DavidHunter

Oh. Nice. lol Thanks!

Ah, I wish CKAN worked on Mac. I have to manually type my list. :'( Anyway, we have the following mods in common: DMagicOrbitalScience FerramAerospaceResearch ModularFlightIntegrator KerbalAlarmClock KerbalEngineerRedux KAS KIS KSP-AVC SCANsat InfernalRobotics RemoteTech Toolbar ContractConfigurator CommunityResourcePack UniversalStorage CommunityTechTree RCSBuildAid DockingPortAlignmentIndicator ...so quite a few. Screw it, I'll just try and fault it again and get some logs. lol

Hmm, good to know I'm not the only one. And yeah, it's probably been happening for me since 1.0, too; it has been an issue for a while, I just never bothered complaining as I could always load a quicksave... Out of interest, what mods do you have installed? Maybe we have one in common, and that's conflicting with RT. I've got 77 mods installed; it may be quicker for you to list what mods you have, rather than me to do so (let me know if that's not the case and I'll start typing up my list... )

Thanks; I'll try to get you some logs.

Howdy. I'm still running KSP v1.1.3 and RT v1.7.1. Not all the time, but perhaps a quarter of the time, the RT FC over-does any burns, e.g. if it's a 150m/s burn, it'll do the burn, slowly throttle down like normal when it is getting close to finishing the burn, but then it randomly goes full throttle, the FC becomes unresponsive, and the engines keep firing until the rocket is out of fuel. This happens with stock parts and with spacecraft with parts from various mods (I haven't found a pattern over the last few months...). I don't have any logs at the moment because I accidentally re-opened KSP without thinking (facepalm). Is this a known issue? If so, has it been fixed in RT v1.8? If so, then I won't bother trying to replicate the error... I can't see any mention of it in the change log but just wanted to ask before I bother trying to get a log file for you... Thanks in advance.

Ah right, thanks for the info. I know. This was a joke based on earlier conversation (on page 8 of this thread).

Nicely done. Might I make a suggestion, though? Use the Trajectories mod to make your boost-back burn more precise. Then instead of using MJ's "land at target" button, use the "land somewhere" button. That way, it'll do a powered landing and it'll be more precise (MJ's landing site predictions aren't as precise as Trajectories' is, sadly). This will help you avoid boosters that should be on land but want to be on the ASDS instead. Using Trajectories, I am able to get very precise landings (within 100m). Here is my F9 S1 landing back very close to the launch pad after lobbing the JWST into LKO. https://www.dropbox.com/s/povuqe1w8tc0zsb/screenshot2932.png?dl=0 I have tried, but can't get it any closer than that using MJ's landing autopilot and Trajectories. Well... actually, I managed to accidentally land right up against the Astronaut Complex once...: https://www.dropbox.com/s/tuvpsr8nfwzdtv3/screenshot2988.png?dl=0 That particular launch was to the west, rather than the east, and I hadn't compensated enough for Kerbin's rotation when doing my boost-back burn. Derp. By the way, how are you guys getting images inside your posts? I can't find any mechanism in the reply form to allow that...

Does this mean we'll also see Raptor engines and some sort of tools for H2O and CO2 extraction and conversion to CH4 and O2 for use on Duna?

Understandable, but I figured it was worth asking anyway. Yay!

So... seeing as The Elon has tweeted some specs about Raptor, any chance of incorporating a Raptor engine into your mod please, @svendii? (I realise it doesn't exactly fall within the realm of reusability, but adding it would be great, please, but I understand if you'd rather not) Relevant tweets: 2h2 hours ago 2h2 hours ago 2h2 hours ago 1h1 hour ago 55m55 minutes ago Engine nozzle of 14ft diameter: 35m35 minutes ago

Any news on this bug, @Claw?

Ohhhhh I see what you mean, having the fairings still attached to the upper stage. I understand now.

Thanks. Let me know if you need any further data. I haven't opened KSP since encountering this problem so my save game state is in the exact same state it was in before.

