DasValdez

The current UI groups a part inventory by generation and number of uses, so you'll have 3 pods gen 2 + 2 uses, 3 pods with gen 2 + 4 uses, 1 pod with gen 6 + 1 use. A button on each line item, to dump all the gen 2 + 3 uses (right now behavior is to discard a single part in the stack at a time)

Absolutely loving this, especially once we can "prebuild" parts during KCT production downtime and then inventory them for use on other craft. That's a sweet symbiotic mechanic. Will "scrapping" a vessel from the VAB or SPH craft inventory also inventory the parts?Just a time saver, so I don't have to roll my sprue of 6 command pods out to the runway and recover them manually? I'm also planning to roleplay the generation/launched mechanic a little bit (generation only increases in the part gets an MET, basically). If I deploy the part + a docking port to the pad, pick it up with a truck, take it to a test stand a distance away from the pad, and run it there... I should be able to increase generation as much as I want before using on a mission. It costs a huge amount of time to do this, and given the number of parts you really have to pick and choose what you spend your time on, but at least that way I don't have to superfund cleanup 20 nuclear engines before I can send one to Duna. Potentially need to roleplay balance by only allowing a max gen from the test stand, and real world usage after. @severedsolo, any thoughts on how that fits with the current state of the mod? On the Scrapyard build editor inventory UI: Displaying the generation in the inventory UI would be fantastic, when it's time to decommission old gen parts, it would help a ton, instead of having to "add to vessel remove from vessel ok make sure you click the right line item". I understand that gen is done via OhScrap, and not always relevant. Discard all for an inventory line item. Look, I built lots of tourism rockets, and managing old gen inventory became a massive pain heh. Again, keep up the fantastic work, and thanks!

It's true hahaha

Hey @severedsolo, thanks for this sweet mod. It's become an integral part of our UHC Career playthrough, and so far it's been a blast... ha. I can tell you stories about Gen 0 parts on a space station that existed before the mod was installed... Thanks for adding in the engineer experience code, having higher level engineers gives a buffed chance to repair a part is huge. Had a question, if a lvl 1 engi fails a repair, can a lvl 5 engi sent from the home office try again, or is it one and done? I can see arguments for both... I was pretty bummed last night when my gen 15-20 SRBs failed repeatedly (>5 times over 20 launches?) because I added newly unlocked Gen ~2 parts to the craft. In fact, we never saw anything beyond the SRBs fail. I think this is sort of addressed in your new release above, but in no case should lower gen parts decrease the reliability of higher gen parts. I can put an uber reliable SRB on a craft, and mitigate the lower gen parts with built-in redundancy... but my redundancy backfired and the duplicate low gen parts only increased the overall failure rate, which made the SRB more likely to fail. Yikes. Also, can you help me understand the current "ultimate" failure rate for a high gen part? We haven't gotten there yet, but we're really concerned about the math on long term missions. The floor for failure chance on a single part should be vanishingly small... once it gets to high generations, we should be looking at .0x% failure rates (which is still amazingly high for IRL spaceflight engineering). We need to be able to carry ultra-high-reliability critical systems on a long-term craft, that aren't in directly affected by non-critical or redundant low-reliability parts. If I have probe mission failure because I only take one antenna and it fails, that's legit... but if the mission fails because the antenna made the uber-tested engine more likely to fail, that puts us in a double jeopardy situation. Maybe a config file would be awesome, although I don't know how that would work with your math... Initial Failure Rate, Min Failure Rate, Max Generation. Perhaps start at 50%, and trim down over 10-15 generations... A model which halved failure rate out to 15 gens put us at .003% min rate, which looked pretty good. If we put in the time and testing, we've got to be able to make multi-year missions operate reliably. Thanks again! Heading over to the scrapyard thread now!

Gah, I set up the reference for you and everything! The joke is that my hat doesn't have a school logo on it...

Haha we might need to make them slightly generic... like a Kerbalized ULA Patrick Chatterer. "Vehicle is now passing max Q... I think" "Showing nominal chamber pressures, if these gauges are correct" "Flames are now visible throughout the length of boosters. That's totally expected. I promise" "We're getting a good indication of spacecraft separation. Naw. Don't worry about that piece. "

Das Just one of those frat guys, wearing the ballcap, from the college which I attended. ULA is United Launch Alliance, US launch provider, which recently launched the Parker Solar Probe on it's mission to the sun (IRL).

