lodestar

There seems to be some incompatibility with the RealChute mod. I just started a new game with the mod and I couldn't get my first manned ship into orbit. By the time I decoupled the first stage, almost 2000m/s dv spent, I was still below 100m/s. I looked into Mechjeb's ascent stats and drag losses were over 1000m/s. I tried again with the aerodynamic overlay on, and the packed MK-16 chute on top of the Mk1 pod was dragging during the whole ascent. The same problem happened with the radial chute. The problem is gone after removing the RealChute mod. Is anyone else experiencing this?

I looked into the log and found out all parts with white textures have an error like this: [ERR 19:22:47.010] PartCompiler: Cannot replace texture 'Nerva003' as cannot find texture 'Squad/Parts/Engine/liquidEngineLV-N/model000' to replace with It works when I whitelist that. Thanks. For linux players, I used this command line to generate a whitelist from the KSP.log file: <KSP.log grep "to replace with" | cut -d"'" -f4 | rev | cut -d"/" -f2- | rev | sort | uniq | sed -e 's/$/\//'

What an amazing job you guys did. It's a really great mod. I would have paid for this, and would be more satisfied than when I paid for the making history expansion. I have a few modded parts appearing without textures, and I'm trying to come up with the whitelist for them, but I think I'm doing something wrong. For example, the two mass drivers from the Stockalike Mining Extension mod are rendered with some white parts, which I assume are stock textures missing, even though the part directory seems to have copies of the stock textures. MODEL { model = MiningExpansion/Parts/Size1Driver/Model texture = Mainsail2, Squad/Parts/Engine/liquidEngineMainsail/model002 texture = Size3AdvancedEngineDiffuse, Squad/Parts/Engine/Size3AdvancedEngine/Size3AdvancedEngineDiffuse texture = ksp_s_processorSmall_diff, Squad/Parts/Resources/MiniISRU/ksp_s_processorSmall_diff texture = TriBitDrill, Squad/Parts/Resources/RadialDrill/TriBitDrill } I created a MiningExpansion.restockwhitelist file like this: Squad/Parts/Engine/liquidEngineMainsail/ Squad/Parts/Engine/Size3AdvancedEngine/ Squad/Parts/Resources/MiniISRU/ Squad/Parts/Resources/RadialDrill/ But it doesn't seem to have any effect.

Thanks! Just one minor thing. The entry for the PPD-24 has a misplaced closing brace, so the config wasn't being applied at all. //PPD-24 Itinerant Service Container @PART[utility-pod-25]:NEEDS[USILifeSupport] } {

I'm experiencing a strange glitch whenever I place the 4 bay core between other parts. When under thrust, the core is compressed like a spring, and oscillates non-stop when thrust is cut-off. The whole ship is tore apart by the oscillations. KSP 1.5.1, US2 1.6.0.9

Is anyone else experiencing this problem where no other stack decouplers appear in the VAB or SPH when the procedural decoupler is loaded? They appear in the R&D center when I research the nodes, but they are missing from the parts list in the VAB or SPH. After I deleted the cfg for the procedural decoupler, they appear correctly.

The "Land at target" seems to be broken. What I usually do is: 1. Pick the target 2. Enable the "Land at target" 3. Let it run the deorbit burn and wait until it goes into warp or goes jittery. 4. If there's no atmosphere and you have TWR>2, at this point you can just disable the "Land at target", enable the "Land at somewhere" and it should get you very close to the desired location. 5. If there's an atmosphere, or you have low TWR, disable the "Land at target" and set Smart A.S.S. to SVEL-. Every few seconds, enable the "Land at target" function again and check if it's in the braking phase, with a target speed. If it is, let it run. If not, disable, wait and try again. I just landed a dozen containers on Duna within a 100m radius using this method.

Looking great. My video card fried and I'm waiting for the new one, but I'll check the new version next week.

That's really nice. You just made my day. I've wanted something like that for a while.

Well... this is what I'm talking about: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/surfaceorbit.php#plugnozzle Or this: http://www.projectrho.com/public_html/rocket/surfaceorbit.php#rombus And the bottom left engine here is the one from RLA-SA I mentioned. Obviously, the nozzles are much larger on this one, but it's the same idea.

That would be great with a truncated aerospike engine doubling as a heatshield. I think KSPX or RLA Stockalike had one like that, but it was 2.5m and doesn't scale well.