That still doesn't make sense. Last I heard, there are no engines inside a fairing post-deployment... :S

"1. In one part: The two halves separate, rotate back and close to protect the engine." Sorry, I'm confused. What engines would be within a fairing? Do you mean the fairing base and two fairing halves would be one part, with the fairing halves splitting and opening like doors with a hinge near the fairing base, and then closing up again like doors after payload deploy? "2. Have multiple parts: A fairing base and the two halves as separate objects. RCS, batteries, probe core and parachutes can be attached to it. Not sure who has the patience to land two fairing parts but why not." This is more in line with what I was thinking... Although personally I'd prefer to see all the parts needed for recovery being part of the single fairing part. i.e. have the fairing part have a probe core, batteries, parachute, and RemoteTech antenna ( ) coded into the part. Ditto RCS tanks and thrusters. You don't necessarily need to make a special texture for it (although it would be better...). By having the needed parts all in the one fairing part, you may be able to make the fairings procedural... "Not sure who has the patience to land two fairing parts but why not." Hey, I'm landing used boosters... why not fairings? Oh, here's a thought. I could attach one of your grid-fins to the inside of the fairing shells and see if they can be steered all the way back to KSC.... haha.

Sorry, I'm not exactly sure what you mean. Do you mean FAR could be causing the issue, or do you mean it may be able to fix the issue? If you mean FAR might fix the issue, I can confirm that it cannot - I haven't played Kerbal without FAR installed for several years...

@Claw, has there been any news about a fix for this issue by any chance? Thanks.

Haha. I knew you wouldn't be able to resist my earlier suggestion.

Looks nice. Very nice. Can the SuperDracos vector their thrust? I can't wait to get my hands on these.

haha, I honestly wasn't expecting you to do the reusable fairings. That'd be crazy-hard. Hence why I haven't done it myself. The above looks interesting. Although perhaps you could make a fuel tank that's cone-shaped but with a flat top, and have the Super Dracos built into the fuel tank. Have the top of the tank the same diameter as the bottom of the Mk2 capsule you have there. Then have the heatshield with legs under the fuel tank. (otherwise you have a capsule with fuel in it but no obvious volume increase) That way, you could also recess the Super Dracos into the side of the fuel tank (and have it all as one part) rather than having them hang off the side, as you have done in the above (which is problematic for Deadly Reentry reasons...). Just some thoughts. Looks good so far!

Ok, here's my persistent.sfs file, here's my quicksave.sfs file, player.log file, and KSP.log file. My experience varies from what @Greenfire32 is having... (side note: my craft don't have wheels on them.) Just last night, I was flying past the Mun on the way back from some other mission, and a contract popped up to plant a flag on the Mun, so I figured I'd accept the contract and do it with the returning vehicle. Of course, this meant that I had to build and send an actual lander to dock with the returning spacecraft so that the spacecraft actually could land on the Mun (it only has a nuclear engine, so I needed engines with higher thrust...) Anyway, both the original spacecraft and the lander itself were both in stable Munar orbits. It's just once the two craft got close together (i.e. within a kilometre, I'm guessing) that the periapse of the lander itself began to decay. Interestingly, the original spacecraft (which was built and launched in v1.1.2) is having no issues whatsoever - its orbit isn't decaying at all. Having thought about it, this is also the first spacecraft I have built, launched, and sent to the Mun in 1.1.3. Would it be worthwhile testing to see if a new craft orbiting Minmus has the same problem? Thanks in advance for your help. Update: I quit and reloaded KSP. Interesting to note the orbits don't change in the tracking station - only when you're actually in control of the vessel. Also interesting - I had a probe in orbit around Duna. It has somehow managed to take itself out of Duna orbit and is now floating around interplanetary space... god only knows how that happened, because the orbit was definitely stable to begin with. I'm gonna downgrade to 1.1.2 for the moment...

I note that 'bewing' marked this as fixed 11 days ago, and then 'alexanderweiss' reported having the same issue in 1.1.3 ten days ago. I'm just commenting to note that I am also having this issue under 1.1.3, although it's far more pronounced in my experience (my 30x30km Munar orbit dropped to a 30x9km orbit in about two minutes!).

1. Hooray for FAR compatibility. 2. Reusable fairings would be nice, please. i.e. they'd need RCS on them, their own probe core, a small battery, and a parachute. Much like what SpaceX are developing. I wonder if you could write a plugin that would work with the Procedural Fairings mod? @e-dog, is it possible to allow a third-party mod to change the properties of your fairings? e.g. just have it change electric charge and monopropellant values, etc. I guess the player could then stick an RCS part onto the inside of the fairing themselves...

A supersonic ASDS. Only in Kerbal. :D

Tested it on the launch pad under v1.1.3. Seems to work great. (Didn't have time to actually launch and try to steer something; I'm at work and probably should be working...) Bravo on yet another set of great parts!