komodo

Don't underrate the power of the nap! The sketches are a great idea, it lets you map out ideas beyond the minds eye... everything looks nice in there, I find Merry Christmas and such, have a good holiday! (Although I understand the KSP bug... i'm over here wrestling with MM syntax. I wish the wiki was a bit more thorough at times.)

It took a minute to realize you were talking of NF Propulsion, then it clicked in

So. Right. The parts in question source from the mk1 MOLE mod by Angel-125. This mod here. Two example parts that don't seem to play nicely are the WBI_FCP, and the Backseat, The only thing I can piece together is that each uses some custom MODULES defined by a supplied .dll that the author has written. But Why would that cause a model rescale to not take? MM doesn't say anything regarding the parts, so I am left to assume that the patches applied cleanly. The relevant code from romini.cfg is thus: which, as i'm slowly learning MM syntax, (and ignore the procedural fairings portion, that's another bug i'm hunting...), the first block matches any part with rescalefactor defined and multiplies the found value by 1.6, and sets that as the new rescalefactor; the second block matches if the part lacks a rescalefactor and sets it to 2. (I am also confused why 2. Is this that weird KSP internal thing where rescalefactor = 1 is based on 1.25? That's the only thing I can figure. Anyway.) And the last block matches if a part lacks a defined scale, and sets that to 1. So for the parts in question, would not the first and third blocks fire, setting rescalefactor = 1.6 and scale = 1.0? I realize i'm entering the kracken's lair of KSP model scaling, but i'm just trying to get a handle on how it all works Thanks! EDIT: so, I fixed my procedural fairings hack up there, so disregard that... Also, what i've just noted is that although the models have not rescaled, the attach nodes have. I'm trawling through the plugin code now, but i'm becoming more certain that is where the issue is. I will report back soon... Soon: Yep, that was it. They do some clever gameplay trickery such that the built in RCS ports on the pod/nose cone are activated based on a tech tree limitation. If the tree requirements haven't been met, the ports are disabled, as well as their presence on the model itself. In sandbox mode the scaling bug does not occur. I will ask nicely over on their thread what might be able to be done in the code to account for crazies wanting to rescale their parts Thanks for your attention! (Although I probably will be back if I can't figure out what is going on with the procedural fairings... *grumble*)

It's the realchutes config for sure. I ended up removing it for realchute lite that FAR comes with, for this issue. I kept running into it a lot

Probably yes, otherwise madness will occur I suspect. @CobaltWolf good news is my semester is over til the new year, neutral news is I don't have much time today, but tomorrow is planned for a Ksp marathon. So... A lot of testing. I'll even revert to a vanilla install as well instead of kraken 64x madness for the full experience. Well. With KER and mechjeb. And some other non part mods I'm sure I forget. Mostly vanilla, enough for proper testing. Looking forward to it! edit, damn auto correct. editedit, interesting forum auto correct as well... Lol.

The sideways parachute is a thing, yes, but it works correctly otherwise. About the drag issue I was having, it just did it to me on another capsule entirely, so it was unfair of me to lay blame at the foot of your pod. Granted, i'm not sure what is causing it yet, but I was having no other issue with the Mercury, aside from having a lot of fun!

This is an odd one; I'm testing the mercury capsule, no problems thus far, but for FAR, perhaps , no pun intended. On reentry, an odd thing occurs. After the bulk of reentry has completed, ie, the fire's out, etc, the pod begins to experience an acceleration downward. By that I mean I stop loosing speed at about mach 1.5 or so. Hitting F12 for the aero overlay shows a pair of opposing vectors canceling each other out in the fore and aft directions. Has anyone else seen this behavior before? EDIT: Yea. Just had it again. Popped up for a moment, went away, then popped back up to stay... pulled the chutes, and i'm glad they apparently make the cords out of spider silk now, because they held a 59 g deployment somehow... Jeb is a little... Shorter, I think. But, happy as ever. Also, the heatshield fits a treat on the capsule, but is it intended that the capsule itself include ablator as a resource? They have 300 + 150 units currently. No major hiccups otherwise, despite my horrendous environment the rockets are being subjected to. (6.4x + romini.cfg. It's a WIP itself, but it works surprisingly well on the whole. Atlas + Mercury has just over exactly enough dV to hit orbit in this mode. Now to just get a RT network up and running... ^^ ) Oh, @VenomousRequiem: The RP work is fantastic, just a small feedback on one of the WIP ones: The lunar orbiter... Engine pack. The small one with the built in RCS, the exhaust currently seems to exit the base of the engine, and not the bell. It's a minor thing, buttt... And I maybe blind, but was the mercury retrorocket exhaust going? I was a little busy flying at that point to notice unfortunately >< , NOPE, blind, the retrorocket is working fine. Nvm!