So, I just captured an asteroid that has weird pink lines, like scratches, all over the surface. Is that a glitch, an easter egg, a feature, or what?

You don't really need that. There's a new version of the XT Landertron that uses the BD models with generic animations. I think it's this one. Take a look: https://github.com/Kerbas-ad-astra/XTLandertron

If you want to balance it by increasing mass, the engine has to be at least three hundred tons. That's how grossly unbalanced it is. By merely increasing it to 30t it would still be greatly overpowered and far above even the best engine from NFP.

AFAIK, tank units are based on volume, not mass, and Isp is impulse per unit weight of propellant, so what you're saying is to lower the Isp. That's an option too. Fitting the role and being balanced are different things. I think RoverDude doesn't care much about balance with respect to other mods. He's generous enough to make his work available, and we're free to choose how we want to play. The engine is unbalanced with respect to the stock and NF engines. That's a mathematical fact, not an opinion. Being unbalanced makes the game less fun for me. That's an opinion.

I'm OK with roleplaying when it's a workaround for some problem that can't be easily fixed. For instance, I hate how parachutes disappear on landing, which makes it way too easy to design unmanned landers. That's not easy to fix, so I roleplay that, and I always design to avoid the parachute landing on top. An unbalanced part is something easy to fix in my own game, there's no need to roleplay around it. Even if you have to capture an asteroid to get the fuel -- which doesn't make sense, as it's just throwing disposable mass away -- it's still too easy, because the engine is insanely overpowered. Capturing an asteroid isn't a challenge at all once you learn how to do it, and then you have plenty of fuel for an engine that's 100 times better than any realistic engine available in the stock game or mods. Frankly, I don't see the point of this discussion. If you like it as it is, go for it, but it's grossly overpowered, that's a fact.

Or fix it, which is what I did. Yes, but you don't have to catch an asteroid to use the Mass Driver engines. You can fill a Rock tank at the VAB. That's the problem. You can't fill a K+ tank at the VAB, getting the fuel is a serious challenge, so that kind of balances it out.

Fun is subjective. I don't have fun when something is so easy it feels like cheating. The engine is unbalanced by two orders of magnitude in comparison with other electric engines. If you want to make it balanced, you have to adjust its parameters to bring it in line with the others. As I mentioned above, I did it in my game by adjusting TWR and Ec/s by a 10x factor. If you think reducing TWR by 100x works better for you, go for it.

That was sarcasm. I'm not that stupid.

This is awesome @RoverDude. Looks like the rover from The Last Days on Mars. Great job.

So, my theory is wrong, but it still helped somehow. Too late buddy. I already posted it on reddit as "The solution for all random VAB crashes". Prepare to be boarded!

@sarbian I experienced some stuttering, but I'm used to it and it doesn't bother me. The mod doesn't help with that, but setting the interval to 10s helped with the random VAB crashes I've been experiencing since the 1.1 update, which seems to be GC related. This bug. I noticed how right before the crashes there was a short pause. No crash report and nothing on the logs, but sometimes I'd get a memory related error on the terminal, like *** Error in `./KSP.x86_64': double free or corruption (out): 0x00007f83328ef200 ***. I think there's something wrong happening if the GC cycle runs while you are removing a part that has staging, and setting a long interval makes that more unlikely.

I realized the USI ART Mass Driver engines are grossly overpowered, and I'm trying to write an MM patch to reduce thrust and increase Ec consumption ratio by 10x each. This patch reduces thrust, but Ec consumption is unchanged. Any idea on what I'm doing wrong?

This is the original release. I think I have a version fixed for 0.90 or 1.0.5 somewhere in my Windows partition, which I haven't used for a while I'll try to find it later. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/15095346/Escape_Pod_V1.8.zip

Someone mentioned how the Mass Driver seems overpowered. That's an understatement. I was building a large transfer ship for a Duna mission and just for fun I decided to add the Mass Driver with rock tanks and check if it would work, and it was insane. It was outperforming the Colossus MPD engine from NF Propulsion, which requires almost 2000 ec/s! It's so overpowered it feels like cheating. I did some back of the envelope calculations comparing with a few other electric engines and it outperforms them by two orders of magnitude, considering thrust power over Ec ratio. It's clear it was supposed to be a low thrust engine, so I decided to balance it for myself by increasing Ec consumption ratio by 10x and reducing thrust by 10x.