I'm also totally open to ideas for future videos with special guests... kOS programming with actual ULA programmers? RSS? Other ideas?

Soooo, this is a thing. I regularly have special guests from ULA on my Twitch stream, and we general have a pretty good time playing Kerbal and talking rockets. For the Parker Solar Probe launch, I speed built a Stock+ replica of the Delta IV Heavy, and my own version of the Parker Solar Probe. We christened them the "Delt-ish IV Heavy" carrying the "Parker Sorta Probe" Patrick Moore, the ULA systems engineer who was tasked with performing the actual launch callouts (vehicle is now supersonic, chamber pressures are nominal) was my guest, and we "practiced" a couple launches in KSP... I did theflying and he did the callouts, Kerbal style. Here's the video of our second attempt: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zmO_9wtmfs There's also a reddit thread, where CEO Tory Bruno snagged the first reply haha https://www.reddit.com/r/ula/comments/97tooi/kerbal_launch_video_on_official_ula_youtube/ The full interview is over on my Twitch channel: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/285197065 Aaaand if you want to download the craft, it's over on KerbalX: https://kerbalx.com/KSpaceAcademy/KSA-Parker-Sorta-Probe-+-Deltish-IV-Heavy Enjoy! Das

Haha, thanks... I'm personally a big fan of the ejection seat too.

Thanks! Was a really cool build... Crazy Kerbal Contraption IRL!

While building the first Azimech Class Starship, it is rumored the engineers accidentally placed the plans for landing configuration upside down before staring to weld...

In honor of the 50th anniversary of Neil Armstrong's safe ejection from the Lunar Landing Research Vehicle, I put one together in KSP. The LLRV (and subsequent LLTV (Training)), were created to allow Apollo lunar landing pilots a way to practice landings without leaving Earth. The coolest thing (I didn't know) was that the central jet engine wasn't actually controlled by the pilot... it was on a separate mount with massive 20 degree plus gimbal, and automatically controlled to maintain a vertical orientation, even when the main frame was tilted 20+ degrees. This allowed the jet engine to be throttle to provide only 5/6 of the thrust needed to keep the craft aloft... effectively simulating the 1/6 Earth gravity of the moon. The remaining 1/6+ thrust had to come from main rocket engines, mounted on the tilting frame, to simulate the actual control and design of the lunar landers. Pilots used RCS to control the attitude (pitch, yaw, and roll) of the frame, and main rockets... the jet engine simply made it "weigh" 5/6 less than it really did. The LLRVs were limited by the available thrust of the central jet engine, and had be be balanced front to back so the craft could VTOL without flipping out.... If you build VTOL craft, you know what I mean. RCS Build Aid is your friend! Luckily, the designers included an ejection seat in that limited mass. As the LLRV was in no way suited to gliding, if something went wrong, there needed to be a way to get the pilot to safely. Even at 2.5 million bucks a pop, preserving the pilot was far more important than saving the machine. Totally doable in Kerbal, and the same balance rules apply. (There are lots of ejection seat outtakes https://www.twitch.tv/dasvaldez/clips To make all this work in Kerbal, there's a simple krakentech bearing in the middle, which separates the jet engine structure from the rest of the frame. The Jet engine has fuel, a probecore, and plenty of intakes, and is is throttled down to .83 TWR (5/6 G) and set to SAS hold radial out before decoupling. The jet engine continues to fly vertically, holding up 5/6 of the weight of the craft... and the TWR < 1 makes it fall, so the pilot has to control the main frame and use rockets to account for the other 1/6th. You can download the craft from KerbalX.. best flown out at the Dessert Airfield if you have it. https://kerbalx.com/KSpaceAcademy/KSA-X-KLLRV Entire build is on Twitch, which is half ejection seat shenanigans, if you've got 5-6 hours. Enjoy!

Yeah, I worked on that but a weird bug with the Action Groups remembering landing leg state on toggle kept it from working as I wanted. Added to the bugtracker heh

No need to reverse engineer... you can DL the craft file, it's a very simple mechanism. You can even get it working firing just docking ports... will revisit my mkII this week on the cast.

