BioHaZarD.PT

What tech node unlocks cryogenic tanks? I looked but couldn't find the file where that's set. And LOX is boiling like crazy in my current rocket.

I read about tank types here in the forum but I don't see anything related to that in game (after installing the mod of course). Is there supposed to be some way to change the tank type in game? For any tank?

Yeah, I think Vexxus9999 just made the first space elevator in KSP

I tried Real Fuels (with Stockalike Real Fuels Engine Configs of course) with FASA today actually. I only checked the Saturn IB and V rockets, but nearly everything seems to work. The LEM Ascent Engine does not have a config yet and therefore must use the standard LiquidFuel/Oxidizer. Shouldn't be hard to edit the file and copy the config for the Descent Engine. I did notice everything seems a lot lighter and therefore delta V's are a lot higher and thrust-to-weight is ridiculously high. Apollo CSM is 4 tons lighter and gets double delta V (over 1600m/s). Saturn IB losses 50 tons. SatV is 190tons lighter and almost gets to orbit on first stage alone (and 3 F-1 engines is more than enough for it)! Weird.

Could this be some weird out of memory error? Try installing ActiveTextureManagement.

What building upgrades are required to get full Mechjeb functionality in .90 career mode? I've yet to see the Landing and Rendezvous sections show up. I fully upgraded the Tracking Station and edited the part.cfg to get all Mechjeb functions early on the tech tree, but those things are still missing. What else do I need? EDIT: Updating to latest dev version solved my problem.

The old Mission Controller Extended had loadable mission packs that included some stuff like you described. I miss that stuff.

I read that post, and did what it said even before I ran KSP with the Angara Pack for the 1st time. Very helpful info. But I still encountered the problem I described (and solved). Trying to change the engine thrust in the VAB introduced a "NaN" amount of electric charge, which made the rocket cost "NaN". When I tried to launch, it said I didn't have enough money for it. This of course, only in career mode. Changing the part.cfg for the RD-191 as I described solves that problem. I haven't had any problem since. Hasn't anyone else encountered this problem before?

Found a problem with the RD-191 engine (inherited form the original on Bobcat's Soviet Engine Pack, apparently) in career mode. Whenever I right-clicked the engine to tweak it's thrust while in the VAB the vessel cost changed to NaN and I was unable to launch it. I compared the part.cfg with other engines and spotted the problem. It needs isTweakable = false in the ElectricCharge resource. Other engines also have hideFlow = true right after. I have no idea what that does, but it's probably a good idea to add it too. So the config should be: RESOURCE { name = ElectricCharge amount = 0 maxAmount = 0 isTweakable = false hideFlow = true } The cost of the engines also needs balancing. They're very expensive currently. Posted same info on the BobCat Ind. Space&Planet products thread, so hopefully the Soviet Engine Pack will have this fixed.

Found a problem (and the solution for it) with the Soviet Engine Pack in career mode. At least on the RD-191 (I didn't check the others). Whenever I right-clicked the engine to tweak it's thrust while in the VAB the vessel cost changed to NaN and I was unable to launch it. I compared the part.cfg with other engines and spotted the problem. It needs isTweakable = false in the ElectricCharge resource. Other engines also have hideFlow = true right after. I have no idea what that does, but it's probably a good idea to add it too. So the config should be: RESOURCE { name = ElectricCharge amount = 0 maxAmount = 0 isTweakable = false hideFlow = true } The cost of the engines also needs balancing. They all cost the same and are very expensive currently.

Ryusho, you need to elevate your apoapsis way up to get that kind of eccentricity while in orbit. From a test I just made, if your periapsis is near 70km your apoapsis needs to be over 710km. If you only barely made it orbit, you might need a bigger rocket...

I haven't played around with SSTOs in career mode, but shouldn't they be it's own reward? By allowing the recovery of all the hardware? I don't think it should require a special bonus in order to push players to use SSTOs.

I've been trying this mod for the first time. I noticed the K1 Heavy Lifter 2nd Stage Tank has 1124 to much oxidizer.

I believe Mechjeb now has a setting to match KSP time conventions (which are itself changeable).