Ahoy! I come bearing numbers! Lets see if I can spoiler this such that it doesn't eat the thread... Hmm. In any case, i'm not certain how to interpret these numbers entirely. The larger boosters seem a bit more... sane? I'm not sure what the function of the smaller boosters is, aside from the explorer model. Anyway, thanks for any feedback you might have. If the numbers are legit, I will design around that. (I'll design around that regardless, as i'm not sure what numbers to poke at in the cfg ) EDIT an addendum, with 1 1/2 questions: Any idea what might cause a part to fail to rescale in the editor/in general? The backseat from MOLE seems to retain its 1.25/1.875 m sizing following reconfiguration. The 1/2 part of the question is MM reporting 4 errors applying romini.cfg. Any idea where it might have logged the issue, or do I dive into player.log and pray? Thanks! Additional edit: The four errors appear to be SRB related. Details after the cut below... At the hour of 11:30 PM as it is now, I think I will let this rest a while and come back to it fresh... Friday or so, most likely

First off, the new parts are looking super shiny. Thumbs up for sure! Regarding the release schedule, I would say that it should be done when it's done. I'm pretty patient about these things. Personally, I wouldn't want you to try and shove out something before its done in order to hit a target. Whenever the vacation comes, I will try to sit down to mull over potential name suggestions. But yeah; I'm liking the new parts a lot. They're being rung through the ringer on a 6.4x play through at the moment. When I get it a little more settled down, i'll start taking screenshots. At the moment things are a bit... Experimental

I will certainly check when I get home later, and post some numbers. The base thrust increase might be all that is amiss, I had them set to 100% still. EDIT: @CorvusCorax, no, they were just some normal SRBs. I haven't gone full bore PP yet, as 6.4x is a decent compromise between kerbal parts and requisite min/maxed performance, at least so far. On an unrelated note, I also peeled the resizing/tech tree changes for Procedural Fairings out of RP-0 for my own playthrough. Would it be worthwhile to clean that up and patch it in to RO-mini.cfg? I know pull requests are always/often welcome

Aside from that, the only other 45 degree RCS I know is from HGR. They're not exactly like the stock though, they've a flat design. The diamonds I figured were there to tell them apart from the .... 90 degree, I guess we'll say. Good luck!

Hey-o all! How's everyone? I am hoping this is the right place to enquire about the ro-mini.cfg that is floating around. I decided to pick it up for a run through on 6.4x, and thus far i'm having a blast. My enquiry though is about SRB's; they too are having a blast. A big blast. Such as 20:1 TWR and the like. I am unfortunately away from my KSP machine for exact numbers, but I was blown away by a staging accident, when a 'small' solid retro thruster fired on the pad, and sent the capsule on a nice 4 km arc. Gave Jeb a nice 15g pulse or so as well. (He of course had a ball.) I had a look through the cfg, but it all seemed in order. The density and quantity of the solid fuel seemed alright, as did the corresponding thrust increase, but... well. I don't know if it's intended or not, that fun TWR. The rest of the cfg is working marvelously, so i'm very happy in that respect. Thanks all, and sorry for the puns, inadvertent or otherwise!

Check RLA stockalike. I don't know if they 'reuse' textures, but they're pretty much exactly what you are looking for.

The ro-mini.cfg is simple to install as well. If you have modulemanager, almost certainly you already do if you have a mod at all already; from the linked page, there is a "raw" button near the top: just download the file, make sure it ends in .cfg, and place it in your GameData folder somewhere. The end! I keep a "Tweaks" folder for standalone mm configs. It ought to apply and go from there. I wouldn't try to run both at once... The results would be... Unpredictable at best. "RELEASE ZEE KRAKEN!" At worst. Hmm. That sounds like fun...

Google is friendly... http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/117992-10x-smurff-simple-mass-adjustments-for-real-ish-fuel-mass-fractions-113-2015-dec-07/ https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/blob/master/ROMini.cfg ok? Edit: doh, sniped! More wittily at that! lol@nathen as well!

For engines, and simplicity, I think you want either SMURFF, or ROMINI. I've only attempted SMURFF, and it handles the going up part great, but as always it's the coming down part that sucks hopefully I will have a chance to try ROMINI in the near future.

For the kerbal fatigue thing, there is KeepFit, which works pretty well. My only beef with it is the need to configure each crewed capsule individually due to different levels of volume/comfort for each. If it weren't for that, it'd be an instant include in my mod loadout. But, it might be worth looking at regardless!

Hey now. Just cause Val is, ahem, MIA, doesn't detract any from the plethora of goodies the ole naught point five brought us. I never said I wasn't having fun I also think Trajectories, while not explicitly lying to me, mislead my reentry corridor a bit... It's fun having the reentry tiger by the tail, honestly. I have this feeling both of you know the tipping point well, where you start to garner as much fun poking at your gamedata folder as you do playing the game, I'm right on the edge as well, having a blast (awesomeness modifier 0.5) personally. Thanks to both for your creations!

