Nicholander

Results so far with 1.10? Any issues?

I really, really hate to ask an obvious question, but can you/how do you change the weight of individual snacks...? By default my game is thinking they are each 1 tonne... Which is, er, slightly ridiculous. What's the default supposed to be?

Apologies if this isn't the right way to say/report it, but I'm having some issues with Jool when installing it. All those 'rings' inside of it near the outside, along with a hazy but to me noticeable 'dot' thing near the center. I'm presuming I have something set incorrectly either in the default graphics options or something else, just asking here in case this is a known issue. Only happens with Jool, all the other planets work like a charm.

...This work with Windows 7? Downloaded and installed the MATLAB runtime, seemed to install just fine, then the TOT itself, and everytime I try to start the TOT exe, it only appears as a background process, not an application. So task manager says it's running in the processes tab, but nothing I do can make it appear as a window for me to actually, well, do stuff with it. Tried administrator, backwards compatibility modes, rebooting many, many times, nothing. Does the latest version not support Windows 7...? Only thing I can think of.

Works with 1.9 once you do that, but the FPS absolutely implodes when it's on, whether in map view or not. Once you turn it off in it's openable settings menu it's completely fine, and I guess I can use it in short bursts to figure out aerobraking and such, but by all means it's annoying. Anyone else having this issue with performance?

Sorry for a dumb question, but I'm having a problem adding a comm station in RSS. I editied the RemoteTech_Settings.cfg file in the GameData/RealSolarSystem folder, adding another station with a new Guid and such. It didn't show up when I loaded the game. I checked if the brackets were all correct and such and it still didn't work. I even tried changing the data for one of the existing stations, and there was no change. (Like that file isn't even controlling what the stations are.) Is this a known problem with RSS/RO? Or is is just a different file that determines the stations and I missed it? (Sorry that this is a more RSS/RO oriented question, but RemoteTech seems to be the only thing having this kind of issue. (I was able to add more launch sites in RSS just fine.))

I saw the edit thingy on the op saying there's a dev version for 1.2, but I can't find the download link. Or is there not one because it's super unstable and unplayable at the moment?

Um, I downloaded and installed it on my 1.2 game (I have Kopernicus and modulemanager.), and the only planet around Cercani was Pequar (With no moons.) and it looked like this: Either it doesn't work in 1.2 or I really messed up the installation, which I'm pretty sure I didn't.

So Kopernicus has been updated to 1.2: So when is this awesome mod gonna be updated?

So essentially it works in 1.2? I don't use CTT btw.

Just something I noticed, all of the links to the planet packs on the front page just take you to the KSP Forums front page. Looks like they aren't working.

This work in 1.2?

Has this mod been abandoned or something?

Does this work in 1.2?

This work with 1.2?

So will this be updated to 1.2?

Link here: http://store.steampowered.com/app/476530/ Just, woah. Looks EPIC.

When will this be updated for 1.1.2?

It worked! The plane I was using, the stock Dove spaceplane, it had a lot of thrust, and I kind of forgot to pitch down for the speed run until the RAPIER engine it had was loosing thrust. So I ended up switching to rockets at ~900 m/s at 31 km altitude. I got into an 81 - 83 km orbit just finely, but when I tried to reenter and land I had to use infinite fuel to deorbit. (Speaking of landing, I successfully landed it on my first try. I over shot KSC by a lot, but I landed on the island runway with my remaining jet fuel.)

Hmm... I'll try using your method and tell you what happens. It's also worth noting that when I was using the outdated method I described in the first post, I was flying a ship I made which now that I think about it didn't have big enough wings or enough thrust,

I can't figure out how to get spaceplanes into orbit without running out of fuel. Before the aerodynamics update, I've used this profile for spaceplane ascents: And that worked, but now I have large trouble getting up to 10 km, because my ship doesn't have a lot of thrust, and when I've finally reached 10 km I can barely sustain my altitude, let alone increase my speed. After that, when I switch to rocket engines, I always run out of fuel soon after my apoapsis is above the atmosphere. Obviously this profile was designed for the souposphere, and doesn't work now. But I can't find any new updated ascent profile for the updated atmosphere. Do any of you have any idea how to do it? Because now I'm just kind of lost. Thanks in advance for helping!

I do see the problem, you need a lot of extra weight for rendezvous and docking the modules to the spacecraft. From what I see it, an unmanned tug which would bring the module to the station would be the best idea. But, how cheap would a tug cost? I think the cheapest way to do it would be to use the Progress as a baseline, take out the resupplies, replace it with RCS propellant, (It will need to be moving around a lot in orbit, and it won't be able to refuel often. (If at all.)) and put the front RCS thrusters on adjustable booms sticking out from the front, so it can dock with a large mass on it's front. (The module.) And I also agree with what Rune said, that it's a best to use the biggest LV you can fly often. However, right now NASA doesn't have any HLLVs, let alone any that can be built cheaply, it seems that using the Atlas V (Or perhaps the Vulcan.) is the best choice. (And if you want to include private sector LVs, the Falcon 9.)

That's a very good, point. And, I meant cheaper by 'better', sorry I forgot to say that in my post. But, I still think that orbital assembly would be cheaper because: 1. Developing launch vehicles is just simply difficult and expensive, because they're very complicated and delicate pieces of equipment, and they become more complex the bigger they are. And if you make a launch vehicle bigger, the more time and more money you will need to work out every fine little detail, in other words; HLLVs are very very expensive in the design process. (In general I think the KISS principle is very important when designing launch vehicles.) 2. If we're using a manned Mars mission as an example, you could make the spacecraft(s) your going to need modular in design, I.E. they were designed from the beginning to be easily assembled in parts in orbit. And I also don't see how rendezvous and docking is difficult, autonomous supply vessels often dock with the ISS, and there's never been a problem with that. And I don't see a problem with the parts of the thing you're trying to make in orbit (The manned Mars spacecraft, for example.) either, as again, we've had satellites actively operating for years on end. EDIT: Kryten, couldn't you use an inflatable heatshield instead?

Which is better, designing and building expensive HLLVs, or sending whatever you want into orbit as individual parts separately, and putting them all together in orbit? Personally, I think orbital assembly is the better option, as it doesn't involve designing and building gigantic, and thus very complex rockets, which is very costly. But, maybe there is a reason for HLLVs, as I'm just confused on why NASA is developing the SLS, instead of launching their heavy payloads in parts on Atlas Vs. Speaking of the SLS, why is NASA still developing it, when it will be extremely costly and they already have good, dependable and cheap launch vehicles?

I can't connect either, I can go to the NASA TV webpage just fine, but where the video is supposed to be is just black.