problemecium

Update on my bug hunt: Using Claw's "in depth" solution was fruitless, but using a modification of the "quick and dirty" solution I was able to successfully restore functionality to at least one port (I have yet to check the rest). What I did specifically: - Enable "Decouple Node" on all docking ports using a bulk search & replace function - Assign all ports with the "Docked (dockee)" state an attachment to their "parent port" by changing the first "attN = None, -1" to "attN = top, [parent]" where "[parent]" is the port's parent index as recorded in its Part block. PART{ name = dockingPort2 ... parent = 7 ... attN = top, 7 attN = bottom, 5 ... MODULE{ name = ModuleDockingNode state = Docked (dockee) ... } ... } - Resolve all conflicts wherein the newly assigned attN is the same as one of the other attached parts, e.g. the bottom attN or a surface attachment attN; for the time being I simply left these with "attN = None, -1" but the presence of a few of the aforementioned "None of the provided nodes was valid" messages suggests this isn't the "real" solution. I suspect that the bottom attNs have been assigned erroneously, perhaps due to the surface-attached ports' top and bottom nodes being very close together and KSP ending up thinking I'd docked onto the ports' bottom nodes. - Attempt to decouple one of a pair of ports, and if a null reference occurs, reload the save file and instead decouple the other port. I was thus able to at least get my crew ferry detached, which is a good sign, but I only treated the symptoms and have every reason to believe the bug can and will strike again and therefore still needs attention. Once again, if anyone has any answers, or even some useful information to help us all find the answer, please reply!

0. I do not use ModuleManager or anything dependent on it ;P

I can understand why one wouldn't be likely to find noble gas dissolved in Mun rocks. But perhaps in an upcoming patch they can add a way to harvest resources from other places - e.g. planetary atmospheres. Such a device could also get Oxidizer from Laythe's atmosphere for example, and LiquidFuel (which appears to be hydrogen-based) from Jool's.

All I was able to accomplish today was bringing a few Kerbals home from my LKO station, which I only did to begin with because the station appears to be infected with a rather aggressive strain of sticky docking port syndrome (I've actually made a support request thread about this if it rings any bells). Le sigh.

I've been having docking port bugs off and on ever since unlocking docking ports in KSP 1.0, and today it got so severe a problem that my game progress is halted. What's happened is that almost every docking port on my LKO station has become unable to undock. I tried the instructions detailed in a few other threads around here, and it helped the first time, but a few days later the bug came back with a vengeance. One of the first things I tried was renaming the station. I'd previously noticed some Klaw bugs that seemed to go away as a result of renaming the vessel - perhaps KSP was confused when sorting out multiple "DOCKEDVESSEL"s of the same name. No luck. Next I tried Claw's solution as detailed in FIX: Dock / Undocking Bug in 0.23.5. It helped at first - I was able to restore functionality to the two ports I needed to work; I didn't do an exhaustive analysis of the rest of the station though, so I can't say whether it did or would have helped. What I do know is it isn't helping now. I have verified that every pair of connected docking ports is in the proper configuration, i.e. one says "Docked (same vessel)", the other says "Docked (dockee)", and they link to each other's uid correctly. As far as I can tell by reading it, the save file is flawless (but of course it can't be or I wouldn't have this whole problem). As a last-ditch resort, I tried something else that occasionally helps with Klaw bugs, i.e. enabling the "Decouple Node" action on the docking ports. That did nothing to help and simply threw an unsurprising NullReferenceException. Investigating further, I opened the error log and found a large block of warnings reading: [PartJoint]: None of the provided nodes was valid! The block was large (over a dozen), but not hundreds, nor did it repeat. I have a hunch that one warning was thrown by each docking port because something is wrong with the "PartJoint" connecting it to the other port; perhaps the save file is somehow causing the port to be given a reference to the wrong part or something. I didn't want to post a new thread without being sure it was a new issue, so of course I checked Google and the forum's Search page. I also tried to see if I could blame it on any of the three mods I have installed: HyperEdit, Kerbal Alarm Clock, and KER. No dice - none of those mods have anything about causing docking issues in their threads (not something I expected anyway given their nature), the station in question consists entirely of stock parts, and most importantly, digging through KSP.log and output_log.txt indicated that the error was apparently coming from the PartJoint class and being piped through Unity's built-in debug script. So now I turn to the community seeking help. Is this related to a known issue? Have others been affected similarly? And might anyone have a solution? Attached here are my KSP.log and output_log.txt: KSP.log | output_log.txt And here is the save file experiencing the issue: persistent.sfs The bug has attacked one of the last vessels in the list, "Station 1.0.2 Ring Station Edition". Apologies to anyone reading through it for the fact that I currently have a lot of stuff flying around and the station in question has around 400 parts. ^^; In case it helps: Windows 7 64-bit OS with KSP 1.0.2 32-bit, non-Steam, running on Intel HD Graphics 4000 with SM3 terrain shaders disabled. I doubt any of that really affects this, but just in case xP

...*checks list* ...*double checks* ...Awww yiss, HyperEdit's in the clear! xD But seriously folks: I for one can promise to use it only as an anti-Kraken defense, but perhaps a disclaimer ought to be in the OP detailing mods that may be present, but must not be used to progress the mission. *triple checks* Okay, so it is mentioned, but I feel like there should be a little parenthetical statement about HyperEdit in the approved mods list. xP

My suggestion: Put it on an escape trajectory, then as soon as you get the completion message, turn around and put it back. Trololololol...

