Jacke

Well, I say, I say, hold on there. You're asking someone to take on a pile of extra work. RPM is the set of tools to create IVAs and has a few demo IVAs included with it to show what can be done. It's not up to @MOARdV to write every IVA. I imagine he has his hands full maintaining RPM, developing its replacement MAR, working on a couple of IVAs like he mentions above, and supporting his other mods. Perhaps squeezing in some playing of KSP for his own enjoyment. MOARdV keeps RPM working. Others use the tools RPM provides (as well as the extended tools provided by @alexustas's ASET Avionics and Props) to make IVAs. If you want IVAs that are tailored to BD Armory, I suggest you ask about it in their topic. There may be some appropriate IVAs already developed. And if not, maybe someone there will have spare time and the knowhow of what should be in a BD Armory IVA to write them. And if the BD Armory IVA modders need new plumbing tools from RPM or ASET to implement what they want, they can talk to MOARdV and alexustas about perhaps adding those tools.

Cool! In Koviet Krussia.... Stronk Koviet engineerings makes excellent landing legs! Even work upside down! (Kudos for your cool way to pack those landing legs into the lander base. )

When I first got KSP, I still remember intensely looking for some information on playing stock career. And then when I found all the advice started with launching a Mk1 pod all by itself on the pad, without anything else, and having Jeb EVA onto the pad to look for science.... That's not spaceflight. And that's not proper spaceflight testing either. Between that, not being able to launch unkerballed rockets at start, and the silly hoops I had to jump through to store multiple Crew Reports, I was really disappointed. (BTW, the link in your sig for "KSP 1.0.x Complete Printable Stock Science Checklists" is not working, I think due to one of the many forum changes.)

"Here we see the loneliness of the long-distance rover. Jebediah Kerman braving the harsh elements and risks...." "I just can't wait to get on the road again!" "And then! Almost certain peril!" If it's before local sunrise, can we get an overflight with NOD photography?

It's been a while since I played KSP (currently going through my mods and shifting as many as possible to CKAN from JSGME), but AFAIK in stock joints will stretch but completely elastically. They don't have a plastic phase where some deformation becomes permanent. Unless you installed a deformation mod like Kerbal Krash System. It's not yet had a 1.4.x release. If you have KKS, then it could be interacting in weird ways. If you don't, I'm stumped. It almost looks like on crashing the part was still attached but shifted to a different angle WRT the centre body, then on reload it's back to its original position. Killer Klowns ?!? Quick, ready the Anti Killer-Klown Kannon !!! Or worse, it could a hole in the ground leading to those other Clowns. It was hard to see in just one screenshot in the dark, but I imagine the Bridge route was too perilous, even without a Bridgekeeper. Looks like a good and shorter route. ONWARD ...and that shorter route looks rather...challenging. I'm predicting more air time in Jeb's near future.

One of the reasons I like replacing the navball texture with one with more detail. Of course, even stock there's that red line on the N heading line. @Triop, living on the edge, risking Jeb and his sole remaining extra solar panel. What if Val doesn't want to bring out a 3rd rover.... He's aware. He wants to finish his own personal drive-about before putting up a challenge. But it did make me look up the original Elcano and discover this tidbit from @Fengist:

There's likely other factors at work, but I think there's also the stock loading bug that appears to be making a comeback. Mentioned in the workaround fix mod here.

Ran out of likes again! Enjoying the travelogue. And wondering if as a challenge, put the checkpoints in...interesting locales a bit more off the beaten path. I know to do a circumnavigation, you need a submersible vehicle, an amphibious vehicle, air or sea ferries, and/or bridges. But I wonder if going bridge-crazy just bends the spirit of the long-distance driver a bit too much.

Looking forward to Black Night in the HIghlands! It's possible. Some good discussion and examples in this topic.

I'm still waiting for a like resupply.... This is so cool. Now I'm wondering if it can be done faster.... Rocket buggy with in-motion refueling? Nuclear buggy?

