Claw

Well, that's a strange one. My request would be to see if you can replicate it with a stock install, or at least a 100% stock craft in your game. If you can do that, post the .craft file (because specifics inside the file can matter). Also post specific launch conditions, such as specifying a tier 1 launch pad. I will also try to replicate your picture, but I can't tell what that part is below the Mk1. Cheers, ~Claw

Two specific bugs that I encountered: - Broken (even more so than usual) symmetry on symmetry - Situations where craft files create circular symmetry links, leading to errors when deleting a part in the circular reference. I haven't run into anything that breaks the save, but it's been causing errors with craft files and craft building. I think I can fix the SymmetryActionFix to function like it did before, but some of the additional checks I built need to be pulled (I don't think they are working properly). Cheers, ~Claw

Dude, the thread is 1.5 years old. Sleep tight dear thread. Back to your grave. Cheers, ~Claw

Sorry. Unfortunately I don't know that 0.90's cfg files are compatible with 0.25. They did some changes and I haven't dug through to see if the cfgs are all that different. Just make sure you are using copy/paste to move KSP's files and not "move." Windows DEP can sometimes mess with KSP installs in locations like Program Files or on the Desktop. Cheers, ~Claw

I forgot about this thread (and it looks like it got buried). Any chance you guys can upload some saves? Well, and I found this in the log file: NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object at TweakScale.TweakScale.OnStart (StartState state) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at Part.ModulesOnStart () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at Part+.MoveNext () [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 (Filename: Line: -1) So somewhere in there looks like TS isn't handling something properly. Later in your crash log, KSP dies due to lack of memory. So I'm guessing your save file is corrupt in some way after that. I'm going to move this over to modded support. Cheers, ~Claw

It's been tried...perhaps eventually. I would love to see it as an option in the Settings menu. Cheers, ~Claw

Hopefully you moved them, and didn't just straight up delete them. After it loads up, try to put them back (one at a time if need be) and run KSP.

If you are using steam, you should be able to go to the Betas page (or tab) and choose "Use last stable release" or something like that. You might want to copy/move over 0.90 somewhere so that it doesn't get trashed. Then make sure the steam location is all cleaned out. After you download a new copy, try to launch it. If that fails, remove the NASA Mission and Squad folders from the GameData directory and launch KSP. If it starts up, go into the settings and turn down all the graphics. Exit KSP. Move the NASA Mission and Squad folders back, and try launching KSP again. Load up some more output_log.txt files after that, if it doesn't work. Cheers, ~Claw

My apologies. I just removed SymmetryActionFix again due to some bugs I found that interfere with the new stock symmetry functions. I'm not sure if it's a mod interaction problem, or purely with my module. The only difference between v0.1.7b and v0.1.7c is the removal of SymmetryActionFix.dll. So you can just delete that file from your install (you don't have to download the whole thing again). I'll try (again) to fix this. Cheers, ~Claw

Well, I'd say you look fairly well versed in docking and likely which way the ports should face. From what little I can tell in the pictures, they seem to be pointed the right way. That being said, you're probably running into the usual docking port woes. Try this thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/78863-FIX-Dock-Undocking-Bug-in-0-23-5 Cheers, ~Claw

I don't know. It seems to happen a lot, but unpredictably. So it's hard to replicate. Although I suspect that some of it (not all) might be triggered by Lazor docking mod since most save files I see have that installed. Great! I'm glad it is still doing it's job. Cheers, ~Claw

Yes, it wasn't listed as such but that was included in my conversation with Vexx. My thought was to make it a Right-Click->"Fulfill Contract" option on the control parts (probe core, capsule, etc) as you state, rather than an automatic function like the current "stable for 10 seconds." At the time, we were discussing satellites, but that would work equally as well for stations, base components, etc. It doesn't have to say "Fulfill Contract," but can also be the same setup for "Release to Industry" or whatever based on how the contract fulfillment is done. But in my opinion, positive action by the gamer (such as right-click->test-part) is usually better, at least once they learn they have to do it. Cheers, ~Claw

Oh, and I almost forgot (rather important). If you do the engine-orientation route, you will also need to copy the "attn" lines and the "link" lines. These lines tell KSP which node is connected to what other nodes. If you don't copy those lines, the game will be confused and probably push the engines into the lander. Take time to compare that whole beginning block of the PART{} structure between the two ships, but you'll also need to make sure you're looking at the correct numbered engine. Truthfully, copying the orbit parameters is easier, but it'll also swap out your crew unless you edit the CREW sections also. Cheers, ~Claw (Yeah, what ninja Laie just said.)

