Lei07

Hi! Firstly, just a massive thankyou to the B9 team, and the other mod authors that lend different elements to this mod, for keepng it up to date, fresh, and fun. The B9 team have really outdone themselves with this release, it's really quite mindblowing! Okay, this is just a quick question, not a complaint or a gripe, and I'm repeating this post in both the B9 and FAR forums, as it relates to both. Are the airbrakes working as intended? I remember many stated that there were "overpowered" in 24.2 and prior builds, have they been adjusted to compensate for this? Just cant find anything specifically in the patchnotes of both FAR and B9. Thats it! Thanks for any response, and please keep up the fantastic work!

Its just the current DLL, the "activation switch", what it activates is designated by the configuration changes the BA install creates in it's dependancies. The version in the ZIP works fine, but shows the compatibility error in 0.25, the new DLL has fixed that. EDIT: Skeevy, would you be willing to share the updated asset fille you created for the sunflare? I intend to get around to it myself, but it would save many people, including the BA team, the effort!

Hi, haven't posted in a while. Just a quick thankyou to TSG for the work he put into this mod, I hope another team member or someone new can pick it up and keep the mod alive

No need to downgrade KSP, just use the experimental build in WaveFunctionP's sig, its working fine with .24.2. You can also place it into your current install if you don't want to create a fresh one, just delete the older/current folders relating to KSPI before pasting in the new ones

There is one, it's right next to the Griffon called the Titan V. Why would you need another 5m upper stage rocket? Do your payloads never slim out to under 5m? If you were desperate for more 5m engines just use Tweakscale on other engines. I think the selection is fine, I'd welcome more of course, as I would more tanks and/or paint schemes (current and new), but the mod doesn't NEED anything. It's pretty much perfect. EDIT: To those who believe the Griffon is overpowered, you do realise it's based on the Rocketdyne F-1 cluster that launched the Saturn V, right? One of the largest rockets ever created? With 60s technology? If your launch vehicle doesn't require it's full power it does have a thrust limiter, or just swap it out entirely.

Hello, this isn't a gripe or a moan, just a general question. Are any users of the last stable version of TAC Life Support (0.8) having issues with the latest (unofficial) fix for the x64 version of KAS? Kerbals are not retaining required life support supplies on EVA. I'm posting here first as I had no issues with the previous x64 KAS fix JeffersonFlight created, and nothing else has changed in my build. Will follow up on the TAC LF board pending on responses. Thanks for any replies, and also thanks to JF for keeping the mod rolling while Majiir is away.

Hi E-dog Firstly, been using the mod for quite some time and I really like it, aesthetically and in function (as I use FAR), and it is a great addition to the modlist. Got a bit of a strange occurance happening with the most recent version, 3.08, with KSP .24.2. (x64). I've done my best with testing, troubleshooting and searching for help in this thread, and nows the time to ask for help! ^^; As many of the mods out there are showcasing updates compatable with the newest version of KSP I thought I'd update my build from my mod stable .23.5 to a fresh .24.2 install. Whilst debugging and otherwise testing that everything was working I stumbled upon an oddity where PF Conic and Egg Fairings (under Aero, not the structral versions) do not like to decouple if the craft is at any angle other than straight up! Now, the craft itself is a stereotypical Apollo-esque affair, appearance and functionality only increased with the recent KW Rocketry update, which I had a little toy with in .23.5 before updating fully. The CSM sits on the LM, which is hidden inside the PF Conic Fairings, and the LM is "docked" at the engine to a Clamp-O-Tron Snr which sits on the PF Interstage Fairing Adapter. The adapter is expanded to 3.75m and this is where the fairings are connected in x2 symmetry. As of .23.5, the seperation and translation of the CSM would occur once the burn to the Mun or Minmus had been completed. The fairings would fire via an action group, the CSM would undock, turnaround, redock with the LM, and the LM's engine would then undock from the Clamp Snr. The fairings would work as expected and there were no niggles at all with the process. As of .24.2, no matter which fairings are used, whatever angle of pitch or roll I am at, the fairings seem to have little to no ejection force and sort of flop off, perform a bottom to top headstand and, with a bit of rolling to help matters, they eventually peel away. At first I thought it was something that was just happening in vacuum as they seem to work fine on the launch pad. However, after launching straight up to 70,000m (as opposed to using a gravity turn), and hitting my action group they seperated fine, no problem. As stated I've done my best to troubleshoot this myself, using the "Decoupler for x64" fix (which, I later learned, had no effect on PF), using the .24.1 fix stated a few pages back in this forum, changing the ejection forces, swapping the parts out for "fresh" ones, re-downloading and installing the mod, creating new installs of my build, none of which has had any success. The craft itself is the same as was created in 23.5, using the newest KW pack as stated earlier, and has remained unchanged. No mods relating to the rocket had any update issues and I cannot find anything in the debug log relating to a possible problem with PF. So, in essence, this has me stumped! Sorry for such a long post but I wanted to get all the relevant or otherwise useful info in there. Thankyou so much for taking your time to read my post and cheers for any reply you may offer!