I numbered them in the order they were deployed. Jeb took out Buggy 1, which didn't have enough...solar panels? So Val brought out Buggy 2 and they swapped. And I see that you've renamed Buggy 2 as "Samurai" because of how its extra solar panels look. Anyhoo, looking forward to what happens next.

Go red! 'Cause the red ones go fasta! (Definitely quicksave.) Oops! Another page of posts. How well does Buggy 2 do on upslopes? (Need a better name than Buggy 2....)

Thanks for sharing that link to the Master branch "do not index" list. The wiki article "Adding a mod to the CKAN" has a link to a "do not index" list of one of the side trees, which compared to the Master branch list isn't up to date.

@ss8913, @Boersgard, look up a couple posts. @linuxgurugamer has adopted this mod and has a version out for KSP 1.4.5. If you're running the current KSP, I'd suggest you use that one and post in its topic to get the best assistance. @Padishar hasn't been on the forums since April.

@petlahk, if you could follow the link after the red text in my signature, do some of the troubleshooting there, maybe provide some screenshots of the craft, but definitely post your logs, a save file, and the .craft file, it could really help to track down what's the issue. I've dealt with interacting mods in the past and without that level of detail of what's going on in your install, it's almost impossible to determine most faults.

From your previous comment, I should have realised only pyrolysisLossFactor needed adjustment, as well as drawing attention to only needing the patch until DRE is updated from 7.7.0. I've updated my post to address this.

Thanks for catching that! Post updated as suggested.

That's what a single appropriately coded Module Manager script config can do. Ideally you should never change the original files from the upstream program or mod providers, as that can be wiped out by a KSP or a mod update. It's why sarbian coded Module Manager, just for situations like this. The tricky part is getting the right changes, as there are configs in both DRE and the parts files and it would need testing. The comments above talk about values that were in the end determined not needing changes. Only pyrolysisLossFactor needed adjusting for some parts to restore difficult but achievable reentries. To implement those changes as a FINAL MM script, add a file containing the MM script below with DRE 7.7.0 until DRE itself is updated. From what 4x4cheesecake and linuxgurugamer tested and my quick look at things, this SHOULD work to get by until @Starwaster updates DRE itself from 7.7.0. From the last 2 posts by linuxgurugamer and @micha above, it may be too much, but it shouldn't break anything. EDIT: In line with @4x4cheesecake's comment below, I've commented out the script change to the resource. EDIT2: In line with @linuxgurugamer's comment below, I've reduced the change to only pyrolysisLossFactor. This is for DRE 7.7.0. After this is addressed in subsequence DRE versions, it shouldn't be needed.

A lot of stuff. I barely played 1.3.1 and I'm just getting back into KSP after a long hiatus, so I'm not that familiar with the 1.4.x series. You can look at the Wiki version history and delve into the version specific change files to find out. https://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Version_history

I think that's because if CKAN sees your KSP install as a 1.4.x version, it won't provide RO mods for KSP 1.3.1 because of the version mismatch.

Thanks for the update to KSP 1.4.2, @linuxgurugamer. I noticed that FMRS no longer has a RecoveryController directory. Is the function of RecoveryController now completely integrated into FMRS itself?

There's also the general principle in airframes that small control surfaces and small trim tabs, as opposed to whole moving fins for control and trim adjustment, work better at slower speeds. The small moving surfaces change the aerodynamics of the fin to provide control or trim. At higher speeds, the greater effects of whole moving surfaces is needed and performs better.

Did you ever ask @nightingale about this? Especially considering how widespread Contract Configurator use is.

Kopernicus has updated to KSP 1.4.2. And AVC isn't bloody spyware and I say that as a paranoid sysadmin. It just compares the version of mods to that available at the URL in the mods' .version files. Its source is available for audit. And it's being currently managed by @linuxgurugamer, who's doing a lot to keep KSP modding going. Cut it out with crap like that.

Dude, old KSP parts and old KSP whole-fricking-system are two very different things. Especially making a dependence on Kopernicus that the parts don't need. Just doing the parts is mind-boggling, but the system is more, almost the equivalent of @Galileo's Planet Pack. If it's worth doing, it's worth doing right, which would be in a separate mod.