komodo

Looking good, those parts! I would say I can't wait, but I can, cause... finals. Blah. I understand entirely.

This is a welcome development. Thank you for your hard work. I agree you need a breather and that the forums need some work. Please have good luck in balancing priorities. (Aka, remember: Health > all else in life)

I feel compelled to throw in my 2 cents to avoid the silent majority syndrome: I agree with much of what has been said here. I was just required to change my password in order to reply to this topic, as well. (AKA, not the biggest deal, but yet another hassle) The following may be opinion, but the final three points are hopefully objective as well. Thank you for reading in advance. Ok, here we go. UGH. Overall, this doesn't seem like an upgrade at all. Not when features are lost with no appreciable replacement. I reserve my opinion on the style, although I rather liked the old one, honestly. (Don't they make forum skins anymore? Last time I was involved in forum admin... oh god, was 2002, that's a scary thought... But, we had such options then. They've lost that in the last 13 years?) If there was something amiss with the old forums, I would very much like to know what that is. I am an avid reader, and knew of this upgrade, but i've not seen it conveyed what exactly the issue was with the prior system except perhaps change for changes sake. WYSIWYG is a mess. It auto hyphenated my above paragraph. NO. noononono. That just means that its a symptom of my not being able to resize this window (another problem), but implies that everyone will see the same sized post width, etc. Now, I know this can't be true. So many devices... Why is it trying to "Help"? I detest computer help. I wish them to aid me in conveying what I wish to express, without interjecting their opinion on what that might be. See, my 'nonono...' is red underlined. That's ok. But, when things like autocorrect come into the picture, then its time to consider defenestrating the computer, honestly. I would like BBCode back. I know this is 'impossible'. My reply to that violates the rules... Broken links are a DISASTER. See above for potential replies... While I didn't use the subscription feature, reading through these pages that many people did and had their lists destroyed after assurances that they would be maintained is HORRIBLE. This is complete disregard for the user; you know, the customer? I agree entirely with the poster some pages back, that the best solution should have been (and still is) import the user database (And judging from my password reset, that even didn't go right...) and bring the old forums back online read-only in order to transition properly and sanely to the new system. TL;DR: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. --> Don't break it more while fixing it.

[quote name='Foxxonius Augustus']Having recently seen a bug report relating to the Remote Tech config files I realized I should dive back in and see if I missed anything else. The last update brought a Luna-9 clone in the form of the Crater Cu-7FM Control Unit. Now I love wacky old soviet probes as much as (or more than) the next guy, but this thing presents a problem. KSP does not really account for having a craft do things when you cant directly control a craft (i.e. Internal logic or guidance/Spring-loaded antenna on a timer) and Remote Tech doesn't (to my knowledge) work with control groups, just attitude and throttle. As much as I try and avoid creating dependencies of any kind I considered if you could make it work with Smart Parts or kOS, short answer no. A longer answer is that the probe is to small to clip anything into and you can't surface attach anything to it anyway. My somewhat unsatisfying solution is to add this to the bottom of the _Extra_RemoteTechControl file. [Code] @PART[Crater_Control]:NEEDS[RemoteTech] { %MODULE[ModuleSPU] {} %MODULE[ModuleRTAntennaPassive] { %TechRequired = unmannedTech %IsRTActive = true %OmniRange = 12000000 %TRANSMITTER { %PacketInterval = 0.3 %PacketSize = 2 %PacketResourceCost = 15.0 } } } [/Code] This means the antenna is always on, regardless of whether the "petals" are deployed or not. You can still extend and retract the antenna manually or with a control group but it will just be cosmetic. The other problem is that there is just no good way to balance it RT wise. I may take another crack at balancing it at some point (set a minimum range to reduce utility maybe?) but I just cant see another way to do it.[/QUOTE] RT does work with action groups, as far as I know. It is just really really unobvious. In the flight computer, it in fact takes most any input. If you queue up say a 5 minute delay, and hit action group '3', as in the key 3, it ought to fire (in five minutes). I will leave the opinion of clunkiness up to the reader >< EDIT to add, a TY for futzing up the RT configs in the first place, I find they are a great addition to the game, if you're a RT sort of person...