It could be a variety of things. It would help us pinpoint your problem if you could upload a picture of your craft in flight. Press F1 to take a screenshot. KSP will place it in KSP\screenshots. Then you can upload to somewhere like imgur.com (which doesn't require a login) and paste the link here. Cheers, ~Claw

Editing the save file to flip the orientation of the engines by hand is tricky business. If you really want to go that far, you'd be better off fixing a second copy of the lander portion you have right there and send it to the launch pad. Then you can get into the save file and either: - Swap the orbital parameters over from the existing craft, effectively hyper editing it into place and returning the old one to the surface. (Do them both at the same time, or bad things happen.) Orbital parameters are near the top of the "VESSEL" structure. Search for your vessel by name. or - Copy over the engine rotational parameters for the newly built craft over to the existing craft's engines, and continue on your way. Rotation parameters are near the top of the PART structure. (Which I believe is what Aqua is getting at.) Either way, I recommend keeping a copy of your save file somewhere safe before fiddling with it. Cheers, ~Claw

SSTOs (or any particular design for that matter) can be easy for some and difficult for others. It's best to focus on the problem though and to help the topic of the thread. Examples of SSTOs, be it space plane, rocket shaped, or anything else, do a lot more to aid understanding the problem. At least more so than worrying about whether or not the topic is complex. Please don't derail. Thanks, ~Claw

If you can, upload the save file. It's helpful if you delete all the other flights, just make sure you make a backup copy before you do that! Or at least state which craft it is so we can find it. Cheers, ~Claw

I do, and I've seen that mod, but thanks for pointing it out. I've slowed development of my mod given that one's existence and more pressing stock bugs. I do have a sort of working prototype. My mod works on a slight revamp of the intake air system, rather than reshuffling intakes. Although I think my approach is a bit beyond my usual flavor of "non-interference" for stock bug fixes. Cheers! ~Claw

Yeah, unfortunately the game's description is misleading. And there is a common misperception about atmospheric deletion. I'll explain in a little more detail than I usually do... "On Rails" - When craft are not within physics range (~2.5km) of the ship being controlled, they are put into a state called "On Rails." Craft are put on rails to simplify physics calculations for the game. Craft that are "On Rails" get deleted for basically two reasons: 1) On an airless world, they get deleted when striking the terrain. 2) On worlds with an atmosphere, they are deleted when the ship encounters > 0.1 atmospheres of pressure. On Kerbin, 0.1 atmospheres is about 23km altitude. So any craft experience more than 0.1 atmospheres (which means is below ~23km on Kerbin) and is "On Rails" (also known as outside Physics Range) is deleted. Period. Some people have been adding on the statement "and isn't being controlled." This is redundant, because any ship the player is controlling defines the center of physics range. It is impossible for the ship the player is controlling to "go outside of physics range" because physics follows the ship being controlled. The statement "isn't being controlled" has been mistaken to mean "without a probe core (or MJ, or whatever)," but that's not the case. In stock, craft deletion on atmospheric bodies follows these two rules, and no others. "On Rails" and greater than 0.1 atmospheres. Hopefully that clears it up. That being said, there are several mods that will refund money automatically for stages that are deleted. DebRefund and StageRecovery are two that I can think of off hand. There are also mods that extend physics range beyond 2.5km, though I don't know of any current ones off hand. (TTNeverUnload was one, but I think that's old.) Cheers, ~Claw