Ah, thanks muchly. Found out that by changing the "Allow Unloading" option from "auto" to "never" fixed the issue, but I'll revert that "clouds" config change instead. Thanks again!

Thanks for your swift reply! Strange, not using ATM in this build. Could it do with the BA fix for the "Black Sky Bug"? Theres a Real Solar Systems DLL patch to use. As regards Texture Replacer, I did the config fix as stated somewhere, changing "clouds" to "atmosphere", which other option would I need to adjust? Its not that detremental, but I'd rather have your fantastic mod work as intended if theres something I can do about it.

Hello Rbray89 and Nathankell Firstly, have been using EVE for quite some time and I love it, what you both do to create or otherwise assist in development of this mod is awesome and I thank you both for it. Quick question. Toying around with upgrading my mod build to KSP 24.2 (x64) and everything seems to be working okay for the most part. Whilst debugging something from Interstellar I found this in my log: "[Exception]: UnityException: Texture 'BoulderCo/Clouds/Textures/aurora' is not readable, the texture memory can not be accessed from scripts. You can make the texture readable in the Texture Import Settings." Several other folders related to BoulderCo are also being pinged. Firstly, I will state, I use the most current versions of EVE and Better Atmospheres. Secondly, there doesn't seem to be anything profoundly wrong with the install, so this is not a gripe or a complaint or anything. I'm just wondering what does this Exception Report mean? As I say, everything seems to be working fine, and it may be more to do with BA than EVE, but I thought I'd ask here first. Is it a problem I need to deal with? Or is it something thats background and will be sorted in later versions? Thanks for your time to read my comment and cheers for any response you may offer!

Thanks Kyle, I do love the paint jobs on those 3.75s. I'm just totally part blind at times! ^^;

Sorry to pester again, just noticed something unless I'm being blind. Alot of the 3.75m KW fuel tanks are missing. All I can find is the SC-1 LFT (the darker tank). Did you remove them and allow the newer 5m parts to be adjusted with Tweakscale? I assume thats the case, though my selective blindness couldn't find anything in the changelog. Thanks for any response

Aye That pic is from before the recent update, my mod stable .23.5 build. Infact have just been playing with the new SPS, very cool idea switching it over to monoprop! Is that to more reflect the real world equivalent?

Thanks for the overnight replies! The diagram is exactly what I needed. I'm not too worried yet about upgrading to all the current versions as I'm still running my .23.5 modded build waiting for various mods to be updated for .24.2. Last night I made a duplicate of my install to test out this new pack, loving the new parts! For those interested, this is the CSM and LM of my Wocketship Six (spelling deliberate). http://i39.servimg.com/u/f39/14/32/24/62/ws6_110.jpg' alt='ws6_110.jpg'> And it sits ontop of the launch stages pretty much as seen here, naked to the world. Once I get into the newest build of the game and mods I hope to be able to put some clothes on her! Thanks again for your replies and for your diagram, Winston. Cheers!