Hey-o! Bug report! But, Configs corrected as well! The _Extra_RemoteTechControl.cfg is missing the entries for the newer "Small" necks for the Salyut/Mir; (Vega_Crew_E/F) The remote tech lines are missing, to match Vega_Crew_C. I assume they are just ... whats the word... reconfigured sizewise on the nose from the model C, and should have the same capabilities otherwise. So! Code! This went in the _Extra_RemoteTechControl.cfg right under the first block for the Vega_C. [CODE]@PART[Vega_Crew_E]:NEEDS[RemoteTech] { %MODULE[ModuleSPU] {} %MODULE[ModuleRTAntennaPassive] { %TechRequired = unmannedTech %OmniRange = 3000 %TRANSMITTER { %PacketInterval = 0.3 %PacketSize = 2 %PacketResourceCost = 15.0 } } } @PART[Vega_Crew_F]:NEEDS[RemoteTech] { %MODULE[ModuleSPU] {} %MODULE[ModuleRTAntennaPassive] { %TechRequired = unmannedTech %OmniRange = 3000 %TRANSMITTER { %PacketInterval = 0.3 %PacketSize = 2 %PacketResourceCost = 15.0 } } }[/CODE] Hope that's of use, at least as far as copypasta goes :)

I believe what is being said is that the needed tools will come in 1.1 (?), and until then it is not practical/possible for such to be done? I would humbly just request that the placeholder IVA be used until such time. I like to see the joyterrornononoyes! on their faces as things go... *ahem*... Kerbal.

[quote name='Stone Blue']I added this .cfg, and its being skipped during loading. Its actually the 3rd line in my KSP.log: [B][WRN 03:52:56.663] Config in file 'F:\KSP\Windows\KSP v1.0.5\KSP_win\GameData\OLDD\DockingCam\Docking Camera KURS All Docking Ports.cfg' contains an unnamed node. Skipping.[/B] (and yes, I've installed OLDD to /Gamedata...)[/QUOTE] I'll check my log, but with that 'same' patch, it does apply the camera to the rest of my docking ports. I'm not doubting you, but did it still work in game? Unity is... cryptic when reading their logs sometimes :(

While I haven't noticed an issue with the stock decouplers (*dodges flying tomatos*), I was curious about the KIS balancing. The pods have a variety of space allocated to them, which is a boon, but the size allocated seems a bit arbitrary; everything seems to clock in at about 1000 L. While nice, it seems... off. I just started trying out KIS, and thus just noticed it. Does anyone have a sense of what might be a 'realistic'/balanced volume for the pods? Thanks!

This is quite fun! I wish though there was a more... Expansive method? of supporting mod crew parts. I'm not certain I can think of a decent way to do it procedurally though. I will try to think it over and see if I can offer a thought later on.

I like the tiles; I haven't seen this one before/in a while if I have, it looks pretty sharp!

This sounds fun. I'll have to give it a shot, as soon as I can make a plane that doesn't kerPLOW on takeoff >< For what its worth, from my past life as a pilot, the counterintuitive method of control on landing of "Pitch for Speed, Throttle for Rate of Decent" is exactly how its done in 'reality'. With a bit of extra thought, it is realized that the two are intractably linked; If I'm approaching with too much speed, I pitch up a bit. Then i'm descending too slowly perhaps. Less throttle. Ok, now attitude and rate are good. Adjust as needed :D The 'intuitive' way invariably ends up: Descending too fast. Less throttle. Descending faster now. Uhoh--. Yeah... PIO. Pilot Induced Oscillation. Not fun ><

[quote name='Rodger']Well it was the tech trees, I changed the PF configs to use the tech nodes from OpenTree and now it works. Though OpenTree does auto-reassign stuff set to vanilla nodes. I guess it just didn't work with the extra checks PF does for unlocking the different sizes... But a question relating to the interstage fairing, the 'parts shielded' reading in the VAB doesn't ever seem to say it's protecting any parts when I use it, no matter how I use it. Is it still going to work, with stock areo? Same thing happens with dual regular fairings facing each other too. And on the topic of the interstage fairing, the only way I can think of actually using it is upside-down, so there's actually a node to attach the stuff it's shielding. If you use it un-rotated, attaching it's top node to the next stage doesn't leave a node to attach stuff to other than the top of the base, which gets detached when the fairings decouple... Am I missing something? lol[/QUOTE] I think the interstage is for Apollo style cargos whereby you swing around to grab it once its been decoupled. I haven't used it in a while though, so i'm not sure if the cargo stays attached to the decoupled stage or not. I seem to remember it doing so, as having to install a stack separator atop the interstage comes to mind.

