madlemur

It might be easier to take PF, and if the payload does NOT contain the root part, tuck away the payload into a virtualized space via the same mechanism(s) used by hangar. Then deploy the payload when the fairings are decoupled. Of course, I'm assuming the limitation on acceleration, rotation, etc. for the hangar is trying to get the payload to match the various velocities of the hangar when it gets spawned in, and I know I often detach my fairings while under power, or rotating (to be sure the covers clear the rest of the rocket). It would have to be a hybrid of the two mods, and likely limited to inline payloads... Plus, it takes all the fun out of strutting and securing the payload under the fairing!

IIRC, RCS control is on the TODO list. So not quite yet. Right now, the only thing you can do is turn the stock RCS on or off.

I had the same issues, but I found that if you go into Config rather than View, then check the parts you want exploded, it'll work. My Kerbal Album

Ah! That makes sense... I still like the idea of a double wide module. Must be the years in northern Louisiana...

Does it need a new frame? Can't you put a 48x48 rack in the existing frame as it stands? What else does the payload frame provide? is it lighter? Cheaper? Available for corporate sponsorship?

By larger, you mean a larger footprint, or more than 4U high? Hmmm... double-width slots, stacked vertically, allowing for up to 4U of double-wide modules, or up to 8U of single-width modules.

Nope...But if it happens again, I'll be sure to get a log posted. At the least, I'll give you my MM config. I may have horribly borked something up in that... // Add a beefed-up kOS system to all manned command modules. // Any Part that has a ModuleCommand Module, no kOSProcessor already, and doesn't have a CrewCapacity of 0 @PART [*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleCommand],!@MODULE[kOSProcessor]]:FINAL { MODULE { name = kOSProcessor diskSpace = 20000 } } I had tried using ...,!#CrewCapacity[0] as part of the :HAS[] block, in an attempt to bypass probe cores, but it wasn't working. And for a brief time I even tried to add a nominal EC drain as a price for having the kOSProc onboard.

OK. So when do we get RPC calls, so our CPUs can talk amongst themselves and plot our demise better serve our needs?

Don't know yet. I know it was in the last release. I MM'd a kOSProcessor into all the command pods, and when I tried to return to a vessel in orbit, there was nothing else there. No parachute, no US science layer, no propulsion... Just a lonesome Mk-1 pod spinning slowly in orbit. It was supposed to be a "rescue" mission to get Jeb, who I had stranded in a polar orbit around Minmus by not properly managing my dV.

Yay! Is there a Github issue for the "kOS module in the root part is a Bad Thing" bug? I had heard it mentioned in furtive whispers and in dark alleys, but it wasn't until I decided to MM a kOSProcessor module into each command module that I was formally introduced to the damned thing... Thankfully, I'm still in my "Stranded a kerbal in space because I brain spazzed the dV calculations? Just start a new career!" mode. So it only set me back a couple of sub-orbital launches.

Heh... I was being pedantic about "exactly" referring to how it should be modeled, not the model itself. As to why it should be modeled as a decent approximation rather than an exact replication, I think ferram explained it pretty well. And it's still a damned sight better than stock!

Heck, I get that just in the VAB while editing a ship, using any parts. Never correlated it with Revert to Hangar before, so I'll try to be aware of it.

Which is exactly how it should be modeled in real life.

Huge Emergency Rescue Pod? Basically one of those inflatable bounce-house castles with a few bottle rockets taped to the side, some juice boxes and a pack of stale cookies? And I suppose a tarp for DRE purposes... edit: I always think of DERP as an inflatable version of the pod from The Incredibles...

Well, it's half a tangent... If the curve is smooth (in-slope == out-slope), then it's a tangent. Otherwise you have a hard corner with an undefined instantaneous slope at that point. It's easy to quibble about terminology (this is the internet, after all), and I hope the discussion/debate has enlightened a few folks.

No, no, no... If memory and deduction serve, Thrust is at 100% (1.0 multiplier) at 0m/s, goes to 120% (1.2) at 350m/s, and finally gets to 0% at 1000m/s. The trailing 0's are the in-slope and out-slope of the curves. Of course, I could be insanely wrong...

Yes, this is a forum for the computer game Kerbal Space Program, specifically for creating add-ons and plugins for the game.

This might be of use, or at least interest: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/93332-INFO-KSP-floatCurves-and-you-the-magic-of-tangents

Not sure how you got here, but this certainly doesn't look like a KSP issue. Try stackoverflow for your web development needs (and yes, everything you say is possible using any number of languages available to web servers).

XPath for KSP? The vessel is sort of a hierarchy...

+Rep for showing us how things work behind Unity's curtain...

No and no. Go back about 3-4 pages, and you'll see that TT pulled the plug. And with a non-redistribute license, nobody can upload their copy. End of story. We can hope that maybe he'll come back, since he got his modular wheels updated, but the posts in this thread seem pretty upset about how he feels Squad has treated him and other modders.

If memory serves, my setup is BoxSat + core + 2@ battery pack + MP rack + panel + 8 RCS thrusters (mounted top and bottom) + 2@ BoxSat solar panels (more efficient than stock panels) + dish on top + 2@ commutrons facing down (action group to activate them inside the fairings) + .6m decoupler + KW tank (the bigest 1.25m tank, tweaked down to .6m) + low-profile "eddie" engine + decoupler. This rides on a raised 1.25m fairing adapter. All this sits on a 2.5m main lifter (Mainsail), with a pair of big globe SRBs that burn by themselves as a first stage. After three comsat insertions, I could probably drop the smallest tank/engine, but it give the commutrons clearance to deploy, and I know I have the juice to make relatively major changes/corrections in their orbits. My only complaint is that with an equatorial orbit, the batteries don't last all night... May have to reposition the network in more inclined orbits. I should mention I use FAR + DRE, but a stock Kerbol system.

Cheaper, perhaps, but you miss out on spewing radioactive exhaust all over the place. Fallout without all the loud, messy detonations! Although, I have a feeling loud, messy detonations are de rigeur for ANY Kerbal installation.

Regular fairings? I've had no problems using procedural fairings, but I do recall having issues with the KW fairings. There may be a minor clipping issue or something where the probe body wiggles just enough to lose out on the shielding. But with PF, it give enough room. I've never lost anything since I switched (well, except the time I stuck a SCANSat antenna on the back of a probe, and it FUBAR'd all my burns once I was down to the last stage; 2.5m lifters, while overkill, do tend to dampen CoM offsets).