Hello everyone. Just a quick question about shroud fairings 'cos I've never been able to figure this out correctly. And now with the new KW update (which is awesome thanks to both Kyle and Winston for the new version!) the petal adapter allows the same functionality, but I'm suffering the same lack of understanding. Its just positioning. Assume you have an Apollo like craft, with the CSM up front and the LM on it's tail, connected with a decoupler to a docking port. To do the classic turn-about maneuver, you undock, turn round, blow the decoupler to reveal your main engine, dock, and then pull away the lander from the final "S-IVB" section of the rocket. In the VAB, where is this sequence would the new petal adapter be placed? After playing with it for a while there were several ways I could get the lander to sit inside the adapter, but none seem to be obviously correct. I understand how the adapter otherwise works, with the "open shrouds" and the two "decouple" options, I get that part, just not where to place the thing for sure ^^; Any comments or suggestions will be appreciated! And if required, I'll see about some screenshots, should they really be needed. Thanks!

Always always always make a duplicate install when dealing with any mods. Keep your (I assume Steam) install vanilla and make a backup of it. Then copy the backup and then put mods into that copy install. I use a copy of the backup so I can keep a version of KSP that I know works with mods, once all the mods are updated I can then use the newest version for my template. Also to save time, once you have most/all of your content mods (IE: parts, functionality mods and physics mods) make a back up of what your gamedata folder looks like. That way, you can then add any beautification mods and ATM (if required) afterwards. If the install doesn't work due to EVE/BA/ATM or other beautification mods then you wont have to individually reinstall the content mods, just copy over the bundle you created. The fact that it doesn't work for you at the moment is, in a way, very much your own fault for going gun-ho into the new KSP version with a mod that has yet to be updated fully for it. Making copies and backups can prevent this issue.

Hi R4m0n and Sarbian, firstly, been using Mechjeb since I started using mods and I love the system. Ironically, I don't really use it for the autopilot, but use it as a "on board computer" to create nodes and assist in various other things. Played the game for about 8 months before starting to use mods, so having functionality like this was a great time saver. A question about the Landing Guidance, and perhaps a feature request. Akin to the "follow the blue target node" on the Launch Assist would it be possible to have one for the Landing Guidance? Or, even better, have MJ plot the nodes so you can perform the burns manually? I can land fine without MJ's help, but it is REALLY nice if I want to hit a particular piece of terrain. Manually, I'd probably land within 2km of my proposed target (without a lot of fiddling and hopping along the surface to correct my landing site). Letting MJ do the landing its of course dead on, but it would be nice to have the nodes created to allow for a manual descent. Not that I've used it much (or at all I don't think) I assume the Rendevous Planner creates maneuver nodes for a manual RV, so maybe the same kinda thing for landing? Thanks for your time if you get round to reading this, and any comment would be great! Please keep up the great work with your mods, its nice to see that you get stuck in when it comes to updating for newer versions of KSP

Hi TSG Firstly, congrats to you and Erona on V5, was really looking forward to this update and it did not dissapoint! Quick question though. My Kerbol (Sun if you prefer) is definitely still yellow. I have yet to do the sun flare installation as this seems a bit of a pain to do at 2:05 am Is it the flares that give the white appearance? If so, no worries, just wanted to be sure. If not, then, as far as I can tell, everything is installed correctly and the "default" EVE clouds are removed as stated in the install guide. I did however remove city lights, more for personal preference than anything else. Is it this file that affects the sun? Again, thanks for any answer you (or anyone) can offer, and congrats again on your great work on such a great mod. It just makes the game look so fantastic, and is a great addition to Rbrays EVE. EDIT: Re-scanned the last 10 or so pages and it does appear that the "flare" element creates the white look, but any official answer will be cool incase I'm mistaken