[quote name='MeCripp']Made this little MM to add this mod to all docking ports [code]@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDockingNode],!MODULE[DockingCameraModule]]:Final { MODULE { name = DockingCameraModule allowedDistance = 1000 nightVisionArgs = 0.5,0.7,0.5,0.5 targetCrossColor = 0.9,0.0,0.0,1.0 targetCrossColorOLDD = 0.0,0.0,0.9,1.0 noise = true } } [/code] [COLOR="silver"][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR] Had the same problem then seen the path so check it the install path should be KSP/GameData/OLDD[/QUOTE] d'oh! Sniped! I just "wrote" that patch as well, less the :Final. This was bugging me too. Enjoying the mod all the same, adds a good deal of immersion!

Ooh. This looks fun. I've been meaning to roll my sleeves up and dive back into 6.4x for a bit now... This will certainly help. Looks good, from what i've seen! Thanks for all the [S]fish[/S] work! Perhaps a madness inducing question: Is there a way to MM a MM patch? I wonder if it might be worth it (probably = not) to tweak the tweaked values for 6.4x... Hrm... (Worth it for me, I mean. Not asking for further custom work!)

I wonder; (By that I mean, i'll try it when I get a chance.) Is it possible to mount/unmount the experiment modules using KIS and store them in an appropriately sized container? My old method used tantares with a experiment module mounted between the decent module and the service module, with a heat shield slapped on the bottom. Two current problems with this that worry me is that the reentry/landing in the new regime may be... entertaining, with this configuration. The other, using Kerbal Construction Time, it can get a bit crazy to keep "changing" the design of a proven launch vehicle, time wise. Has anyone tried the KIS thing? I will when I get a chance and report back.

No problem, thanks for the opportunity to give some feedback! I understand on your points, and agree with them. I haven't done a hard mode career yet, although that's a good idea... I hadn't thought of getting ****ed off at buying a wrong-size decoupler before. That's an excellent point. RF, I agree is a rat nest of balancing. I've backed away from it for the time being for that reason. Thanks for the detailed response! Incidentally, I figured out what I was doing wrong with the Centaur re 2.5 m payloads not long after I hit submit. D'oh!

Real Life, Again, I feel you. I should either be sleeping or doing retrosynthetic analysis at the moment... Instead... Wellllll. Philosophizing on KSP addons seems to be the order of the day >< No award needed, nor a rush. I recommend sleep for both of us first!

