Archer

Just retested all six attachment nodes on the four karmony nodes, they're working as expected.

Bug report: Installation: KSP 1.0.2.842 Fustek Station Parts DEV (Downloaded: 6MAY2015) Dependencies: CLS 1.1.3.0 DEV (found at https://github.com/PapaJoesSoup/ConnectedLivingSpace/releases/tag/1.1.3.0) MM 2.6.3 Ship Manifest 4.2.0.2 RasterPropMonitor 0.19.2 Issue: All four Karmony modules appear to have their side node orientations reversed, top and bottom nodes are unaffected. - Parts affected: Karmony compactNode Karmony compactNode Adapter Karmony Node Karmony Node Adapter - Parts Tested Karmony Node Cover Karmony Node Cover - Viewport Variant IACBM 1.25m Clamp-O-Tron Docking Port IACBM 2.5m* -Testing Attachment of the above parts was attempted on all six nodes of each Karmony module. -The Top and Bottom nodes accepted attachment of each part as expected. -None of the parts attached to the side nodes as expected. --The Clamp-O-Tron and 1.25m IACBM clipped into the module and attached to their "back" node. --The Node covers would not attach while oriented properly. --When attempting to attach the Node covers inside-out, they clip into the module and attach. -*The 2.5m IACBM was only tested on the Top and Bottom nodes of the flat variants, to satisfactory results. -The issue does not appear while "Non-strict part attachment orientation checks" in the KSP debugging menu is checked.

This should answer your question as to what nuFar is. Though I would HIGHLY suggest reading Ferram's full post (I stripped it down a bit). Where to get it? Ferram has a link to the source on GitHub in the first post. You'll be looking for voxelAero (for KSP 0.90) or voxelAeroPort (for KSP 1.0+).

I've thrown together a very basic (stock) tech tree integration config for use with module manager. I stuck the 0.5m ST in Precision Engineering, with the Oscar-B Tank; the 1m ST in Heavy Rocketry, one above the longest ~1m stock tank; the 2m, 3m, and 4m ST's in Very Heavy Rocketry, with the longest 2.5m stock tank (there are no stock nodes above this, or they would go there); and I stuck the Super ST in Meta Materials, as that seemed more fitting than with the others. And the entry costs I pretty much pulled out of... thin air.

This looks awesome, I'm going to try it out this after noon. Two questions though. I have FAR, DREC, MFS (RFRM) & ST; what else would you recommend? Which tech tree would you recommend?

I personally use your heat shield attached to Bahamuto's Module it works like a charm, but only looks passable. Otherwise the parts look awesome!

Any chance on built in folding solar panels?

A bigger IACBM makes sense. I get the feeling this is going to be the second part pack I won't be able to go without (you could probably guess the first). Also, I do use Deadly Re-entry, so when you release the heat shield I could probably set it up.

Helix, how far did you back off from the port you undocked from? usually you have to back off a few meters before KSP will be willing to dock again.

Or, since he plans on creating modified versions of both docking ports any way, he could add an addition attachment node to both ports for the shroud to attach to.

Quick question, are your IACBM's the same thickness as the stock clamp-o-trons? If not wouldn't that shift the attachment point of the shroud?

Since it is now possible, and relatively easy, to "weld" parts together, it is easier to create singular parts with multiple docking nodes (e.g. Rockomax hub with six clamp-o-trons as one physical part). However, issues arise in flight. The current docking port selection process of bringing up the Right Click Menu (RCM) of the port in question works quite well for one docking node per part; when the RCM has multiple docking targets without unique RCM identifiers it becomes cumbersome to target the correct docking node, and near impossible to undock the correct node as well! My suggestion, the ability to add/modify/remove unique RCM identifiers to specific docking nodes (e.g. "front", "back", "top", "alpha", "beta", "this one", etc) in much the same way vessels can be given unique identifiers, resulting in the GUI options stating things like "Set Node Front as Target", "Undock Node Beta", or "Control from <tag>". Having separate dedicated docking port parts allows greater construction flexibility, the ability to condense multiple docking nodes into a single part in a usable fashion allows for sturdier and less resource intensive construction.

The IACBMs look awesome, can hardly wait to start using them. I've started attempts at welding parts together to increase stability and reduce part count (using your modules and stock docking ports as a test). Unfortunately I think trying to create one part with multiple docking ports, while possible, creates too much of a pain in selecting specific docking ports for docking (lets not even go into making sure you have to correct docking port when undocking), being able to name individual docking ports (modules) seems like a good fix. I guess I'm off to see if I'm better at coding than modeling.

Personally, I like the sliding/iris idea, though that may change with the right concept art.

I too would enjoy the stepped design, though this looks excellent (as usuall).

Sounds awesome! Personally, for the docking module, I like the old kuest design; just my two cents.

Suggestion/Request: Could we get a docking "umbilical" such as what was used to dock the Space Shuttle to the ISS, a small module to act as an extension/buffer so that large crafts don't get too close to other station modules. Something similar to your original kuest mock-up would work great, I just want something matching the FusTek aesthetic.

With the bulkheads, what exactly is meant by "FusTek Compatible"? And, by the way, these look awesome!

Ah what the hell, if the Kerbal engineers gave two licks about things like kerbonaut comfort or safety they wouldn't let Jeb anywhere near their rockets. I say go with the vertical bunks, make things interesting. Perhaps one day the ability to reconfigure it in flight will be available (and awesome).

While I agree it would be cool, it would cause a bit of a situation consistency issue, namely these modules are intended for Orbiting Stations (0g) and planetary bases (>0g). So then would the kerbal in its bunk be floating (0g), or on the floor (>0g), or attached with velcro to the wall really good (either)? Sumghai, looking at your mock-up/floor-plan for the habitation module on page 1, two vertical bunks at 1m tall and 0.6m wide each have a (flat) "wall-print" of 1m tall by 1.2m wide, whereas horizontal bunks of the same dimensions would be 1.2m tall by 1m wide, allowing for better use of the module length and better sleep comfort in a planetary base. Maybe I'll use this as an excuse to learn some blender and mock-up an (extremely) basic IVA.

So KAS has Grab and Attach functionality which can be applied to stock parts, allowing Kerbals on EVA to pick up, move and reattach them. (Think repairing/replacing busted solar panels, batteries, wheels, etc.) In order to do this with stock parts they have to be edited, naturally this is where MM comes in handy. Except it doesn't work, at all, whatsoever. Has anybody tried and succeeded to get this working, or have any clue where I should start fiddling to fix it?

So I've seen that the EVA Grab and Attach functionality from this mod can be applied to stock parts as well (solar panels, batteries, pods if you like), and I've fiddled with it, it's awesome. I've also been using Module Manager to overload the stock part files for FAR and the like (modifying parts without touching there configs also rocks), but whenever I try to overload any parts with the EVA Grab and Attach Modules, it doesn't apply them. Has anybody gotten this working, or have any ideas as to why it doesn't work?

The parts look great! I'm already planning out my new station. Question about future plans, are there going to be any external distinguishing features between the storage, habitation, science and utility modules besides the module ID logo?

Thank you, I hadn't thought of that (clearly).

Does anyone recall the CFG edit to make the Falcon 9 First Stage radially attachable? I want to make a stand-in Falcon Heavy, but I forgot to make that edit in the new version.