Bit Fiddler

I know this is a bit off topic... but the photo for your avatar; who is this? is this a picture of you? just asking because of the hat and the fact you are German yes? and if so do you watch a German TV show (I do not know the name but there is an American guy named David that is a Cowboy)?

Oh ATC is not "Allista's Terrible Coding" wow I was way off.

not sure how well my patches work for the general populace. but I will try to clean them up a bit and submit them to your " CC: The Game Breaker Edition" patch.

once upon a time in a galaxy far, far away, a modder named @hrabandeveloped a texture pack for Procedural Parts using the Tantares mod's textures. is this still available anywhere?

to make engines move you need to use another mod. something like Infernal Robotics will do this or several mods have engines with built in movement. but other than these 2 methods there is no way to move a part. As it stands now your best bet is to use infernal robotics and steer your engines this way. and just use TCA to keep the thrust balanced so you do not flip over or something. I have never done this before, but I can "imagine" a setup where TCA will attempt to keep your craft level by adjusting the various engines thrust power. Then as you point them around to produce lateral thrust TCA will keep the rest of the craft in balance to keep it upright. Again I have never attempted this sort of a setup, but it may indeed be possible.

not to detract from @allista and his awesome mods. as I would love to see TCA replicate and thus remove the need for me to load additional Auto pilot mods. however in the mean time try Kramax autopilot. If TCA would duplicate this mod that would be great but in the meantime they do work very well together. use the vtol assistance to get you up and moving then as the video shows toggle TCA and the vertical engines off. then use Kramax for all your aerodynamic flight autopilot needs. With TCA/Kramax/MJ loaded you have an autopilot system that will cover all your autopilot needs. they all play very well together, and can easily transition from one AP to the next depending on the stage of flight you are in. So yes, we can only wish that TCA would replicate and thus remove the need for the other 2... but i am happy with the results I get from switching between these three as needed.

@linuxgurugamer did you look at this new styling? what do you think?

well indeed it turns out I have some how deleted my batteries so only had 155 ec from my pods. so yes every pass into darkness I had several min. of power outage. the reason I did not notice it until after 30 days I assume is because I was in time warp. and the EC did not actually drop until I left time warp and then the mod played catchup and all the lost time came crashing in at once.

oh has solar panels... I will launch it again and post more pics later but I have to go for now. but I am guessing maybe the batteries have been deleted some how and what remains is depleted on each dark side pass... not sure however as the problem did not crop up until around day 30 or so. I will have to watch closer on the next launch and see if I can catch what happens.

In VAB on the pad

yes ship is crewed in VAB, and yes I turned on the hitchhiker.

ok so I built a School for a contract for "Space Camp" the contract requires 40 days in orbit. in the VAB my craft reports 42 days hab, and 43 days supply. so this should be enough yes? not sure when it happened, but around the 30 day mark somewhere all the kerbals refused to work anymore.

Sorry, new Post, as I do not want this to get lost in the previous wall of text. I have run into a snag. I have been reading the wiki but I do not find any indication of how I increase the "Home Time" of a craft. I see the bits for Supplies and Habitation time. but I do not see any parts that modify the home sick time. are these only at much later tech nodes? or am I just blind?

no not using FAR. I have not removed all the mods yet to find the one causing it, but I have something like 250 mods loaded. so it will take some time to track it down

ah ok sounds like a good method. will be checking back on this as time goes on as all your mods have always been on my mod list when they are available for my game version. so I am always looking at new things you make. other than BDArmory I guess... lol I make many "fighter plane" or "attack helicopter" looking things to fly around but I have never actually armed them...

my big hang up at this time is how to get MM to calculate volume for Firespitter/interstellar with that configuration. I do not know MM well enough to know how to get it to parse those lines of text and come up with a tank volume. also I assume the B9 part switch does more than fuel. I have not looked into this yet, but I am sure some sort of filter would need to be put in to catch only the fuel switcher modules and ignore some mesh switching modules. this does however run at FINAL so it will catch any modifications or tanks added by other mods and not just the original mods themselves. it worked pretty well when I first started it but then I upgraded to 1.3 and have not been able to really work on it as the mods are not all ready for 1.3 so I can't get them all installed to test it anymore. and yes I suppose you do not want to disable the other mods as a default config. you would always need to let the user decide how to handle that. but this along with the other MM patches I have mentioned will catch most if not all the tanks in the game and convert them to CC. I always just use tank manager not tank switcher as one build I may use a tank for an entirely different purpose as the last one. I pick tanks based on aesthetics not the original mod makers configuration. I use parts from many part mods that look good to me and make them behave as I want, not necessarily as the mod maker made them. I know the purist think this is cheating, but when my rockets explode in huge fiery Kerbal konflagrations I do not even notice because "I am to busy looking good!"