[quote name='VenomousRequiem'][I][SIZE=2]Hey, everyone. [/SIZE][/I] What kind of mod compatibility do you all want to see with this mod?[/QUOTE] How'd'ya mean? I mean by that... do you have an example? I'm scrolling down the Addon Releases page looking for potential suspects, but i'm coming up short a bit... The following is a random collection of thoughts that are floating about. They may or may not make sense. All of them are intended in a tone of praise for your awesome work. Mod compatibility: I entirely appreciate that the antennas you've built have RT configs. It seems those are made of unobtainium at times... Incidentally, I also appreciate a lot that the Sienno built in omni is active from the start node; why RT devs picked such a deep node for that always on perk, I don't know... poorly documented too.. Ahh, I digress. --- Perhaps Mechjeb/KER builtins for the probe core(s)? --- On a similar note, there are a significant amount of AntennaRange users, I suspect. I don't know how much effort that would take to re-antenna all of the ones here, though. (Plus with 1.1 coming up... eeeek.) --- Perhaps more structural adapters to go from size-to-size? I was scratching my head trying to figure out how to load a 2.5 m payload on the Centaur. I may not have all the parts unlocked, though. I have a serious addiction for odd diameter parts it seems. (HGR came out, I was all over that thing. :D ) Lately, these tiny parts have been... well, a blast, lets say. I mention this because having a lot of lego like pieces is half the fun of KSP to me, and your guys' parts are very flexible in how they go together with themselves + others. Boosting that flexibility would go a long way to mod compatibility right there, without any particular target in mind. --- I'm not using realfuels at the moment, but that's the one that pops to mind when dealing with an engine/tank pack. --- Life support doesn't really pop up as there are no pods here. Science parts already tie into DMagic's, FASA, somewhat. I'm not certain who else is having a lot of science-y things to tie into. If a telescope ever happens, Cacteye would be something to look into. Science parts are generally good in my eye. (Besides: Where else are you going to find an accurate mass spec? :D ) --- Generally, I like the attention to detail paid to the parts, descriptions, prices, etc. It adds a lot of flavor, which is rather important/gets over looked a lot of the time, I think. --- But mod compatibility... Hmmmm. Procedural Fairings, perhaps? Textures/Fairing Shapes/Bases? Its been a crazy week, perhaps my brain is borked as far as thinking goes :p EDIT to say that the following two points are not on topic at all, but i'll leave them as thought fodder; neither is expected to be taken seriously. Pie in the Sky, no pun intended, would be a set of lightweight engines/thrusters for [URL="http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/61294-1-0-XT-Landertron-Smart-Retrorockets-for-Landers-and-Spaceplanes-v0-08-Oct-10"]Landertron[/URL] ? I've always thought them very Kerbal/A perfect companion for probes/remotetech when diving at the surface of a faraway land. Only problem would be not so much compatibility as dependency :( --- I also have an idea, which you may or may not render into a plan to throw a shoe at me, butttt... One thing i've often thought missing from the addon spectrum was a stock-a-like Apollo SM engine. I've never seen one, at least. KW came close, but that... Well. KW. (RLA has a monoprop engine which is close... perhaps I just ought to reconfigure that critter. Hmm...) I'm enjoying the work thus far, *a lot*. Also, Radish-a-like, it may be my favorite pod. It just seemed to 'fit', you know? Now, off to play with the new hot off the dev press goodies! EDIT: GAH, these little windows belay how long posts get >< :blush::blush::blush::blush:

Thanks for the overhaul; I've missed this guy :D I wonder, does anyone have the ancient version, with the temporary welded parts still? Oddly enough, I rather liked them... I wasn't able to find them in my old downloads, although it just occurs to me to check my laptop. It used to have enough "go" for Ksp, modded even! ( dem were the days, heh) Thanks again!

I hadn't noticed it performance wise (Don't shoot me) but just as a matter of course, habit from running on OS X to have a tail -f log running on second screen, to see when its going to crash. I haven't seen this one before though, and its on linux x64 besides. It has to be an addon, but i've not had a chance to run down which one. I'm not at home at the moment, but i'll try to upload a list next time i'm able. (Plus the log, for that matter). Perhaps we can determine between us what common mod might be amiss.

I'm getting this exact exception, but an entirely stock system. No Kopernicus. Google suggests perhaps KCT as the culprit, but this is just a supposition. Would you believe you have the exact same error and no one else? Any ideas would be rad, thanks!

[quote name='CobaltWolf']*cracks knuckles* one Ablestar, textured and in game, coming right up... assuming I survive the first week of final project submissions. T.T[/QUOTE] No, no rush. I commiserate. Just spent the last two weeks figuring out what the next 4-5 years of school is to be... :confused:

Looking Good! I'm appreciating this mod more and more with each launch!

Away from the computer at the moment, so logs are inaccessible ( ) but I noticed something of potential use: I was able to transmit science very well, as long as I was using the technology perk antenna: as soon as I got out of range of it, I was no longer able to. (No comms device available, etc) When I'm able, I'll try to get some logs, but Ksp time lately has been... Sporadic. Cheers!

Just wanted to say thank you for this mod. There're a few mods out there that pass the jaw-drop test, but this is certainly one of them. Thank you again!