I miss satellite missions too, and I'd like to see them in .24. Also missions to launch a space station and then resupply and replace the Kerbals aboard it once in a while. You know... more realistic type of missions. Personally I find all the part testing contracts in .24 to be mostly annoying. In terms of UI Squad could have learned a thing or two with MCE. A cost break down window would be useful. As would some way to check contract rewards without going to the Mission Control building. When you complete a contract you don't even get a reminder of how much you made. MCE put all those numbers front and center. Made them seem important. In KSP .24 I even forget about the money after a while. Here's another idea: contracts to land on a specific biome (on Kerbin, Moon or Minmus) to collect science. Instead of just landing wherever we want.

They say the available missions depend on your reputation, so maybe other missions become available as you go along. Still... I imagine there will be plenty of room for improvement via MCE.

I predict there will be a fair amount of debate about fair/realistic prices after .24 comes out. I might even be in on it! About the FASA launch towers, yes at least one is hugely expensive with MCE, but the few times I used it I think I wasn't charged for it. I figured it was because the tower isn't actually "launched". It's not part of the rocket.

I haven't played KSP in a week or two and haven't updated MCE to the latest version, but parachute recycling was working fine the last time I checked. You do need plenty of parachutes. The requirement is 70 drag per ton. To get the "true drag" of a parachute you have to multiply it's mass per it's fully open drag. And then calculate from there. My "rule of thumb" is 1.2 (radial or mk16) parachutes per ton. So let's say the dry weight of your booster is 11.25 tons. 11.25 x 1.2 = 13.5 => roundup to 14 So you need 14 radial parachutes, or 1 mk16 and 13 radial, or 1 mk16-XL and 12 radial. This rule has worked for me so far. Doesn't matter if the chutes are open or not when dropped. When the booster is 2.5km away and bellow 25km altitude, the game will unload it (it disappears) and MCE will calculate everything it needs. A window should pop-up telling you how much recycled value you got. If not, check the debug via Alt+F12. MCE calculations are there. You can see if you need more parachutes/drag (or if you have too many).

I believe malkuth has said he plans to start using original KSP prices once .24 version comes out with it's own budget and contract system. For now MCE has a totally different cost structure where every part is priced according to it's type and mass. Fuel is added separately. All that can be adjusted in MCSettings.cfg.

I think the cost shown for tanks is the dry (empty) cost. When you add fuel it gets more expensive. Fuel type (and cost) varies if you use something like Real Fuels.

How does one open the engine hatch on the Soyuz? Can't find it in the right click menu or action group settings. There's a deployable antenna, but that's it.

I've seen it happen with some custom parts. Like the "Gemini ASAS Mini Computer" from FASA Pack, which costs 4 million for some reason.

The parachute cost reduction came after a discussion about the recycling savings being too small. You gave us the code ModuleParachute massCostMult = .25 for us to insert ourselves if we wanted (check your post #1385 back in April). It appears you later incorporated that in version .68, at least it's there in the ZIP file in my Downloads folder and I don't usually make changes to those files. I skipped version .69, but when I installed .70 I noticed the parachute prices jumped again to over 1000 each. Version .70 has parachute modules at costMult = .10, which doesn't seem to do anything (I tried changing that value... and nothing changed in game). I remember the discussion about the Crater mission, and I though it was fixed too. Then I tired it myself this week and couldn't do it. I tinkered with the longitude values and managed to do the mission just now with the following: maxLongitude = 179 minLongitude = 170 That range translates to less than half of the crater, but if you land on that half it works. With the -170 to 170 longitude range it shows as green for the whole planet, except for the crater. I can land on the ocean north of the space center and finish the mission successfully. Just not on the crater! :/ PS: I love your SSTO!

I updated to .70 and immediately noticed the rocket I was using got more expensive. I tracked it down to the parachutes, which are expensive again. Compared the MCSettings.cfg with the old one and this is the problem: ModuleParachute { costMult = .10 } RealChuteModule { costMult = .10 } In the previous version it's massCostMult = .25 on both. Also, wasn't the Kerbin Crater mission fixed at some point? Currently the Longitude range is valid for the whole planet, *except* the crater.

If you don't use FAR, the Buran style shuttle works quite well in 0.23.5. The other one is hard to control once in orbit.