A little necro, but I did anyone specify that this was only true for very aerodynamic rockets... unlike most things KSP people make? The exact opposite is true for "Kerbal" style rockets with lots of radial parts, unclosed nodes, clipped parts, wing surfaces, etc... if the rocket is kerbal-draggy (not to be confused with *looking* aerodynamic) you'll use a lot more to drag than gravity losses with early pitches. In addition, I've always wondered if the "drag loss" counter also takes into account off-vector forces like body/wing/control surface lift... or does it just read out what you get from aero gui? That would stack more drag than your charts record based on craft design... Apparent dV consumption will also vary based on the ISP curve of your chosen engines, engines with a wide ASL-VAC swing like the KR-2L will benefit differently from various trajectories than a solid ASL lifter like the Mammoth. Long story short, the best trajectory will vary widely depending on each rocket design, and I generally teach the middle ground between an immediate pitchover and a straight up, left at ABQ.

Ya'll know console has slow-mo/bullet time, right? OOB analog flight controls are legit, too. Make sure you switch to advanced flight mode when flying planes.

Press 4 in the VAB/SPH, and reroot a group of parts that aren't even attached to the craft.

Managed to get a stock Orion (style) drive working in KSP 1.2 exp 1522 last night... worked out better than expected! The craft uses the landing leg cannon tech we found last week to propel high velocity RCS tanks out the back, pushing the ship forward. It's really more of a mass driver than an Project Orion drive, we don't truly get any energy from the explosion... but hey, fashion explosions are legit. Firing a full .625 RCS tank backwards at 12 km/s (yes, KM) will push the craft forward about 90 m/s. The final version fires empty tanks at such high velocity they melt due to G forces... Kessler would be proud! It carries 41 projectiles... 8 rows of 5 = 40 in storage and one in the chamber at launch. Each empty tank pusher about 125 m/s d/v, for a total of over 5km/s. The RCS Puffs are for fashion... and fine(r) orbital adjustments upon arriving at the dest... I did manage to circularize at the Mun in increments of 125, but it's kinda dicey heh. Steps to fire: Action group 1 undocks the loaded projectile, and it's kicked out by 40 landing legs for the first pulse. "G" key will retract the drive legs into the "load" position Space bar will decouple the next projectile (Yes, all 40 are individually staged). They undock in opposing order to maintain balance Action group 2 will activate the loader legs, pushing the decoupled projectile to the center where it docks Action group 2 again retracts the loader legs G Key will prime the drive legs... after the locking sound... GOTO 1 If you find the projectiles are rebounding, action group 3 will activate the tamping system, which can help hold a decoupled projectile flat against the load plate until the loading legs push it in. When you get the rhythm down you can load and fire a projectile in about 15 seconds. Download from KerbalX... thanks @katateochi! https://kerbalx.com/KSpaceAcademy/KSA-Orleggin-Drive-FINAL Yeah, I called it the Orleggin Drive. I really hope this excellent feature doesn't get "fixed" heh.

For the record, Kasper looks exactly like his Kerbal. While in the real world he's on to new, exciting things... his Kerbal can never escape. Muwaahahaha.

OK, this mod is totally legit. The gizmo needs to be stock. Period. We're looking at it live on the stream right now. View pointed it out to me (thanks augustgwest!) Also, it would be good if you broke the "snap to AN/DN/AP/PE" etc tool into it's own module, so I can have only snap to and the gizmo on the screen. This is exactly how I would design the stock node interface. You rock.

Models are good, currently undergoing texturing. Summer release planned.

Yes, Dan's Gaming on Twitch just had the issue live in front of 2000 viewers. It happened in Career mode, and the model wasn't "replaced"... he chose a small SRB as the root part of a new vessel and it immediately spewed exhaust out the bottom and towards the flag... while in the VAB. He deleted Collusion FX and Firespitter, and the issue disappeared. https://www.twitch.tv/dansgaming/v/66799594?t=21m50s Hope this helps!

That's the plan, and sets the stage for another cool show with ULA/Bigelow Engineers!