Hi Northstar Aye, you made valid points, but as regards an official 64bit I don't think Squad would give up on it for some time yet. So far its been "we're working on it and getting reasonably close, then something breaks" deal, I think given the time they will amend matters. The team seems to be in no rush to release the game as a "fully finished product", as KSP is already a couple of years old now (right?), and still in Alpha. It may take a massive kick in the pants of the Unity Engine to do so but I'd like to think it could happen at some point. As regards the jury rig fix, other than an issue with a new game in KSPI I haven't stumbled on anything else (yet). I'm infact playing the game at the moment, busy retro fitting my fleet with the new Infernal Robotics parts. Other than a new game I have no issues at all with the Interstellar mod, nothing to rant and rave and demand a fix or anything. Were there that many issues then? It -could- be down to people impropperly performing the proceedure, as I'm sure any modder would state, no matter how clear they write a readme/install guide someone always does it completely wrong, or misses several steps. Perhaps down to their individual system, or balance of mods? Im testing out several "high res" builds at this time, see how it performs at different ingame settings, and with and without forms of texture reduction. Anyway, I was interested to get some thoughts and feedback about this issue, thanks for yours! As stated, I'm not a modder or anything but I am interested in how its all done. As I stated, I'm always looking forward to the next release!

Hi Fractal, firstly, love the mod. After seeing Scott Manley's initial few videos using this mod with his Interstellar Quest vids I downloaded it right away and haven't looked back since. Been playing with it months, on and off, and taking it slow I'm still in an "Apollo" era, but future toys are looking fun to play with. Right, my question, as I have scanned a few pages in this thread and have not spotted anything on the matter, and apologies if this has already cropped up. As many KSPI users may or may not be aware, there is a "jury rig" fix for KSP to make it run in 64bit, information here : http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/82118-KSP-64bits-on-Windows-%28this-time-it-s-not-a-request%29 . The fix itself works wonders and I'm enjoying using the game in high res without texture reduction, but there is a snag. This fix doesn't seem to like the Interstellar mod. It seems that if you do not have a well established saved game, consideribly far into the tech tree, the game will always crash on loaded the VAB. Now, this is not a "oi, fix it!" post, but I am legitimately interested if you think your mod will suffer once Squad officially makes KSP 64 bit. Is it a case of see what happens at the time, or are you thinking ahead and making steps to "future proof" your mod. I'm not a modder myself, I wouldn't have the faintest idea how to do such a thing, and in general I find the mods that people like yourself do are just wildly fantastic and add so much depth to this game. I know that official KSP 64bit is some time off, but I'm sure it will happen (one day!). It would be a shame to lose KSPI, as it has become a staple in many players tech trees. Interested to hear your thoughts on the matter! Please keep the content coming, be it on 32 or 64 bit, or both! Tis such a great mod and always looking forward to what the next update brings.

Looking forward to the new version! Keep up the great work guys, EVE adds so much to the look of KSP. The changes seen so far are awesome!

Stock Kerbin 100% sure, any added changes are done via Envrionmental Visual Enhancements and Active Texture Management. Adding BA then adjusted Kerbin as intended, barring the terrain height change, as we talked about earlier.

EDIT : Double post due to my error. Sorry!

Kerbin Kerbin! As stated, any graphical alterations come from EVE and ATM. I prefer having the game as the "Kerbol System", as opposed to the "Sol System". So essentially, removing EVE(and BA) and ATM would give the default stock textures and sizes of the various astral bodies And yeah, it was most likely more than 2km difference on Kerbin, that was purely based off the 2km discrepancy on the Mun. Again thankyou so much for your swift and concise replies! Really looking forward to V5 and the new EVE. Any realistic chance your team could team up with the EVE team to make an "official" conjoined version of the mods? Would be so great =3

Thanks for your response Pingopete! It overlapped my edit slightly so I apologise for you not having the additional info when you posted. So bottom line, its the interaction between Better Atmosphere's RSS components and EVE thats creating the 2km difference in terrain. (Have I read that right?) Not a problem, I'd hapilly wait for an official fix on either/both sides for this to work as intended. In the interum, if I keep BA in my build, I can just manually adjust for the 2km discrepancy. Again thanks for your time and all of your hard work to made these mods what they are. Base KSP is great but mods really add to the experience, and the fun! Keep it up!