I have just started my first career using USI-LS (all previous careers were on TAC) and I have to say, I think USI is more challenging when turned up to plaid, or even just on 11. the idea of "crew space" TAC does not even touch so I used things like Keep Fit or Kerbal Health to get this function. But since I use every other USI mod I decided I may as well give the LS a try. At first I was put of by the "abstraction" where TAC had "water" and "Oxygen" for instance. but after using it for a while now that is no longer so much an issue. my original games had TAC and things like Biomass running so the oxygen/water/waste cycle was important to get the closed loop system. However USI may be abstracted but it does cover all these needs in it's abstraction. so far I am not unhappy with USI it is just a different way of looking at things. it does basically replace TAC and Keepfit /Kerbal health in a single package so that is always good, and the interaction with the entire USI lineup is a very big bonus. so unless something drastic comes along later in the career to really break it for me, I may be switching to USI for all my future careers as well.

oh you may be interested in a MM patch I have been fiddling with for a while now... still not finished but maybe you can use what is here to make a finished product. //replace Fuel switchers from: Fire Spitter, InterstellarFS, B9, modular fuel tanks, etc with Configurable Containers @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[FSfuelSwitch],@MODULE[InterstellarFuelSwitch],@MODULE[ModuleFuelTanks],@MODULE[ModuleB9PartSwitch]]:Final { //this is how Fire spitter and Interstellar look //MODULE //{ //volumeMultiplier:NEEDS[InterstellarFuelSwitch] = 1 //resourceNames = LiquidFuel,Oxidizer;LiquidFuel;Oxidizer;MonoPropellant //resourceAmounts = X,Y;X;X;X //} %MODULE[ModuleTankManager] { %name = ModuleTankManager %Volume:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleFuelTanks]] = #$../MODULE[ModuleFuelTanks]/Volume$ //is this only foir fuel or does this do more and we need a way to filter this? %Volume:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleB9PartSwitch]] = #$../MODULE[ModuleB9PartSwitch]/baseVolume$ // %Volume:HAS[@MODULE[InterstellarFuelSwitch]] = // %Volume:HAS[@MODULE[FSfuelSwitch]] = %DoCostPatch = True %DoMassPatch = True } // !MODULE[FSfuelSwitch]{} // !MODULE[InterstellarFuelSwitch]{} !MODULE[ModuleFuelTanks]{} !MODULE[ModuleB9PartSwitch]{} }

does it go to 11?

it is absolutely from a mod. as I said, I made this and tested it in stock just now, and it flew fine. I then moved the craft file to the modded game and it spins like this. I have other aircraft that fly perfect however so it is not just tied to aircraft in general. it seems to be just this one with the j-33 engine. I guess i'll have to start removing mods and see if I can find the culprit.

