameData folder). Cheers, ~Claw

I take it from these pictures that you are referring to the stick launch pad? It currently only functions with engines...and that's because I haven't seen it with other parts like this before. (And welcome to the forums! ) Yes and no. I am running through the thread to collect up loose ends, but I might actually implement this in a slightly different manner. Though I don't imagine most people actually use the crossfeed through the decouplers on purpose. I can add this to the next release. Cheers, ~Claw

Mk3 cargo bay occlusion has been fixed (I hope) in my most recent release. It should (hopefully) help out a bit. Cheers, ~Claw

I will try to address what I know. Hopefully it's accurate/useful. I believe it's the side that the node is on. So take for instance an FL-T800. If you attach a nose cone to the top node, then the blunt end of the FL-T800 is occluded from aero forces. But the sides and bottom end are still exposed. How this relates to Tip, Surf, and Tail is a matter of the part's orientation in regard to the flight path. If the nose cone is out front, then it's the "tip." As such, the nose cone's drag is scaled by the Tip value, while the sides of the FL-T800 are scaled by "surf" values. If that FL-T800 were to turn sideways, then the side of the tank uses the "Tip" multiplier while the end with the nose cone would use the "Surf" multiplier. It's a loose term that I made up on the spot. It's really more like a shock wave, but also not. If you take a look in the spoiler, you'll see two test examples of shock waves. The game uses cones behind the front edge of things that look similar to a shock wave to figure out which parts are exposed to the full force of the airflow (and therefore how much heating). I would presume the cones are shaped by speed and bluntness of the objects, which will affect how parts behind this pseudo-shock are heated. It doesn't look like it's exactly like the pictures, but maybe they give you some sort of idea what I mean. Wings and control surfaces buried inside a fuselage will still generate lift. You can even put flat plates on the front edge of a wing and it'll fly fine. The comment that you are referring to might actually be in regard to the cargo bays. Just like how engines don't work inside cargo bays, wings and control surfaces hidden inside cargo bays do not generate lift while the bay doors are closed. (You can give all this a try in game by turning on the aero overlay.) I don't know the answer to this one, but based on what I can see from cubes and cones, my guess is no. Yes. It seems you gleaned a lot from my coined phrase. This sums it up pretty nicely. I didn't say that an antenna wouldn't reduce drag. I was trying to state that the way the cones work is to occlude parts behind it, but the cone does not extend indefinitely (thereby occluding everything behind it). This comment, by the way, is in relation to thermo. Cheers, ~Claw

More updates. Again, make sure you delete your old Stock Bug Fix install! Significant Change: ModuleManager is once again needed and is packaged with the download. Major additions include fixes to landing gear drag (drag was higher with gear retracted) and Mk3 cargo bays now properly occlude things behind them. Also includes a couple minor physics fixes (including fixes for the size 3 decoupler). Mk3 Cargo Bays now properly occlude parts behind them. Your Mk3 cargo beasts should have a bit of an easier time getting up to speed! I'll take a look. It's easy enough to compile and release, but I'd like to see the circumstances where this is happening, so I can confirm my fix does what it should. You are in luck, I was just including this fix with the most recent download. Cheers, ~Claw - - - Updated - - - It's back in there, in release v1.0.2b. Let me know if it isn't working (and include a .craft if it's stock). Cheers, ~Claw

I'm not ignoring this bug. I was just unhappy with the fix I've implemented, so still a WIP. You are quite welcome! On a side note: There might be a misconception that all the bugs encountered post release were not found during the development process. Unfortunately (as posted above) there wasn't always time to fix everything, especially if there are higher priority problems that need to be addressed. Some of this can be seen in the public bug tracker, which is loaded with things that have remained at the bottom of the priority pile for quite a while. I also have the bonus of being able to rapidly release things, and not get hung up in a full development process. Cheers, ~Claw