kerrigan778

It seems like Ven's Stock Revamp breaks this a bit, I don't know enough to know how to fix it. Thank you if anyone can help.

Any plans to make it so oxygen tanks can fail? Given the events of Apollo 13 it just seems wrong.

Also got to say it would be nice to know what caused something to fail. Like a message on the notification saying "x part has suffered catastrophic failure during operation due to an engineering mistake (low quality" or optionally with some sort of flavor message. Having a lot of probe failures during launch that sometimes feel pretty random and I'm not sure what's causing them.

Loving this mod, have two feature requests or suggestions if you care, (could be a single feature not sure), thank you regardless. 1. In real life you have manned rated and unmanned rated parts, they may not last any longer necessarily but they have a significantly lower chance of premature failure, they are built with more careful tolerances and higher safety factors and they are inspected more carefully. Something to this effect can be accomplished simply by not waiting as long for VI on basic probes but it would be nice if it were an some sort of selectable grade. 2. Along a similar vein, parts that are rated for re-use (somewhat already in there as you can have an engineer make repairs) as well as more importantly parts that will be designed to do exceptionally long missions autonomously ought to be able to be built to a much higher standard for longevity. Perhaps a selectable modifier that increases the part costs but makes them lose condition slower. Short version: A modifier for adjusting quality (likelihood of premature catastrophic failure) and longevity (ie, rate of condition deterioration through use (EDIT: Or I guess just a factor applied to MTBF maybe?)) of parts in exchange for higher or lower part cost. Thank you for listening to me ramble. This mod has already brought the game a nice jump towards how I always wanted it to be.

So I'd be happy to adjust a chunk of tank values and send a file your way but the trick is that with WBI Convertible Storage behaving how it seems to the adjusted value will show the dry tank value in the VAB for the part cost which would differ from stock parts. If you'd like me to send you an adjusted value list and call that an acceptable glitch let me know, I don't think I have the talent to figure out how to adjust the WBI Convertible Storage behavior or the game part cost display behavior though.

I'm chasing down a "bug" or balance issue depending on how you look at it, that's causing expensive fuel tanks. Not sure who needs to fix what but this is what seems to be happening. Stock fuel tanks are given a cost in the cfg that is automagically converted to give that cost with the fuel in the tank. For example the X200-32 has a part cost of 3000 which includes the fuel in it, it has a dry cost of ~1500 funds. However parts that use WBI Convertible Storage do not appear to use this rule and therefore their display and cfg part cost only applies to their dry cost. This produces a situation for example where the much smaller Titan-1800 tank has a dry cost of 2000, which if it was a total value would make sense but as a dry value is quite high and leads to a SRB constructed with those tanks being insignificantly cheaper than a liquid fuel rocket because the tank is so expensive compared to the propellant. Don't know if this is the right place to post this but you made the part I figured it out on so I started here. Thanks.

I loved this mod, I don't suppose it would work with Galileo's Planet Pack so I can use it in my current playthrough? I'm assuming that would require someone to create custom resource maps? Or is something built into the community resource pack somehow?

I don't mind cutting both but the rangemultiplier config as I understand it will also reduce all antenna ranges not just the interaction between weak antennas and powerful antennas which is a problem as you need the very powerful antennas to be able to still work with each other. As you said though exposing both limits in a config file would be the perfect solution for me to fine tune my gameplay. For now I got the JX2Antenna from Snark and set the rangemultiplier to .8 on a 3.2x scale Galileo system so that two of those antennas can communicate between Home and the outermost planets but there's still some challenge in creating a network within the Gael system. Even now though I have a simple low tech relay and it's enough that a DP-10 in low orbit can communicate with Geosynchronous orbit if the positions are close to ideal which in my opinion is not ideal for gameplay. Again, my understanding being that if I simply decreased the RangeMultiplier further from 0.8 then I would no longer be able to communicate remotely with the outermost planets without intermediary relays even with 2.5 meter antennas on both sides and line of sight. TL;DR Currently it feels like root antenna range calculation means that having a proper interplanetary comm relay in orbit of a planet makes communication throughout the entire planetary system completely trivial rather than varying degrees of easier, depending on how advanced your relay is. Hopefully that explains what I'm looking for or asking, thanks for listening and making great mods.

Any way to change the limits on the root range model, I am both bothered that pointing a strong dish at an omnidirectional antenna won't change the minimum range of the omni but also do not want a DP-10 to be able to handle anything in the Kerbin system just because I have a half decent listening array. Maybe just limit it to 3-10 times the base omni range instead of 100 or something. Is this handled in a config file or could it be? Thank you for all the work on RemoteTech, I love this mod.