doing some more work on this... I am thinking maybe use Firespitter or some other method of model switching to make the parts change based on user input in the VAB. for instance you select "Curved Hand Rail" from the part list and place it on the craft. you can then right click on it and select the diameter slider to adjust this part to what ever diameter the part is attached to. I would still need to make an individual model for each diameter for the model switching .dll to use, but this would also allow the parts to be switched for complexity. as a user could select "style 1", "style 2", "style 3" etc. this does make me have to do 3x the modeling, or more, depending on how many styles... just an idea. this would also be how the user selects the "length" of a basic straight hand hold like the examples I have shown here. again every model would have to be made as there is no "procedural" aspect to this. it is just model swapping. but if this sounds like the path you want to take I will work this into the design as I move forward. or alternately we could get with the procedural part guys if needed and see how to go about making them procedural. then I would not make any of the "hand hold" bits, rather just the end caps, and the procedural portion of the mod would fill in the gaps between them. or maybe along the lines of the fuel lines in KAS/KIS, place two end point and "connect" them, and the .dll would figure out the radius of any turns and the length of the handrail. I am going to press on with the non procedural assumption, but if you can find a way to work that in it is not a big deal to replace all the rungs with procedural bits, and just keep the end caps. also what parts are 1.875? I do not recognize that size, but probably just from not paying attention. I am sure I have those parts installed, as I install most every part mod. and another note... the original parts the end caps were not really the end on the curved bits. the hand hold actually extended past the endcap a bit. did you want this styling again or should the curved bits end with the endcap like the straight bits. or for that matter would you like the straight bits to extend past the end cap like the curved bits? and a further note what levels of symmetry do you want to support? as in if I select radial 4 there will be 4 parts placed do I want this to close the loop on the curved bits? or close it at R6 or R8 etc. as the part gets bigger in diameter the larger symmetry may work better but at low diameters it will make each hand rail be rather small. however unless you find a way to do that hand rail bit procedurally, this needs to be thought out ahead of time as I must make the models conform to this right from the start. unless anyone has a better idea I am going to go with 4R on the 1.25 and probably 2.5, and then maybe go to R6 or R8 as the diameters get larger. however I tend to shy away from R6 in that I would think most people will want them to be snapped to R2, R4, or R8. I do not plan to make an R2 version however just the R4 and if they want an R2 they can place two of the R4. any thoughts on this? I can indeed go ahead and make a "powers of 2 set" and a "powers of 3 set" again it is all just more modeling and parts to deal with either in separate parts or in some sort of mesh switcher like firespitter. but with the extra R factors built into the "editor extensions" I can see someone may want to use a "powers of 3 set" Thinking about maybe not end caps at all, but rather a central "Mount point" with the "Rungs" extending to either side.. what do you think? I could redo the straight bits with this theme as well no problem. this is all fluid so no worries change your mind as often as you like. this example is an R4 on a 1.25m part.

also looking at design note I see some cross over to things like Keep fit, Kerbal health etc. will this again work along side this sort of mod? or replace them? I have used things like Keep Fit, Kerbal health, and kabin krazy etc. on and off in my various saves. and also USI-LS which does some of the same thing. and I liked the idea of cramped quarters affecting Kerbals mentally and physically. so again just wondering will this replace these sorts of mods or just work along side? I know... alpha stage... no real answers ... wait and see. but just in general did you plan to work along side mods or replace mods? either is fine with me and both have their merits, I am just curious as to your leanings.

just a quick question about "part-less" vs "Career". is it possible to have both? as in I do not need a part, all command pods will have the module on them. However I will still have all the restrictions of Career other than the part. As in I need an engineer or I need the upgraded tracking station etc. are these two options exclusive? or can I have both? I hate radial attaching of parts like this on my craft for something that should just be part of the flight computers on board. but I like the idea of limiting functionality based on tech or Kerbal level etc. as of now I have always used a MM patch I made to just add the modules to every part with MODULE[ModuleCommand], but I just noticed the options for "Part less" and "career" on the OP of this thread. so I am wondering if I delete the MM patch can I select both partless and career and get the function of both?

sorry will attempt it in a stock game, and them post some pics / vids. and yes it not a slight roll. sure it starts out slow, but after about 1 second it is something like 720 deg./second or more. EDIT: ok it is from a mod, as I made this plane in Stock and it flies fine. I move the craft file to my modded game and no. neither of these flights had any real roll input, just a bit right at lift off to try and stabilize the flight but as you can see it does not help.

I have noticed that odd nose dive just before wheels down. I figured it was just a flaw in my design, so never worried too much about it. I have used Dynamic deflection on all my saves as well, so this may be tied into it? I have never given it much thought as I assumed it was all my fault. but any way, other than the Heading Hold issue, that is the only real problem I have seen with this mod. And as @PmThay requested. are there other flight plans we can DL somewhere? or instructions on how to make new ones? I have looked (very briefly) at the files in the mod folder but nothing jumped out and screamed at me "look here I am a flight plan file." EDIT: oh, and I have not seen the problem with the climb at the beginning of each new leg. not saying it is not happening on my end, I have just never noticed it. this mod usually works so well, that the small bugs and minor glitch I just over look, as nothing has been game breaking yet. the heading hold I just use the bank hold function and the plus and minus keys etc. and the nose dive and resulting bounce on touchdown has not crashed any planes yet, so ya... I have sort of just over looked all the little things. I guess I should pay more attention and add them to the bug list.