Hmmm. My install without DOE, PlanetShine, and Astronomer's Visual Pack is free of these anomalies.

...to Jupiter in 2040. Sooo they're launching now, right? xD

Well now that this is sticky I guess I have to chime in. My Minmus mining operation consists of a dead lander I accidentally broke on arrival (I was able to rescue the Kerbal at least) and a Kerbal who spawned as part of a rescue contract. So in other words I do not have a Minmus mining operation and its efficiency is therefore zero xD P.S. Come to think of it, perhaps I should start one so that I can fill up the tanks on my soon-to-launch Jool mothership without having to muscle the fuel all the way up from Kerbin...

^ What's wrong with a chair? o_O And regarding upgrades, the biomes add up, so you can, for example, access only the Small Lab and the Main Building at R&D tiers one and two, and in tier three they remain there and are joined by six or seven other building "biomes".

...I'm about to fill my ring station with 98 Scientists and see how fast I can farm the stuff >

No need. Just copy (copy so that you have a backup) your ships to the new KSP installation. They should work out of the box, and if you happen to open and re-save them, they will save with the appropriate version number.

How do you do experiments "in IVA?" I have yet to see a button or anything to run experiments inside the lab.

A rescue contract in LKO? One day Kerbal time, twenty minutes real time. A Mun/Minmus mission? Two hours real time, two days Kerbal time for Mun or seven days Kerbal time for Minmus (yes this is round trip. I use high-energy transfers for Minmus). An interplanetary mission? Infinite because I haven't managed to complete one before a new version comes out in well over a year. xP

AHEM. *coughs* We are NOT all murderers. I haven't killed a single Kerbal since 0.22 over a year ago. Before then I can't remember. I never even decline rescue contracts because I'm scared of killing the stranded Kerbals through neglect (consequently my Astronaut Complex is severely overcrowded). P.S.: I'm starting to think I didn't really make clear what I meant by "severely overcrowded." To put it in perspective, the next Kerbal I dare to buy is going to cost me over 800,000 funds - about as much as my ENTIRE JOOL MOTHERSHIP. >.<

"Negligible?" Nooo... Each experiment seems like it's worthless, but bring a few copies of each and go on a tour of the Space Center and you'll find there's literally hundreds of points locked away within. This mission was simply to gather reports and surface samples from the various R&D buildings.

This may be beating a dead horse, but whatever - check "Applied Sciences Division" in my signature.

So did I... until I actually tried to make one. It turns out the RAPIER's fuel inefficiency and rampant overheating issues ensure that SSTOs are hardly easier with them than without, at least in my experience.

Same deal here. I've hardly ever embarked on an interplanetary voyage - my last one was to Eve in 0.22 or somewhere thereabouts, because I've always been too conscientious about wasting my Kerbals' time to the point where by the time any of the transfer windows had arrived, the next KSP was out and had changed the core mechanics of Career mode, so I ended up starting over again. 1.0 seems to have done a good job solving this so far, as the tech tree has taken much longer to clear than before, and the Jool window was already looming before I'd even unlocked all the parts I wanted for my mothership, let alone the whole tree (I'm going to have to go to Jool without large probe cores, large ore tanks, or RTGs for example).

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/13276416/KSP/%281.0.2%29%20Stackable%20Ion%20Probe.craft

-11 Go Team Zero!

I can't build an Eve ascent vehicle, although admittedly I have yet to try with the 1.0 aerodynamics. I can achieve the proper TWR and almost enough delta-V, but never quite make it. Naturally I can't build a Jool ascent vehicle either.

I've recently reworked my Stackable Ion Probe: Unfortunately, due to the probe core rebalance that came in 0.90 (I think), it's stuck using the fat OKTO rather than the OKTO2, with which I could have made it smaller than a Kerbal. At present, it's the diameter of a Kerbal and the height of a Mk1 pod. Why so many sensors? It's designed to enter orbit around a planet or moon and strip mine all biomes as best as can be done from space; there is an antenna for transmissions, but sponging up the remaining Science requires recovering at least two temperature scans and three gravioli scans per biome, so I've included twelve to enable full scans of up to four biomes per flight.

My first suggestion is to make that payload less wide. Is there a reason the jumbo docking ports have to be placed that far off to the sides and can't be stuck directly onto the sides of the ship?