Wow, yeah if that was being actively developed that would just about be my perfect setup for that. Thank you I'll keep an eye on it.

So I love the idea of this mod, I wonder if a future feature could be possible where similar to how Kerbal Construction Time makes parts build faster and more cheaply as you make that part more times this mod could make parts more reliable the more times you use them, especially if you have a failure. Personally I would even get a huge kick out of having to expend resources to study why a part failed to be able to correct the flaw in that part therefore cutting the chance of that part failing again dramatically.

Will this mod work with mods that change the solar system and therefore have totally different biomes? ie Galileo's Planet Pack, RSS, Alternis Kerbol etc... Thank you, love this mod, just hoping I can use it with my current modset.

He was hired by SQUAD a ways back, he kept doing modding work while working there. He then was one of the mass exodus of basically the entire KSP development team after 1.2 came out who all quit SQUAD. He has been on the forums a couple of times since to check on things, I assume he is busy with life. Many mods that were used by RO have either been abandoned or are not ready for stable 1.2 releases yet (1.2 changed a lot and therefore broke mod compatibility a lot), a lot of talented people are still working on getting things back together though but certainly KSP has had a somewhat uncertain future since the mass dev walkout. I am just a lowly fan who appreciates the work of everyone who has made KSP my favorite game so take everything I say with a grain of salt.

This mod desperately needs a limit on deviation from prograde ie AoA, I'm running 64K with FAR and the mod effectively does not work as it will try to correct the heading too far and stall the rocket out causing it to flip and tear itself apart under aerodynamic stress. Maybe stick that in as a parameter and have it check Max Q value and adjust to prevent Max Q from getting too high? May or may not be that easy in FAR though as the control surfaces could stall and go past the point of no return while the aerodynamic stress is still relatively low. But regardless, a limit on AoA would solve it. And that's before we get into what happens when the boosters drop off and only the sustainers are left. Fortunately that tends to happen at high enough altitudes to not be catastrophic XD EDIT: It appears the mod also doesn't read FAR's dynamic pressure value for purposes of fairing release, not terribly hard to do that one by hand though.

I am having flags explode (overheating) on load, after a lot of digging the only relevant error I can find and isolate is: [LOG 13:56:31.159] Updating vessel voxel for Flag [ERR 13:56:31.159] Voxel Volume was infinity; ending voxelization Which I believe is FAR related, unsure if standalone bug or some kind of mod conflict. Thanks

35 minutes from bug report to patch, you are awesome. Thanks.

New RemoteTech release breaks things. Exception occured while loading contract 'RemoteTech.RT_KerbinRelay_4sat': System.Exception: No ContractRequirement with type = 'CelestialBodyCoverage'. at ContractConfigurator.ContractRequirement.LoadRequirement (.ConfigNode configNode) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0 at ContractConfigurator.ConfiguredContract.OnLoad (.ConfigNode node) [0x00000] in <filename unknown>:0

I am so unbelievably excited to do an alternate history RSS playthrough using this when I can run 64-bit properly.

Don't the USI mods also need to be resized or is that somehow handled elsewhere? Also can I hope from InterSolar that this includes tweaks to make KSPI-E work with RO or is that also somehow handled elsewhere that I'm unaware of? I had heard that those do not play nice together. (By the way I'm really excited about this mod, I will definitely be getting started with this once 1.1 hits)

Wow that was fast, thanks! Glad I could help

Already use Notepad++, version is handled by CKAN for me and is updated every day that I play. It seems to not remember the state of being landed on the moon. It unchecks "situation: landed" the moment I lift off. Very odd, no idea if that helps suggest one way or the other as to where the issue is. EDIT: Although it does come to think of it bring up the possibility that that was the real issue the first time and I didn't quite notice

Hmmm... You may want to independently test this, I think I may have also slightly borked my save file as far as Contract Configurator is concerned because I redesigned my rocket for direct ascent and the problem didn't go away which makes... no sense... so that makes me think there must be a problem on my end.

The Apollo contracts are um... broken essentially. In that they do not recognize a true Apollo style mission because the Command module that returns never lands on the moon. I'm not sure how hard of a fix this is but it's a spot where I have to do save file edits to get through so it's frustrating. (Ok I could also build a Nova rocket but it's going to get silly large at my current tech level) Thanks for the mod though, still using it and loving it despite the periodic need for save file edits!

There should be a mod that automatically shows a zoomed and cropped view of your vessel as viewed from launch control or other ground observation points. Like these. Bonus points if there's some camera shake and grain. Double bonus points if it can also switch to track stage/booster separation Glamour shot: Things just look cooler from a stationary viewpoint.

It would appear that the 3m radial SAS has an invalid required tech node if you're using the stock tree so it doesn't show up in Career.