Rutabaga? Turnip?... Not quite sexy enough though. Maybe as a subtitle. (Acronym?) Hmm. Parsnip? Daikon would be perfect if it hadn't have been used already >< itd be funny though; it'd be the third part I've "named" in a mod, and the second vegetable, doh! A 1.5 m craft makes total sense, ignore my pondering on decouplers in that case. At one point I remember FAR threw fits at parts with more than one node, but I don't know if nuFAR with its voxel-y goodness still does. KARROT... Kerbaled Active Rendezvous and Rescue Orbital Transport? ... I'm not so good at acronyms, apparently,

I'm not in front of my screen at the moment, but often if its configurable, there will be a .cfg file in the mod folder... Plugindata sometimes? You might check there to see if it's defined... Otherwise, hm, a dev might be able to help more.

Two things come to mind, both based on the same nugget of thought: how hard is the technique of having multiple attach nodes? The nugget will be clear in a moment, but perhaps the heatshield could have a 1.875 m snap + "skirt", as well as a 2.5 m snap + skirt, for those of different opinion on launch vehicles. (I ask after the difficulty, because I hate requesting extravagant features ) nugget #2 wonders if it could adopt a vegetarian name as long as it's not seen as too derivative, but as a fitting tribute. Just one Kerbalnauts opinion ^^ (and yeah, this editor sucks on iOS: it manages to break the new cursor mechanism they've added, even )

Everything seems legit with this version to me. (Finally got time to try it out!) How have your reentries gone, if I might ask? My first suborbital hop reminded me that heatshields = a good idea, but following that, it was still a little rocky. Ablator was fine still, but the pod was a little red... + overtemp bars appearing, heh. I'm going to play around with my options to find the best fit, I just wanted to say thanks for putting this together though. It's a fine piece of MM, although some of it makes me at the same time!

I. Uh. Don't know. I thought it was too. The code looks like this currently: @PART[bluedog_explorerprobe]:NEEDS[RemoteTech] //Sienno Probe Core { %MODULE[ModuleSPU] {} %MODULE[ModuleRTAntennaPassive] { %TechRequired = unmannedTech %OmniRange = 300000 %TRANSMITTER { %PacketInterval = 0.3 %PacketSize = 2 %PacketResourceCost = 15.0 } } !MODULE[ModuleDataTransmitter] {} @MODULE[ModuleAnimateGeneric] { %allowManualControl = false } %TechRequired = start %MODULE[ModuleRTAntenna] { %Mode0OmniRange = 0 %Mode1OmniRange = 1500000 %EnergyCost = 0.15 %MaxQ = 6000 %DeployFxModules = 0 %TRANSMITTER { %PacketInterval = 0.3 %PacketSize = 2 %PacketResourceCost = 15.0 } } } It's the first TechRequired that counts, apparently. I think the second TechRequired applies to the whole part(?) if I can read MM-ese correctly. Changing that first one to = start seems to have adjusted it. I looked at the config in an old download and its the same... So I must have adjusted that myself at some point and forgotten about it. (Twice in two days, doh!) Or my MM is insane. That's happened too. RE: Agena: I'm not certain of my feedback. It's a little hard to picture, but what i'd say is that ... as for the OMS packages, your solution sounds like it would work well. More options is generally better, within reason. So we'd have... ENGINE--0.9375|1.25 tank--1.25 tank(s)--payload? With the OMS radially mounted to the adapter tank? Fairings?... There is the USI sounding rockets idea, where there are floating nodes to hook fairing halves onto... but that's still kinda clunky. I think FASA did that as well? I never used their fairings. I went looking for Agena pictures... but there aren't a whole lot, are there? Although this came up... One man space station they called it. As for the pods, looking good! I understand about the IVAs. Probe IVAs tend to be dark and boring, besides

I really enjoy the mod, but I had a potentially simple question: At some past point, the Kerbal Alarm Clock integration was able to be set delete on close the alarms set by KCT. At the current moment, i'm not able to see any setting that seems to apply in either option menu... That is to say, I have to click the delete on close radio button on each alert. This is a very minor thing, but I wondered if I am missing something obvious. (Probably! Or, i'm crazy and imagined the past behavior. One or the other...) The other more general question I had, is is there a particular set of settings (awkward sentence...) that people use for 6.4x sized KSP? I know that RO ships their own (I think?), but that seems like it might be too ... RO for a 6.4x world. That said, i'm not sure what i'd adjust either, so that was why I wondered if anyone had any feedback. Thanks!

Showerthought for a moment... The explorer probe core + remotetech (My preferred masochism, but I digress): the built in omni is a nice feature, but apparently i'd thought it enabled from the start node. I just updated/reinstalled my addon folder, and went to launch a probe... right into the ground! >< Apparently i'd made this tweak myself at some point and forgot about it, but I wondered... What would your guys' thoughts be on adjusting the tech requirement ? It is a advantage I think to be able to launch an unmanned craft near the start, but a disadvantage to need half the tree unlocked to use the short range omni. Or, am I just remoteteching wrong? it wouldn't be the first time >< Cheers