I am appalled at your lack of memory capacity...you need to upgrade to Vexx64 I think this one was my favorite. I haven't been able to imagine a way around it yet, and it still offers the greatest flexibility for the user. They still get to keep and use the actual satellite if they want, but they can't fulfill another "put a satellite in orbit XX" contract. It still suffers from some limitations, as does the "turning over the satellite to the company" approach. I'm not really sure yet which makes the best sense from a gameplay standpoint. But from the standpoint of "build a new ship/satellite," either of the solutions Vexx listed nullifies that requirement completely. Yes, you could still complete a contract with a vessel that's already in space. However, you could only do it once with any particular vessel. And really, from a contract fulfillment standpoint, does it matter if the satellite that fulfills my contract comes from space or the launch pad? So long as it met all of my requirements (orbit, power, parts, etc...). Tracking the ID takes care of reusing the satellite for "put a satellite in orbit XXX" farming. The other thing this opens up, is that a player can send a satellite freighter to other planets and await contracts, sort of a mother ship with multiple satellites. That way the player can fulfill "satellite in orbit around XXX" contracts without waiting (or timewarping) years of game time for the one, newly launched satellite to get to there. But it also doesn't force you to do it the freighter way. If you still want to wait and launch a new satellite to fulfill, you can. Tracking the ID allows the player to continue using the satellite for their own purposes, but also prevents it from being abused for more contracts. However, I still find fault with this because "if I was the company," I would be pretty upset that my newly acquired satellite just got moved by the contractor I paid to put it there. But as a game player, having satellites littered all over the place that I can't do anything with, or having them just disappear (upon contract completion) also seems 'wrong.' This same approach could be used to identify a space station for specific contract fulfillment. Tagging the ID as having been used by a contract, the the station can't be triggered again to fulfill the requirement. In either case, I guess that was a long way of saying "yes, I agree that it should be changed a bit." Not that Vexx or I can control it. Cheers, ~Claw

I still can't imagine why it was working before and not now. Have you tried comparing your old settings.cfg side-by-side with a new one? Perhaps some time long ago you did some tweaks inside that you've forgotten about. Or maybe post them here and we can try to help dig through. Also, double check that none of the directories are read-only, that you have freshly installed into the C:\KSP location, and that the new KSP.exe is exempted from your virus scanner. Perhaps another thing to try, to get it to load up. Move your "NASA Mission" folder out of GameData and try to get KSP to load. Reducing the load burden can also help get some of that real-time compiling done and out of the way. If that's successful, then move the folder back and try to start KSP again.

Yes, although you won't see any of the other game mechanics such as it telling you what capabilities are unlocked on the next tier, and it won't deduct funds. But you can still progress and manually change the buildings.

This is really amazing. I expected I would see something like this eventually, but wow! I actually haven't added you to the front page yet, because this seems like it needs a new category. It doesn't quite fit into the layout I currently have...So I'm going to have to think about how to put this in a proper place. No worries on the exact science count. I left that out as a scoring factor so that people wouldn't focus on any particular celestial body for the sake of score. Also, I see you have MJ. Did you actually use MJ for any of this? My rules are a little loose in this department, in that I didn't want to force people to uninstall mods as long as they aren't being used for the mission. If you used it, that's fine too. Just double checking to make sure it gets annotated correctly. Nicely done, and welcome to the forums! Cheers, ~Claw

That's a great little ship! And pretty cheap for as much as you did. Personally I've left my career mode VAB at Tier 1 also just to see what it forces me into. Nice job, you've been added to the front page! I did want to double check though, were any of your mods needed for flight? You have several, and they don't look like they were used or are needed, but I wanted to make sure. Cheers, ~Claw

I really like the idea of this thread. This idea pops up from time to time, attempting to inject a little more rigor into the challenge creation philosophy. There was a thread around here attempting to create some standardized "what's allowed" type of rules, but I think that one faded away. I think I tend to agree with this. Simple, straight forward rules are easier to understand and stick to. And frankly, if the challenge isn't entertaining, then it is likely to get skipped. But this also gets to the crux of the matter. Entertainment for one person isn't entertainment for another. Some people love exploring planets. Some people love building massive space stations, or miro space planes. That's why it's nice to see a variety of challenge types, because everyone has different interests. The epic challenge of exploring the entire Jool system simply doesn't appeal to some people, as an example. I didn't try to make my recent challenge an epic challenge, but left the rules flexible so that people can do what they want. Some people took the chance to do their own epic adventure. I'm sure leaving flexibility also left loopholes in the rules, but it's also nice to keep it simple. Perhaps you can pull some examples of good and bad from that as well. In either case, keep up the brainstorming. Just please remember to keep the examples positive and the critiques about philosophy, since everyone has their own ideas of what is epic, entertaining, and lame. Cheers, ~Claw