BioSehnsucht

Look at the THSS mod - as long as you get it close to correct (say within 10-15 degrees rotation, easy enough to eyeball) the collision mesh on the docking 'rings' will take care of the rest (unless it the colliders glitch inside of each other which seems to happen in .20 a lot).

Could do the panels as surface attached parts... instead of two of everything

Perhaps something that is "carried" like a KAS connector to it's destination, but while being moved (not attached) is made up of a limited number of accordian-esque segments ( with a joint between each segment and appropriately limited range of motion), when it's connected then lock the position of the segments and delete the joints (making it all one part) ? of course during it purely KAS like would be easier to model and program but look a bit funny with one long stiff yet stretchy tube ...

If you installed the troll version, and didn't delete the settings file in the MJ plugindata folder (I think thats where it was), there's a "JokeModule" that is still turned on. Drove me nuts for awhile after getting the non troll version that I was still getting trolled. You can just edit the file and set it to false or whatever it is...

The idea is to fly it back to the launch site and reuse it quickly (like an airplane, in that sense) rather than after fishing it out of the water ir wherever it landed and then transporting it back to launch site (like shuttle)

Is that not really inefficient?

I noticed watching the Falcon 9 launch of CRS-1 Sunday night that they started gravity turn around 25 seconds or so (I think before, after they said it I thought to look at the time), which is much sooner than I think the default MJ auto ascent profile uses... which made me wonder..

Unity engine already needs .Net / Mono, so how is that a problem?

Unity uses a modified for Unity version of an ancient release of CPU-only PhysX. So, it's a slightly tweaked version of a horribly inefficient single threaded physics engine. If it was updated for multiple threads and to use SSE/MMX/AVX/GPU/other TLA, then it would be massively faster. Heck, even if it used the normal PhysX libraries it'd be possible in theory to replace it with a better optimized one, but its baked in to the Unity runtime... makes that a bit difficult.

Try sticking a normal SAS unit on there ?

Wow! I never looked at the credits before.

How did you get the doors on the capsule and the crewtank to line up? for me they\'re always off by at least one \'snap\' position (in terms of where you can radially attach parts) no matter how I rotate them.

So I found the line to comment out to prevent MechJeb from disconnecting everything, it looks like, at least my simple test rig stopped firing all decouplers: MJ pod MJ decoupler MJ 1m MJ decoupler MJ decoupler MJ decoupler stock SRB I moved the bottom decouplers all into a stage above the pod so I could be sure not to fire them. With stock MuMechLib.dll, everything still falls apart, but making a single modification prevents this, commenting out the following line: MechJebCore.cs: 1107: //p.force_activate(); This is located in the onPartFixedUpdate() function. It took me ages to find the actual documentation in the wiki on how to set up a project to build a plugin in the first place, all I was finding was the part creation SDK. After that, it only took a few minutes to find the right code to tweak. Unfortunately, now I\'m left with this, everything gets shoved into one stage of the new / detached vessel: Trying to copy the staging from all the relevant parts into the new vessel is way beyond what I\'m going to attempt right now... I imagine we\'d have to either get all the current stages and then see which parts are being detatched, put them into the same #\'d stages in the new vessel, then go in and remove empty stages and adjust all the remainder so be 0 through N. And I\'m not even sure if that\'s doable - might have to track all the parts / staging separately because it may have already separated when we see the event?

I\'ve been having trouble trying to launch multiple craft using mechjeb from one booster - I guess it\'s the 'activates all parts' clause when a section is detached. It would be nice if there was an option to not activate all unactivated decouplers when you jettison part of your craft, if it has a mechjeb or command pod attached to it, so that if there is an otherwise functional (and couplered-together) craft being detached, you would still be able to switch to it and operate it, instead of having everything but your final stage of the subcraft detached. Perhaps using tweakables later when those are adjustable in the VAB/SPH, and cfg option setting for now to override this behavior? Could even be a non-boolean option, I don\'t know if MechJeb can tell a parachute from a decoupler, but could be a binary OR\'d combination of flags i.e.: ACTIVATE_ALL = 256 ACTIVATE_NONE = 0 ACTIVATE_PARACHUTES = 1 ACTIVATE_LEGS = 2 ACTIVATE_DECOUPLERS = 4 etc etc so if you wanted just legs / chutes for landings but not decouplers to auto-deploy, you would set this setting to 3 (1 | 2 = 3). It would also be nice if we could 'bookmark' landing sites on each body, I keep initiating a landing on Mun only to realize that again, it has reset to default coordinates even though I had just set it for my last lander a few minutes before ... and then I have to hurriedly type in the coordinates in the little boxes on the landing panel before I drift too far off course after initating a landing to the wrong destination.

Mike! You killed the Kubble!